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: 5120
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
#1. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
Just wait until the next two earthquakes flatten the state. They will also be plagued by race riots as soon as the US dollar collapses and debt increases will not buy more free stuff. You cannot project our past to predict our future.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
I was considering earthquakes too. Those levies are in bad shape around Sacramento and all along the delta.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
Just wait till the Mexicans take over "Atzlan" (their fictional land). They will turn it into the same kind of $#ithole they are trying to escape.
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. thats what i was thinking. fill the place up with low rent beaner parasite socialists and drop the fucker into the sea. problem solved.
__________________________________ Actually I think Whites will rebound when "Social Security" becomes CHILDREN again rather than a government handout. Basically the reason that third world people have so many children is to take care of them in their old age because there isn't any Social Security type handouts in third world countries, even those calling themselves "Socialist".
I've had some recent contacts in the CA food industry, and many crops that were normally grown in the state are started to get imported directly from Mexico. They pay laborers less down in Mexico than growers are obligated legally to pay them here, and I imagine there is less agricultural oversight to have to deal with too.
Where are they getting the water? I actually have been seeing more produce from Mexico too.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
Water in CA is being depleted, polluted, and there are also government regulations to try to spread what remains around more equitably. So the agribusinesses are complaining, but generally speaking there has not been much of a focus on getting anybody anywhere to use and conserve wisely.
I meant the water in Mexico. For decades, Mexico has complained that the US robbed them of the ability to farm after diverting the Colorado.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
bullshit
"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." bullshit Farmers were complying with all existing regs for crop irrigation (with no documented waste) when a federal judge decided to cut their allotments to save the buck-toothed delta smelt (or something) from "death by irrigation pump". It doesn't matter if blue whales get caught in nuke plant cooling water intakes though. Different regs for different industries.
bullshit Mono Lake? Salinas Valley? Sacramento Delta? Bakersfield, Taft? Any reason for running sprinklers in the daylight instead of night, potty mouth?
Environmental kool-aide drinker.
"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." Says the self-styled farmer who can't figure out any benefits running sprinklers at night.....
First off, I'm not a farmer, nor would my name indicate that I was. Second, you made claims you didn't support with facts. Still haven't. So don't try and come after me like I'm the one who is posting deficient.
"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." Just a quick point: farmfriend has consistently updated the water shortage issues in California based upon federal restriction guidelines, particularly in the central valley area which used to be the breadbasket of the world (now just a dustbowl with farming communities dying and where unemployment runs as high as 25%). She knows what she is talking about when the federal government steps in and restricts private farming/ranching productive efforts when the government has some kind of new fish or game to save. BTW, I have always enjoyed your posts (as I do farmfriend's). Please keep doing so on 4um.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
I don't believe we have an either/or choice where it's choosing production or saving species. All across the US the entire ecosystem has been trashed in little more than 100 years. When the Great Plains were first cultivated there was over 12-18 inches of topsoil just about everywhere. Then by the 1930's we had the "Dust Bowl," and today the norm for good soil there is about 4 inches. The silt has clearly washed down the Mississippi/Missouri river basin and dozens of miles into the Gulf - where now it gets mixed with oily goo. People back then just didn't care about the future, until big bad government decided to make them care. Not that the government choices thesmelves were always right, but at least it was movement into the right direction. So all this talk about the goodness of private enterprise and the badness of govenment control is really a big joke. Then take Colorado/Nevada/Arizona/Imperial Valley. The same type of waste and trashing of water resources. Added to this the violation of water treaties promising a certain amount of water to go into Mexico they can use for their own agriculture. The US has never delivered on those commitments to Mexico. Then some Americans complain when Mexican farm labor comes north to where the water is. Working west, the misuse of Sierra water for placer mining in the Gold Rush, then the construction of huge inefficient irrigation projects to move San Joaquin Delta water into parts of the Central Valley where lots of it evaporated, and some of the rest leached poisons into toxic cesspools like Kesterson. Even further west, over pumping of Salinas River Valley water causing salt water intrusion into the ground water table. Meanwhile in all these places listed above there has been heavy and sprawling construction activity with a heavy bias to generating sprawling urban and suburban tracts going in all directions. Last but not least, massive sheep and cattle raising in nearly every state which has seriously destroyed ground cover, making both water conservation more difficult, and major flooding easier. All these practices could have and should have been done more carefully and more with an eye to conserving for future generations. They weren't done that way because so-called free market forces were allowed to run rampant. And now we have the consequences of this systematic destruction of what was only 200 years ago was pristine agricultural land from sea to sea. Bottom line is the government is going to step in, and there are some people who are motivated to keeping and even improving what is left, and any people who don't like it are just going to have to get off the train and walk to where they're going. Because the train is not going to stop to please them. All the blather about eco-weenies, smelt-lovers, Gaia worshippers, leftists, property rights, Brave New World, government tyranny, etc. is not going to cut it because the "free market" forces have made a substantial hole in the system in little more than 100 years, and there are enough people wanting to see that hole start to get plugged that it will happen.
Last but not least, massive sheep and cattle raising in nearly every state which has seriously destroyed ground cover, making both water conservation more difficult, and major flooding easier. Why? Because of greedy, tight-fisted local farmers/ranchers or the demands based upon world markets? I grew up in Redding. As any Californian who has ever picked up a fishing rod knows, the region around this small north state city supports some of the best angling in the state. Lake Shasta and Whiskeytown Reservoir are literally in our backyard. The Trinity River, home to fine steelhead fishing, is an hour’s drive to the west. The Upper Sacramento River, Trinity Lake, the small, alpine lakes of the Trinity Alps Wilderness, Lake Shastina, Lake Almanor, the Pit River, the McCloud River and Hat Creek are all nearby, and all afford spectacular trout fishing. But it is the Lower Sacramento River — the portion that begins just north of Redding, below Keswick Dam — that historically has been the biggest draw for sport anglers. For one thing, this section supports a lunker native rainbow trout fishery. Drift boaters come from around the West to float the 30-mile stretch between Redding and Red Bluff, hoping — and usually succeeding — to tie into some of our football-size ‘bows. More to the point, the “Lower Sac” has long been sacred water to salmon fishermen. In 2008 and 2009, California’s salmon season was closed entirely due to low numbers of fish. This year, we’re having a very limited season — salmon numbers have bumped up a little, but not enough to warrant any celebration. Not so long ago, however, hundreds of thousands of big, beautiful, fall-run chinook salmon ran up this river to spawn. There were plenty of fish to sustain the runs, with plenty left over to catch. Each year, the anglers would be there in the thousands to greet the homecoming salmon. I was one of that crowd, both as a fishermen and a professional guide. I’ve always loved fishing for salmon — but more than that, as a guide, the salmon put (so to speak) meat and potatoes on my table. The salmon fishery on the Lower Sac was a recreational fishery, but it wasn’t just about recreation: It was about jobs. And jobs are a deadly serious issue in the north state. High unemployment is a relatively recent development in the San Francisco Bay area and Southern California, but it has been a concern with us for decades. The recreational salmon industry was big business in this area. Further, it was reliable, sustainable business. As long as the fish got what they needed — mainly adequate downstream flows — they returned, giving us what we needed: income. A 1992 University of California at Davis study concluded that each salmon caught in the sport fishery was worth $900 to $1,200 to the local economy. So when I boated a client’s salmon, I wasn’t the only one getting paid. The motel owners, the restaurateurs, the waiters and cooks who worked in those restaurants, the gas station owners — everybody got a cut And that’s just direct expenditures from the clients. The guides who fish this river also put a lot of money into the local economy. I run a $50,000 jet boat. Local mechanics work on that boat. I buy my fuel and tackle locally — and when the salmon are running, believe me, I buy a lot of fuel and tackle. So we can’t just view our salmon as noble, attractive, hard-fighting fish that happen to be incredibly delicious — certainly, they’re all those things. But they’re also something more than all that: They’re revenue multipliers. They generate wealth. Each fish represents life for Redding and all the other towns along the river. When we had full salmon seasons, some full-time guides made $70,000 to $80,000 a year — very good money for this part of the state. Guiding supported my family, and helped support the community. But now, more than 90 percent of my guide business has vanished — gone with the salmon closures. And it’s not just a matter of losing my salmon trips. Guiding is synergistic — I booked many of my trout trips while salmon fishing. The clients would get so excited after hooking into a few big fall-run chinook that they’d want to come back and try for our monster trout. If you don’t have that ongoing face-to-face interaction with your clients, if you don’t constantly cultivate and follow up contacts, if you don’t get that word-of-mouth buzz going, you’re not going to make it as a fishing guide. A fishing closure is like a monkey wrench thrown into a jet engine — everything stops, and it can be impossible to get things going again. It took me 20 years to build up my client base. Even if we eventually go back to full salmon seasons, it’s going to take me a long time to get back to where I was. What am I doing today? Like everybody else in this area, whatever it takes to survive: construction, remodeling, anything. My income, obviously, has fallen dramatically. These are tough times on the river — both for the fish and the fishing industry. Somehow, this debate over water has become characterized as a matter of “fish versus jobs.” The argument is that we can have salmon or we can have farming in the Central Valley, but we can’t have both. I think this is ridiculous. We can have both a healthy salmon fishery and a vigorous agricultural sector — we just have to allocate the water fairly and rationally. We need to change the way water is delivered, we need more habitat restoration, and we need to emphasize crops and technologies that conserve water. We also need to adjust water deliveries to accommodate the basic biological requirements of the fish. Spawning salmon need cold water in the river to successfully reproduce, and the young fish need adequate flows to ensure their successful migration to the sea. These baseline conditions must be met if we want to save our salmon and the jobs they generate. Unlike human beings, salmon are unable to compromise or to adjust: they simply need what they need. And what they need isn’t all that much — we can conserve them without disrupting, or even adversely affecting, state agriculture. Recent agreements on the Klamath River and the San Joaquin River have resulted in true “win-win” situations that accommodate both fisheries and farmers. We can do the same for the Sacramento River and the Delta. For my business, the bottom line is this: If we take care of the salmon, they’ll take care of us. Let’s quit all this bickering and get on with it. Mark Mlcoch is president of the Northern California Guides Association. The fact is, California *IS* running out of water. And the reason is because of the HUGE population increases over the last 60 years, drying up the once MEGA-ECONOMY into one in deadthroes and destined into national shock. Remember the once popular polititical quote by MSM pundits... "where California goes, so does the rest of the nation"????/ The water table has been seriously lowered EVERYWHERE simultaneously with an increasing average temperature while the demands of a swelling, unsustainable population base has eroded our quality life.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Big excesses come both from agribusinesses going for good current returns and willing to cut corners and try to keep the costs down, and also from individuals who frequently want to keep the land in the family for a few generations. There have been people on both sides who for years weren't held back by the govenment from whatever methods they chose. Free market choices have been made already and they have us where we are now. And where we are now is not where we want to continue being. One example: When I was growing up, farmers required their workers to use "short-handed hoes" which had handles only a couple feet long. These tools caused epidemic rates of back injuries by forcing laborers to constantly bend over through work days far exceeding 8 hours. During the mid 1970's Cesar Chavez's union went to court and sued to get the tools banned. Eventually they were banned - by evil govenment - and afterwards during the 1980's it was discovered that the now mandated long-handled hoes actually increased production 5% - 15%. So under free market and free enterprise, ruthless idiots running farms were free to make business decisions harming both their workers and themselves. And when the government lefties put a stop to this abhorrent practice, things got better for everyone. Same reasoning goes to water. The water table has been depleted by people thinking only for themselves. Intervention is needed to make them think for eveybody. It's not their own land or their own water. At best they are custodians only for the rest of the society.
Bravo Buckie! I just love the way you slid the disinformation in at the end first by setting up with a sob story and some true information, such as the draining of the aquifer in the Imperial Valley, with the assumption that it is true and therefore what follows logical - even when it is not. Har, har, har, har. Such a humorist you are. With declining average temperatures over the last decade your song remains the same. Declining temperature? Why it's glowbull warming. Every glacier on Mt. Shasta growing? Why it's Glowbull Warming. You're such a card Buckie. And why has the population in Kahlifornyah increased so much? Why, you guessed, massive illegal immigration which the corrupt government not only will not stop but wants in order to disrupt our culture and separate us into groups. All the easier to turn into a totalitarian slave state.
"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
There is so much wrong with what you have posted I don't even know where to begin. I can tell you that buying into the enviro propaganda doesn't mean you have the truth. And government regulation isn't the answer. Never has been despite what you say and think. Sigh, where to start.
"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 completely agree. This was left out of AGAviator's post however. The problem I have with the whole Salmon issue is you never get the whole story. You are never told about how the PDO being in a warm phase effected salmon returns. You are never told about foreign fishing vessels over fishing salmon off our coast. No you have NGO's using the court system to shut down logging and agriculture in our country. Why? Not to save the fish but to shut down competition for their over seas logging and agricultural interests. (same thing is happening the oil industry btw) So in this case AGAviator's precious government regulation is actually hurting the environment by forcing the logging and agriculture into countries that are not as environmentally conscious as the US. Logging wasn't hurting the fish and it wasn't hurting the spotted owl either. That was caused by encroachment of the eastern barred owl. It was able to expand its territory because there are more trees across the US than there used to be.
"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." Buck has actually done a lot to fight illegal immigration including manning the border with the MM. I remember when I first started posting on LP again it was right in the midst of all the controversy about the MCDC finances. I came down on the side of wanting to know where the money went. Of course a few immediately jumped on me as being in support of open borders. Buck and a couple of others that were on the MCDC side of the argument put a stop to it. They had known me for too many years across several forums and said so.
"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." Big excesses come both from agribusinesses going for good current returns and willing to cut corners and try to keep the costs down, and also from individuals who frequently want to keep the land in the family for a few generations. There have been people on both sides who for years weren't held back by the govenment from whatever methods they chose. Free market choices have been made already and they have us where we are now. And where we are now is not where we want to continue being. One example: When I was growing up, farmers required their workers to use "short-handed hoes" which had handles only a couple feet long. These tools caused epidemic rates of back injuries by forcing laborers to constantly bend over through work days far exceeding 8 hours. During the mid 1970's Cesar Chavez's union went to court and sued to get the tools banned. Eventually they were banned - by evil govenment - and afterwards during the 1980's it was discovered that the now mandated long-handled hoes actually increased production 5% - 15%. So under free market and free enterprise, ruthless idiots running farms were free to make business decisions harming both their workers and themselves. And when the government lefties put a stop to this abhorrent practice, things got better for everyone. Same reasoning goes to water. The water table has been depleted by people thinking only for themselves. Intervention is needed to make them think for eveybody. It's not their own land or their own water. At best they are custodians only for the rest of the society. I'm sorry I just can't take it anymore your mixture of true observations and erroneous conclusions is driving me crazy. So let's separate out a couple of the key points. Large Agribusiness is largely a creation of government regulations and tax laws which favor and support strip mine farming. Through subsidies, not available or insufficient for small farms, tax laws which favor large operations, and regulatory overkill which creates a fixed overhead hard for the small farmer to cover and comply with, but much easier for a large operation since it is, as a percentage, a much smaller bite for the large operation. The small farm and responsible stewardship of the land has been killed by government. Another big difference is that corporations don't pay inheritence tax. Many small farms, if they have not sold out to pay the tax, are in their third and fourth generations of re-mortgaging the farm to pay the inheritence tax - which is NOT paid by corporations. Are there unethical or shortsighted small farmers? Sure, but they don't last long because the business model is not sustainable. Organic farming is not a creation of the government. Ag bureaus have been dragged kicking screaming into organic agriculture. They actually fought it in its inception all the way up until no more that 15 years ago. Even then they called it a "niche" market. Now as a result of the free market you deride it is rapidly becoming much more than a niche market as knowledgeable people are voting with their dollars and that vote is o-r-g-a-n-i-c. The first, and still best, organic certification organizations have all been private. A creation of that free market you disparage. And because of the higher return more farmers were beginning to make the switch until the favored mega-combines got fearful of the changing tide and prevailed upon the USDA to create their phony pseudo-organic label. The USDA has had, as their primary focus, for at least the last 70 years, been petrochemical based narrow range strip mine farming, and like all government agenicies they favor the largest players and respond to their pressure. State Extensions, although some were already changing, then followed the USDA into organic. If the USDA had, had their way organic would have been mariginalized and relegated to "a bunch of hippies". The nice thing about organic farming is that it builds soil fertility over time not depletes it as strip mine farming does. However, government is doing everything they can to kill the small farmer. All preferences and resources are aimed at and directed to the large corporate agri-combines such as ADM, Monsatan, and Tyson. Far from being the panacea you assume government has often been one of the biggest obstacles to sound management. People do learn, and family farmers live on and wish to preserve and pass down the farm to the next generation. You act as though that is a bad thing. Far from your assumptions family farmers are much more responsible than you would like to give them credit for. Mistakes in the past have been more a matter of ignorance not intent. As knowledge has improved land stewardship has improved. Trying to lump them in with the corporate agri-pirates and their buddies in big government is simply ignorant and tells me that you have spent no significant time studying the issues. I could go on into water allocation, but again it is largely the same thing - big growers with big influence with government get what they want and to hell with everyone else - but it is government dictat that provides the cover and authority for them to get away with 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
Buck has actually done a lot to fight illegal immigration including manning the border with the MM. I remember when I first started posting on LP again it was right in the midst of all the controversy about the MCDC finances. I came down on the side of wanting to know where the money went. Of course a few immediately jumped on me as being in support of open borders. Buck and a couple of others that were on the MCDC side of the argument put a stop to it. They had known me for too many years across several forums and said so. I am aware of Buck being on the right side of the issue - and a good friend of someone I liked - the late Jackalope Breeder. I wasn't chiding him on that point - just underscoring where the massive population growth came from.
"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
Ok, I can see that. My apologies for making erroneous assumptions. I'm worked up over other issues tonight and I didn't mean to take it out on you.
"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." Large Agribusiness is largely a creation of government regulations and tax laws which favor and support strip mine farming. Oh you worded it soooooo much better than I. Totally agree. Of course the government regulations have all been pushed by NGO lawsuits. What they did to logging and agriculture they are now doing to energy markets.
"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." No problem I was not offended and did not take it that way - just keeping the record straight. If I stick a needle in buck I'll own up to 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
PDO? Definition por favor.
"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
PDO = Pacific decadal oscillation The Pacific (inter-)decadal oscillation was named by Steven R. Hare, who noticed it while studying salmon production patterns results in 1997.[1] The mechanism by which the pattern lasts over several years has not been identified; one suggestion is that a thin layer of warm water during summer may shield deeper cold waters. A PDO signal has been reconstructed to 1661 through tree-ring chronologies in the Baja California area.[2] The prevailing hypothesis is that the PDO is caused by a "reddening" of ENSO combined with stochastic atmospheric forcing.[3] The interdecadal Pacific oscillation (IPO or ID) display similar sea-surface temperature (SST) and sea-level pressure (SLP) patterns, with a cycle of 15–30 years, but affects both the north and south Pacific. In the tropical Pacific, maximum SST anomalies are found away from the equator. This is quite different from the quasi-decadal oscillation (QDO) with a period of 8-to-12 years and maximum SST anomalies straddling the equator, thus resembling the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). "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." Large Agribusiness is largely a creation of government regulations and tax laws which favor and support strip mine farming. Oh you worded it soooooo much better than I. Totally agree. Of course the government regulations have all been pushed by NGO lawsuits. What they did to logging and agriculture they are now doing to energy markets. Thanks. What people don't seem to get is that the NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations for those not familiar - e.g., Greedpeace, National (Pew) Wildlife, Sierra Klub, etc., - which are all largely funded by the Globalists via Robber Baron Family Foundations) are largely a creation of the the Robber Barons and their spawn to push the Globalist Agenda with a crunchy green coating. In short they are Trojan Horses for a hidden agenda i.e., total control. I think that term NGO is what throws people off - it is bureaucratese and makes peoples eyes glaze over.
"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
Thank you. That is something I have been interested in but was too ignorant to find the right data to get started understanding 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
The Environmental Grantmakers Association? That's Rockefeller. The Pew Charitable Trusts? That's Sunoco. W. Alton Jones? That's Citgo. The World Wildlife Fund? BP and Shell.
"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 can point you to a couple of places if you are interested.
"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." Please.
"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 Environmental Grantmakers Association? That's Rockefeller. The Pew Charitable Trusts? That's Sunoco. W. Alton Jones? That's Citgo. The World Wildlife Fund? BP and Shell. Exactly. Follow the money. "He who pays the piper names the tune."
"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
Well there is the climate forum I'm on with all the scientists. I can let you in. Then there is the Solar Cycle 24 forum. It has a global warming section. Sunsetthommy has a good forum too but I'll have to look up the URL for that one. Beyond forums you have have Watts up with that put out by Anthony Watts. It is about the best on the skeptics side. You also have Climate Audit Steve McIntyre's site. Of course he is the one that took down the infamous hockey stick.
"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." Among other things "government regulation" has never caused the strippage of nearly a foot of topsoil from the Great Plains, nor did it cause John Muir to refer to sheep as "hooved locusts" and register similar protests to wholesale cattle farming. Nor did government cause the Dust Bowl in the 1930's. American farmers were free to do whatever they felt like for years. And they did and much of the American ag environment was trashed. Among other things they were free to sell their land to the agribusinesses you find more convenient to blame. Amerian farmers were even free to require their workers to use back- injuring tools that were later found to be less productive than ones that don't cause injuries. The problem with your pipe dreams about free market and environment is whenever you come up against a fact that doesen't dovetail into your concepts, you simply deny it is part of free market or blame business and government for its existence. And enviro treehuggers can see that clearly and that is why they will continue moving towards changes. I do believe that the power of agribusinesses to lobby should be decreased especially if money is used.
I'm not posting my resume here, but suffice to say I have held one key management consulting job in a food company doing $200 million with over 100 grower contracts, and other consulting gigs in food-connected companies doing $25 million to $100. Which individual farmers willingly sign contracts with. I know enough to have a good overview of what's happening even though ag is not my principal profession. You left out stupidity and greed. At the time short-handled hoes were in use, they were mandated by the great majority of individual farmers and not just a few. The farmers fought tooth and nail to keep courts from making them illegal, and they were dead wrong both from moral and also productive grounds. American individual farmers also kept pushing the bracero program of Mexicans coming into the US, so as to weaken the organizing of Cesar Chavez's United Farm Workers, which wanted living wages for legal Americans of Mexican descent, and wanted changes of using very toxic even carcinogenic substances applied to fruits and vegetables. Last but not least, any favorable reference to Jackalope Breeder is a pretty serious disqualifier about knowledge of what is going on in the ag field. The e. coli infections of spinach were always caused by feral animals and destruction of fencing, and never by any people who are required to use portable sanitation with its own water supply that gets pulled right behind them as they work the fields. And who made the requirements for field sanitation? Why, who else, the evil government. When requirements for porta- potties came out, growers placed media ads ridiculing the concept by showing a burro lugging a single seat porta potty. That's where "free enterprise" stood on the concept of field sanitation. The constant vitriol against Mexicans/Hispanics as being responsible for anything about e. coli was white trash speak from Day One. I spent months debunking one looney after another claiming that Hispanics and not natural causes were to blame. Don't know if I ever got through to anyone, but the problem has been fixed and once again it was government and not private industry that played a major role in the solution. Just some examples of how poor the judgment of individual farmers or groups of them can be, for years.
Can you cite some evidence about this? I think that sounds strangely "slave/master" 200 year old like, as though to contain the visual observations of slaves to the ground.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
Again you conflate observations of events and draw conclusions unsupported by your examples. From the point of view of logic and sound reasoning they have little support or support is completely absent. They are assumptions which you assume to be true, conclusions, but for which there is nothing validating to prove their truth. Pardon me if I get a bit clinical here as this, while not intended to be insulting, could get a bit brutal. Again, this is NOT intended as a personal attack, but I also will not abide sloppy reasoning - you are an intelligent person, who means well, but that does not mean that your reasoning is sound. That itself is a logic error - assuming that because someone is a good person that therefore their reasoning is correct or sound. For example you imply that farmers willfully "trashed the environment" a conclusion which is wholly unsupported by any logical, or provable, set of data. In fact one could gather and present a considerable weight of evidence to the contrary. Farmers, following sound practice, seek to improve their holdings, its value, and their return on their work invested. This can be easily observed by visiting any viable family farm - you will find animals well tended, fields watered and fertilized, and crops gathered as efficiently as possible. Take your earlier example of the short handled hoe. Do you think farmers required that of their workers because they wished them harm and wanted to see them all crippled with back pain? Not likely. More likely, and for which your argument provides indirect support, is that they thought, erroneously as it turns out, that it was the best method to use to hoe the fields. People do reach erroneous conclusions and become set in their ways i.e., they do not always react logically and rationally. That applies equally to farm workers - who have had a culture eschewing education and enter multiple generations of doing the same menial work for the same low wages. In other words it is an assumption and a prejudice unfounded and unsupported. Take further your example of the "Dust Bowl". You assume, in prejudice, that the dust bowl's sole cause was greedy farmers without ever supporting it factually or demonstrating a mechanism by which these foul cretins intentionally destroyed their homes, their livelihood, and their families. Let's examine that from a factual perspective. Where did the dust bowl occur? In Plains States largely along the Mississippi drainage. So, what is the Mississipi river drainage and what does it have to do with soil viability and farming? Where did all that rich topsoil, as deep as 18 inches in some places, come from? Hands please? No, it did not just happen. It was a result of Mississippi river flooding. One of the indirect consequences of the Tennessee Valley Authority (a government project) in concert with the Army Corps of Engineers (a government agency) was to erect works and dams along the Mississippi Drainage to control flooding and produce electricity. One of the unintended consequences of "controlling" the Mississippi was to prevent the repleneshing of the riverine system with fresh layers of sediment i.e., topsoil. Along with that the region experienced a decade or so of abnormally low rainfall. And so the two had a predictable, in hindsight, outcome. No new topsoil depositation meant that the type of farming which was prevalent, and until that time successful, combined with extended drought resulted in the rich soil drying out, turning to dust, and blowing away. While today we do know ways of mitigating that you assume from a viewpoint of knowledge gained after the fact that automatically it was the result greedy farmers despoiling the land and foul free market of free individuals pursuing rational self interest that caused the drought and the unintended consequences of the TVA (which is erroneously sold in history texts as a panacea and as an example of the wisdom of government control of natural resouces - balderash, it is a thick layer of pro-government bullshit written by people whose closest contact with a real farm is a Sunday drive after having been primed with disinformation written by ignorant journalists with a political agenda) had nothing to do with it. Since I am not going to write a full history text to correct all of your misconceptions just one other point on the Plains region. (And much of this applies almost equally to the Imperial Valley - which was formerly arid land and made to blossom by the industry of farmers through tapping into the aquifer to provide the needed water to support the crops). One of the problems farmers are now running into there now is the depletion of the Oglalla Aquifer which was tapped into heavily beginning in the 1930's WITH THE BLESSING AND AID OF GOVERNMENT without regard to the long term affects of depleting the aquifer. In fact as a result of lack of knowledge it was not even, until the 1970's (if I recall correctly) that such depletion was even a problem. So, again you attribute base motives to people without knowledge of the true circumstances. It is farmers now leading the way by switching to low water varieties, which actually is more profitable but produces a lower yield per acre, which do not require heavy irrigation from the rapidly depleting aquifer. Ask the farmers of the Klamath Basin how government intervention aided their farming. Most of them are going broke and having to sell off their farms, which their parents and grandparents established in the 1920's, '30's, and '40's, and who were encouraged to begin - in many cases by government incentives. With their own money they built a water distribution system which was hijacked by government to supposedly (at least that was the pretext) protect an endangered species of Sucker. With their water cut off the crops dried and died. All with the beneficial hand of government and not the action of the free market. I could easily spend another several hours relieving you of your lack of knowledge, but I learned all of this largely on my own and the information is freely available assuming you would rather know what you are talking about rather than robotically repeating cliches and propaganda implanted by environmental groups run by city dwellers supported by wealthy foundations operating on a political agenda opposed to individual liberty.
"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
In response to my general comment, Mr. O_I contends: According to NOAA: So, for the last past century the Earth has been generally experiencing increasing temperatures, year after year. Now, the rate of increase of change for temperature increase has flattened somewhat over the past few years, the upward trend is climbing. Single point phenomena doesn't discount the general phenomena just because you have found an almost manic shangri-la to cling to concerning over-all temperature changes. The temperature changes in California are diverse, so let's start off with a recent picture for your viewing pleasure to set the facts: Those changes are in just one year. Now, lets talk about the general changes: | NAVIGATE HOME | |
#2. To: Horse (#1)
#3. To: Horse (#1)
Just wait until the next two earthquakes flatten the state.
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#4. To: Horse (#1)
________________________________
#5. To: Horse (#1)
The Fed EXPOSED!!! The FARO RESERVE BANK!!!
#6. To: James Deffenbach, Horse, abraxas (#3)
#7. To: AGAviator (#6)
#8. To: abraxas (#7)
Where are they getting the water? I actually have been seeing more produce from Mexico too.
#9. To: AGAviator (#8)
#10. To: AGAviator, abraxas (#8)
Water in CA is being depleted, polluted, and there are also government regulations to try to spread what remains around more equitably. So the agribusinesses are complaining, but generally speaking there has not been much of a focus on getting anybody anywhere to use and conserve wisely.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#11. To: farmfriend, AGAviator (#10)
Water in CA is being depleted, polluted, and there are also government regulations to try to spread what remains around more equitably. So the agribusinesses are complaining, but generally speaking there has not been much of a focus on getting anybody anywhere to use and conserve wisely.
#12. To: farmfriend (#10)
Water in CA is being depleted, polluted, and there are also government regulations to try to spread what remains around more equitably. So the agribusinesses are complaining, but generally speaking there has not been much of a focus on getting anybody anywhere to use and conserve wisely.
#13. To: AGAviator (#12)
potty mouth?
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#14. To: farmfriend (#13)
Environmental kool-aide drinker.
#15. To: AGAviator (#14)
Says the self-styled farmer who can't figure out any benefits running sprinklers at night.....
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#16. To: AGAviator, farmfriend (#14)
(Edited)
#17. To: buckeroo (#16)
(Edited)
She knows what she is talking about when the federal government steps in and restricts private farming/ranching productive efforts when the government has some kind of new fish or game to save.
#18. To: AGAviator (#17)
Meanwhile in all these places listed above there has been heavy and sprawling construction activity with a heavy bias to generating sprawling urban and suburban tracts going in all directions.
Mark Mlcoch: No water, no fish, no jobs
#19. To: buckeroo (#18)
(Edited)
Why? Because of greedy, tight-fisted local farmers/ranchers or the demands based upon world markets?
#20. To: buckeroo, farmfriend, James Deffenbach, AGAviator (#18)
The water table has been seriously lowered EVERYWHERE simultaneously with an increasing average temperature while the demands of a swelling, unsustainable population base has eroded our quality life.
"... with an increasing average temperature ..."
#21. To: AGAviator, buckeroo (#17)
Last but not least, massive sheep and cattle raising in nearly every state which has seriously destroyed ground cover, making both water conservation more difficult, and major flooding easier.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#22. To: buckeroo, AGAviator, Original_Intent (#18)
The water table has been seriously lowered EVERYWHERE simultaneously with an increasing average temperature while the demands of a swelling, unsustainable population base has eroded our quality life.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#23. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo, James Deffenbach, AGAviator (#20)
And why has the population in Kahlifornyah increased so much? Why, you guessed, massive illegal immigration which the corrupt government not only will not stop but wants in order to disrupt our culture and separate us into groups. All the easier to turn into a totalitarian slave state.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#24. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, buckarooey, Buckmonster Fullofit, buckeroo (#19)
Why? Because of greedy, tight-fisted local farmers/ranchers or the demands based upon world markets?
#25. To: farmfriend (#23)
And why has the population in Kahlifornyah increased so much? Why, you guessed, massive illegal immigration which the corrupt government not only will not stop but wants in order to disrupt our culture and separate us into groups. All the easier to turn into a totalitarian slave state.
#26. To: Original_Intent (#25)
I am aware of Buck being on the right side of the issue - and a good friend of someone I liked - the late Jackalope Breeder. I wasn't chiding him on that point - just underscoring where the massive population growth came from.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#27. To: Original_Intent, AGAviator, buckeroo (#24)
I'm sorry I just can't take it anymore your mixture of true observations and erroneous conclusions is driving me crazy. So let's separate out a couple of the key points.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#28. To: farmfriend (#26)
Ok, I can see that. My apologies for making erroneous assumptions. I'm worked up over other issues tonight and I didn't mean to take it out on you.
#29. To: farmfriend (#22)
You are never told about how the PDO being in a warm phase
#30. To: Original_Intent (#29)
PDO? Definition por favor.
The Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) is a pattern of Pacific climate variability that shifts phases on at least inter-decadal time scale, usually about 20 to 30 years. The PDO is detected as warm or cool surface waters in the Pacific Ocean, north of 20° N. During a "warm", or "positive", phase, the west Pacific becomes cool and part of the eastern ocean warms; during a "cool" or "negative" phase, the opposite pattern occurs.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#31. To: farmfriend (#27)
I'm sorry I just can't take it anymore your mixture of true observations and erroneous conclusions is driving me crazy. So let's separate out a couple of the key points.
#32. To: farmfriend (#30)
#33. To: Original_Intent, AGAviator, buckeroo (#31)
What people don't seem to get is that the NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations for those not familiar - e.g., Greedpeace, National (Pew) Wildlife, Sierra Klub, etc., - which are all largely funded by the Globalists via Robber Baron Family Foundations) are largely a creation of the the Robber Barons and their spawn to push the Globalist Agenda with a crunchy green coating. In short they are Trojan Horses for a hidden agenda i.e., total control. I think that term NGO is what throws people off - it is bureaucratese and makes peoples eyes glaze over.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#34. To: Original_Intent (#32)
That is something I have been interested in but was too ignorant to find the right data to get started understanding it.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#35. To: farmfriend (#34)
I can point you to a couple of places if you are interested.
#36. To: farmfriend (#33)
What people don't seem to get is that the NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations for those not familiar - e.g., Greedpeace, National (Pew) Wildlife, Sierra Klub, etc., - which are all largely funded by the Globalists via Robber Baron Family Foundations) are largely a creation of the the Robber Barons and their spawn to push the Globalist Agenda with a crunchy green coating. In short they are Trojan Horses for a hidden agenda i.e., total control. I think that term NGO is what throws people off - it is bureaucratese and makes peoples eyes glaze over.
#37. To: Original_Intent (#35)
Please.
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#38. To: farmfriend, Original_Intent (#21)
There is so much wrong with what you have posted I don't even know where to begin. I can tell you that buying into the enviro propaganda doesn't mean you have the truth. And government regulation isn't the answer. Never has been despite what you say and think. Sigh, where to start.
#39. To: Original_Intent (#24)
(Edited)
Trying to lump them in with the corporate agri-pirates and their buddies in big government is simply ignorant and tells me that you have spent no significant time studying the issues.
Mistakes in the past have been more a matter of ignorance not intent.
#40. To: AGAviator (#19)
One example: When I was growing up, farmers required their workers to use "short-handed hoes" which had handles only a couple feet long. These tools caused epidemic rates of back injuries by forcing laborers to constantly bend over through work days far exceeding 8 hours.
#41. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, Lod, James Deffenbach, TwentyTwelve, wudidiz, all (#38)
Among other things "government regulation" has never caused the strippage of nearly a foot of topsoil from the Great Plains, nor did it cause John Muir to refer to sheep as "hooved locusts" and register similar protests to wholesale cattle farming. Nor did government cause the Dust Bowl in the 1930's.
#42. To: Original_Intent, farmfriend, James Deffenbach, AGAviator (#20)
The water table has been seriously lowered EVERYWHERE simultaneously with an increasing average temperature while the demands of a swelling, unsustainable population base has eroded our quality life. -- buckeroo
Bravo Buckie! I just love the way you slid the disinformation in at the end first by setting up with a sob story and some true information, such as the draining of the aquifer in the Imperial Valley, with the assumption that it is true and therefore what follows logical - even when it is not.
Har, har, har, har. Such a humorist you are. With declining average temperatures over the last decade your song remains the same. Declining temperature? Why it's glowbull [sic] warming. Every glacier on Mt. Shasta growing? Why it's Glowbull [sic] Warming. You're such a card Buckie.
Published November 2004 / (updated) October 2005 All Rights Reserved 
California Weather Predictions Show Higher Rainfall Rates, Winter 2004 and 2005 is nothing more than a wet memory for many residents of southern California. Early mountain snowstorms (before Halloween) shattered historical records for celebratory skiers. By the end of its rain season (30 June) Los Angeles recorded 37 and one-quarter inches of rain for the previous 12 months. This amount of rain is more alike New York City's annual average of 44 inches of rain or Dallas' 38 inches, which are typically spread out over a 12 month period. Los Angeles received the bulk of its rain in October 2004, and January, and February 2005. Such a pattern is more common for India during its three-month Monsoon. Eight confirmed tornadoes in the Los Angeles basin also made for an active severe weather period. * Monthly updates to San Juan Capistrano, CA weather may be of interest to readers. In Orange County mountains the rainfall storm total during a four-day period of 7-10 January hit 20 inches, or closer to what Saddleback Mountain range typically records in 12 months. Almost anything goes in California; however, long-range forecast models did predict a wet-winter for the Southwestern United States and indicates that such a year could be more common in decades ahead. The science of long-range weather prediction is an educated guess, but computer models provide information to use for practical purposes and planning rather than alarming residents. In California, the largest economy in the United States, healthy rainfall and snow pack is the greatest challenge for the state as water demand exceeds what nature typically provides. Figure 1 combines model data for rainfall projection increases in California for the next 100 years. Figure 2 combines model data for expected increases in temperatures in California for the next 100 years. Trend Models For the period 2010-2080, the future of water --indeed the state's most valuable resource-- is no sure bet. Canada's department of science for climate change models conflict with worst case drought predictions from the Union of Concerned Scientist, a California-based climate study organization. Canada actually offers California a big break in the long-range forecast, predicting rainfall totals of 150 percent above what has become "average" by year 2080. California governmental agencies are preparing for the drought model. All long-range models conclude that California's temperatures will warm on the average of 3 to 6 degrees. Meaning, a current average temperature of 50 degrees (high and low temperatures averaged together) would warm to between 53 and 56 degrees. That in and of itself means little without folding out data into average high and low temperature plan at the regional level. For a city with an average high and low of 60 and 40, the temperature could change to 76 and 36 in a drier climate or 66 and 46 in a moist environment. Statewide, the greatest increase in temperatures is expected during wintertime months. For sunshine lovers, the prediction of yearlong warm weather is good news -- for skiers however, the snow season across the Golden State maybe left to old photographs and memories. Warmer winters mean less snow, more rainfall, thus more rapid and dirty runoff, and little runoff in dry months. To compare extreme models, we've calculated both possibilities using California's climate study group data, and Canada's research models along with some microclimate data known about California. For the graphics in this story, we've used Canada's data for rainfall estimates and both models for temperature. California has numerous microclimates. Depending upon inland temperatures and cooler Pacific Ocean temperatures, the future of California's onshore flow hangs in the balance. Many of California's microclimates are in place due to existing climate trends and the availability or absence of the onshore flow. As these trends change, the microclimates will evolve accordingly. They could simply disappear. The Pacific Ocean currents are dependent upon salinity levels and temperature, as well as northern latitudinal ice melt. An increase in salinity levels and warmer water temperatures could lead to permanent waning of the onshore flow, warming coastline temperatures, and a increasing the monsoon influence in southern California during summer months. When summertime monsoon flows infiltrate the desert regions, coastal areas from San Diego to Malibu experience less onshore flow and warmer temperatures due to cooler and cloudy weather in the desert regions. After two significant tropical waves in summer 2003 brought heavy July rains to the Sacramento Valley, the infamous onshore flow into the Bay Area subsided for the duration of this event as well. It is conceivable that even northern California summers may experience an increase of tropical weather, thus warming the coastline during these spells. What often dissipates tropical waves at the present time is cooler Pacific Ocean temperatures. As the Pacific water warms however, tropical waves are more likely to hold together and in fact maybe enhanced much in the way they are along the Eastern seaboard with warmer ocean temperatures. Drought? On the other hand, the monsoon flow over Mexico, Arizona, and desert regions of California has its own set of dependencies. Both Arizona and New Mexico are in a cycle of less than robust monsoonal seasons, with only that of 2005 registering close to normal after a decade of weak monsoons. Should climate change cause the opposite effect, and decrease moisture influence from the tropics, the desert southwest's climate would be similar to that of the Persian Gulf and drop average rainfall totals to half of what they are today. Natural desert plant life would vanish and underground wells would run dry. The coastline of California's weather would be more alike that of Baja Mexico's dry, cool winters and long, hot dry summers. Should California experience the worst case drought scenario, technology and resources could make ocean water ready for consumption at the current cost of inland water. Predictions for the Midwestern United States actually fair much worse that California at present time, and conclude that between years 2050-2100, the eastern front range of the Rocky Mountains may become the nation's largest desert region without means to secure consumable water. If the worst case drought predictions prove correct for California --rainfall in Los Angeles (current 30-year average is 16 inches) will fall to an annual average of 12 inches by year 2050 and 9 inches by 2100-- or more like Las Vegas is today. San Francisco's average annual rainfall (currently 21 inches) would drop to 17 inches in 2050 and 13 inches in 2100. San Diego would drop from 11 inches to 7 inches. Warmer In viewing the past 30 years of average temperatures across California and comparing them to the previous block of 30 year cycles going back 90 years, there is no doubt that average temperatures have increased especially during winter months. Predicting future temperatures is easier for Los Angeles and San Diego as they would more reflect those current temperatures along the Baja Mexico Peninsula. San Francisco's temperatures are more dependent upon the tug of air and water currents in the Pacific. But if the eastern Pacific waters warm as some models indicate, water temperatures of 70 degrees are possible in summertime along Northern California and 80 degrees in Southern California -- the onshore flow would diminish a great deal, and could result in coastal city temperature increases of as much as 15 degrees from today's averages. Warmer coastal cities like Santa Cruz would jump from 73 to 83, Long Beach from 81 to 90, and Del Mar from 78 to 87. Warmer ocean temperatures along California are also dependent upon a diminished NW-wind flow. The average July-August high temperatures in Los Angeles could rise from 85 degrees today to 92 degrees in 2100, while San Francisco's average summertime high temperatures could rise from 71 to 77. San Diego could see a rise from 78 degrees to 86 degrees. Western-facing beach cities, Monterey, Oxnard, Santa Monica and Oceanside will warm as well, although not as much as those coastal cities facing southern exposures. Wet If Canada's predictions are correct for rainfall, Los Angeles could see an average annual rainfall total of 23 inches, San Francisco would rise to 32 inches and San Diego would rise to 18 inches in 2050. Due to Los Angeles' and San Diego's proximity to warmer Pacific Ocean waters and the tropical monsoon zone, some of this rainfall could arrive in the form of two or three tropical waves each summer, such a change would be drastic to the current climate in southern California, especially if waters off the coast begin to support hurricane activity, which would pose great threats to residential and commercial property. Northern California's increase in rainfall would primarily be due to more intense Pacific winter storms. For native plant life across all of California, Canada's prediction treats plant life very well. It is unknown whether or not the migration North of tropical waves would impact Mexico with widespread drought. Mexico is heavily dependent upon long periods of tropical rain showers in summertime for both residential consumption of water and for growing crops. Averages are, after all, "average," one year's extreme weather averages out over time. For the past 50 years in Los Angeles the rainfall range is 6 inches to 38 inches. Using the new model of average, a dry year in Los Angeles could be 11 inches and a wet year closer to 50 inches. Fifty inches of rainfall in southern California could prove catastrophic without precautionary measures in place. Contrarily, on the dry models, three decades of rainfall less that 10 inches would wipe out all native species of plant life found in the region today. Live oaks, pine trees, and hillside shrubs would die and expose soil to erosion. Additional and refined research could help long-range preparations for nation's most populous state. While there are no clear answers yet, preparation for climate change is a responsible action when time is on your side. Think & Ask, reproduction of any kind is not permitted without written consent.---
Warmer Temperatures
Warming of the earth's surface creates more extreme weather events as the earth dissipates excess heat. As weather systems spawn and track East the influence upon California weather means:
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#43. To: buckeroo (#40) (Edited)
Certainly. Cesar Chavez Biographical Sketch For ten years, César’s family traveled as migrant farm workers in California looking for work harvesting crops in the fields. They moved from town to town in order to find work. Once they found work, they had to rent run-down shacks with no heating or water from the growers who owned the land. There were so many farm workers looking for work that the growers could treat them however they wanted. If the workers complained, the growers would fire them. The Chávez family worked long hours in the fields, from 3:00 am until sunset, and were paid so little they often did not have enough money to buy food.
Can you cite some evidence about this? I think that sounds strangely "slave/master" 200 year old like, as though to contain the visual observations of slaves to the ground
The first four figures in this piece are close to the ground demonstrating the early days when farmworkers had to stoop over and work with backbreaking short hoes. The short hoes that are depicted were eventually outlawed due to the efforts of the César Chávez and the UFW. The next five figures are completely upright with flags in their hands instead of workers tools, to symbolize the many marches workers made to assure the basic human rights this particular community had been denied. When seen from a distance the piece profoundly displays the plight of the farmworkers harsh existence and their eventual ascension to dignity and self-empowerment.
Before Cesar and the movement, we didn’t even have water or bathrooms in the fields. Now, wherever we go there is a truck with water following us.” — Jose Meza, Napa Valley farmworker
#44. To: Original_Intent (#41)
The Great Plains started with over 18 inches of topsoil before American farmers - not agribusinesses, just regular growers - got it down to less than 6 in under 100 years. That's what I term trashing. In their opinions, which can be wrong especially if they don't take the time and trouble to cooperate with scientific research. No, they were ignorant, partially motivated by greed, had some racial prejudice, and were in the end flat-out wrong. Just like their protesting requirements to have sanitation in the fields - another evil government mandate. I've already told you I've done several consulting projects for food industry businesses with direct grower contacts and contracts. You're the one in this instance spouting propaganda. Corporate farming didn't even catch on until after private individuals degraded the land and felt a need to get out.
For example you imply that farmers willfully "trashed the environment" a conclusion which is wholly unsupported by any logical, or provable, set of data. In fact one could gather and present a considerable weight of evidence to the contrary.
Farmers, following sound practice, seek to improve their holdings, its value, and their return on their work invested.
Take your earlier example of the short handled hoe. Do you think farmers required that of their workers because they wished them harm and wanted to see them all crippled with back pain? Not likely.
Available assuming you would rather know what you are talking about rather than robotically repeating cliches and propaganda implanted by environmental groups run by city dwellers.
#45. To: buckeroo, farmfriend, abraxas, James Deffenbach, AGAviator (#42)
Spam. Climate has throughout geologic history been variable. A short window of time, and geologically that could be as much as several thousand years, is barely sufficient to establish a clear trend. Temperartures go up, temperatures go down. Climate is variable and cyclical. And as usual your climate model maps are curiously cut off and the scale contracted to manipulate the data to fit the conclusion. The beginning of your graph is the end of a several century period known as "The Little Ice Age". What happens at the end of an ice age that lets us know it is over? Hands Please!? Correct! It warms up and that is how we know the ice age is over. If we look at a graph of a longer period of time the picture becomes clearer - note that the graph before and after the little ice age is very similar i.e., about the same temperature ranges we experienced throughout much of the 20th century. 
Note: I just love the way your graph cuts out the little ice age and the cooling period we are in now.
"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
#46. To: Original_Intent (#45)
lol
Spam.
“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
#47. To: All (#45)
"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
#48. To: Original_Intent (#45)
lol....what? You say that climate was actually a facter for a longer period than just the past 120 years? How could that be? eyes rolling I bet you would even go so far as to dare to suggest that the SUN has somthing to do with climate change. Al Gore and his band of "climatologists" don't consider the sun to be a relevant talking point. So, do your part and pretend that the big ol' ball of fire in the sky has NOTHING to do with it. It's that derb nubbed carbon dioxide.
Spam.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
#49. To: abraxas (#48)
"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
#50. To: Original_Intent (#45)
Yeah .... and you neglect to add the HUGH, burgeoning population growth in just past few decades. This same human population base is sucking up the resources while simultaneously aiding global warming phenomena.
Climate has throughout geologic history been variable. A short window of time, and geologically that could be as much as several thousand years, is barely sufficient to establish a clear trend.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#51. To: Original_Intent (#49)
lol.......I liked that graph too. : ) Very, very low sun spot activity, a common sense change in the sun's output, couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the climate on the earth.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
#52. To: buckeroo (#50)
Again an ASSertion absent any proof. We know now that the Glowbull Warming propagandists have been falsifying data, excluding data, and Scientists, which provide contradictory confirmation etc., ... Oh, and where's that Nobel Prize winning liar Al Bore these days?
This same human population base is sucking up the resources while simultaneously aiding global warming phenomena.
"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
#53. To: abraxas (#51)
What? The major energy source of the Solar System? Go on now! The sun's output an influence? Who'd a thunk? Certainly not the Climate Research Unit.
Very, very low sun spot activity, a common sense change in the sun's output, couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the climate on the earth.
"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
#54. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#52)
This same human population base is sucking up the resources while simultaneously aiding global warming phenomena. Again an ASSertion absent any proof. So you want to ASSert that burning 19 million barrels of oil per day every day year in year out, while deforesting 214,000 acres per day - an area larger than New York City, every day year in year out - have nothing to do with climate change. Or the fact that the ice caps over the North Pole have shrunk so much that polar bears who live on them year round are drowning because they have to swim so far to find food they become exhausted. Just a coincidence with all other human activity, no? Slam Gore and Gaia all you want, most people aren't going to wait until the disasters caused by these factors are undeniable to every denying soul on the planet.
#55. To: AGAviator (#54)
A. We do have environmental problems. B. Antropogenic Glowbull Warming is not one of them. It is a distraction from the real problems - such as toxic pollutants both water borne and atmospheric. Hydrogen Sulfide and Mercury from Coal Fired Power Plants IS real, however Glowbull warming is a distraction and is a stalking horse for other hidden agendas.
"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
#56. To: Original_Intent (#55)
B. Antropogenic So let's review your statements with a few modifications, above. Do you run around rattling like this all day to yourself?
A. We do have environmental problems.
Glowbull Warming causes is not one of them. It Antropogenic causes is a distraction from the real problems - such as toxic pollutants both water borne and atmospheric. Hydrogen Sulfide and Mercury from Coal Fired Power Plants IS real, however Glowbull warming Antropogenic causes is a distraction and is a stalking horse for other hidden agendas.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#57. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#55) (Edited)
Burning millions of barrels of oil every day, which introduces thousands of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, while at the same time deforesting hundreds of thousands of acres of vegetation, removing the capacity of that vegetation to absorb increased thousands of tons of extra CO2 and other by products, causes additional burdens and pollutants to go into the ecosphere/atmosphere. This increased pollutant load also interferes with radiation of heat into space, besides temperature increases coming from the burning fuel itself.
Antropogenic Glowbull Warming is not one of them. It is a distraction from the real problems - such as toxic pollutants both water borne and atmospheric
#58. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent, buckeroo (#57)
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is necessary for life. BTW, the forests, especially the rain forests, are not the major sink for CO2 anyway. The biggest sink for CO2, also the biggest source of CO2, is by far the oceans. The only deforestation that is taking place is in third world countries thanks to the NGOs that shut down domestic forestry.
Burning millions of barrels of oil every day, which introduces millions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, while at the same time deforesting hundreds of thousands of acres of vegetation, removing the capacity of that vegetation to absorb increased millions of tons of extra CO2 and other by products, causes additional burdens and pollutants to go into the ecosphere/atmosphere.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#59. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent (#57)
O_I understands all that. But, he thinks that the Earth's ecosystem is limitless (as in, infinity) .... yet, he knows mankind has a direct impact on the world around us, too. He just believes that AlGore is the "Globull Warming Guru" and as a direct result those exaggerations prove that global warming phenomena doesn't exist. I maintain that it does exist, although I don't believe that anthropogenic causes are the only inputs, although, as I earlier pointed out ... it is interesting to me that global warming phenomena is coincident in time with the industrial revolution and an ever increasing population base while we see a shrinking natural resource base.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#60. To: Original_Intent, AGAviator, Lod, James Deffenbach, TwentyTwelve, wudidiz (#41)
Oh what a mess that was. The claim was that they needed more water for a fish that does well in 1.5' in tule lake. The claim was that the water was too low despite it being at record level highs. Oddly enough, the guy (read government environmentalist) who set the water level was commodore of the yacht club and that was the first year they didn't have to pull their boats from the water. Also, the farmers fields are what fed the birds from the bird sanctuary which also had no water because of the shut off. So government regulation saved the water for the fish who didn't need it while damaging the pacific flyway.
Ask the farmers of the Klamath Basin how government intervention aided their farming. Most of them are going broke and having to sell off their farms, which their parents and grandparents established in the 1920's, '30's, and '40's, and who were encouraged to begin - in many cases by government incentives. With their own money they built a water distribution system which was hijacked by government to supposedly (at least that was the pretext) protect an endangered species of Sucker. With their water cut off the crops dried and died. All with the beneficial hand of government and not the action of the free market.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#61. To: Original_Intent (#47)
Oh that's a keeper.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#62. To: buckeroo, AGAviator, Original_Intent (#59)
Oh he does not and you know it. Don't make shit up just to try and be provocative.
But, he thinks that the Earth's ecosystem is limitless (as in, infinity)
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#63. To: farmfriend (#60)
Oh what a mess that was. The claim was that they needed more water for a fish that does well in 1.5' in tule lake. The claim was that the water was too low despite it being at record level highs. Oddly enough, the guy (read government environmentalist) who set the water level was commodore of the yacht club and that was the first year they didn't have to pull their boats from the water. Also, the farmers fields are what fed the birds from the bird sanctuary which also had no water because of the shut off. So government regulation saved the water for the fish who didn't need it while damaging the pacific flyway. The real purpose of course was to drive the farmers out and into cities. Farmers are independent, they don't make good serfs or slaves - that is why Stalin murdered 11 million "Kulaks" - independent farmers - in the Ukraine.
Ask the farmers of the Klamath Basin how government intervention aided their farming. Most of them are going broke and having to sell off their farms, which their parents and grandparents established in the 1920's, '30's, and '40's, and who were encouraged to begin - in many cases by government incentives. With their own money they built a water distribution system which was hijacked by government to supposedly (at least that was the pretext) protect an endangered species of Sucker. With their water cut off the crops dried and died. All with the beneficial hand of government and not the action of the free market.
"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
#64. To: farmfriend, buckeroo, AGAviator, all (#62)
Oh he does not and you know it. Don't make shit up just to try and be provocative. That's about all he can do at this point. His "argument", such as it was, got stuffed and so all he has left is an attempt to misrepresent my position.
But, he thinks that the Earth's ecosystem is limitless (as in, infinity)
"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
#65. To: farmfriend (#61)
Glad you liked it. ;-)
Oh that's a keeper.
"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
#66. To: farmfriend, AGAviator, Original_Intent (#62)
So how does he think about the world's human population base doubling in another 20 years, if we don't have an infinite ecosystem? I will tell you, he thinks that is sustainable.
But, he thinks that the Earth's ecosystem is limitless (as in, infinity) -- buckeroo
Oh he does not and you know it. Don't make shit up just to try and be provocative. -- farmfriend
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#67. To: Original_Intent (#41)
Congress protecting their own kin sounds like.
With their own money they built a water distribution system which was hijacked by government to supposedly (at least that was the pretext) protect an endangered species of Sucker.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#68. To: buckeroo (#66)
You are making assumptions and accusations that are not correct. People don't want to have civilized conversations with you when you do that. You make your points and let OI make his own points. Let other judge him by what he says, not by what you claim he says.
So how does he think about the world's human population base doubling in another 20 years, if we don't have an infinite ecosystem? I will tell you, he thinks that is sustainable.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#69. To: Original_Intent (#63)
Agreed.
The real purpose of course was to drive the farmers out and into cities. Farmers are independent, they don't make good serfs or slaves - that is why Stalin murdered 11 million "Kulaks" - independent farmers - in the Ukraine.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#70. To: farmfriend, AGAviator, Original_Intent (#68)
Hey! I asked you a question because you jumped in arguing for him. I made a conclusion based upon his many earlier remarcks that allude to sustainability while the human population base is geometrically climbing. Why don't you let him argue his own stuff. In all cases, he was included.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#71. To: buckeroo (#70)
Not quite. But enough said. I'll resign from further comment.
Hey! I asked you a question because you jumped in arguing for him.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#72. To: Original_Intent (#64)
So what is it? Human population can be sustained infinitely in growth? Or is there a finite threshold, somewhere? And, if human population growth is finite, where is that threshold that may sustain humanity with a high quality of life style? I say, with about seven BILLION people, mankind has already surpassed the capability to enjoy a good level of life style much less a high one. So, let's go back to the original article of this thread. Why do you think some college professor suggests that a new nation shall be born in the near future, encompassing the Southwest of the US and Northern Mexico? I say, it is because certain people want a high quality of lifestyle typically afforded in the Southwest of the US. And, they want to take it away from those that already have it.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#73. To: Original_Intent (#72)
Where is your answer to my post above?
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#74. To: buckeroo (#73)
Right here.
"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
#75. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
That will never happen. Agitprop?
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.
“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
#76. To: Original_Intent, farmfriend (#74)
So you evade my question by not answering. Do you feel better?
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#77. To: farmfriend, buckeroo, Original_Intent (#58)
CO2 is poison. You seem to be confusing it with oxygen. While algae in the oceans does convert CO2 into organic food, some of that algae like the red is poison itself. And when algae levels get too high, either from over fishing or from allowing farming chemicals and by products to slosh into the waterways, the algae mass becomes toxic itself. Lower Ocean Oxygen Levels Predict Catastrophic Change A cascade failure is the progressive collapse of an integral system. Many scientists also call them negative feedback loops, in that unfortunate situations reinforce one another, precipitating eventual and sometimes complete failure. The agricultural practices relate to “factory farming,” in which farmers grow crops using more and more chemical fertilizers, specifically nitrogen and phosphorus, which are the first two ingredients (chemical symbols N and P) listed on any container or bag of fertilizer. The last is potassium, or K. But farmers aren’t the only culprits. Lawn enthusiasts add to the problem with their massive applications of fertilizer designed to maintain a species of plant that doesn’t provide either food or habitat, and is grown merely to add prestige. And groundskeepers at parks and large corporate headquarters are equally guilty. In fact, a whole generation needs to rethink its addiction to lawns. Whoever is guilty of applying the fertilizer, these megadoses are eventually washed off the fields and lawns and into waterways. From there, they migrate to the nearest large bodies of water, where they spark such tremendous and unnatural growth in aquatic plants that the result is eutrophication , or lack of oxygen in the water as bacteria act to reduce the sheer mass of dying organic matter. One of these aquatic growths is algae, or phytoplankton. Moderate algal growth can produce higher fish yields and actually benefit lakes and oceans, but over- stimulation leads to a whole host of problems whose integral relationship to one another threatens not only aquatic but human life. A classic example would be the Baltic Sea, where phytoplankton are raging out of control. The Baltic Sea is, as a result, home to seven out of ten of the world’s largest “dead zones,” aquatic areas where nothing survives. One of the other three is the Gulf of Mexico, where a 2008 dead zone the size of Massachusetts is expected to grow in future years thanks to the U.S. government’s biofuel mandate. Most of the crops for biofuel are grown along the Mississippi River, which drains directly into this dead zone. In the Baltic, as elsewhere, overfishing has exacerbated the problem. Fish feed on smaller aquatic organisms, which themselves feed on the algae. Take the fish out of the equation, and the balance is lost. It’s very much like removing the wolves that keep down the deer population in order to protect the sheep, and it doesn’t work in the ocean any better than it works on land. Absolutely false. Brazil's government personnel attempting to rein in slash burning and cutting of Amazonian rain forest are vastly outnumbered by would-be settlers and often try to stop the madness at the risk of their lives.
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is necessary for life. BTW, the forests, especially the rain forests, are not the major sink for CO2 anyway. The biggest sink for CO2, also the biggest source of CO2, is by far the oceans.
There is a cascade failure going on in the world’s oceans that promises nothing but trouble in the future, and the problem stems in part from agricultural practices developed over the last half-decade aimed at growing more food on the same amount of land to feed rising populations.
The only deforestation that is taking place is in third world countries thanks to the NGOs that shut down domestic forestry.
#78. To: James Deffenbach (#3)
the bigger question is; whose state will be polluted by the like of whitesands?
How much longer will California remain a part of the United States?
computer counted ballots are ballots that have been counted in secret, and with all probability not the way one voted.
#79. To: AGAviator, buckeroo, Original_Intent (#77)
Right, that's why greenhouses increase CO2 to 1000 ppmv. It is fertilizer for plants. Currently CO2 is at historic lows for the planet. Mankind even does better at higher CO2 levels because we evolved when levels were higher. Without CO2 we have no forests, no agriculture, no life on this planet. CO2 is poison. You seem to be confusing it with oxygen.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#80. To: farmfriend, buckeroo (#79) (Edited)
CO2 is poison. You seem to be confusing it with oxygen. Right, that's why greenhouses increase CO2 to 1000 ppmv Do I need to amplify by saying CO2 is poison for humans? Are you better off breathing in an environment that has more CO2, or less CO2? How can you accuse anybody else of pseudo science after making a statement like you just did. Flies eat waste. This does not mean waste is food for people. Comprende?
#81. To: AGAviator, buckeroo, Original_Intent (#80)
Are you better off breathing in an environment that has more CO2, or less CO2? Actually according to the US Navy you are better off breathing an atmosphere of around 500 ppmv. That's higher than what we have on the planet. Man evolved at higher CO2 levels and has better brain function at higher levels. Yes if the levels get too high it will kill you but then too much water will kill you as well.
Do I need to amplify by saying CO2 is poison for humans?
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#82. To: farmfriend (#81)
Lungs expel CO2 just like kidneys expel urine. People who are sick get pure oxygen to increase their chances of survival. Increasing oxygen capacity and its transport within the human body are the goals of: Athletic training, and health care, and spirituality - all at the same time. Your attempts to rationalize the amount of CO2 to promote some pet theory, and against these empirical facts, don't even rise to the level of junk science.
Actually according to the US Navy you are better off breathing an atmosphere of around 500 ppmv. That's higher than what we have on the planet.
#83. To: IRTorqued (#78)
LOL! Don't you mean, "May he live long and prosper and stay where he is"?
the bigger question is; whose state will be polluted by the like of whitesands?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#84. To: farmfriend, AGAviator, buckeroo, Buckmonster Fullofit, James Deffenbach, all (#81) (Edited)
Are you better off breathing in an environment that has more CO2, or less CO2? Actually according to the US Navy you are better off breathing an atmosphere of around 500 ppmv. That's higher than what we have on the planet. Man evolved at higher CO2 levels and has better brain function at higher levels. Yes if the levels get too high it will kill you but then too much water will kill you as well. Unfortunately you are arguing with people to whom facts are irrelevant. Over and over and over again the validating data keeps coming in that an increase in global CO2 levels would be a net benefit. However, since the "true beeeelieeeeeeevers", like any other rube taken in by some huckster, have totally accepted the falsehoods of the PsyOps selling Glowbull Warming from (((((shudder))))) (Cue scary theme music) antropogenic CO2, and any and all data contrary to their irrational fixations is rejected. They have a fixed idea predicated upon false data and so reject true data which is contrary to their false fixations. An old aphorism from toxicology is appropriate here: "The dose makes the poison." The argument that CO2 is increasing global temperatures, while founded upon multiple fallacies, is also predicated upon a false assumption that a change in CO2 level will have only the effects predicted by the Glowbull Warming hypothesis and no others. In other words it is a self limiting hypothesis that excludes all other known affects of an increase in CO2 levels while exaggerating its importance as a greenhouse gas. Methane, such as is coming out of the Gulf Oil blowout and rupture is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, but you don't hear the Glowbull Warming Mouthpieces talking about that. (Interesting datum that.) When Algore starts talking about Methane Credits, which he won't because it gores too many profitable activities, I might listen (but truthfully not likely as he is a proven liar and phony). However, we do not live in a static environment and an infinity of equilibrium states exist. As you rightly point out an increase in atmospheric CO2 also acts as a growth stimulant for plant life. And what do plants do with CO2 - they respirate and use it to metabolize nutrients. And what do they give off as their "waste" product from respiration? Hands please. Yes, that is correct they give off O2 otherwise known as free oxygen and upon which all animal life depends for their metabolic functions. In other words an increase in CO2 results in accelerated plant respiration which removes an increasing amount of CO2 from the atmosphere while at the same time boosting the availability of free oxygen. In addition to being at historically low levels of CO2 we are also at historically low levels of O2. Funny how that works out. The key point here is that levels of free oxygen are in direct relationship to the availability of carbon dioxide for a plant's normal respiratory cycle. As well humans evolved in not only a higher mix of CO2 but a higher level of O2. So, the Chicken Little Brigades who have been led down a wrong path with CO2 as a deadly greenhouse gas, with their supposed mitigation efforts (which are highly profitable to those trading in "carbon credits), are also mitigating the levels of O2 available to animal life. As J.E. Lovelock pointed out, before he was brow beat into joining the Glowbull Warming Hysteria, the planet operates in its normal range as a self stabilizing system i.e., you knock the system out of equilibrium in one direction and it reacts globally to reestablish an equilibrium state returning to a balance point. However, science, true science, is irrelevant to the ignoratti of Glowbull Warming, and as we saw with the Climate Research Unit e-mails, the top scientists pushing Glowbull Warming KNOW that it is a fraud being perpetrated for political reasons not environmental. We have many more pressing environmental issues that CO2 which is nothing more that a political distraction established to divert from the real problems. We are not seeing the die off of Bees, Snakes, Bats, Frogs, etc., due to an increase in CO2 and those are much stronger indicators of problems in the environment. The Glowbull Warming caused by Antropogenic CO2 is a false paradigm and the suckers who have bought on to it are just that S-U-C-K-E-R-S.
Do I need to amplify by saying CO2 is poison for humans?
"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
#85. To: Original_Intent (#84)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
"You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
#86. To: James Deffenbach, IRTorqued (#83)
LOL! Don't you mean, "May he live long and prosper and stay where he is"? Actually everything else is irrelevant - he should just stay where he is - or move to a nice little cabana on the Gulf.
the bigger question is; whose state will be polluted by the like of whitesands?
"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
#87. To: Eric Stratton (#85)
People also once widely believed that blood circulated by Tides (and ridiculed Dr. Harvey who first mapped the circulatory system), and that health was governed by "the Four Humours". The reality is that many people believe all manner of scientific bullshit and the PTB find those falsehoods useful in controlling the ignoratti.
Oil as a fossil fuel is also a false paradigm, but look how many people believe that bullshit.
"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
#88. To: Original_Intent, farmfriend, AGAviator, James Deffenbach, all (#84)
Lets see now....... earlier up the thread I asked a couple of questions that are relevant and to the point of the topic discussion. In review...... And how did you respond? You didn't or the response was BS beyond the bounds of my questions. Now, here you are talking about CO2. Do you feel better delivering hot aire to us?
Unfortunately you [farmfriend] are arguing with people [AGAviator, buckeroo] to whom facts are irrelevant.
So what is it? Human population can be sustained infinitely in growth? Or is there a finite threshold, somewhere? And, if human population growth is finite, where is that threshold that may sustain humanity with a high quality of life style?
I say, with about seven BILLION people, mankind has already surpassed the capability to enjoy a good level of life style much less a high one.
So, let's go back to the original article of this thread. Why do you think some college professor suggests that a new nation shall be born in the near future, encompassing the Southwest of the US and Northern Mexico? I say, it is because certain people want a high quality of lifestyle typically afforded in the Southwest of the US. And, they want to take it away from those that already have it. --buckeroo, two days ago.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#89. To: Mind_Virus (#0)
A diet of tequila and pot makes mexicons talk like this.
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.
_________________________________________________________________________
Obama is the miscegenated bastard of a white communist whore. True story.
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#90. To: AGAviator (#82)
Hey kid - wanna buy a bridge? I'll make you a great deal. You can even pay in Carbon Credits. 
"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
#91. To: buckeroo, Buckmonster Fullofit, abraxas, farmfriend, James Deffenbach (#88)
Your question then, as now, was unresponsive and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. In short your question is naught more than a childish and ignorant attempt to divert the discussion and play "gotcha". Blow me. I am not obligated in any fashion to respond to hostile and irrelevant bullshit questions.
"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
#92. To: buckeroo, Buckmonster Fullofit, abraxas, farmfriend, James Deffenbach (#88) (Edited)
So, do you have anything responsive or relevant to the at hand discussion? I didn't think so. However, in my magnamity I will repeat my earlier post to farmfriend which you are avoiding and attempting to obfuscate: " Unfortunately you are arguing with people to whom facts are irrelevant. Over and over and over again the validating data keeps coming in that an increase in global CO2 levels would be a net benefit. However, since the "true beeeelieeeeeeevers", like any other rube taken in by some huckster, have totally accepted the falsehoods of the PsyOps selling Glowbull Warming from (((((shudder))))) (Cue scary theme music) antropogenic CO2, and any and all data contrary to their irrational fixations is rejected. They have a fixed idea predicated upon false data and so reject true data which is contrary to their false fixations. An old aphorism from toxicology is appropriate here: "The dose makes the poison." The argument that CO2 is increasing global temperatures, while founded upon multiple fallacies, is also predicated upon a false assumption that a change in CO2 level will have only the effects predicted by the Glowbull Warming hypothesis and no others. In other words it is a self limiting hypothesis that excludes all other known affects of an increase in CO2 levels while exaggerating its importance as a greenhouse gas. Methane, such as is coming out of the Gulf Oil blowout and rupture is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, but you don't hear the Glowbull Warming Mouthpieces talking about that. (Interesting datum that.) When Algore starts talking about Methane Credits, which he won't because it gores too many profitable activities, I might listen (but truthfully not likely as he is a proven liar and phony). However, we do not live in a static environment and an infinity of equilibrium states exist. As you rightly point out an increase in atmospheric CO2 also acts as a growth stimulant for plant life. And what do plants do with CO2 - they respirate and use it to metabolize nutrients. And what do they give off as their "waste" product from respiration? Hands please. Yes, that is correct they give off O2 otherwise known as free oxygen and upon which all animal life depends for their metabolic functions. In other words an increase in CO2 results in accelerated plant respiration which removes an increasing amount of CO2 from the atmosphere while at the same time boosting the availability of free oxygen. In addition to being at historically low levels of CO2 we are also at historically low levels of O2. Funny how that works out. The key point here is that levels of free oxygen are in direct relationship to the availability of carbon dioxide for a plant's normal respiratory cycle. As well humans evolved in not only a higher mix of CO2 but a higher level of O2. So, the Chicken Little Brigades who have been led down a wrong path with CO2 as a deadly greenhouse gas, with their supposed mitigation efforts (which are highly profitable to those trading in "carbon credits), are also mitigating the levels of O2 available to animal life. As J.E. Lovelock pointed out, before he was brow beat into joining the Glowbull Warming Hysteria, the planet operates in its normal range as a self stabilizing system i.e., you knock the system out of equilibrium in one direction and it reacts globally to reestablish an equilibrium state returning to a balance point. However, science, true science, is irrelevant to the ignoratti of Glowbull Warming, and as we saw with the Climate Research Unit e-mails, the top scientists pushing Glowbull Warming KNOW that it is a fraud being perpetrated for political reasons not environmental. We have many more pressing environmental issues that CO2 which is nothing more that a political distraction established to divert from the real problems. We are not seeing the die off of Bees, Snakes, Bats, Frogs, etc., due to an increase in CO2 and those are much stronger indicators of problems in the environment. The Glowbull Warming caused by Antropogenic CO2 is a false paradigm and the suckers who have bought on to it are just that S-U-C-K-E-R-S. "
"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
#93. To: Original_Intent (#91)
Are you a real live queer? Because I am not interested in homosexuals (as you admit you are in publick soliciting for some kind of thrill.) Now, let's take a peek at the rest of your most recent response ... I pulled the questions right into the thread topic, wherein you have consistently played around like a child or some flamer. Once again ...... here is the hard to answer question(s)from post #72: Blow me.
Your [buckeroo] question then, as now, was unresponsive and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. In short your question is naught more than a childish and ignorant attempt to divert the discussion and play "gotcha".
So what is it? Human population can be sustained infinitely in growth? Or is there a finite threshold, somewhere? And, if human population growth is finite, where is that threshold that may sustain humanity with a high quality of life style?
I say, with about seven BILLION people, mankind has already surpassed the capability to enjoy a good level of life style much less a high one.
So, let's go back to the original article of this thread. Why do you think some college professor suggests that a new nation shall be born in the near future, encompassing the Southwest of the US and Northern Mexico? I say, it is because certain people want a high quality of lifestyle typically afforded in the Southwest of the US. And, they want to take it away from those that already have it.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#94. To: buckeroo, Original_Intent (#93)
To get attention? To be annoying?
Why do you think some college professor suggests that a new nation shall be born in the near future, encompassing the Southwest of the US and Northern Mexico?
“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
#95. To: buckeroo, Buckmonster Fullofit, farmfriend, abraxas, James Deffenbach (#93) (Edited)
Let the record show that Buckmonster Fullofit is unwilling and unable to refute the points contained in my post to farmfriend and thus finds is necessary to engage in disinformation tactics in an attempt to wipe the egg off of his face. I again repeat the post to farmfriend: Unfortunately you are arguing with people to whom facts are irrelevant. Over and over and over again the validating data keeps coming in that an increase in global CO2 levels would be a net benefit. However, since the "true beeeelieeeeeeevers", like any other rube taken in by some huckster, have totally accepted the falsehoods of the PsyOps selling Glowbull Warming from (((((shudder))))) (Cue scary theme music) antropogenic CO2, and any and all data contrary to their irrational fixations is rejected. They have a fixed idea predicated upon false data and so reject true data which is contrary to their false fixations. An old aphorism from toxicology is appropriate here: "The dose makes the poison." The argument that CO2 is increasing global temperatures, while founded upon multiple fallacies, is also predicated upon a false assumption that a change in CO2 level will have only the effects predicted by the Glowbull Warming hypothesis and no others. In other words it is a self limiting hypothesis that excludes all other known affects of an increase in CO2 levels while exaggerating its importance as a greenhouse gas. Methane, such as is coming out of the Gulf Oil blowout and rupture is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, but you don't hear the Glowbull Warming Mouthpieces talking about that. (Interesting datum that.) When Algore starts talking about Methane Credits, which he won't because it gores too many profitable activities, I might listen (but truthfully not likely as he is a proven liar and phony). However, we do not live in a static environment and an infinity of equilibrium states exist. As you rightly point out an increase in atmospheric CO2 also acts as a growth stimulant for plant life. And what do plants do with CO2 - they respirate and use it to metabolize nutrients. And what do they give off as their "waste" product from respiration? Hands please. Yes, that is correct they give off O2 otherwise known as free oxygen and upon which all animal life depends for their metabolic functions. In other words an increase in CO2 results in accelerated plant respiration which removes an increasing amount of CO2 from the atmosphere while at the same time boosting the availability of free oxygen. In addition to being at historically low levels of CO2 we are also at historically low levels of O2. Funny how that works out. The key point here is that levels of free oxygen are in direct relationship to the availability of carbon dioxide for a plant's normal respiratory cycle. As well humans evolved n not only a higher mix of CO2 but a higher level of O2. So, the Chicken Little Brigades who have been led down a wrong path with CO2 as a deadly greenhouse gas, with their supposed mitigation efforts (which are highly profitable to those trading in "carbon credits), are also mitigating the levels of O2 available to animal life. As J.E. Lovelock pointed out, before he was brow beat into joining the Glowbull Warming Hysteria, the planet operates in its normal range as a self stabilizing system i.e., you knock the system out of equilibrium in one direction and it reacts globally to reestablish an equilibrium state returning to a balance point. However, science, true science, is irrelevant to the ignoratti of Glowbull Warming, and as we saw with the Climate Research Unit e-mails, the top scientists pushing Glowbull Warming KNOW that it is a fraud being perpetrated for political reasons not environmental. We have many more pressing environmental issues that CO2 which is nothing more that a political distraction established to divert from the real problems. We are not seeing the die off of Bees, Snakes, Bats, Frogs, etc., due to an increase in CO2 and those are much stronger indicators of problems in the environment. The Glowbull Warming caused by Antropogenic CO2 is a false paradigm and the suckers who have bought on to it are just that S-U-C-K-E-R-S.
"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
#96. To: wudidiz, bucket-a-goo, buckeroo (#94)
To get attention? To be annoying? To get paid by the people running the PsyOp?
Why do you think some college professor suggests that a new nation shall be born in the near future, encompassing the Southwest of the US and Northern Mexico?
"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
#97. To: Original_Intent (#95)
I wonder if BP will be able to "hide the decline"?
However, science, true science, is irrelevant to the ignoratti of Glowbull Warming, and as we saw with the Climate Research Unit e-mails, the top scientists pushing Glowbull Warming KNOW that it is a fraud being perpetrated for political reasons not environmental.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#98. To: farmfriend (#97)
Which decline? Please expand and clarify.
"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
#99. To: farmfriend, Original_Intent (#97)
O_I believes in infinite growth and therefore natural resources are sustainable through management. He won't answer the question posed because if he did... he would look ridiculous with all his fucked Bilderberg/Rothchild/Bankster/BIG_GOVERNMENT conspiracies. O_I is a laffingstock.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#100. To: buckeroo (#99)
No buck, you're a laffingstock. Hunnert.
“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
#101. To: wudidiz (#100)
Oh, just GREAT ... the chemtrail conspiracy theorist rears his ugly head....
No buck, you're a laffingstock.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#102. To: Original_Intent (#95)
Where is my little buddy answering my two days old question?
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#103. To: Original_Intent, farmfriend, AGAviator, James Deffenbach, all (#102)
Where is 4um's little flamer, O_I, answering a simple post from way up the thread from two days ago? Are you out dancing on the streets because you are gay and beg to come out of the closet? So what is it? Human population can be sustained infinitely in growth? Or is there a finite threshold, somewhere? And, if human population growth is finite, where is that threshold that may sustain humanity with a high quality of life style?
I say, with about seven BILLION people, mankind has already surpassed the capability to enjoy a good level of life style much less a high one.
So, let's go back to the original article of this thread. Why do you think some college professor suggests that a new nation shall be born in the near future, encompassing the Southwest of the US and Northern Mexico? I say, it is because certain people want a high quality of lifestyle typically afforded in the Southwest of the US. And, they want to take it away from those that already have it. --buckeroo, two days ago.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#104. To: buckeroo, Buckmonster Fullofit, farmfriend, AGAviator, James Deffenbach, all (#103)
Uh, Buckie? If you think you have been flamed you're wrong. I have restrained myself, and will continue to do so as I learned sometime back that flame is counterproductive. However, when you insist posting flagarantly puerile pathetic inanities pulled from the dim realm of your gaping sphincter and then crowing like you have laid an asteroid you can expect that you will receive, if only tepidly compared to what I could do, a "suitable" response. That is, should I deign to even respond. Have a nice day. P.S. Blow me.
"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
#105. To: Original_Intent (#104)
You are a queer .. there is no question about it.
P.S. Blow me.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#106. To: Original_Intent (#104)
What a fucking faerie you are.... you can't even get your head up out of your own local ass to answer a few simple questions.
... should I deign to even respond.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#107. To: buckeroo (#105)
Metaphors are not your strong suit are they? Of course neither is sound argumentation free of false assumptions so it really comes as no surprise. And that is about all the time I am willing to waste on responding to your ankle biting.
"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
#108. To: Original_Intent (#107) (Edited)
You are a lamer. You tell me to blow you when I have asked for a response to my earlier questions. What is your response? You are a fucked upped, little queer unable AND incapable of answering direct questions.
And that is about all the time I am willing to waste on responding to your ankle biting.
So what is it? Human population can be sustained infinitely in growth? Or is there a finite threshold, somewhere? And, if human population growth is finite, where is that threshold that may sustain humanity with a high quality of life style?
I say, with about seven BILLION people, mankind has already surpassed the capability to enjoy a good level of life style much less a high one.
So, let's go back to the original article of this thread. Why do you think some college professor suggests that a new nation shall be born in the near future, encompassing the Southwest of the US and Northern Mexico? I say, it is because certain people want a high quality of lifestyle typically afforded in the Southwest of the US. And, they want to take it away from those that already have it. --buckeroo, two days ago.
Blow me.
ankle biter
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#109. To: buckeroo (#108)
Had you asked one intelligent question relevant to the discussion I likely would have answered. As for now ... ...Go Fish.
"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
#110. To: Original_Intent (#109)
You are, indeed, a queer.
So what is it? Human population can be sustained infinitely in growth? Or is there a finite threshold, somewhere? And, if human population growth is finite, where is that threshold that may sustain humanity with a high quality of life style?
I say, with about seven BILLION people, mankind has already surpassed the capability to enjoy a good level of life style much less a high one.
So, let's go back to the original article of this thread. Why do you think some college professor suggests that a new nation shall be born in the near future, encompassing the Southwest of the US and Northern Mexico? I say, it is because certain people want a high quality of lifestyle typically afforded in the Southwest of the US. And, they want to take it away from those that already have it. --buckeroo, two days ago.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#111. To: Original_Intent (#87)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one.
"You've got to put right and wrong above legal and illegal. Because when tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty; and it is not rebellion at all, it is submission to the higher law that our government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels."
#112. To: Original_Intent (#84)
Excellent post O_I.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#113. To: James Deffenbach (#112)
Thank you.
"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
#114. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#90) (Edited)
I'll make you a great deal. You can even pay in Carbon Credits Hey kid, wanna wash down your CO2 swig with a piss chaser? After all, if CO2 which your lungs expel from your body is good for you, why not urine which gets ejected from your kidneys? It's unfortunate you've felt the need to use your tactic which so clearly is contradicted by facts a 5 year old can understand to push an antigovenment theory. There's plenty of other positions which are much more criticizable.
Hey kid - wanna buy a bridge?
#115. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, James Deffenbach (#114)
I'll make you a great deal. You can even pay in Carbon Credits Hey kid, wanna wash down your CO2 swig with a piss chaser? After all, if CO2 which your lungs expel from your body is good for you, why not urine which gets ejected from your kidneys? It's unfortunate you've felt the need to use your tactic which so clearly is contradicted by facts a 5 year old can understand to push an antigovenment theory. There's plenty of other positions which are much more criticizable. The first step in being able to sort out the truth of the situation is having the courage to look at the actual data and ask: "What does the data tell me?" Throwing temper tantrums and holding your breath until you turn blue do not change the data set. If one is actually applying the scientific method to the understanding of a problem that also requires a willingness to accept what the data tells us not what we would prefer it tell us e.g., confirming our preconceptions or PsyOps lines which we have been sold, accepted as true, and then only to find out it was not. Accepting or rejecting data based upon ones preconceptions is NOT science. At this point we have a substantial data set which as it continues to build demolishes the "CO2" as a greenhouse gas threat. The chief advocates of the theory have been caught lying, cooking the data to make it fit the theory rather than adjusting the theory to fit the observed phenomena, etc., ... The chief environmental groups supporting the theory (Sierra Club, World Wildlife Federation, etc.,...) are all largely recipients of Historical studies, based on ice core analysis, have shown that CO2 is a lagging indicator in planetary warming and tends to lag increased temperatures. In other words the warming occurs before the increases in atmospheric CO2. While proponents of Glowbull Warming have tried various means to explain away the inconvenient ice core data the data is what the data is. CO2 levels in the paleoclimate record show CO2 as lagging significantly behind increases in global temperatures. As well are the affects of increased CO2 on plant and animal life. Increases in CO2 (and again actual studies using real scientific method approaches have been done). What occurs? Plants grow faster and larger and they absorb a greater volume of CO2 while giving off O2, Oxygen, as a byproduct. So, while CO2 may be a poor greenhouse gas, methane as being released in great volume in the gulf - which the bought off major environmental groups are silent on - is a much more powerful greenhouse gas, it is a great growth stimulant for plants - they love the stuff and when more is available they absorb more and increase the richness of the atmospheric Oxygen content with their respiratory byproduct - oxygen. And then we look at the record of scientific honesty. Over and over and over again the proponents of Glowbull Warming have been caught lying, cheating, and fudging data to force it to fit the model rather than developing a model that accommodates the data. You are welcome to believe in any fairy tale you wish, but do not try to call it science. Anthropogenic Glowbull Warming from human created CO2 is not selling. The science does not support it and the body of data validating that view is growing. Now that the CRU and their attempts to prevent the publication of data injurious to their "pet" theories have been exposed we can see how the climate debate has been manipulated, with contrary data excluded, data cherry picked and perfectly valid data (such as selected continental readings taken in Russia) thrown out because it does not fit the theory. You are welcome to believe in anything you wish, but believing does not make inconvenient facts and observations invalid. In real science it means they have to be accommodated in any theory and the theory revised to accommodate the data - not the data thrown out because it doesn't fit the theory which is bass ackwards as far as true science goes. As for me I believe I'll have another cup of coffee.
Hey kid - wanna buy a bridge?
bribes grants from the people who benefit financially from pushing CO2 as a greenhouse gas and Glowbull Warming from anthropogenic CO2 (which is about 3% of the planetary CO2 production).
"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
#116. To: Original_Intent, AGAviator, farmfriend, James Deffenbach (#115)
Throwing temper tantrums and holding your breath until you turn blue do not change the data set. If one is actually applying the scientific method to the understanding of a problem that also requires a willingness to accept what the data tells us not what we would prefer it tell us.... OBIE WAN KANOBIE .... at his best...... What is Original_Intent's response to serious questions? You can't answer questions because you are afraid of the truth and yet YOU have the audacity to lecture others? Again, here is my question(s)... Answer the questions.
The first step in being able to sort out the truth of the situation is having the courage to look at the actual data and ask: "What does the data tell me?"
Blow me.
ankle biter
...Go Fish.
the Chicken Little Brigades
S-U-C-K-E-R-S.
So what is it? Human population can be sustained infinitely in growth? Or is there a finite threshold, somewhere? And, if human population growth is finite, where is that threshold that may sustain humanity with a high quality of life style?
I say, with about seven BILLION people, mankind has already surpassed the capability to enjoy a good level of life style much less a high one.
So, let's go back to the original article of this thread. Why do you think some college professor suggests that a new nation shall be born in the near future, encompassing the Southwest of the US and Northern Mexico? I say, it is because certain people want a high quality of lifestyle typically afforded in the Southwest of the US. And, they want to take it away from those that already have it.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#117. To: Original_Intent (#115)
Yes, facts are stubborn things, eh? No less an authority than John Adams said so. Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. You are welcome to believe in anything you wish, but believing does not make inconvenient facts and observations invalid.
John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770
US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#118. To: buckeroo, abraxas, farmfriend, James Deffenbach (#116)
Your questions are diversions, are irrelevant, and bear no relationship to the issues under discussion. You are behaving as a petulant little child and seeking attention, and only to derail the discussion which you lost about 80 posts ago. In short not only do your stupid questions deserve no answer they merit only derision. You are engaging in nothing more than false logic and disinformation. So, do us all a favor and go fuck yourself.
"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
#119. To: James Deffenbach (#117)
Yes, facts are stubborn things, eh? No less an authority than John Adams said so. Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770 US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826) Good quote and most apropo. As I am sure you've noticed I love a good quote. They are condensed nuggets of wisdom which spice debate and force us to think. Thinking is a good thing contrary to what the advocates of Glowbull Warming contend.
You are welcome to believe in anything you wish, but believing does not make inconvenient facts and observations invalid.
"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
#120. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#115)
The first piece of actual data you need to look at is that CO2 is a waste product expelled by your lungs, which you then claim to be beneficial even though the body works day and night to get rid of. If you cannot get past this first piece, all subsequent claims are irrelevant. Some projection on your part. I repeat, what rationalization can you possibly come up with justifying consumption of items your body expels as waste? Data is based on observable facts. Observable facts about waste products is the body gets more healthy when they are expelled, and less healthy when they are consumed. Deal with it. Let me know whether you've been "sold" that ingesting CO2 or any other waste product is beneficial for people. Not trees, not algae, but people. You really have a horrible mental/emotional block about physical bodily reality. Try living in the physical world, instead of intellectual/emotional conceptual concepts.
The first step in being able to sort out the truth of the situation is having the courage to look at the actual data and ask: "What does the data tell me?"
Throwing temper tantrums and holding your breath until you turn blue do not change the data set. If one is actually applying the scientific method
Requires a willingness to accept what the data tells us not what we would prefer it tell us e.g., confirming our preconceptions or PsyOps lines
We have been sold, accepted as true, and then only to find out it was not.
#121. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, James Deffenbach, TwentyTwelve, wudidiz, all (#120) (Edited)
I said: The first step in being able to sort out the truth of the situation is having the courage to look at the actual data and ask: "What does the data tell me?" You said: The first piece of actual data you need to look at is that CO2 is a waste product expelled by your lungs, which you then claim to be beneficial Which is hyperbole completely unresponsive to the point. The point is not what do I prefer to believe or how many hissy fits can I throw - along with throwing up irrelevancies. All mammals exhale - they take up Oxygen (O2) and exhale Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a respiratory byproduct of normal metabolism. All plants take up CO2 and give off O2 as a respiratory byproduct of normal metabolism. In case you hadn't noticed the two are complementary. Kind of neat how that works eh? That is called science. Throwing a hissy fit is NOT science. Your argument is so confused and emotional it is hard to tell what point you are trying to make other than you resent people breathing. Throwing a hissy fit is NOT science. Adhering to a disproved idea is what led the Roman Church to try Galileo for heresy. Nevertheless it still moves - as Galileo is reputed to have said under his breath at his forced recantation. I said: "Throwing temper tantrums and holding your breath until you turn blue do not change the data set. If one is actually applying the scientific method ..." You said: Some projection on your part. I repeat, what rationalization can you possibly come up with justifying consumption of items your body expels as waste? Thus throwing forth a tantrum and a point irrelevant to the scientific question of is anthropogenic carbon dioxide either a greenhouse gas or a problem on the global scale? Needless to say you present nothing supporting your hissy fit, or your "Warmist" position in a factual way. I have to presume from the complete absence of any credible data that you cannot. And please no statistical trickery and b.s. such as the, now infamous, "hockey stick". I said: "... Requires a willingness to accept what the data tells us not what we would prefer it tell us e.g., confirming our preconceptions or PsyOps lines You said: "Data is based on observable facts. Observable facts about waste products is the body gets more healthy when they are expelled, and less healthy when they are consumed. Deal with it." Of which only the first sentence is relevant to the discussion you are trying to avoid. The rest is purely a hissy fit not very well expressed. It has what to do with the scientific validity of anthropogenic global warming caused by CO2 (which is at best a minor greenhouse gas, and of which only 3% is produced by human activity)? The rest of your blather is unworthy of comment as all you are doing is repeating the same tiresome, emotional, and irrelevant point as though repeating an irrelevancy somehow makes it relevant. Yawn. In something around 5 short paragraphs you managed to totally avoid any of the relevant issues while repeating over and over the same mantra that has evidently been programmed into you - the intellectual equivalent of 2+2= 12.1926. So, get back to me when you can actually address the issues without throwing a temper tantrum or stamping your little foot. I think the cow you had just became Roast Beef. even though the body works day and night to get rid of.
"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
#122. To: Original_Intent, AGAviator, farmfriend, James Deffenbach (#121)
Yes it is. You have been throwing "hissy fits" all along.... below are a few samples..... Why do you even bother to post? You won't answer any questions because you are always right even when you are wrong. And then you accuse others for your own wrong doing. You are contemptuous AND deceitful.
The point is not what do I prefer to believe or how many hissy fits can I throw - along with throwing up irrelevancies.
fuck yourself.
Blow me.
ankle biter
...Go Fish.
the Chicken Little Brigades
S-U-C-K-E-R-S.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#123. To: buckeroo (#122)
Sticks and stones will break my bones ... Which is about the level at which you are posting. 
"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
#124. To: Original_Intent (#119)
Yes, indeed, I have noticed.
Good quote and most apropo. As I am sure you've noticed I love a good quote. They are condensed nuggets of wisdom which spice debate and force us to think. Thinking is a good thing contrary to what the advocates of Glowbull Warming contend.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#125. To: AGAviator (#120)
Yes, and the plants use the CO2 and in return for it give us OXYGEN. A good trade I think. The CO2 we breathe out is what they need to live and the OXYGEN they give off is what we need. Convenient, don't you think?
The first piece of actual data you need to look at is that CO2 is a waste product expelled by your lungs, which you then claim to be beneficial even though the body works day and night to get rid of.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#126. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#123)
Arguing with buck is like arguing with a ..... no, I can't say that. It's pointless anyway. ; )
“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
#127. To: wudidiz (#126)
Is this close? 
"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
#128. To: buckeroo (#122)
Why do you even bother to post? You won't answer any questions because you are always right even when you are wrong. And then you accuse others for your own wrong doing. You are contemptuous AND deceitful.
Why do you even bother to post? You won't answer any questions because you are always right even when you are wrong. And then you accuse others for your own wrong doing. You are contemptuous AND deceitful.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
#129. To: abraxas (#128)
Because I nailed Original_Intent .... EVERYTIME.
Why do you even bother to post?
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#130. To: buckeroo (#129)
Not even once Buck. You cannot be trusted to keep score. We need an objective score keeper........like me. : )
Because I nailed Original_Intent .... EVERYTIME.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
#131. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#121)
You again and again sidestep the main point which that to anything living above the level of vegetation, CO2 is a poison. More apt descriptions of your "respiratory byproduct" are "waste," and "poison." Look them up if you are unclear of their meanings Yes, good and bad are complementary also. So are health and sickness. You choose the ones that benefit you and minimize those that do not. Prima facie evidence of your own confused, emotional hissy fit. People should not be promoting large scale increases of toxic substances in their environments. And to humans CO2 is toxic. World class weaseling with 50 cent words trying to obfuscate the simple English statement that CO2 is toxic to human beings and even animals. 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? Breathing is not "credible data?" "Hissy fit....hissy fit....hissy fit....hissy fit.....hissy fit.....hissy fit..." "Hissy fit....hissy fit....hissy fit....hissy fit.....hissy fit.....hissy fit..." Hold your breath for 5 short minutes and we'll see how much of a "relevant issue" respiration is, blowhard. Or if you prefer, inhale pure CO2 for the same length of time. Like you've been doing throughout this thread Don't quit your day job.
You said: The first piece of actual data you need to look at is that CO2 is a waste product expelled by your lungs, which you then claim to be beneficial
Which is hyperbole completely unresponsive to the point. The point is not what do I prefer to believe or how many hissy fits can I throw - along with throwing up irrelevancies.
All mammals exhale - they take up Oxygen (O2) and exhale Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a respiratory byproduct of normal metabolism.
All plants take up CO2 and give off O2 as a respiratory byproduct of normal metabolism.
In case you hadn't noticed the two are complementary. Kind of neat how that works eh? That is called science.
Throwing a hissy fit is NOT science. Your argument is so confused and emotional it is hard to tell what point you are trying to make other than you resent people breathing.
Throwing a hissy fit is NOT science. Adhering to a disproved idea is what led the Roman Church to try Galileo for heresy.
I said: "Throwing temper tantrums and holding your breath until you turn blue do not change the data set. If one is actually applying the scientific method ..."
You said: Some projection on your part. I repeat, what rationalization can you possibly come up with justifying consumption of items your body expels as waste? ..Thus throwing forth a tantrum and a point irrelevant to the scientific question of is anthropogenic carbon dioxide either a greenhouse gas or a problem on the global scale?
Needless to say you present nothing supporting your hissy fit, or your "Warmist" position in a factual way.
I have to presume from the complete absence of any credible data
You said: "Data is based on observable facts. Observable facts about waste products is the body gets more healthy when they are expelled, and less healthy when they are consumed. Deal with it."
Of which only the first sentence is relevant to the discussion you are trying to avoid. The rest is purely a hissy fit not very well expressed.
All you are doing is repeating the same tiresome, emotional, and irrelevant point as though repeating an irrelevancy somehow makes it relevant. Yawn.
In something around 5 short paragraphs you managed to totally avoid any of the relevant issues
So, get back to me when you can actually address the issues without throwing a temper tantrum or stamping your little foot.
I think the cow you had just became Roast Beef.
#132. To: James Deffenbach, buckeroo (#125)
In the grand scheme of things, everything gets recycled. However for individual life forms there are things they can consume that benefit them, and things they can consume them that don't. Furthermore, plants themselves need oxygen to respirate and intake the energy to photosynthesize. Gas Exchange in Plants 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.
Yes, and the plants use the CO2 and in return for it give us OXYGEN. A good trade I think.
In order to carry on photosynthesis, green plants need a supply of carbon dioxide and a means of disposing of oxygen. In order to carry on cellular respiration, plant cells need oxygen and a means of disposing of carbon dioxide (just as animal cells do).
For people, consuming CO2 does not benefit them. That's why people going into intensive care get pure oxygen to increase their survival chances. That's why people undergoing athletic training attempt to incease the circulatory and oxygen-carrying capacity of their bodies.
#133. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent (#131)
Invalid. CO2 is not poison. CO is. Many things are. CO2 is not.
my statement that CO2 is poison
“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
#134. To: wudidiz (#133) (Edited)
CO is. Many things are. CO2 is not. Wrong. CO is more lethal than CO2 because it binds to oxygen-carrying cells, permanently removing their capacity to carry oxygen, while CO2 simply displaces oxygen and prevents those cells from absorbing O2. In either case you will eventually die if either substance prevents enough oxygen from getting through. WILL EXPOSURE TO CARBON DIOXIDE RESULT IN HARMFUL HEALTH EFFECTS? Exposure to CO2 can produce a variety of health effects. These may include headaches, dizziness, restlessness, a tingling or pins or needles feeling, difficulty breathing, sweating, tiredness,
CO2 is not poison.
#135. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, James Deffenbach, TwentyTwelve, wudidiz, all (#131)
OH MY! The world is going to come to an end. We are going to breathe to death. AUNTIE EM! AUNTIE EM! IT'S A TWISTER! IT'S A TWISTER! I think I have had about all the fun I can take. Your theatrics and hysterics are only amusing to a point. Sure, sure, CO2 is a toxic gas, so is methane, and hydrogen, and you cannot live in a pure nitrogen atmosphere. Oddly enough you cannot exist permanently in a pure oxygen environment which results in a condition known as hyperoxia i.e., too much oxygen. All of those mentioned gases are present in our atmosphere and all of them, except Nitrogen which is an inert gas, are toxic at some level. Are you dead yet? Keep breathing you'll get there yet. CO2 is strictly speaking not toxic. It simply cannot be utilized by the body which is an "oxygen engine" using oxygen to oxidize and break down compounds as part of normal metabolism. The byproduct of that metabolism is carbon dioxide - CO2, which you breathe out as part of your bodies normal processes. In the presence of an atmosphere too rich in CO2 your lungs cannot eliminate it fast enough and it builds up in the body inhibiting metabolic function and yes eventually you will die - but only if the concentration is too high for too long. Atmospheric concentration of CO2 and O2 have been much higher in periods of the paleoclimate. However, I know this all sounds mundane and placid and since science is not your strong suit and it is ever so much more fun to convulse into hysterics generated by all the creepy horror stories coming out of that fiction factory known as the Climate Research Unit. As has become obvious from our exchanges your position is long on hysterics and short on science. Glowbull Warming resulting from antropogenic CO2 is a drummed up hysteria which has been created to sell a political agenda. It is science alright - the science of mass manipulation through creating a nonexistent problem and then herding the sheep into complying with the salacious desires of the Morlocks i.e., the International Banking Cartel and their Pet Psychiatrists. Glowbull Warming is a PsyOp drummed up to create hysteria and nothing more. You are free to be a sucker if you wish. Your choice, but include me out.
"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
#136. To: wudidiz, AGAviator, farmfriend (#133)
Invalid. CO2 is not poison. CO is. Many things are. CO2 is not. Just about anything can become a poison at a high enough dose even oxygen. However, for the normal range of atmospheric CO2 you are correct - it is not a poison. The old aphorism from toxicology that I mentioned earlier in the thread needs to be refreshed: "The dose makes the poison." There are lots of poisons we can die from in high enough concentration. You can drink yourself to death on good single malt Scotch - if you drink enough of it in a short enough period of time. The problem of course is that our "good buddy" "Wrong Way Corrigan" is hyperventilating over a nonexistent problem. Not even under the extreme cooked up examples in the kitchen at the Climate Research Unit did they even attempt to sell the CO2 is toxic schlock. At the levels it occurs normally in the atmosphere, and it has again been in much higher concentrations in the past, it is about as toxic as a tumbler full of milk. WATCH OUT! That milk'll killya'.
my statement that CO2 is poison
"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
#137. To: Original_Intent, buckeroo (#135)
AUNTIE EM! AUNTIE EM! IT'S A TWISTER! IT'S A TWISTER! ...All the fun I can take....Your theatrics and hysterics are only amusing to a point. ...Are you dead yet? Keep breathing you'll get there yet. ...I know this all sounds mundane and placid and since science is not your strong suit and it is ever so much more fun to convulse into hysterics generated by all the creepy horror stories coming out of that fiction factory known as the Climate Research Unit....your position is long on hysterics and short on science. Glowbull Warming resulting from antropogenic CO2 is a drummed up hysteria which has been created to sell a political agenda....the science of mass manipulation through creating a nonexistent problem and then herding the sheep into complying with the salacious desires of the Morlocks i.e., the International Banking Cartel and their Pet Psychiatrists. Glowbull Warming is a PsyOp drummed up to create hysteria... You rebut yourslf with your tedious and tendentious exaggerations, warped hyperbole, and invective much more in depth than I could ever bother to. Not only are you missing quite a few chips in your fact and reality processing mechanism, you are also unable to use basic English, and instead twist and conflate definitions to suit your own agenda. On the whole, however, poisons are usually not used for their toxicity, but may be used for their other properties. The property of toxicity itself has limited non-lethal applications: mainly for controlling pests and weeds, cleaning and maintenance, and for preserving building materials and food stuffs. Where possible, specific agents which are less poisonous to humans have come to be preferred, but exceptions such as phosphine continue in use. Most poisonous materials still in use are used for their chemical or physical properties other than being poisonous. Many over- the-counter medications, such as aspirin and Tylenol, are quite toxic if ingested in sufficiently large quantities. pwned
OH MY!...We are going to breathe to death.
In the context of biology, poisons are substances that can cause disturbances to organisms,[1] usually by chemical reaction or other activity on the molecular scale, when a sufficient quantity is absorbed by an organism...
#138. To: Original_Intent, AGAviator, James Deffenbach, TwentyTwelve, wudidiz (#135)
Ain't that the truth!
As has become obvious from our exchanges your position is long on hysterics and short on 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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#139. To: Original_Intent, AGAviator, James Deffenbach, TwentyTwelve, wudidiz, buckeroo (#136)
People work in greenhouses and submarines quite comfortably with higher concentrations of CO2. 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?
Just about anything can become a poison at a high enough dose even oxygen. However, for the normal range of atmospheric CO2 you are correct - it is not a poison.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#140. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, James Deffenbach, TwentyTwelve, wudidiz, all (#137)
LOL! AT NO POINT IN THIS EXCHANGE have you adduced, brought forth, substantiated, corroborated, vindicated, nor confirmed the underlying point in contention i.e., antrhopogenic i.e, human caused Glowbull Warming resulting from excess Carbon Dioxide. In fact you have engaged in diversions, theatrics and evasions, all aimed at avoiding the question. I do have to grant you one thing though - chutzpah. After spending multiple posts avoiding the issue and bringing forward irrelevancies and strawmen to avoid it you actually have the nerve to accuse me of your vices. That definitely qualifies as chutzpah. And what is wrong with my use of the vernacular? If you wanted to deal in monosyllables you should have said so. I assumed you understood educated english. My mistake. Please excuse me me I will now use small words so you can know what I am saying. See Spot run. See CRU run. CRU got got lying now they run faster. See Phil run. See Phil Jones resign. Phil got caught lying. Now Phil needs a job. Poor Phil.
Not only are you missing quite a few chips in your fact and reality processing mechanism, you are also unable to use basic English, and instead twist and conflate definitions to suit your own agenda.
"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
#141. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent, farmfriend (#137)
In the context of biology, poisons are substances that can cause disturbances to organisms,[1] usually by chemical reaction or other activity on the molecular scale, when a sufficient quantity is absorbed by an organism... According to this definition, oxygen is a poison.
Poison
“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
#142. 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? People aren't buying Carbon Credits. That's the problem.
People work in greenhouses and submarines quite comfortably with higher concentrations of CO2.
"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
#143. To: Original_Intent, AGAviator, James Deffenbach, TwentyTwelve, wudidiz, buckeroo (#139)
One of the things that AGAviator hasn't address and is unlikely to address is the fact that we have, more than likely, reached IR (infra red) saturation. So if you assume the AGW alarmists are correct, which they aren't, and our current warming is because of CO2 increases, any further increase will have no effect.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#144. To: Original_Intent (#135)
lmao
Are you dead yet?
“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
#145. To: Original_Intent (#142)
LOL I guess so. Stops the corrupt from taking our money, that is a shame.
People aren't buying Carbon Credits. That's the problem.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#146. To: Original_Intent, AGAviator, James Deffenbach, TwentyTwelve, wudidiz, buckeroo (#143)
And we haven't even discussed the poison dihydrogen monoxide. None of us are safe until we ban that!
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#147. To: wudidiz (#144)
lmao We aim to please. Are you dead yet?
"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
#148. To: Original_Intent (#147)
My kinda man!
We aim to please.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#149. To: farmfriend (#143)
Interesting - I hadn't thought of that, but it makes sense. The atmosphere has only so much heat holding power, and the surface a relatively fixed albedo. So at some point you do reach maximum heat absorbtion versus reradiation. Much like in my garden - I live in zone 8a and have trouble getting a long enough hot season to grow melons - so I use an infrared absorbing plastic mulch to elevate soil temperature - otherwise I would not get enough heat units to ripen my melons, and I likes my melons.
One of the things that AGAviator hasn't address and is unlikely to address is the fact that we have, more than likely, reached IR (infra red) saturation. So if you assume the AGW alarmists are correct, which they aren't, and our current warming is because of CO2 increases, any further increase will have no effect.
"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
#150. To: farmfriend (#146)
Yes, absolutely. That Dihydrogen Monoxide is some killer stuff. I'd better watch it I have glass of it here on my desk and some of it is even in crystalline form.
And we haven't even discussed the poison dihydrogen monoxide. None of us are safe until we ban that!
"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
#151. To: farmfriend (#148)
"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
#152. To: Original_Intent (#150)
The most dangerous kind. It's been known to sink boats.
and some of it is even in crystalline form.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#153. To: farmfriend (#152)
The most dangerous kind. It's been known to sink boats. And some pretty big ones at that.
and some of it is even in crystalline form.
"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
#154. 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? The first problem is your shameless jumping from "quite comfortably" (your definition) to "does very well" (also your definition). Compared to...what? More oxygen, for instance, shameless liar? But I understand, someone who's invested a lot in a dishonest argument needs to pull something out of somewhere because at this point it's more important to you to twist language than to face basic facts and tell the truth without hyperbole and invective.
People work in greenhouses and submarines quite comfortably with higher concentrations of CO2.
#155. To: AGAviator (#154)
Excuse me punk. But in a debate among adults it is customary, perhaps not in your herd but here, to substantiate i.e., back up an argument with a chain of reasoning as opposed to throwing childish temper tantrums and engaging in uncivil ad hominem insults. 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. One thing you have proven though - you are NOT a gentleman.
Compared to...what? More oxygen, for instance, shameless liar?
"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
#156. To: AGAviator (#154)
Do you actually have ANY science to counter ANYTHING I have said? 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. Stop calling names and start spitting out some science or go away!
But I understand, someone who's invested a lot in a dishonest argument needs to pull something out of somewhere because at this point it's more important to you to twist language than to face basic facts and tell the truth without hyperbole and invective.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#157. To: AGAviator (#134)
biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_CO2.ht ml
“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
#158. To: wudidiz (#157)
Excellent link.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#159. To: wudidiz, AGAviator (#157)
Thank you - a nice, simple, and to the point explanation. That means it will be ignored by our good buddy.
"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
#160. To: AGAviator (#154)
People work in greenhouses and submarines quite comfortably with higher concentrations of CO2. 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? The first problem is your shameless jumping from "quite comfortably" (your definition) to "does very well" (also your definition). Compared to...what? More oxygen, for instance, shameless liar? But I understand, someone who's invested a lot in a dishonest argument needs to pull something out of somewhere because at this point it's more important to you to twist language than to face basic facts and tell the truth without hyperbole and invective. No need to talk like that.
“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
#161. To: farmfriend, AGAviator (#156)
Do you actually have ANY science to counter ANYTHING I have said? 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. Stop calling names and start spitting out some science or go away! I could offer some other options to our "buddy", but I am afraid they are anatomically really not possible.
But I understand, someone who's invested a lot in a dishonest argument needs to pull something out of somewhere because at this point it's more important to you to twist language than to face basic facts and tell the truth without hyperbole and invective.
"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
#162. To: Original_Intent (#161)
I could offer some other options to our "buddy", but I am afraid they are anatomically really not possible.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#163. To: Original_Intent (#161)
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#164. To: farmfriend (#162)
Love it. That reminds me - at one time I worked for a Market Research Firm doing surveys and I happened to call one household in the middle of a domestic debate. The guy who answered the phone, as soon as he figured out it was a survey, turned and I could hear him announce to his wife in acid dripping tones "honey here is someone else that could benefit from your opinion". He must have been wrong because she didn't do the survey.
"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
#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
#166. To: Original_Intent (#164)
LOL
I could hear him announce to his wife in acid dripping tones "honey here is someone else that could benefit from your opinion".
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#167. To: Original_Intent (#155)
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.
(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'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.
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)
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.
(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 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
#170. To: AGAviator (#168)
Again no science.
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.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#171. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent, farmfriend (#167)
But it's not that bad and nowhere near in danger of being that bad outside of an enclosed space.
(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)
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.
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].
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#173. To: farmfriend (#170)
Science (Biology, Respiration):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)
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.
Just admit it - you're jealous.
#175. To: AGAviator (#173)
Not even close.
pwned
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#176. To: buckeroo, Original_Intent (#129)
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.
Because I nailed Original_Intent .... EVERYTIME.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#177. To: AGAviator (#131)
Almost everything you can think of is deadly to humans given enough of it. Even water can kill you.
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?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#178. To: AGAviator (#132)
"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.
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.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#179. To: AGAviator (#134)
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.
In either case you will eventually die if either substance prevents enough oxygen from getting through.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#180. To: Original_Intent (#135)
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).
OH MY! The world is going to come to an end. We are going to breathe to death.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#181. To: farmfriend (#139)
The problem is in the minds of people who buy the bs that Al Gore is selling.
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?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#182. To: farmfriend, buckeroo, Original_Intent (#175) (Edited)
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.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)
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.
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)
Did you draw them graphs yourself? They're pretty good for an amateur. BTW, is that a hockey stick I see there??
#185. To: AGAviator (#183)
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
Huh? CO2 is beneficial because it is body waste?
#186. To: randge (#184)
They're from zFacts I linked to.
Did you draw them graphs yourself
#187. To: randge (#185)
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.
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)
It's nothing to do with Bilderburgers. I just don't believe your data, and that's all I have to say about that.
#189. To: AGAviator (#183)
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.
Huh? CO2 is beneficial because it is body waste?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#190. To: randge (#188)
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.
It's nothing to do with Bilderburgers.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#191. To: AGAviator (#187)
CO2 in the oceans is not destroying coral reefs. You really have to quit buying into these media reports.
combined with this increased CO2 in the oceans destroying coral reefs,
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#192. To: randge, buckeroo (#188)
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?
It's nothing to do with Bilderburgers.
#193. To: farmfriend (#191)
Do you mean that See BS is not a reliable source? I'm shattered.
You really have to quit buying into these media reports.
"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
#194. To: farmfriend, buckeroo (#191)
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-centuryCO2 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 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.
The rate at which the oceans are turning acidic
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#196. To: farmfriend (#195)
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?
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.
"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
#197. To: farmfriend (#195)
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. 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)
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.
"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.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#199. To: farmfriend, AGAviator, all (#198) (Edited)
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.
The study you are citing is nothing more than computer projects designed to force a political outcome. No reality involved.
"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
#200. To: Original_Intent (#199)
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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#201. To: farmfriend, buckeroo (#198) (Edited)
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.
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)
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".
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.
"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
#203. To: Original_Intent (#202)
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."
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)
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.
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)
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 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.
"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
#206. To: HighLairEon (#204)
That was an awesome post. Glad you took the time and made the effort.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#207. To: James Deffenbach (#206)
Thank you! My pleasure, James. Just trying to lighten things up a bit! 8=>
That was an awesome post. Glad you took the time and made the effort.
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!
#208. To: HighLairEon, AGAviator, farmfriend, James Deffenbach, wudidiz, christine, All, who would know reason (#204) (Edited)
I can think of only one word to describe your essay - brilliant. It is a shining gem standing out as a clear call to reason. Just as a slight footnote, not that your essay requires it, the scientific method if rigorously applied can be summed in the immortal words of Sgt. Joe Friday: "Just the facts Ma'am." (Edit to include omitted word - "a".)
"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
#209. To: AGAviator (#201)
So you finally bring up some actual scientists. Sadly you miss a lot when you take stuff like this out of context. First, actual measurements of CO2 taken in the late 1800s show CO2 levels that are higher than today. One fact you over look. Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is 3%. It is logical that increasing the amount of these gases will cause greater warming, like adding a blanket to the duvet. And since the Industrial Revolution, humanity has dug, squeezed and pumped half a trillion tons of carbon in coal, gas and oil from beneath the surface of the Earth, burnt it, and released it as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is inconceivable that this would not increase the warming effect and, indeed, it has done so. This is incorrect statements on what happens in the atmosphere. Layman's understanding if you will. Take this part for example: "Much of it is reflected back as slow-moving infra-red radiation – and most of this gets absorbed by greenhouse gases". This is just wrong. The photons are absorbed and re-emitted immediately. They don't hang on to them. Not to mention that comparing our atmosphere to a greenhouse is apples and oranges anyway. It is not the CO2 in the greenhouse that makes it get warm. It is the lack of convention. The glass acts as a barrier against radiated heat. No such glass exists in the atmosphere to restrict heat loss to space. Nor do greenhouse gases act like glass stopping the radiation. All the computer models showed the upper atmosphere heating as the GHGs trap the heat. No such heating is taking place. The upper atmosphere is actually cooling. The increase in gasses causes the atmosphere to expand outward causing cooling. As for the heating that has taken place since the 70s. Assuming the temp measurements are correct and there is ample evidence to suggest they are not, we have just come through record setting solar cycles. Solar cycles 22 and 23 produces the highest solar output of any recorded. Remember all those record setting solar flares you heard about in the news? Gosh, you think that could have contributed some? Nah it had to be man's fault. And don't even get me started on ice core and tree ring proxies. We don't have all day to go over the problems with those.
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.
Solar radiation passes through the atmosphere, as through glass in a greenhouse, to warm the earth. Much of it is reflected back as slow-moving infra-red radiation – and most of this gets absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, principally water and carbon dioxide, heating the world further. If it were not for this aerial duvet, the earth would be 20C colder, making it uninhabitable.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#210. To: Original_Intent (#208)
Just as a slight footnote, not that your essay requires it, the scientific method if rigorously applied can be summed in the immortal words of Sgt. Joe Friday: "Just the facts Ma'am." Thank you sir! Coming from you, that is high praise indeed! Yes, "Just the facts Ma'am." but ALL the facts, no throwing out anomalies as "experimental error", such as Millikan did in his pioneering efforts to measure the charge of the electron. His otherwise exemplary experiment COULD have pointed toward the quark underpinning of elementary particles, had he kept the data anomalies instead of discarding them. The most common misuse of Occam's razor is to exclude "inconvenient" facts from the process, favoring the established theories by "curve fitting" the data. The simplest theory that covers ALL the known facts Ma'am is most likely to be the truth. Exclude the anomalies and cripple the theoretical model, sometimes for more than 100 years, mental inertia and moneyed interests compounding the problem....
I can think of only one word to describe your essay - brilliant. It is shining gem standing out as clear call to reason.
Anger? as a first reaction to get your a$$ moving, once you see through the Media Matrix and set yourself free from your lifelong mind control collar. Sustainable? not enough to screen your intention to be free from the Talosians, who can’t read primitive emotions but know what you watch on cable/sat, read on the Internet and eat. Our ultimate weapon is laughter and amused detachment at the folly of the would-be emperors. Fear mongers HATE it when the FEAR card doesn’t work. The humiliation of being seen as merely a naked ape is THEIR big fear. Laugh the bastards off the stage! Tell your friends that we can build a real civilization from the ruins of the totalitarian game!
#211. To: HighLairEon (#204)
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#212. To: farmfriend (#209)
Tee hee! Your patience, clear thinking and lucid articulation are exemplary! Not that this post is exceptional; it is indeed characteristic. It is fun to read your posts, especially when you are gently restraining your passion for the benefit of the wee ones, but cannot fully suppress your wit from spicing up your expression... 8=> By exemplary, I was aiming at some who could use a good example to model in their expression.... 8=>
... And don't even get me started on ice core and tree ring proxies. We don't have all day to go over the problems with those.
Anger? as a first reaction to get your a$$ 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!
#213. To: HighLairEon (#212)
Wow! I am humbled by your compliments. Your patience, clear thinking and lucid articulation are exemplary! Not that this post is exceptional; it is indeed characteristic. It is fun to read your posts, especially when you are gently restraining your passion for the benefit of the wee ones, but cannot fully suppress your wit from spicing up your expression... 8=>
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#214. To: farmfriend (#211)
Thank you. Your acknowledgment is deeply appreciated. Glad you enjoyed it (and that I did not inadvertently ruffle any feathers with my reference to the fury potential of the femme!)
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!
#215. To: HighLairEon (#210) (Edited)
You are most welcome - I had to restrain myself from being too effusive as to over praise often under states. Occam's Razor is one of my pet peeves. It's simplistic misuse to explain away inconvenient data is so pervasive as to inspire aspiration upon sighting. It is particularly prevalent in Archaeology, one of my enduring interests, where it is used to discredit any and all discoveries in conflict with the established Academic Paradigm. Of course that is the antithesis of the Scientific Method which requires that validated data be accounted for in the theory, and as you point out, not discarded because it is in disagreement with the current academic fad. Which immediately makes me thing of Fr. Gregor Mendel and his work on the inheritability of traits. He was laughed at and derided in his own time, and his work lay unnoticed for 100 years. Today it is part of the basic curriculum. Interesting how that happens. In like mode meteorites were derided as fantasy by the Academic/Scientific establishment - "harmummmph - rocks don't fall from the sky". I could go on but I would be playing to the gallery and preaching to the choir. No doubt you have read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Oh, how the establishment hates him even now. The all purpose heretic. ;-)
The most common misuse of Occam's razor is to exclude "inconvenient" facts from the process, favoring the established theories by "curve fitting" the data.
The simplest theory that covers ALL the known facts Ma'am is most likely to be the truth. Exclude the anomalies and cripple the theoretical model, sometimes for more than 100 years, mental inertia and moneyed interests compounding the problem....
"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
#216. To: HighLairEon (#214) (Edited)
LOL not at all. Biology and hormones can be difficult to over come. Denying their existence doesn't work for me. forgot to add the smilie.Glad you enjoyed it (and that I did not inadvertently ruffle any feathers with my reference to the fury potential of the femme!)
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#217. To: Original_Intent, HighLairEon (#215) (Edited)
One of the most visible in that area, at least to me, is the age of the Sphinx and Egytologist's reactions to the idea that geology doesn't support their contentions.
Occam's Razor is one of my pet peeves. It's simplistic misuse to explain away inconvenient data is so pervasive as to inspire aspiration upon sighting. It is particularly prevalent in Archaeology, one of my enduring interests, where it is used to discredit any and all discoveries in conflict with the established Academic Paradigm. Of course that is the antithesis of the Scientific Method which requires that validated data be accounted for in the theory, and as you point out, not discarded because it is in disagreement with the current academic fad.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#218. To: Original_Intent (#215)
If I may wax on, the political and financial pressures to subvert the Scientific Method in order to maintain the social and economic status quo, is not only the anti-thesis of a powerful method to approach the truth, but in our technology-driven cultural evolution, its results have been so destructive and downright evil that one could call this corruption of Reason the anti-Christ, to dramatize by anthropomorphization. Agreed that Big Science hates having its skirts raised by anyone and Kuhn certainly made a cogent case for the politics and social foibles of the scientific process. He was preceded more succinctly by Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860) All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. and by Mahatma Gandhi "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Of course that is the antithesis of the Scientific Method which requires that validated data be accounted for in the theory, and as you point out, not discarded because it is in disagreement with the current academic fad. ... I could go on but I would be playing to the gallery and preaching to the choir. No doubt you have read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Oh, how the establishment hates him even now. The all purpose heretic. ;-)
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!
#219. To: farmfriend (#217)
Ooooooooooooooh!!!! You hit a sore spot with that one. I could go off on that for a while. Not only does the water weathering clearly point to a construction date of 10,000 B.C. or earlier the architectural style of the Sphinx enclosure is markedly different than any other Egyptian Architecture. It has no hieroglyphics whatsoever, save the Stele erected by Chephren, and it is a very advanced and elegantly simple megalithic structure much unlike the ornate works attributed, falsely in my opinion, to Pharaohonic Egypt. The only other comparable structure is at Abydos, and was only relatively recently dug out of the marsh mud. As for the age of the Pyramids the circumstantial evidence points toward a minimum age of 18 to 24 thousand years - and the translation of one Stele, by Ibn Ben Said, suggests 74,000.
One of the most visible in that area, at lest to me, is the age of the Sphinx and Egytologist's reactions to the idea that geology doesn't support their contentions.
"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
#220. To: Original_Intent (#219)
Hmmm I've missed that one. You'll have to send me some links to explore. I did like the show I saw which suggested the grand galleria was built to house the counter weights used to lift the stones over the king's chambers.
As for the age of the Pyramids the circumstantial evidence points toward a minimum age of 18 to 24 thousand years - and the translation of one Stele, by Ibn Ben Said, suggests 74,000.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#221. To: HighLairEon (#218) (Edited)
If I may wax on, the political and financial pressures to subvert the Scientific Method in order to maintain the social and economic status quo, is not only the anti-thesis of a powerful method to approach the truth, but in our technology-driven cultural evolution, its results have been so destructive and downright evil that one could call this corruption of Reason the anti-Christ, to dramatize by anthropomorphization. Absolutely dead on. As is frequently the case we're on the nearly the same page. Just a slight expansion - this control of scientific progress is a control mechanism. For example we have had the technology and ability to send a manned mission to Mars for at least 20 years, and probably a bit longer. However, technological advance and scientific discovery are mind expanding and pardadigm shattering. That last is one of the reasons for suppressing it. The controllers Platonic Slave Society is highly dependent upon eliminating free thought, dreams of greater worlds, etc., .... The model is to maintain a "sameness" - each day like the last with eyes aimed groundward and greater thoughts forbidden. The predominance of materialism and the "Man is just another Animal" limiting paradigm are part of this. With the increasing awareness that Darwinian Materialism is incomplete and founders upon the shoals of the Scientific Method the stridency has become all the greater. All are dangerous to the status quo which is that all are "equal" in all respects and that the hive is more important than the individual - "you will be assimilated". Independence of thought and not conforming to the "group" are to be punished. Ray Bradbury was perhaps the first to strike out and try to expose what was going on when he wrote "Farenheit 451". I think readers of Science Fiction have had a much better handle on reality than those who scoff at it and deride it. This of course helps explain why it has received so little attention in "Literature Departments" as it has been, in many ways, some of the most subversive literature of the 20th Century exploring concepts and ideas that are "taboo" in the mainstream. I think they were perhaps offended most by his suggestion that Scientific Progress is held back by the very "paragons" which defend the current dominant paradigm. Scientists, or I should say Academics as there is a difference, are heavily invested in the paradigm they have built their life around and data and conclusions contrary to that view are treated as personal assaults. As well vested interests want to maintain the paradigm they have established and slide smoothly into an Ant Hive society with themselves the "Lords and Ladies" of creation. Hubris, insanity, psychosis. I'm aware of Schopenhauer but have read all too little of his writings. What little I have been introduced to I have loved. Given my love of Science Fiction I can't resist closing with Clarke's Laws of revolutionary ideas: 1. It is a ridiculous idea and it is impossible. 2. It is possible but it is not worth doing. 3. I said it was a good idea all along.
Of course that is the antithesis of the Scientific Method which requires that validated data be accounted for in the theory, and as you point out, not discarded because it is in disagreement with the current academic fad. ... I could go on but I would be playing to the gallery and preaching to the choir. No doubt you have read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Oh, how the establishment hates him even now. The all purpose heretic. ;-)
Agreed that Big Science hates having its skirts raised by anyone and Kuhn certainly made a cogent case for the politics and social foibles of the scientific process.
He was preceded more succinctly by Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)
"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
#222. To: HighLairEon, buckeroo (#204)
Your long-winded poitifications and generalizations about everything except specific issues I raised is really too full of psychobabble to deserve any specific replies. The issues I raised are (1) CO2 is a poison to human beings, as biology and the English lanaguage define "poison,"
Now after these 100-some posts, it's quite obvious none of you can rebut any of this and you'r not honest enough to admit it. So what's left? Endlessly repeating kookbabble about media conspiracies with your pet invective added, and trashing anybody in any position - scientist or not - who contradicts your Internet opinions.
(2) Substantially greater amounts of CO2 are entering the atmosphere causing a global warming condition predicted over 100 years ago by 2 separate prize-winning scientists in 2 separate countries, and confirmed by current ***scientific research*** around the world
(3) Concurrent with the incease of the poison CO2 into the present atmosphere, hundreds of thousands of acres of vegetation are destroyed daily, reducing the capacity of the earth to assimilate and convert this CO2 into more developed life-benefitting substances, and
(4) Increased dissolved CO2 "carbonic acid" is rapidly making the oceans less alkaline and thereby less able to sustain coral reefs and the biodiversity they shelter.
#223. To: farmfriend, HighLairEon, wudidiz (#220)
Hmmm I've missed that one. You'll have to send me some links to explore. I did like the show I saw which suggested the grand galleria was built to house the counter weights used to lift the stones over the king's chambers. Here are a few starting points. I don't have a clear reference link for the age of the Pyramid as that is largely based on books I've read and it would take a while and some research just to reconstruct the bibliography. The problem with reading a lot for my own interest is that I do so without the intent to write it up formally and so just read rather than document. John Anthony West bio at World Mysteries I like some of the research West has done while falling short of endorsing his mystical interpretations. Another whom I take with a grain of salt, not that his research is not solid and he is the first solid geologist who stood up and said the Academic Egyptologists had no clothes, but he is, I think, excessively conservative in his dating of the age of the Sphinx. His website has some great photos of evidence of ancient high technology in Egypt. Well worth a visit for the photos alone. He has also done some interesting work on measuring, with aerospace grade machinist tools, the precision with which various parts of the Great Pyramid were put together. I've linked to this before and Michael Cremo wants you to buy his books and so does not give as much free stuff as I would like. Still it is worth visiting as what he has put up is stuff that does excite the intellectual taste buds. I also fall short of accepting his Hindu religious interpretations, but the data is first rate and well researched.
As for the age of the Pyramids the circumstantial evidence points toward a minimum age of 18 to 24 thousand years - and the translation of one Stele, by Ibn Ben Said, suggests 74,000.
"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
#224. To: AGAviator, HighLairEon, farmfriend (#222)
Translation: It went right over your head to be filtered out by your prejudices, preconceptions, and erudition challenged viewpoint.
Your long-winded poitifications and generalizations about everything except specific issues I raised is really too full of psychobabble to deserve any specific replies.
"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
#225. To: farmfriend, buckeroo (#209) (Edited)
Doesn't help you a bit. There are tens of thousands of "actual scientists" across the planet who can rebut you, whom you trash and whose work you reflexively dismiss. no matter where or when they make their statements First of all, your lack of mention of these 2 scientific pioneers - whose work was published in 1861 and the 1890's - shows a profound and deliberate denial of the very scientific work you claim to rely upon. As well as intellectual dishonesty by not starting at the beginning of the issue with the pioneers, and working your way forward. Next you ignore the links I provided showing their 100+ year old forecasts being corroborated by current data by making unsubstantiated opinions about agendas and data manipulation - as if you aren't the main culprit yourself. With your agenda-driven dishonesty, you really don't deserve any scientific evidence before you addess the main issues on which scientific conclusions are based, which are Now of course you can't effectively rebut any of this, so instead you try to muddy the waters with blanket unsubstantiated denials, invective, mantralike repeating of selfmade nonsense phrases, and calls for more "science" similar to shyster lawyers wanting more "evidence" because what's in front of them proves them wrong.
So you finally bring up some actual scientists.
(1) CO2 is a poison as science and English define poison,
(2) The Earth is undergoing a long-predicted temperature increase as the result of increased consumption of carbon-based fuels,
(3) The ability of the Earth to assimimilate and convert these fuels into something better is being hampered by large-scale destruction of vegetation, and
(4) The reliance upon the ocean to reconvert the poison CO2 into more beneficial substances is causing destruction of coral reefs and related habitats which will reach critical levels in another 40 years.
#226. To: randge, AGAviator, Original_Intent, hissy_fits_par excellent! (#188)
I just don't believe your data, and that's all I have to say about that. Yes it is. O_I gets his data points from the John Birch Society website that has consistently maintained the benefits of increased industrialization without consideration of the effects of pollution. The John Birch Society believes in the Bilderbergs/Rothchilds/bankers///// et al.... as Original_Intent. The John Birch Society maintains that increased levels of CO2 is beneficial for mankind since trees and plants thrive in that same environment. Yet, plants and trees don't thrive in enrich CO2 environments. Plants and trees thrive in a blend of Oxygen, Nitrogen and CarbonDioxide. The more CO2, the smaller the growth of plants and certainly fruits, vegetables and all ornamental trees. With about 150 years of climbing CO2, the world has found increasing tree growth towards both Antartica and the Artic. Why? It has been measured that CO2 concentrations don't exist in the extreme cold (probably due to industrial pollutants) while average increasing temperatures exist with CO2 concentrations. It is a fact that all plants thrive in a mixture or blend blend of O,N and CO2 with appropriate controlled temperatures and water H2O. On the planet, the temperature is climbing. On the planet, the levels of CO2 is climbing. Plants don't thrive in this changing environment.
It's nothing to do with Bilderburgers.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#227. To: buckeroo, farmfriend, James Deffenbach (#226)
Uh, buckie? The level of confusion and misrepresentation of my position, and where I cull the data from is somewhere out beyond Pluto. Even had I gotten it from the Birch Website, which I have visited once out of curiosity in the last ten years., it would be irrelevant. Either the facts and data are as stipulated or they are not. Attacking a Strawman as you did proves absolutely nothing other than you are dishonest.
"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
#228. To: AGAviator (#225)
LOL that's funny. Here are the scientists I correspond with personally on a daily basis. "Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." BALI, Indonesia - The UN climate conference met strong opposition Thursday from a team of over 100 prominent international scientists, who warned the UN, that attempting to control the Earth's climate was "ultimately futile." The scientists, many of whom are current and former UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists, sent an open letter to the UN Secretary-General questioning the scientific basis for climate fears and the UN's so-called "solutions." "Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems," the letter signed by the scientists read. The December 13 letter was released to the public late Thursday. (LINK) The letter was signed by renowned scientists such as Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists; Dr. Reid Bryson, dubbed the "Father of Meteorology"; Atmospheric pioneer Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, formerly of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; Award winning physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center, who has twice named one of the "1000 Most Cited Scientists"; Award winning MIT atmospheric scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen; UN IPCC scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand; French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux of the University Jean Moulin; World authority on sea level Dr. Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University; Physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson of Princeton University; Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland; Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC reviewer Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum in Norway; and Dr. Edward J. Wegman, of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. "It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables," the scientists wrote. "In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ‘settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming," the open letter added. [EPW Blog Note: To read about the latest peer-reviewed research debunking man-made climate fears, see: New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears - LINK - & New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds: "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) - For a detailed analysis of how "consensus" has been promoted, see: Debunking The So-Called "Consensus" On Global Warming - LINK ] The scientists' letter continued: "The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions." "The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts," the letter added. [EPW Note: Only 52 scientists participated in the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers in April 2007, according to the Associated Press. - LINK - An analysis by Australian climate researcher Dr. John Mclean in 2007 found the UN IPCC peer-review process to be "an illusion." LINK ] # # # Complete Letter with all signatories - As published in Canada's National Post on December 13, 2007: The National Post Dec. 13, 2007 Key Quote from Scientists’ Letter to UN: “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.” His Excellency Ban Ki-MoonSecretary-General, United Nations New York, N.Y. Dear Mr. Secretary-General, Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it. The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts. Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports: *Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. *The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years. *Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling. In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_time..._2006-08-14.pdf ) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated. The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future. The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems. Yours faithfully, The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali [Link to List of signatories]: Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K. Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J. Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007 William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K. Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif. Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K. Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C. Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy Senate Report Debunks "Consensus" INTRODUCTION: Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007. Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK) This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate. Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated. “Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ] Scientists from Around the World Dissent This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK) Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.” This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK) The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London. The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.” A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) - In addtiion, an August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. (LINK) ] This report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling. Examples of “consensus” claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears: Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006 - LINK) CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): The scientific debate is over.” “We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” (LINK) On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.” (LINK) Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.” (LINK) Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic “finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.” Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case. (LINK) The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears. (LINK) UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus." (LINK) ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming. (LINK) # # Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists: Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!” Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote. Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote. Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached." Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007. France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!” Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.” Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases. “ Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.” Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.” Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007. India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.” USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.” Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.” South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.” Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: ““We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.” Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.” Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.” China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.” Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.” Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.” Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.” USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.” # # # Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK) The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK ) UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science.” The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that “solar changes significantly alter climate.” (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 – 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century” (LINK) A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) – Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found “Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes.” (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK ) With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the “silent majority” of scientists. First of all, your lack of mention of these 2 scientific pioneers - whose work was published in 1861 and the 1890's - shows a profound and deliberate denial of the very scientific work you claim to rely upon.
Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts
Don't Fight, Adapt; We Should Give Up Futile Attempts to Combat Climate Change
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#229. To: buckeroo, randge, AGAviator, Original_Intent (#226)
I'm the one who post JBS stuff. My chapter leader is the son of one of the former Presidents. You'd actually like him Buck.
O_I gets his data points from the John Birch Society website that has consistently maintained the benefits of increased industrialization without consideration of the effects of pollution. The John Birch Society believes in the Bilderbergs/Rothchilds/bankers///// et al.... as Original_Intent.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#230. To: buckeroo, randge, AGAviator, Original_Intent, (#226)
Talk about disproving the ice core proxies. I couldn't have done a better job.
With about 150 years of climbing CO2, the world has found increasing tree growth towards both Antartica and the Artic. Why? It has been measured that CO2 concentrations don't exist in the extreme cold (probably due to industrial pollutants) while average increasing temperatures exist with CO2 concentrations.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#231. To: buckeroo (#226)
Tosh and fiddlesticks (to put it nicely). There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero). Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate. Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible? Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense. The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported. Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.* There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts. First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen. On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly. Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis. The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming. The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed. As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution. Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there? • Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research And see this: *People who continue using this stupid hockey stick graph in their presentations and arguments are, at best, charlatans and quacks.
On the planet, the temperature is climbing.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#232. To: James Deffenbach (#231)
Any sightings of the Wooden One lately? Wondering what will be the Tubster's haul when the split is finalized?
#233. To: farmfriend (#228) (Edited)
And here are their motives: Biased towards making and keeping money rather than doing what it takes to find out the truth: "While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity" "Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions."Here are the scientists I correspond with personally on a daily basis.
"We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation. "
#234. To: buckeroo (#226)
It doesn't seem to occur to the culprits that as areas move from cold to temperate, their trees get bigger, and as areas move from temperate to hot, the trees get smaller or even die off. Higher Temperatures Slow Tropical Tree GrowthClimate change may be reducing growth rates of tropical rainforest trees, a development that could have widespread impacts for biodiversity, forest productivity, and even climate change itself, according to new research published in Ecology Letters. Analyzing tree growth in 50-hectare forest plots in Panama and Malaysia, a team of researchers led by Harvard University biologist Kenneth Feeley found that tree growth rates have decreased dramatically for the majority of species in two lowland tropical forests over the past couple of decades. The results contradict the hypothesis that elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would boost growth rates of trees in the tropics by speeding plant respiration. "Global change presents plants with two types of change that might have opposite effects on plant growth," explained study co-author Dr. S. Joseph Wright, a scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. "Increases in atmospheric CO2 provide more substrate for photosynthesis and might lead to increased growths. Increases in temperature increase respiration rates and might lead to decreased growth, as appears to be the case in our study."
With about 150 years of climbing CO2, the world has found increasing tree growth towards both Antartica and the Artic. Why? It has been measured that CO2 concentrations don't exist in the extreme cold (probably due to industrial pollutants) while average increasing temperatures exist with CO2 concentrations.
#235. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, HighLairEon, James Deffenbach, wudidiz, all (#233)
And here are their motive: Biased towards making and keeping money rather than doing what it takes to find out the truth: Attaboy! I knew you would find a way to try to avoid acknowledging that there were a considerable body of scientists who, on sound scientific basis, regard Glowbull warming as bunk. And your proof of your accusation is? Of course we won't talk about how a very disproportionate share of grants and funding went to the now discredited phonies advocating what they knew was a false theory, Glowbull Warming, at the CRU and their like minded bribe takers at a variety of institutions. You are right though "follow the money". Very quickly you find out that it was very profitable and advantageous to push the theory of Glowbull Warming which the elites want for other agendas - such as Carbon Taxes, and Control of individual behavior.
Here are the scientists I correspond with personally on a daily basis.
"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
#236. To: Original_Intent (#227)
I know. I understand. And so as to clarify how you have acted on this thread... let me remind you of your previous posts on this same thread, lamer ... You have no position. You are a liar. You are a charlatan. You have a solid capability to misinform while your polysyllables are sponsored by BS organizations. Here, answer thes questions from WAY ABOVE in this same thread, lamer: >> So what is it? Human population can be sustained infinitely in growth? Or is there a finite threshold, somewhere? And, if human population growth is finite, where is that threshold that may sustain humanity with a high quality of life style? And no more smart ass BS lamer, plagiarized pictures that you are famous for. Come clean. Answer the questions. Be honest for once in your life.
The level of confusion and misrepresentation of my position, and where I cull the data from is somewhere out beyond Pluto.
fuck yourself.
Blow me.
ankle biter
...Go Fish.
the Chicken Little Brigades
S-U-C-K-E-R-S.
I say, with about seven BILLION people, mankind has already surpassed the capability to enjoy a good level of life style much less a high one.
So, let's go back to the original article of this thread. Why do you think some college professor suggests that a new nation shall be born in the near future, encompassing the Southwest of the US and Northern Mexico? I say, it is because certain people want a high quality of lifestyle typically afforded in the Southwest of the US. And, they want to take it away from those that already have it.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#237. To: AGAviator (#233)
LOL that's what you keyed in on? You really have no clue who is funding AGW and why do you? It is quite simply the oil companies through their tax exempt NGOs. From my friend Carry_Okies great post: So it isn't exactly by coincidence that it is those same colossal foundations that are making all those "charitable" donations to those icky Greens. The Environmental Grantmakers Association? That's Rockefeller. The Pew Charitable Trusts? That's Sunoco. W. Alton Jones? That's Citgo. The World Wildlife Fund? BP and Shell. You do see a pattern, don't you? These are more than investors in energy, their assets include timber, mining, banking, food production… They aren't fools. They use the same simple and ancient recipe as did their European forbears by which to manufacture a predictable return: Kill the competition with regulations, create a shortage, and cash in. It's become so common there is even an excellent book out on the topic that I suggest you read, . It's a simple process that has accelerated over the last five decades. It's a vertically integrated racketeering system that extends over the entire planet. American investors in multinational operations are perfectly happy taking a hit on US operations destroying domestic production because their investments abroad get the business. They either convert domestic resource land to real estate or mothball it under tax exempt conservancies, Federal monuments, and such. It's been done in industry after industry: timber, energy, mining, beef, fish, agriculture, real estate development, soon water… ALL taking advantage of economies of scale in environmental compliance and sometimes selective enforcement. Tax-exempt foundations buy the research "data" they need, fund a few ideological groups trained by the same professorate that lives off their grant money, and not a word need be breathed to the companies in which they are invested. Their pet executives wail about the regulations and scream how stupid and counterproductive they are, just like you do. It makes great theater. There is virtually no way of getting caught. by Ron Arnold ... Always follow the money.
The key to cracking the Constitutional system was international law, a loophole in Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution, governing the adoption of treaties and the scope of their powers (IMO the rat Patrick Henry and others smelled only too clearly; if you want a good chuckle read Hamilton's defense of the manner of treaty ratification in Federalist #75). To implement the plan European investors needed a foothold in the US before they could get into the market. Until the Civil War, corporations were haltered in the US because they were not allowed to own land and were not protected under the Constitution in a manner co-equal to citizens. After the Civil War the US was deeply in debt to that very European investor class. The 14th Amendment changed that balance of power between the individual and corporate. Once the appropriate Supreme Court cases were in place interpreting persons "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as including corporate persons, corporations then derived equal protection under the laws and could own property, the investment floodgates opened, and that not only created an American industrial colossus, it produced an American investor class owning enormously influential private tax-exempt foundations.
1. Foist the necessary treaty law via (primarily American) NGOs at UN environmental agencies (largely funded by the US government).
2. Get the implementing legislation through Congress.
3. Use lawsuits by those same NGOs in federal courts to alter the meaning of the law.
4. Overwhelm the agencies with graduates brainwashed by professors who subsist of government and foundation grants.
5. Establish the regulatory power on the local level to control the decision-making with the cheapest politicians money can buy.The Pew Charitable Trusts
Global Warming Power NexusThe Philadelphia-based Pew Charitable Trusts is one of the nation’s largest and most influential philanthropic foundations. The Pew Charitable Trusts are actually an interlocking set of seven trusts established by the children of turn-of-thecentury oil baron Joseph N. Pew, and stewarded by the family’s private investment bank, the Glenmede Trust Company, which is the trustee of the seven charitable trusts. Glenmede manages $14 billion of total Pew family wealth, about $4 billion of which belongs to the Pew Charitable Trusts.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#238. To: AGAviator, farmfriend, HighLairEon, James Deffenbach, wudidiz, all (#233)
That explains much. You are one of those people who thinks it is a crime for anyone to live well and prosper. Much better to drag everyone down to slave state status living in the equal misery of a socialist dictatorship where everyone is equal - except that some are more equal than others. How is economic prosperity incompatible with a clean environment? How is an ineffectual policy which diminishes the economic, and thus physical welfare of all but the hyper-wealthy, while trying to solve a non-existent problem superior to a set of policies which promote the general welfare while seeking to solve the real environmental problems? And here again we come back to your fixation on dragging the world down into a miserable poverty because you resent some being more able, thus producing more, and having more. So, at long last we arrive at the point where your real reasons for supporting a discredited theory, for which you can provide no credible support, it is not because of your desire to improve the environment but your desire to drag other people down, because you have a neurotic fixation and distaste for anyone doing well while doing good. The two are not incompatible. It is possible to have prosperity AND a clean enviroment. Can you demonstrate in any way how prosperity and the general welfare of the environment are mutually exclusive, and here I am not talking about individual polluters or abuses, but on the "Meta-scale" as a general proposition? Of course you can't and I expect, if you reply, to be treated to more socialist hogwash about how we must all live a hair shirt existence in divine misery because it is just so unfair that the able are more successful than the inable.
"We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation. "
"Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions."
"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
#239. To: AGAviator (#234)
From your link: "Our study may indicate that the accelerated tree growth observed at other forests is not indicative of a concerted pantropical response to global environmental changes, but rather that the changes in tropical forest dynamics and structure are driven primarily through regional climate changes such as increased temperature and/or cloudiness," Feeley told mongabay.com via email. Yet you would not only extend the study to tropics but the entire world. While this scenario is ominous, Feeley cautions that more research is needed to understand and model the effects of climate change on forests. "There remains a great deal of uncertainty in the underlying mechanisms as well as the generality of these results. These uncertainties highlight the need for additional long-term large-scale research from other tropical forests." Oh but let's take it as gospel and destroy our global economy based on a preliminary and localized study. And BTW, the greatest carbon sinks are by far the oceans. Oh yes now we are back to oceans being slightly less base than they were a century ago, maybe.
The results differ from earlier research, based on surveys in the Amazon, which found that large fast-growing canopy trees exhibited higher growth rates possibly in response to rising carbon dioxide levels (Laurance et al. 2004, Lewis et al. 2004). The researchers say that the discrepancy between their findings, which are based on a wider range of species, and those in the Amazon, show that the effects of higher temperatures differ regionally and cannot be generalized for the tropics.
"If our hypothesis that tropical tree growth rates are decreasing in response to higher temperatures is correct, this creates the danger of positive feedbacks: higher temperatures cause reduced tree growth which in turn results in slower rates of carbon uptake and more deforestation/land conversion, which then results in accelerated increases of atmospheric CO2 and global warming, causing further reductions in growth and so on and so on," said Feeley.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#240. To: farmfriend (#237)
LOL! We were on the same page coming from different angles. LOL!
"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
#241. To: buckeroo (#236)
Thhhhhhhpppppppppppppp! You already have discredited yourself buckie. By lying about me and stating opinions as mine which I have not expressed you discredit yourself as a lying sack of shit. I have never put anyone on bozo before except to eliminate a spammers warping of a thread, but I am getting very very close.
"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
#242. To: AGAviator (#234)
Link Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today! Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm. The carboniferous period started out with high CO2 which caused and abundance of plant growth (now coal) which in turn dropped the CO2 levels by the end of the period. I still fail to see how even doubling our CO2 would be harmful.
Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#243. To: Original_Intent, farmfriend (#240)
Great minds...
LOL! We were on the same page coming from different angles. 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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#244. To: farmfriend (#242)
The sky would fall?
I still fail to see how even doubling our CO2 would be harmful.
"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
#245. To: Original_Intent (#244)
Yes! The rich would not get richer through scamming carbon credits and controlling energy markets.
The sky would fall?
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#246. To: farmfriend (#245)
Yes! The rich would not get richer through scamming carbon credits and controlling energy markets. One of the things that I've discovered, other than that they are neurotic, is leftists, and at this point it is mostly leftists who support Glowbull Warming, have a real fixation on controlling people and resenting anyone having anything beyond bare subsistence (except Limousine Liberals who are a different kind of phony). I cornered a leftist friend one day and point by point destroyed Glowbull Warming - her response? "Well we need to do it anyway because man is destroying the environment." In other words she was willing to go along with a fraud because it furthered her particular set of prejudices. I found that an interesting insight into the leftist mind. They are willing to "believe" and push a Lie in other to foist their political prejudices and neurotic desire to create "social justice" (everyone living in misery).
The sky would fall?
"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
#247. To: Original_Intent (#246)
I found the same thing when discussing logging with lefties. For them it had nothing to do with the environment. It was all about keeping logging companies from making a profit. I heard it time and again. One of the funniest things I ever saw was an enviro group saying it was ok to log as long as they used solar powered chain saws.
I found that an interesting insight into the leftist mind. They are willing to "believe" and push a Lie in other to foist their political prejudices and neurotic desire to create "social justice" (everyone living in misery).
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#248. To: buckeroo, Original_Intent (#236)
>> So what is it? Human population can be sustained infinitely in growth? Or is there a finite threshold, somewhere? And, if human population growth is finite, where is that threshold that may sustain humanity with a high quality of life style? I say, with about seven BILLION people, mankind has already surpassed the capability to enjoy a good level of life style much less a high one. I guess seventy to seven hundred billion people would be able to live on this planet if doing so properly.
Here, answer thes questions from WAY ABOVE in this same thread, lamer:
“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
#249. To: All (#248)
This sentence open to grammatical editing.
I guess seventy to seven hundred billion people would be able to live on this planet if doing so properly.
“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
#250. To: wudidiz (#249)
Yes the subordinate conjunction if may indeed be followed by an adverbial gerund phrase, but it must be followed by a finite verb clause. Cheers.
#251. To: wudidiz (#248)
One of the problems with those indoctrinated into the "Club of Rome" "Limits to Growth" crowd is that they have a neurotic fixation that population necessarily leads to environmental degradation. Of course that is provable nonsense but it is one of their articles of "Faith" in the Global Religion of Scarcity. Of course according to the Club of Rome and their "Limits To Growth" Report they were projecting food riots in about 20 years ago i.e., the late 80's. Food, is as available if not more so now. Where there are food shortages it is always traceable to the political environment. Zimbabwe was a major food exporter until Robert Mugabe was put in power by the CIA and their bosses in London. Now thanks to the destruction of the farming infrastructure, runaway hyper-inflation, and driving out farmers because they were white they now have famine and must import food. India, one of the most densely populated countries on the planet, is a net exporter of food. Time and again when something becomes scarce people develop or find alternatives. With sound management of agriculture we could easily feed 70 Billion People although with a generally high level of education and development population might actually begin to decline. The U.S. population was already declining in the 80's as the birth rate was less than the death rate. The only thing that has kept it artificially pumped up and increasing is illegal immigration. One of things that has shown up statistically, from what I've read, is that developed first world nations with a generally higher standard of living actually tend to stabilize or decline in population. A lot of reasons have been theorized but I think the simplest is that the survival threats are not as extreme and thus the urge to reproduce to further the existence of the human race declines. Fewer threats means less urgency. So the norm becomes smaller families. If you live in a degraded society where half of the children die before adulthood then the urge to survive drives the reproductive urge. So, the solution to global over population, which we are nowhere near, is to raise ALL standards of living for each and every person thus indirectly lowering the birth rate.
I guess seventy to seven hundred billion people would be able to live on this planet if doing so properly.
"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
#252. To: Original_Intent (#241)
Here is YOUR "esteemed" so-called "objective" responses on this thread..... >Thhhhhhhpppppppppppppp! You are a phoney. You are a GODAMED liar... and you can see the same by your own comments. You are a political HACK... something out of a grab bag ... that has no basis or foundation of scientific thought. Yet you can not answer a simple question that I posted WAY UP the thread: I have never put anyone on bozo before except to eliminate a spammers warping of a thread, but I am getting very very close.
Blow me.
ankle biter
...Go Fish.
the Chicken Little Brigades
S-U-C-K-E-R-S.
So what is it? Human population can be sustained infinitely in growth? Or is there a finite threshold, somewhere? And, if human population growth is finite, where is that threshold that may sustain humanity with a high quality of life style?
I say, with about seven BILLION people, mankind has already surpassed the capability to enjoy a good level of life style much less a high one.
So, let's go back to the original article of this thread. Why do you think some college professor suggests that a new nation shall be born in the near future, encompassing the Southwest of the US and Northern Mexico? I say, it is because certain people want a high quality of lifestyle typically afforded in the Southwest of the US. And, they want to take it away from those that already have it. --buckeroo, FOUR days ago.
In effect, you are a liar and a thief. You are a goddamed BSer...
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#253. To: wudidiz, farmfriend, HighLairEon, Original_Intent, James Deffenbach (#249)
BTW, thanks guys for some really great posts on this interesting thread. Only had time today to peek in from time to time. Been outdoors working on this "honey do" Saturday. It's HOT and STICKY in Houston. (This is a "heat island," you know.) ;)
#254. To: Lod (#232)
Wondering what will be the Tubster's haul when the split is finalized? Fortunately, I have not seen the windbag liar lately. And I have no idea how much he has made off gullible people. I bet it would be astounding.
Any sightings of the Wooden One lately?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#255. To: buckeroo (#252)
Po' beebey. Shall I call a Wahhhhhhhhmbulance for you? I have given your question all the attention it deserves - none. You have consistently misrepresented my position, put words in my mouth, and been an all around wanker. G'bye BOZO.
"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
#256. To: Original_Intent (#255)
I'll let you know if you miss anything.
“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
#257. To: wudidiz (#256)
Thank you.
"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
#258. To: Original_Intent (#257)
It might be a while.
“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
#259. To: Original_Intent (#255)
As you say lamer FUCK YOU... BTW, you can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag without a "polysyllable" you just looked upped at Dictionary.com while maintaintaining your political hack from the JBS. You are a liar. More than that, you are a thief. His your reward based ipon you own BS.... You are about as objective as a muther-fucker begging to give you an ass-WHOOPIN'..... which has been performed.
fuck yourself.
Blow me.
ankle biter
...Go Fish.
the Chicken Little Brigades
S-U-C-K-E-R-S.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
#260. To: wudidiz (#258)
That's fine. At this point I am so disgusted with that other person that I care not whether I read any of his blather again. I am tired of his stoopid "gotcha" games, misquotes, out of context quotes, and outright prevarication that it will be a cold day in hell before he comes off my "list".
"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
#261. To: Original_Intent (#260)
Well, it is Saturday night you know....
“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
#262. To: James Deffenbach, Lod (#254)
He is too busy with his divorce.
Fortunately, I have not seen the windbag liar lately. And I have no idea how much he has made off gullible people. I bet it would be astounding.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#263. To: wudidiz (#261)
Yes, I catch the drift - Well, it is Saturday night you know....
"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
#264. To: Original_Intent (#238)
It isn't. All the proof of that you need is to visit some third world hell hole (like Haiti for example, even before the earthquake) and look at the squalor and filth. Then compare it to any upscale neighborhood in the US or any first-world country where they take pride in their homes and communities. All the difference in the world.
How is economic prosperity incompatible with a clean environment?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#265. To: Original_Intent, All (#261)
Expletives, ad-homs, typos, spelling errors. It'll probably get worse as the night progresses.
Well, it is Saturday night you know....
“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
#266. To: Original_Intent, wudidiz (#260)
With all this global warming that may be sooner rather than later. it will be a cold day in hell before he comes off my "list".
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#267. To: Original_Intent (#244)
Oh de humanity! We mus' not be in Kansas no mo', Toto!
The sky would fall?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#268. To: farmfriend (#247)
Solar-powered chain saws? Are you serious, someone actually said that? My best friend and his brothers (and their dad) were in the logging business for years. His dad has passed on but if he, or any of his boys, had heard someone say that they would have probably laughed themselves to death.
One of the funniest things I ever saw was an enviro group saying it was ok to log as long as they used solar powered chain saws.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#269. To: randge (#253)
Only had time today to peek in from time to time. Been outdoors working on this "honey do" Saturday. It's HOT and STICKY in Houston. (This is a "heat island," you know.) Thanks. Hot and sticky in Houston in the summertime? Who woulda thunk it? ahaha. And yeah, I did know it was a "heat island." I think all of Texas is a "heat island" in the summertime.
BTW, thanks guys for some really great posts on this interesting thread.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#270. To: farmfriend (#262)
Tipper out on the loose and with all that money. Bet she will be on her back again in no time. ahaha.
He is too busy with his divorce.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#271. To: James Deffenbach (#268)
Yes, I'll see if I can find a reference.
Solar-powered chain saws? Are you serious, someone actually said that?
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#272. To: farmfriend (#271)
I don't doubt your word. Just astounded that there are people out loose amongst us who are really that stupid.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#273. To: James Deffenbach (#272)
You mean the average voter?
Just astounded that there are people out loose amongst us who are really that stupid.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#274. To: farmfriend (#273)
Well, yeah. Them too.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#275. To: James Deffenbach (#274)
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#276. To: farmfriend (#266)
Been there. Done that. That's a sign just before the bridge, hard by the Dam Site Inn. Old fashioned good-old-boys bar. Bloody marys & burgers are tops. Smitty's Dam Site Inn Stop by if you're ever out that way.
4093 Patterson Lake Road
Hell, MI 48169
Phone: (734)878-9300
Fax: (734)878-3779
mail@hellmichigan.net
#277. To: randge (#276)
Looks like a fun place. We'll bring the VTX and fit right in.
Old fashioned good-old-boys bar. Bloody marys & burgers are tops.
"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."
James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831
#278. To: farmfriend (#275)
From your link: My friends and I were on a beer run and noticed that the cases were discounted 10%. Since it was a big party, we bought 2 cases. The cashier multiplied 2 times 10% and gave us a 20% discount . . . It is obvious they should return and buy 10 cases. Then it would be free.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
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.
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#279. To: wudidiz, Original_Intent (#256)
I'll ping one and all to my spelling errors as they are worthy of tens, perhaps even hundreds, of posts on a thread. I won't let you miss even one of them. : )
I'll let you know if you miss anything
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
#280. To: farmfriend, buckeroo (#242) (Edited)
Notice anything different between then and now? What a bunch of whack bull$hit dating back hundreds of millions of years to try to obfuscate a predicted, developing, and imminent crisis. By a bunch of pseudo scientists whose "rebuttals" consist of statements that Your deniers are the equivalent of the Tea Party wing of the academic community. Life and progress are going to go on with or without you, neither you nor they will ever amount to anything.
Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F)
(1) Things were worse hundreds of of millions of years ago when South Africa, India, Antartica, Arabia, and Austraila were all one land mass and North American mountains were partly developing under water,
(2) It hasn't been proven to the deniers' satisfaction,
(3) Making necessary changes will need "cost justification" acceptable to the deniers, and
(4) Impugn the motives of alleged government personnel while giving themselves a pass on their own motives that economic self- interest is a legitimate human motivator trumping all others.
#281. To: farmfriend (#271) (Edited)
John Howe’s Solar Chain-Saw (and Other Inventions)
#282. To: farmfriend (#271)
And the fact that a chain saw may run from solar power, stored in batteries charged by solar photovoltaic energy changes things how...
Solar-powered chain saws? Are you serious, someone actually said that? Yes, I'll see if I can find a reference
#283. To: Original_Intent (#238)
Another of your many lies and distortions of anything that does not support your "individual good is supreme good," and your pipe dream that individual thoughts somehow have more substance, than the thoughts of many individuals collaborating and putting something together collectively. Earth calling. You're in and on a planet where you're connected in many different ways with many different people and environmental factors. A simple object you buy at a retail store has likely had its components pass through many different companies, states and countries. You may attempt to block this out in your head, but that does not make it any less true. You have no inherent right to consume 10 times as many resources to promote your existence, than someone born in different conditions has to promote his or hers. Particularly if you use those resources wastefully and inefficiently because of your personal choices. Call it socialism, marxism, whatever name you please, but you will clutch your coin purse on a sinking ship, instead of trying to keep the ship afloat, at your own peril. Oh, and by the way, who was it who originated policies of eliminating population in developing countries? Why, Henry Kissinger's Club of Rome. Contrary to your propaganda, the globalist elitists began in the 1970's trying to cull world population, not benefit it. Only when they belatedly saw that population reduction was not working or workable, did they seek policies to assist people instead of killing them off. So what we're seeing from the globalists now are decisions to do something they have no other choice. Last but not least, when you have two parties with some connections, and one of them has all the advantages and the other has almost nothing, there's often a distinct odor of the one with the advantages taking some or all of them wrongfully, then hiding behind the law, or personal protection allowed by law, to retain them. Like it or lump it, those days are coming to an end. The new order is going to be that the more you give, the more you will receive. Prosperity for whom? As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, population grows at a far greater rate than resources - which are mostly fixed or even decreasing. So prosperity seems to be a code word for you believing some individuals have inherent rights to more than others, and you complain when you believe outside forces like govenment attempt to shift who the individuals are with more of those rights. So you couldn't care less about inequality, only when you believe the inequality is promoted by agencies supposed to be working for the benefit of all. Throughout history, the success of "able" has been principally through use of force and cunning against the "inable," and has never long endured because it was never earned rightfully to begin with. Going forweard either the lesser people will be brought up, or the higher up people will be coming down. Pointing out that some of the higher level people try to preserve their status by claiming to work for the greater good, will not ultimately protect them, as Gore himself is starting to find out.
You are one of those people who thinks it is a crime for anyone to live well and prosper. Much better to drag everyone down to slave state status living in the equal misery of a socialist dictatorship
How is economic prosperity incompatible with a clean environment?
We must all live a hair shirt existence in divine misery because it is just so unfair that the able are more successful than the inable
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest