independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Mon 19th Aug 2019 3:08am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Global Warming is a hoax, right?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 10/27/11 10:22am

rudedog

avatar

Global Warming is a hoax, right?

Global Warming/Climate Change is a highly debated political subject. In recent years, doubt and skepticism in this subject has increased and more and more ppl doubt it even actually exists! Funded by The Koch Brothers, who have ties to The Oil Industry, called in Richard Muller, Berkeley Physics Professor, to be impartial and re-examine the science of global warming without the cloud of politics. Last week, Muller posted his 'impartial' results in the Op-Ed section of a Conservative Magazine, The Wallstreet Journal and said, 'Global Warming is real'...wait...what??? WOW! I did not see that one coming smile

http://online.wsj.com/art...27348.html

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 10/27/11 6:15pm

V10LETBLUES

Jon Steward had a great segment on this yesterday. Very very funny.

Then Aasif Mandvi, had an even funnier segment on how science is nothing but a scam. This one had me howling.

Check it out at the Daily Show website.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/#tool_tip_0



[Edited 10/27/11 20:07pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 10/27/11 7:41pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

nice spin, but you forgot "man-made" that is the debate.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 10/28/11 2:16am

noimageatall

avatar

V10LETBLUES said:

Jon Steward had a great segment on this yesterday. Very very funny.

Then Aasif Mandvi, had an even funnier segment on how science is nothing but a scam. This one had me howling.

Check it out at the Daily Show website.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/#tool_tip_0



[Edited 10/27/11 20:07pm]

I saw that. I was in tears. lol He always hits it out of the park. It may be a comedy show but it's more serious and truthful than the mainstream news.

"Let love be your perfect weapon..." ~~Andy Biersack
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 10/28/11 9:45am

rudedog

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

nice spin, but you forgot "man-made" that is the debate.

Maybe you've heard of Chevron? Oil company. One of the world's six "supermajor" oil companies.

A company that stands to lose if global warming legislation is passed in this country?

http://www.chevron.com/gl...5QodNlnDKg

At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)—mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane—in the Earth's atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.

We are the last country in the world to debate this, because of the ignorance.

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 10/28/11 4:03pm

EmbattledWarri
or

rudedog said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

nice spin, but you forgot "man-made" that is the debate.

Maybe you've heard of Chevron? Oil company. One of the world's six "supermajor" oil companies.

A company that stands to lose if global warming legislation is passed in this country?

http://www.chevron.com/gl...5QodNlnDKg

At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)—mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane—in the Earth's atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.

We are the last country in the world to debate this, because of the ignorance.

It's not really a debate.

Oil and coal, is found money. Virtually free, minimal losses, and absurd profits.

Green Energy there is no money in it.

Whatever has money always wins.

even at the expense of the survival of our own species.

Note...

Learn how to build and Igloo...

I am a Rail Road, Track Abandoned
With the Sunset forgetting, i ever Happened
http://www.myspace.com/stolenmorning
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 10/28/11 4:16pm

V10LETBLUES

EmbattledWarrior said:

rudedog said:

Maybe you've heard of Chevron? Oil company. One of the world's six "supermajor" oil companies.

A company that stands to lose if global warming legislation is passed in this country?

http://www.chevron.com/gl...5QodNlnDKg

At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)—mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane—in the Earth's atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.

We are the last country in the world to debate this, because of the ignorance.

It's not really a debate.

Oil and coal, is found money. Virtually free, minimal losses, and absurd profits.

Green Energy there is no money in it.

Whatever has money always wins.

even at the expense of the survival of our own species.

Note...

Learn how to build and Igloo...

All of a sudden I am reading all of these great posts and they are coming from the same person.

You should post in this forum more often.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 10/28/11 4:44pm

EmbattledWarri
or

V10LETBLUES said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

It's not really a debate.

Oil and coal, is found money. Virtually free, minimal losses, and absurd profits.

Green Energy there is no money in it.

Whatever has money always wins.

even at the expense of the survival of our own species.

Note...

Learn how to build and Igloo...

All of a sudden I am reading all of these great posts and they are coming from the same person.

You should post in this forum more often.

I haven't actively posted in this forum in years.

I went on a political fast during the bush administration, and it's only now since I've recovered.

The Occupy Movement, inspired to go back to fighting the good fight.

I am a Rail Road, Track Abandoned
With the Sunset forgetting, i ever Happened
http://www.myspace.com/stolenmorning
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 10/28/11 4:49pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

EmbattledWarrior said:

V10LETBLUES said:

All of a sudden I am reading all of these great posts and they are coming from the same person.

You should post in this forum more often.

I haven't actively posted in this forum in years.

I went on a political fast during the bush administration, and it's only now since I've recovered.

The Occupy Movement, inspired to go back to fighting the good fight.

so what do you want out of it?

free collage? free houses? maybe anyone that owes any money should just have the debt whiped out?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 10/28/11 4:54pm

V10LETBLUES

OnlyNDaUsa said:

so what do you want out of it?

free collage? free houses? maybe anyone that owes any money should just have the debt whiped out?

fishslap

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 10/28/11 4:55pm

EmbattledWarri
or

OnlyNDaUsa said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

I haven't actively posted in this forum in years.

I went on a political fast during the bush administration, and it's only now since I've recovered.

The Occupy Movement, inspired to go back to fighting the good fight.

so what do you want out of it?

free collage? free houses? maybe anyone that owes any money should just have the debt whiped out?

I want pretty much what everyone else wants.

A political system that actually works.

This is something that transcends partisanship.

Because to those who are in control, there is no such thing as left or right.

Or red or blue.

only three colors

Black, White and Green.

And green effects everything, sadly it's woven into the foudation of this great country.

We are all the pharmacologically drunk offspring of Horatio Alger.

Failed seekers of the American Dream.

And I think if horatio Alger where alive today.

He'd gasp in horror, and scream "My god what have I done."

But enough about me.

What do you want?

[Edited 10/28/11 16:57pm]

I am a Rail Road, Track Abandoned
With the Sunset forgetting, i ever Happened
http://www.myspace.com/stolenmorning
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 10/28/11 5:25pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

EmbattledWarrior said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

so what do you want out of it?

free collage? free houses? maybe anyone that owes any money should just have the debt whiped out?

I want pretty much what everyone else wants.

A political system that actually works.

This is something that transcends partisanship.

Because to those who are in control, there is no such thing as left or right.

Or red or blue.

only three colors

Black, White and Green.

And green effects everything, sadly it's woven into the foudation of this great country.

We are all the pharmacologically drunk offspring of Horatio Alger.

Failed seekers of the American Dream.

And I think if horatio Alger where alive today.

He'd gasp in horror, and scream "My god what have I done."

But enough about me.

What do you want?

[Edited 10/28/11 16:57pm]

small government, smaller taxes, more freedom.

.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 10/28/11 5:34pm

EmbattledWarri
or

OnlyNDaUsa said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

I want pretty much what everyone else wants.

A political system that actually works.

This is something that transcends partisanship.

Because to those who are in control, there is no such thing as left or right.

Or red or blue.

only three colors

Black, White and Green.

And green effects everything, sadly it's woven into the foudation of this great country.

We are all the pharmacologically drunk offspring of Horatio Alger.

Failed seekers of the American Dream.

And I think if horatio Alger where alive today.

He'd gasp in horror, and scream "My god what have I done."

But enough about me.

What do you want?

[Edited 10/28/11 16:57pm]

small government, smaller taxes, more freedom.

.

Doesn't seem unreasonable to me...

Especially the more freedom...

I'm with ya there...

Now do you think tear gassing, and beating protesters,

is an example of more freedom?

I am a Rail Road, Track Abandoned
With the Sunset forgetting, i ever Happened
http://www.myspace.com/stolenmorning
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 10/28/11 6:14pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

EmbattledWarrior said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

small government, smaller taxes, more freedom.

.

Doesn't seem unreasonable to me...

Especially the more freedom...

I'm with ya there...

Now do you think tear gassing, and beating protesters,

is an example of more freedom?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 10/28/11 7:22pm

noimageatall

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

I haven't actively posted in this forum in years.

I went on a political fast during the bush administration, and it's only now since I've recovered.

The Occupy Movement, inspired to go back to fighting the good fight.

so what do you want out of it?

free collage? free houses? maybe anyone that owes any money should just have the debt whiped out?

shrug The banks did. Some corporations and some rich pay no taxes. Politicians receive medical care and money for life. hmmm

"Let love be your perfect weapon..." ~~Andy Biersack
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 10/29/11 1:03am

EmbattledWarri
or

noimageatall said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

so what do you want out of it?

free collage? free houses? maybe anyone that owes any money should just have the debt whiped out?

shrug The banks did. Some corporations and some rich pay no taxes. Politicians receive medical care and money for life. hmmm

Not necessarily true...

The on the books wages of politicians isn't much.

The president only earns 400,000 a year...

However what they make from other endeavors, is totally different.

I am a Rail Road, Track Abandoned
With the Sunset forgetting, i ever Happened
http://www.myspace.com/stolenmorning
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 10/29/11 10:00pm

obsessed

EmbattledWarrior said:

noimageatall said:

shrug The banks did. Some corporations and some rich pay no taxes. Politicians receive medical care and money for life. hmmm

Not necessarily true...

The on the books wages of politicians isn't much.

The president only earns 400,000 a year...

However what they make from other endeavors, is totally different.

Only earns 400,000 a year?! The majority of folks would give an arm and a leg to earn that kind of money.

But then again, I guess relative to a lot of high-paying jobs, that really isn't much, considering that he's "running" a country.

This doesn't have anything to do with the thread, but the people I get upset about are the professional

athletics who often times earn millions to play a game.

What people get paid to do a job is absolutely unjust sometimes...a service person for instance

who deserves a lot more money to put up with some of the freaks they deal with, earn a pittance

most often.

OK, sorry I got off topic here.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 10/29/11 10:34pm

EmbattledWarri
or

obsessed said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

Not necessarily true...

The on the books wages of politicians isn't much.

The president only earns 400,000 a year...

However what they make from other endeavors, is totally different.

Only earns 400,000 a year?! The majority of folks would give an arm and a leg to earn that kind of money.

But then again, I guess relative to a lot of high-paying jobs, that really isn't much, considering that he's "running" a country.

This doesn't have anything to do with the thread, but the people I get upset about are the professional

athletics who often times earn millions to play a game.

What people get paid to do a job is absolutely unjust sometimes...a service person for instance

who deserves a lot more money to put up with some of the freaks they deal with, earn a pittance

most often.

OK, sorry I got off topic here.

wave Hey smile

Its alot of money to me and most people

But the president isn't "wealthy" like say a millionaire...

The standard wall street exec is earning 5 to 10 million a year.

so 400,000 is slim pickins

I agree with you on the professional athletes. They get paid rediculous amounts of money,

[Edited 10/29/11 22:34pm]

I am a Rail Road, Track Abandoned
With the Sunset forgetting, i ever Happened
http://www.myspace.com/stolenmorning
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 10/29/11 10:45pm

obsessed

EmbattledWarrior said:

obsessed said:

Only earns 400,000 a year?! The majority of folks would give an arm and a leg to earn that kind of money.

But then again, I guess relative to a lot of high-paying jobs, that really isn't much, considering that he's "running" a country.

This doesn't have anything to do with the thread, but the people I get upset about are the professional

athletics who often times earn millions to play a game.

What people get paid to do a job is absolutely unjust sometimes...a service person for instance

who deserves a lot more money to put up with some of the freaks they deal with, earn a pittance

most often.

OK, sorry I got off topic here.

wave Hey smile

Its alot of money to me and most people

But the president isn't "wealthy" like say a millionaire...

The standard wall street exec is earning 5 to 10 million a year.

so 400,000 is slim pickins

I agree with you on the professional athletes. They get paid rediculous amounts of money,

[Edited 10/29/11 22:34pm]

HiYa! wave That's true, he really isn't a millionaire; but for all the grief he gets day in and out,

he really should be...plus of course the gray hair lol

The Wall Street execs..in my opinion, of course...are being paid waaay too much. It's stressful, I'm sure, but there's something kind of sinister in what they do. Ha!

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 10/29/11 11:24pm

EmbattledWarri
or

obsessed said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

wave Hey smile

Its alot of money to me and most people

But the president isn't "wealthy" like say a millionaire...

The standard wall street exec is earning 5 to 10 million a year.

so 400,000 is slim pickins

I agree with you on the professional athletes. They get paid rediculous amounts of money,

[Edited 10/29/11 22:34pm]

HiYa! wave That's true, he really isn't a millionaire; but for all the grief he gets day in and out,

he really should be...plus of course the gray hair lol

The Wall Street execs..in my opinion, of course...are being paid waaay too much. It's stressful, I'm sure, but there's something kind of sinister in what they do. Ha!

I agree wholeheartedly nod

I am a Rail Road, Track Abandoned
With the Sunset forgetting, i ever Happened
http://www.myspace.com/stolenmorning
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 10/29/11 11:29pm

obsessed

EmbattledWarrior said:

obsessed said:

HiYa! wave That's true, he really isn't a millionaire; but for all the grief he gets day in and out,

he really should be...plus of course the gray hair lol

The Wall Street execs..in my opinion, of course...are being paid waaay too much. It's stressful, I'm sure, but there's something kind of sinister in what they do.

I agree wholeheartedly nod

Someone agrees with me. cool

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 10/31/11 3:40am

noimageatall

avatar

Can't we just err on the side of caution and quit destroying the planet? disbelief

http://www.huffingtonpost...3%7C108718

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real

Richard Mueller Global Warming

SETH BORENSTEIN 10/30/11 03:39 PM ET AP


WASHINGTON — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right:
Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.

What's different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to "The Daily Show" is paying attention is who is behind the study.

One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.

Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.

"The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller said in a telephone interview. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."

Muller said that he came into the study "with a proper skepticism," something scientists "should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism" before.

There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, a place friendly to skeptics. Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.

Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.

"Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world," he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is.

On Monday, Muller was taking his results – four separate papers that are not yet published or peer-reviewed, but will be, he says – to a conference in Santa Fe, N.M., expected to include many prominent skeptics as well as mainstream scientists.

"Of course he'll be welcome," said Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Lab, a noted skeptic and the conference organizer. "The purpose of our conference is to bring people with different views on climate together, so they can talk and clarify things."

Shawn Lawrence Otto, author of the book "Fool Me Twice" that criticizes science skeptics, said Muller should expect to be harshly treated by global warming deniers. "Now he's considered a traitor. For the skeptic community, this isn't about data or fact. It's about team sports. He's been traded to the Indians. He's playing for the wrong team now."

And that started on Sunday, when a British newspaper said one of Muller's co-authors, Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry, accused Muller of another Climategate-like scandal and trying to "hide the decline" of recent global temperatures.

The Associated Press contacted Curry on Sunday afternoon and she said in an email that Muller and colleagues "are not hiding any data or otherwise engaging in any scientifically questionable practice."

The Muller "results unambiguously show an increase in surface temperature since 1960," Curry wrote Sunday. She said she disagreed with Muller's public relations efforts and some public comments from Muller about there no longer being a need for skepticism.

Muller's study found that skeptics' concerns about poor weather station quality didn't skew the results of his analysis because temperature increases rose similarly in reliable and unreliable weather stations. He also found that while there is an urban heat island effect making cities warmer, rural areas, which are more abundant, are warming, too.

Among many climate scientists, the reaction was somewhat of a yawn.

"After lots of work he found exactly what was already known and accepted in the climate community," said Jerry North, a Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor who headed a National Academy of Sciences climate science review in 2006. "I am hoping their study will have a positive impact. But some folks will never change."

Chris Field, a Carnegie Institution scientist who is chief author of an upcoming intergovernmental climate change report, said Muller's study "may help the world's citizens focus less on whether climate change is real and more on smart options for addressing it."

Some of the most noted scientific skeptics are no longer saying the world isn't warming. Instead, they question how much of it is man-made, view it as less a threat and argue it's too expensive to do something about, Otto said.

Skeptical MIT scientist Richard Lindzen said it is a fact and nothing new that global average temperatures have been rising since 1950, as Muller shows. "It's hard to see how any serious scientist (skeptical, denier or believer – frequently depending on the exact question) will view it otherwise," he wrote in an email.

In a brief email statement, the Koch Foundation noted that Muller's team didn't examine ocean temperature or the cause of warming and said it will continue to fund such research. "The project is ongoing and entering peer review, and we're proud to support this strong, transparent research," said foundation spokeswoman Tonya Mullins.

"Let love be your perfect weapon..." ~~Andy Biersack
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 10/31/11 5:17am

TweetyV6

avatar

rudedog said:

Global Warming/Climate Change is a highly debated political subject. In recent years, doubt and skepticism in this subject has increased and more and more ppl doubt it even actually exists! Funded by The Koch Brothers, who have ties to The Oil Industry, called in Richard Muller, Berkeley Physics Professor, to be impartial and re-examine the science of global warming without the cloud of politics. Last week, Muller posted his 'impartial' results in the Op-Ed section of a Conservative Magazine, The Wallstreet Journal and said, 'Global Warming is real'...wait...what??? WOW! I did not see that one coming smile

http://online.wsj.com/art...27348.html

Hmmmmm.....

a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago.

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been

no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties

– a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1cMRFlVeE

So a lead team member of the same research team does not approve what has been published so far

Oooopsie.....

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 10/31/11 5:55am

seekingtruth

EmbattledWarrior said:

rudedog said:

Maybe you've heard of Chevron? Oil company. One of the world's six "supermajor" oil companies.

A company that stands to lose if global warming legislation is passed in this country?

http://www.chevron.com/gl...5QodNlnDKg

At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)—mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane—in the Earth's atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.

We are the last country in the world to debate this, because of the ignorance.

It's not really a debate.

Oil and coal, is found money. Virtually free, minimal losses, and absurd profits.

Green Energy there is no money in it.

Whatever has money always wins.

even at the expense of the survival of our own species.

Note...

Learn how to build and Igloo...

Are you serious? Where there is a profit and/or a technology, there is a profit. There are plenty of profits to be made in the green industry......go attend the GreenBuild show if you don't thinks so.

True genius is knowing how little
you really know.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 10/31/11 5:59am

seekingtruth

obsessed said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

wave Hey smile

Its alot of money to me and most people

But the president isn't "wealthy" like say a millionaire...

The standard wall street exec is earning 5 to 10 million a year.

so 400,000 is slim pickins

I agree with you on the professional athletes. They get paid rediculous amounts of money,

[Edited 10/29/11 22:34pm]

HiYa! wave That's true, he really isn't a millionaire; but for all the grief he gets day in and out,

he really should be...plus of course the gray hair lol

The Wall Street execs..in my opinion, of course...are being paid waaay too much. It's stressful, I'm sure, but there's something kind of sinister in what they do. Ha!

The President is a millionaire. Just because he did only made $400,000 in salary from his job as President, does not mean he is not a millionaire; it only means he did not become one by being president.

Most of Congress are millionaires as well.....

True genius is knowing how little
you really know.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 10/31/11 6:00am

seekingtruth

Global Warming is occuring, but the majority of the evidence points toward solar activity and cyclical changes over human intervention as the culprit.

True genius is knowing how little
you really know.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 10/31/11 6:21am

TweetyV6

avatar

seekingtruth said:

Global Warming is occuring, but the majority of the evidence points toward solar activity and cyclical changes over human intervention as the culprit.

Change that in the first sentence from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"

The last decade didn't show any (significant) warming

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 10/31/11 6:21am

13cjk13

seekingtruth said:

Global Warming is occuring, but the majority of the evidence points toward solar activity and cyclical changes over human intervention as the culprit.

Thanks for summing that up for us. It sounds so simple now!

"If we had had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 10/31/11 7:44am

V10LETBLUES

The world just hit a population of 7 billion. This is just the beginning of an exponential population explosion. We are headed for some rough times regardless, but if we are foolish enough to listen to a few vocal quacks and just sit back without taking any precautionary measures, we deserve whatever we get.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 10/31/11 8:05am

DarlingDiana

V10LETBLUES said:

The world just hit a population of 7 billion. This is just the beginning of an exponential population explosion. We are headed for some rough times regardless, but if we are foolish enough to listen to a few vocal quacks and just sit back without taking any precautionary measures, we deserve whatever we get.

I agree completely. But I think current climate policy is focused on the wrong objective. Delaying climate change. Well done, you bunch of twonks. So instead of climate change occurring now it'll occur later. That's worth all our efforts and resources. Brilliant.

Question, do you think realistically there is much we can do to change the state of affairs regarding climate change? My opinion is, it's happening, we've fucked up, but regardless of whether we stop fucking up it'll still happen. Therefor the only rational objective of climate policy is adaptation. Seriously. Relocation, reconstruction, building infrastructure appropriate for the projected sea level rises and such. All that Keynesian spending to create jobs that you people on the left love.

That's not to say that moving away from the things that helped cause climate change, all our carbon emitting production methods, and fossil fuel energies, is a lost cause. It's definitely not. Otherwise the new infrastructure we build, the new ways the agriculture industry farms in a way that is suitable to the changing climate, and all of that will be for nothing. Because we might continue to make the climate worse and less habitable if we keep doing what we have been doing as far as emitting too much carbon dioxide and green house gases. But I honestly don't think that should be the government's role in this. You will probably disagree. But I think public policy would be better targetting at adaptation, like I said.

What the government can do is level the playing field of the energy market by removing oil subsidies and tax exemptions. Don't subsidies and exempt solar companies instead. We don't want the government picking winners because the best end result is probably a diverse market of competing energies. I think a hands off approach would work best when it comes to the energy market, but a very hands on approach to infrastructure planning. Of course in cooperation with scientists, engineers and private contractors.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Global Warming is a hoax, right?