Political Discussion

[filed]

Well said, and well capitulated. Have you learned "Different strokes, for different folks" does not mean that if you believe this way, I am not wrong to believe that way. I have weapon training for MY reasons, does not make me a potential mass murderer. You don't for your reasons in which I would desire you to weigh that reason in this day and time. It is why we have this thread lead by it's creator HRx the second in command here. He allows us to civilly to agree to disagree or at least to air our opinions. I would wish you to consider a gun course, learn a little, be aware of handling something irresponsibly and unsafely, but used to protect you and your family. You don't have to be a survival nut (as I am) to be safe. This I hope you consider. You are a good poster and a vibrant light on this thread. 'Hub

There is no logic in dismissing valid what-if scenarios just because one has "NEVER" heard of them.

[chrisdfw]

Actually many economists would say we need more inflation. 5 months ago Krugman said the feds should be doing what they just announced. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/op...inflation.html
The real problem may be somewhere down the road if do not eventually deal with the 800 pound gorilla - the growing deficit - and we then end up with hyper inflation as the only way out.

I think we already are pretty much down that road my friend. Mathematically its going to be tough to do and the political will to cut medicare and medicaid enough to fix the problem isn't there. Those programs are the majority of the unfunded liabilties.

Inflation here we come.

[jacko]

Don't tell me you get your answers from that dumb youtube video? I thought librarians were all about due diligence mantra.

Here I find a lot of answers to those who asked questions or remarked how well he did to improve our Country. (do I have to define who 'he' is?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-HqHSkYG-Y

[GoingDown]

For those of you who don't think there is any possibility of a conspiracy to shove this global warming alarmist agenda down our throats, take a look at this website...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/15/we-need-a-conspiracy-to-save-humanity/#more-71103

[GoingDown]

What a shocker! The sun may have something to do with warming planet earth!

Who knew?!

http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/14288.html

In contrast to what is often inferred from the geologic record, carbon dioxide did not cause the end of the last ice age, a new USC study published in Science suggests.

“There has been this continual reference to the correspondence between CO2 and climate change as reflected in ice core records as justification for the role of CO2 in climate change,” said paleoclimatologist Lowell Stott, the study’s lead author and a professor of earth sciences at USC College.

“You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages.”

Deep-sea temperatures warmed about 1,300 years before the tropical surface ocean and well before the rise in atmospheric CO2, the study found.

The finding suggests the rise in greenhouse gas was likely a result of warming – but not its main cause.

While an increase in atmospheric CO2 and the end of the ice ages occurred at roughly the same time, scientists have debated whether CO2 caused the warming or was released later by an already warming sea.

The best estimate from other studies of when CO2 began to rise is no earlier than 18,000 years ago. Yet this study shows that the deep sea, which reflects a good picture of oceanic temperature trends, started warming about 19,000 years ago.

“What this means is that a lot of energy went into the ocean long before the rise in atmospheric CO2,” Stott said.

But where did this energy come from?

Water’s salinity and temperature are properties that can be used to trace its origin – and the warming deep water appeared to come from the Antarctic Ocean, the scientists wrote.

This water then was transported northward over 1,000 years via well-known deep-sea currents, a conclusion supported by carbon-dating evidence.

In addition, the researchers noted that the increases in deep-sea temperature coincided with the retreat of Antarctic sea ice, both occurring 19,000 years ago, before the northern hemisphere’s ice retreat began.

Finally, Stott and colleagues found a correlation between melting Antarctic sea ice and increased springtime solar radiation over Antarctica, suggesting this was the energy source. [Edit: OMG! The sun does this?! ]

As the sun pumped in heat, the warming accelerated because of sea-ice albedo feedbacks, in which retreating ice exposes more of the ocean that can absorb heat from the sun, much like a dark T-shirt on a hot day, and this results in more melting.

In addition, the authors’ model showed how changed ocean conditions may have been responsible for the release of CO2 from the ocean into the atmosphere, which like the albedo feedbacks, also accelerated the warming.

The link between the sun and ice age cycles is not new. The theory of Milankovitch cycles states that periodic changes in Earth’s orbit cause increased summertime solar radiation in the northern hemisphere, which controls ice size.

However, this study suggests that the pace-keeper of ice sheet growth and retreat lies in the southern hemisphere’s spring rather than the northern hemisphere’s summer.

The conclusions underscore the importance of regional climate dynamics, Stott said. “Here is an example of how a regional climate response translated into a global climate change,” he explained.

Stott and colleagues arrived at their results by studying a unique sediment core from the western Pacific composed of fossilized surface-dwelling (planktonic) and bottom-dwelling (benthic) organisms.

These organisms – foraminifera – incorporate different isotopes of oxygen from ocean water into their calcite shells, depending on the temperature, and by measuring the change in these isotopes in shells of different ages, it is possible to reconstruct how the deep and surface ocean temperatures changed through time.

If CO2 caused the warming, one would expect surface temperatures to increase before deep-sea temperatures, since the heat slowly would spread from top to bottom. Instead, carbon-dating showed that the water used by the bottom-dwelling organisms began warming about 1,300 years before the water used by surface-dwelling ones, suggesting that the warming spread bottom-up instead.

“The climate dynamic is much more complex than simply saying that CO2 rises and the temperature warms,” Stott said. The complexities “have to be understood in order to appreciate how the climate system has changed in the past and how it will change in the future.”

Stott’s collaborators were Axel Timmermann of the University of Hawaii and Robert Thunell of the University of South Carolina. Stott was supported by the National Science Foundation and Timmerman by the International Pacific Research Center.

Stott is an expert in paleoclimatology and was a reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He also recently co-authored a paper in Geophysical Research Letters tracing a 900-year history of monsoon variability in India.

The study, which analyzed isotopes in cave stalagmites, found correlations between recorded famines and monsoon failures, and found that some past monsoon failures appear to have lasted much longer than those that occurred during recorded history. The ongoing research is aimed at shedding light on the monsoon’s poorly understood but vital role in Earth’s climate.

[jacko]

Sounds like Scientology science.

[QUOTE=GoingDown;583053]What a shocker! The sun may have something to do with warming planet earth!

Who knew?!

http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/14288.html

[GoingDown]

[QUOTE=jacko;583070]Sounds like Scientology science.

What a shocker! The sun may have something to do with warming planet earth!

Who knew?!


http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/14288.html

It's from the University of Southern California, and everybody knows that a Scientologist university funded by the taxpayers of Southern California, right?

We wouldn't want to open our mind and think about any other possibilities, would we?

[GoingDown]

Out of curiosity, how much are all of you willing to pay for gasoline, and electricity?

Or does it matter at all to any of you?

[jacko]

I prefer clean air. The utility firms had all the time in the world to clean up their act. Instead, they paid out dividends to me instead of investing in cleaner energy. I hope gas goes further up so I get fatter dividends. The Euros are living with $9 gas.

Out of curiosity, how much are all of you willing to pay for gasoline, and electricity?

Or does it matter at all to any of you?

[msm859]

Out of curiosity, how much are all of you willing to pay for gasoline, and electricity?

Or does it matter at all to any of you?

I am willing to pay whatever it costs to insure that we are not contributing to climate change. If I am wrong and people listen to me, we will spend more on energy however, we will still have a cleaner environment and be closer to energy independence. If you are wrong and people listen to you the consequence could be catastrophic.
I have the cutest 5 year old granddaughter and another grand baby on the way. I would be nearsighted and remiss to so casually dismiss the overwhelming evidence and scientific opinion.

[AngelinaCatHub]

I prefer clean air. The utility firms had all the time in the world to clean up their act. Instead, they paid out dividends to me instead of investing in cleaner energy. I hope gas goes further up so I get fatter dividends. The Euros are living with $9 gas.

Jacko, my friend, you cannot wait until pay that price of course. But, sir, we need not to and our engines run cleaner than ever. My diesel puts out only a bit of co2. Guess what, that means one atom of carbon, two atoms of Oxygen, what we need to have GREEN trees and stuff which put out Oxygen for us and is an inert gas. CO2 is about the least harmful gasses except Nitrogen. You have heard of Nitrous Oxide? Yea another nasty thingy. Yet 90% of our atmosphere is Nitrogen. You greenies wish to clean up the World? Here is a way: Cut loose on our own oil, quit buying our enemies product that purchases bombs that pollute blood and fire, and smoke all over our troops. Take our factories back from China that does not give a damn about pollution. Think of Gary Indiana steel mills in the 50's and multiply that mess by a thousand when you cannot see the sun at noon for the coal smoke. Scrubbers on their stacks? Are you kidding? Get wise folks. Quit blaming the USA for the Worlds woes.

I am willing to pay whatever it costs to insure that we are not contributing to climate change. If I am wrong and people listen to me, we will spend more on energy however, we will still have a cleaner environment and be closer to energy independence. If you are wrong and people listen to you the consequence could be catastrophic.
I have the cutest 5 year old granddaughter and another grand baby on the way. I would be nearsighted and remiss to so casually dismiss the overwhelming evidence and scientific opinion.

MSM, if you think anything of your grand children's future, quit worrying about the so called (and false) global warming and start to consider the National debt we have incurred which is real and is man made, by one main man. Put reality back into life and propaganda in it's place. Research your views then if you still believe them, by all means stick by them or if you don't, change them. 'Hub

[msm859]

.....
MSM, if you think anything of your grand children's future, quit worrying about the so called (and false) global warming and start to consider the National debt we have incurred which is real and is man made, by one main man. Put reality back into life and propaganda in it's place. Research your views then if you still believe them, by all means stick by them or if you don't, change them. 'Hub

I have researched the evidence on climate change. The preponderance of the evidence is that it is real - actually I would go one step further and say it is clear and convincing that we have global warming - the only thing up to debate is man's contribution.

As to the growing debt, I agree that is the 800 lb gorilla in the room that people need to take seriously. As to blaming it primarily on "one main man" I would agree -- George W. Bush. In 2000 we had a budget surplus that was projected to continue as far out as they could go. Bush got in the Whitehouse and quickly gave two huge tax cuts. At the time when the CBO talked about the huge deficits it would cause Dick Cheney famously said "deficits don't matter". This was then added to by the big pharma give away and 2 wars. In contrast when Obama got elected the world was on the cusp of an economic meltdown and the US was losing over 700,000 jobs per month. The week he was sworn in the leaders of the Republican party were meeting to plan how they were going to insure he would be a one term president. Mitch McConnell was unabashed about admitting that was his umber one goal. The Senate filibustered virtually every attempt by the Congress to help the current situation. The list goes on.
As to balancing the budget that will only happen if we let ALL of the Bush tax cuts expire. Romney wants to make them permanent and cut taxes more for the rich - this would only makes things worse. The systemic problem contributing to the growing deficit is the declining middle class -- the true job creators. If you want to look back at history the last time we had such income disparity was in the 1920's -- we all know what happened next. Romney complains about 47% of the people in this country believing they are victims and want to live off entitlements from the government. I suggest the number of people who are actually like that are a fraction. The real problem is that too much of the profits are spread among too few. WalMart is a prime example of a cancer on this country. 6 of the Walton family have more wealth than the bottom 40% of this country, yet over 90% of their employees make below poverty income. The top 400 families have more wealth than the bottom 50% of the country. If the trend continues at what point will we have our own French Revolution? This problem is directly related to the problem with the deficit.
Good luck America.

[helpmeout]

MSM, if you think anything of your grand children's future, quit worrying about the so called (and false) global warming and start to consider the National debt we have incurred which is real and is man made, by one main man. Put reality back into life and propaganda in it's place. Research your views then if you still believe them, by all means stick by them or if you don't, change them. 'Hub

Global warming is not false.

And the main man with the national debt? Well, that would go back to Reagonomics. The other main man? The one who started two wars (one justified, one to get back at the guy who tried to kill his daddy) and lowered taxes and thought that the wars would just pay for themselves. Did Obama contribute?" Yes, as did every other president. But the main ones to blame are Reagan and Bush.

And before you go and say something condescending like research my views. I have researched my views and I stand by them.

[GoingDown]

I prefer clean air. The utility firms had all the time in the world to clean up their act. Instead, they paid out dividends to me instead of investing in cleaner energy. I hope gas goes further up so I get fatter dividends. The Euros are living with $9 gas.

Thank you for being so honest about this.

So, you don't really care if the costs of electricity and gas go sky high.

That's what I thought about the environmentalist movement.

Have you found any alternative forms of energy that will provide electricity 24 hours a day at a reasonable cost? No. And you don't care about finding them.

[GoingDown]

I am willing to pay whatever it costs to insure that we are not contributing to climate change. If I am wrong and people listen to me, we will spend more on energy however, we will still have a cleaner environment and be closer to energy independence. If you are wrong and people listen to you the consequence could be catastrophic.
I have the cutest 5 year old granddaughter and another grand baby on the way. I would be nearsighted and remiss to so casually dismiss the overwhelming evidence and scientific opinion.

Our coal power plants are clean. They have been greatly improved with the latest in clean burning technology and scrubbers (unlike the coal power plants in China, who by the way will continue to burn coal regardless of what we do, so in the end, if coal is causing global warming [which I doubt] then you will still have global warming). Acid rain is a thing of the past since the coal plants have been using the new technology.

Most of the air pollution you see in cities is caused by cars, not by coal plants. Are you willing to give up driving, too?

Maybe switch to electric cars? But where will the electricity come from?

You don't like coal.

You don't like nuclear power.

You don't like fracking for natural gas.

Many environmentalists don't even like hydro power because it stops the fish from swimming upstream. Some dams have been demolished in Oregon so salmon can continue to swim upstream, and they would like to tear down more dams in Oregon and Arizona.

There is absolutely no proof that anything we do will actually make any significant difference in terms of global warming. It is wild guessing at best. Even if we could get China and India to go along with our plans. And let's face it. They're not going to fall for this alarmist hysteria about global warming.

And I ask again, have you found an energy source that will provide electricity 24 hours a day at a reasonable cost? Tell us all about it.

You want us to jump away from fossil fuels but you don't give us anywhere to jump to.

Just higher prices for everything.

How will your granddaughter like paying most of her discretionary income for more expensive energy and more expensive transportation which will increase the cost of everything for her?

As for energy independence, we are the Saudi Arabia of coal and natural gas, but you don't want us to use it.