President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[verslibre]

Maybe he'll do that when he buries another terrorist leader at sea, if there is anything left after he is blown up with a smart bomb.

You mean the sheet stuffed with styro and sand?

[slucero]

hey i wanna see pics.

[Boomchild]

hey i wanna see pics.

Oh sorry, but those images are classified for National Security.

[Boomchild]

Upon the news release about Jupiter's shrinking red spot, President Obama stated in a news conference that he is convinced this is due to global warming here on earth. Further proof that we need to act fast on reducing our impact on the environment since we are now effecting the entire solar system. In order to deal with this new development, he has appointed Al Gore as Global Warming Czar. Gore's first task as GWC will be to launch himself into space to visit Jupiter and confirm B.O.'s claim to silence his critics.

[Monker]

http://www.real-time-with-bill-maher-bl ... s-are-nuts
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/file ... -00073.pdf

A team of psychologists in Australia have done several studies of climate change deniers, and found that they tend to have “conspiracist ideation.” That’s fancy PhD speak for a tendency to believe in crazy stuff, like that AIDS was created by the government to kill off African Americans, or 9-11 was an inside job, or we’re all being controlled by lizards from another planet (which is true, but that’s a separate issue).

I can’t understand all the mathy stuff in the paper, but their conclusion certainly jibes with the gobbledygook you get from deniers, which is full of accusations of cabals of evil scientists working in cahoots with, I don’t know, Elon Musk or somebody to make everyone install solar panels and be poor.

But what’s really interesting about this paper is that the authors quote some bloggers and various internet deniers, and the publisher of the paper freaked out that libel suits might be forthcoming, and withdrew the paper. So much for academic freedom.

-- Bill Maher

[slucero]

--Bill Maher.

The left's "Rush Limbaugh".....

[Memorex]

http://www.real-time-with-bill-maher-blog.com/index/2014/4/30/science-proves-climate-change-deniers-are-nuts
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/file ... -00073.pdf

A team of psychologists in Australia have done several studies of climate change deniers, and found that they tend to have “conspiracist ideation.” That’s fancy PhD speak for a tendency to believe in crazy stuff, like that AIDS was created by the government to kill off African Americans, or 9-11 was an inside job, or we’re all being controlled by lizards from another planet (which is true, but that’s a separate issue).

I can’t understand all the mathy stuff in the paper, but their conclusion certainly jibes with the gobbledygook you get from deniers, which is full of accusations of cabals of evil scientists working in cahoots with, I don’t know, Elon Musk or somebody to make everyone install solar panels and be poor.

But what’s really interesting about this paper is that the authors quote some bloggers and various internet deniers, and the publisher of the paper freaked out that libel suits might be forthcoming, and withdrew the paper. So much for academic freedom.

-- Bill Maher

I'm a denier - or a realist, depending on your view. Sure the climate is changing - always has, always will. And sure we humans do things we shouldn't do and it's not all that helpful. But do I think we are making the oceans rise all on our own - of course not. And maybe we get pegged as conspiracists, but that's probably because we think the climate change politicians (including the politically motivated scientists) are part of a conspiracy. Duh. I can't think of any other conspiracies I believe in though.

Here's what I do believe. If we went back to caveman days - so no pesticides, no human burning of fossil fuel, no cars, buses, trains, trucks, etc., the death rate of humans would spike immensely. It would reach levels of, oh I don't know, caveman days. We live longer, happier, healthier lives because of our technology and the ability to turn fossil fuels into something we can use. I imagine not nearly as many people (percentage wise) got cancer during the caveman days, but then they didn't live past 50 either. If I died today - near that age - I wouldn't have cancer either.

We must get to alternative energies. We must be a cleaner host if we want to survive for millions more years. Obviously. I mean come on, obviously. But what we don't need is to spend our hard-earned money on circle-jerk programs proposed by this or any other government. And we don't need all the end-of-times fear-mongering. The financial cost is far worse than the problem. These policies are beating the living shit out of the middle class and the poor at an unsustainable rate. And for what?

We are a new species to this planet. In the last 100+ years we have become incredibly technologically advanced. Whatever fossil fuel issues plague us now will be solved in the next 100 years - LONG before earth gives up on us. So chill. Real alternative energy will be created simply because whoever masters it will have infinite wealth. There is motivation built in.

And as I have said - if you are worried about the ocean rising a few feet - stop building things at sea level. The earth has never maintained exactly the same sea level. And it NEVER will. Ever! And are more houses going to burn? Yup. That's a population issue, not a global warming issue.

By the way - south pole ice caps are increasing. Warmer temperatures expand the biodiversity on earth (http://scitechdaily.com/biodiversity-on-earth-increases-with-global-warming/). And scientists continue to silence any opposing viewpoint. That's not science - that's political. That's a conspiracy.

[Boomchild]

The financial cost is far worse than the problem. These policies are beating the living shit out of the middle class and the poor at an unsustainable rate. And for what?

So that more of the population is reliant on government. This is how you gain control over the masses. If you question the propaganda or manipulated scientific data your labeled a nut case. Your not suppose to question authority. Personally, I feel man will destroy it self long before nature could or would.

[artist4perry]

Why is it that when one has a legitimate concern over something and dares to question the status quo they get labeled racist, crazy, ignorant, and so many other stupid names? Name calling is for children in Elementary School. That is about what all the name calling boils down to...just one person with no tolerance for an apposing thought trying to silence any other ideas. There are a lot of things I disagree with many of my friends on politically and otherwise. I listen to what they have to say. I don't call them stupid, racist, mental case etc. I may pose my own views and I hope they would have an open mind. But that is the crux of the matter is it not? True tolerance is being able to listen to something even if you find it offensive and giving that person the right to voice their opinion or ideas. I have to laugh at those who scream tolerance the most are the most intolerant people I have ever met. They will dump any friend they have that does not mimic their every opinion or thought. That is the true closed mind.

[The_Noble_Cause]

--Bill Maher.

The left's "Rush Limbaugh".....

Not even close. Rush was made an honorary member of Congress by the GOP in the 90s for helping them win in 94. Can you show me a similar example of the Democratic Party awarding Bill Maher anything? Howabout Rachel Maddow? Rush Limbaugh's institutional importance to the Right cannot be overstated. He is even more influential than Buckley. Maher is a left leaning libertarian comedian. If anything, he is the left's P. J. O'Rourke.

[Monker]

Why is it that when one has a legitimate concern over something and dares to question the status quo they get labeled racist, crazy, ignorant, and so many other stupid names? Name calling is for children in Elementary School. That is about what all the name calling boils down to...just one person with no tolerance for an apposing thought trying to silence any other ideas. There are a lot of things I disagree with many of my friends on politically and otherwise. I listen to what they have to say. I don't call them stupid, racist, mental case etc. I may pose my own views and I hope they would have an open mind. But that is the crux of the matter is it not? True tolerance is being able to listen to something even if you find it offensive and giving that person the right to voice their opinion or ideas. I have to laugh at those who scream tolerance the most are the most intolerant people I have ever met. They will dump any friend they have that does not mimic their every opinion or thought. That is the true closed mind.

Here is your answer. It is the "deniers" who are in denial about a huge stack of peer reviewed research papers and have "their say" by going on smear campaigns on scientists blogs, see conspiracies around every corner (example above in Boom's last post), and refuse to enter the scientific debate by their own peer reviewed papers and scientific research.

Fact is, I have TALKED to environmental scientists. I asked for their views on climate change...and they were EXTREMELY defensive about talking about it, especially in Email. It took a lot of trust building before they would talk to me...this paper explains to me why they have such a protective attitude. The other side is as nuts as some Perryheads used to be.

There is no conspiracy between scientists and politicians. That is just goofy...and you need to be checked into a mental ward if you believe in this. Most of these scientists barely make enough $ to pay their bills...being a research scientist is NOT a career you go into expecting to suck off the tit of the government and get rich.

On Cosmos, they recently had an episode about lead in the environment and industries fight to not remove it from gasoline and paint, "Oh, it's fine...the level in nature is not increasing." "Oh, it's fine, it's not at dangerous levels in the environment "Oh, the science that contradicts us is completely wrong."

Now we live in a world where lead is considered toxic at any level in the body and it is not allowed in gasoline, paint, etc...and we poke fun at Chine for exporting toxic toys.

The simple truth is industry is always going to fight change with politics....even if it is really a scientific debate. Science and politics mix almost as bad as science and religion. If you remove the politics, it is an accepted scientific FACT that climate change is happening, and it is caused and/or accelerated by humans.

And, the next Cosmos is going to focus on Climate Change...should be interesting.

As for the south pole:
Yes, surface area is increasing, without any explanation as to why. HOWEVER, this is not landlocked ice. Therefore, it does increase the ocean depth even though both have their importance. It is also FALSE that the total ice on the south pole is increasing because the huge glaciers of hundreds of meters of thickness are disappearing...and the new ice is only a few meters thick. That equates to a net loss of ice at the south pole. The north pole is LANDLOCKED ice....it's different...and is not being replaced in any form.

then there is this, which just came out recently:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... nstoppable

[Seven Wishes]

Eloquently stated, Dittohead. Interesting claim - and, like all climate change deniers, completely unsubstantiated by fact or reason.

Go crawl back under your rock now.

[Monker]

Someone could look for the old Global Warming thread from several years ago, where someone who really knew what he was talking about shut up all global warming people and closed thye thread with the very last post. I can't find it myself. TNC, Seven wishes, all of them had nothing to say.

Please...that thread became nothing but repetitive political bullshit and I stopped reading it long ago. Any real info was cherry picked and facts taken out of context without the true scientific big picture of what is really happening (see south pole info above) is ignored. Or, an article or "whatever" from oil industry hired "scientist" is referenced as if it is factual and "true". Or, some leaked Email snippet again taken out of context is used to distract from the big picture FACTS of what is truly going on.

The deniers post what they WANT to hear, which is oil industry sponsored crap science to distract from what the truth really is. Then they ignore reality in favor of the spoon fed bullshit they want to hear...which I am sure FF will soon post in response.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Why is it that when one has a legitimate concern over something and dares to question the status quo they get labeled racist, crazy, ignorant, and so many other stupid names? Name calling is for children in Elementary School. That is about what all the name calling boils down to...just one person with no tolerance for an apposing thought trying to silence any other ideas. There are a lot of things I disagree with many of my friends on politically and otherwise. I listen to what they have to say. I don't call them stupid, racist, mental case etc. I may pose my own views and I hope they would have an open mind. But that is the crux of the matter is it not? True tolerance is being able to listen to something even if you find it offensive and giving that person the right to voice their opinion or ideas. I have to laugh at those who scream tolerance the most are the most intolerant people I have ever met. They will dump any friend they have that does not mimic their every opinion or thought. That is the true closed mind.

Here is your answer. It is the "deniers" who are in denial about a huge stack of peer reviewed research papers and have "their say" by going on smear campaigns on scientists blogs, see conspiracies around every corner (example above in Boom's last post), and refuse to enter the scientific debate by their own peer reviewed papers and scientific research.

Fact is, I have TALKED to environmental scientists. I asked for their views on climate change...and they were EXTREMELY defensive about talking about it, especially in Email. It took a lot of trust building before they would talk to me...this paper explains to me why they have such a protective attitude. The other side is as nuts as some Perryheads used to be.

There is no conspiracy between scientists and politicians. That is just goofy...and you need to be checked into a mental ward if you believe in this. Most of these scientists barely make enough $ to pay their bills...being a research scientist is NOT a career you go into expecting to suck off the tit of the government and get rich.

On Cosmos, they recently had an episode about lead in the environment and industries fight to not remove it from gasoline and paint, "Oh, it's fine...the level in nature is not increasing." "Oh, it's fine, it's not at dangerous levels in the environment "Oh, the science that contradicts us is completely wrong."

Now we live in a world where lead is considered toxic at any level in the body and it is not allowed in gasoline, paint, etc...and we poke fun at Chine for exporting toxic toys.

The simple truth is industry is always going to fight change with politics....even if it is really a scientific debate. Science and politics mix almost as bad as science and religion. If you remove the politics, it is an accepted scientific FACT that climate change is happening, and it is caused and/or accelerated by humans.

And, the next Cosmos is going to focus on Climate Change...should be interesting.

As for the south pole:
Yes, surface area is increasing, without any explanation as to why. HOWEVER, this is not landlocked ice. Therefore, it does increase the ocean depth even though both have their importance. It is also FALSE that the total ice on the south pole is increasing because the huge glaciers of hundreds of meters of thickness are disappearing...and the new ice is only a few meters thick. That equates to a net loss of ice at the south pole. The north pole is LANDLOCKED ice....it's different...and is not being replaced in any form.

then there is this, which just came out recently:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... nstoppable

Great rebuttal, FF. Love watching Monker kick your billy beer swiggin ass.

[The_Noble_Cause]

TNC, Seven wishes, all of them had nothing to say.

I very rarely get involved in the Global Warming debates. I'm not a climatologist and, unlike some here, don't pretend to be.

[Monker]

Nope, the guy that made the very last post knew his stuff and pretty much left no room for conversation, debunking all of it with out even mentioning Phil jones, the worlds biggest con artist. You guys just crawled away back into your miserable holes.

...and it was so impressive that you completely forgot what was said.

[slucero]

~2008

I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America.

Barack Obama, Townhall in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, March 31, 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3IWq3CXHyc

~2014

THE HILL
May 20, 2014, 08:14 am
WH ‘picking up the pace’ on executive actions

The White House will be “picking up the pace on executive actions,” as Congress focuses its efforts on the newly formed select committee investigating Benghazi, senior Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer declared Tuesday.

In an op-ed for The Huffington Post, Pfeiffer argued that congressional Republicans are not interested in engaging on the economy, instead spending time “obsessively trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act” and “ginning up politically motivated investigations.”

“Given this dynamic, President Obama has only one option — use every ounce of his authority to unilaterally improve economic security,” Pfeiffer said.

[Memorex]

The federal government is piecing together a sweeping national “biosurveillance” system that will give bureaucrats near real-time access to Americans’ private medical information in the name of national security.

What the fuck? I am so sick and tired of hearing the phrase "in the name of national security". Fuck all of them.

[artist4perry]

Why is it that when one has a legitimate concern over something and dares to question the status quo they get labeled racist, crazy, ignorant, and so many other stupid names? Name calling is for children in Elementary School. That is about what all the name calling boils down to...just one person with no tolerance for an apposing thought trying to silence any other ideas. There are a lot of things I disagree with many of my friends on politically and otherwise. I listen to what they have to say. I don't call them stupid, racist, mental case etc. I may pose my own views and I hope they would have an open mind. But that is the crux of the matter is it not? True tolerance is being able to listen to something even if you find it offensive and giving that person the right to voice their opinion or ideas. I have to laugh at those who scream tolerance the most are the most intolerant people I have ever met. They will dump any friend they have that does not mimic their every opinion or thought. That is the true closed mind.

Here is your answer. It is the "deniers" who are in denial about a huge stack of peer reviewed research papers and have "their say" by going on smear campaigns on scientists blogs, see conspiracies around every corner (example above in Boom's last post), and refuse to enter the scientific debate by their own peer reviewed papers and scientific research.

Fact is, I have TALKED to environmental scientists. I asked for their views on climate change...and they were EXTREMELY defensive about talking about it, especially in Email. It took a lot of trust building before they would talk to me...this paper explains to me why they have such a protective attitude. The other side is as nuts as some Perryheads used to be.

There is no conspiracy between scientists and politicians. That is just goofy...and you need to be checked into a mental ward if you believe in this. Most of these scientists barely make enough $ to pay their bills...being a research scientist is NOT a career you go into expecting to suck off the tit of the government and get rich.

On Cosmos, they recently had an episode about lead in the environment and industries fight to not remove it from gasoline and paint, "Oh, it's fine...the level in nature is not increasing." "Oh, it's fine, it's not at dangerous levels in the environment "Oh, the science that contradicts us is completely wrong."

Now we live in a world where lead is considered toxic at any level in the body and it is not allowed in gasoline, paint, etc...and we poke fun at Chine for exporting toxic toys.

The simple truth is industry is always going to fight change with politics....even if it is really a scientific debate. Science and politics mix almost as bad as science and religion. If you remove the politics, it is an accepted scientific FACT that climate change is happening, and it is caused and/or accelerated by humans.

And, the next Cosmos is going to focus on Climate Change...should be interesting.

As for the south pole:
Yes, surface area is increasing, without any explanation as to why. HOWEVER, this is not landlocked ice. Therefore, it does increase the ocean depth even though both have their importance. It is also FALSE that the total ice on the south pole is increasing because the huge glaciers of hundreds of meters of thickness are disappearing...and the new ice is only a few meters thick. That equates to a net loss of ice at the south pole. The north pole is LANDLOCKED ice....it's different...and is not being replaced in any form.

then there is this, which just came out recently:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... nstoppable

So after giving me eye strain after reading all that overload of info, (I was not even referring to global warming, but to name callers in general.) I still think we should and can question whatever we want. Including global warming, farm prices, the price of gasoline, why people feel they can never be wrong and are always right no matter what...and other fun filled topics such as these. I don't know how you got global warming out of what I said though...LOL

[Monker]

So after giving me eye strain after reading all that overload of info, (I was not even referring to global warming, but to name callers in general.) I still think we should and can question whatever we want. Including global warming, farm prices, the price of gasoline, why people feel they can never be wrong and are always right no matter what...and other fun filled topics such as these. I don't know how you got global warming out of what I said though...LOL

yeah, I know, I sorta pick on you....I read a bunch of posts and sorta sum them up in a reply to your post when it is really a reply to everything.

Yes, you can and should question whatever you want. However, when that happens and it turns in to a slimy "political" campaign against a scientific topic, or a specific person, it does not advance anything. You want to question a scientific theory that is broadly accepted by the scientific community, fine....but to really be taken seriously, come up with your own theory, research it and prove it right with facts. Otherwise you are bringing a blow horn to a thermometer fight.

[Monker]

This guy got into time lines, Ice Age data, Earths polar tilt, earths orbit wobble, everything.

Here is the issue I have with all of that. Find a natural cycle that PREDICTS the 100yrs of consistent warming we are experiencing. All of that is interesting stuff...you can also add: The Earth's elliptical orbit, the sun "shrinking", the sun spot cycle. But, NONE of it, as far as I know, has a natural cycle which PREDICTS what is happening right now. If there is a natural cycle, find it and post it...in fact, write an article about it and get it published.

[Monker]

The federal government is piecing together a sweeping national “biosurveillance” system that will give bureaucrats near real-time access to Americans’ private medical information in the name of national security.

What the fuck? I am so sick and tired of hearing the phrase "in the name of national security". Fuck all of them.

You should have been tired of it 8yrs ago, at least.

But, I will also add there are ALREADY huge databases of health data being kept by the government. Having it available in "real time" and being able to track it to a specific person is VERY wrong though. And, the "national security" justification is laughable.

However, IMO, if they can do it, they will...in the same way as they did satellite and internet traffic.

[Seven Wishes]

Back in the very early 70's, I believed what I was told in Sunday School - that the earth was, according to Archbishop Ussher, 5,974 years old, give or take a day or two. It wasn't a stretch at the time to believe Saul himself, brandishing little more than a flattened piece of iron and tree limb, had ridden an Allosaur into battle against the Philistines at Mount Gilboa.

Of course, once our heretical elementary school science teachers brainwashed us into believing mankind had evolved from a single African Homo Habilis over many millions of years, these naive youthful notions were lost.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

So why the insistence upon the politicization of climate change? What exactly does a rural farmer from Alabama have to gain by defending by proxy the interests and agenda of the energy conglomerates? What is the saturation point? When, finally, does the collective public interest supersede the spectral invocations of the GOP?

The ever-dwindling minority of climate change deniers will continue to bash femur bones against the obelisk of scientific fact as long as their inability to intellectually evolve predominates.

[Memorex]

This guy got into time lines, Ice Age data, Earths polar tilt, earths orbit wobble, everything.

Here is the issue I have with all of that. Find a natural cycle that PREDICTS the 100yrs of consistent warming we are experiencing. All of that is interesting stuff...you can also add: The Earth's elliptical orbit, the sun "shrinking", the sun spot cycle. But, NONE of it, as far as I know, has a natural cycle which PREDICTS what is happening right now. If there is a natural cycle, find it and post it...in fact, write an article about it and get it published.

Last I heard we haven't warmed in over a decade. Or did they change that again?

[Seven Wishes]

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html

https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2014/201301-201312.png

[Monker]

As the Sun dies, it will grow larger, not smaller.

Correct...whatever the theory was. I just remember it was posted here a couple years ago. Maybe it was the sun becoming dimmer or brighter. The point is: No natural cycle can explain the current warming trend.

The Sun will do the Earth in.

Mercury and Venus are doomed. The Earth is questionable.

The direction the Earth tilts will expose different parts to more or less sunlight.

Correct. When the northern hemisphere is pointed towards the sun, it is called "summer' and it is warmer out. When it pointed away, it is called "winter" and it is colder out. These are called "seasons" . Geez, I thought we all knew that.

You "Warmers" are great about posting about melting caps, ect, but never mention the ones that are growing.

What? I just posted about this. The "ice cap" at the North Pole is shrinking...and it is a problem because it is land locked ice and will cause the ocean depth to rise. The "ice cap" at the south pole has expanded...but it is NEW ICE, only a few meters thick...while other areas of ice at the South Pole are disappearing which are old ice, hundreds of meters thick. Therefore, there is a NET LOSS of ice at the south pole....and I just posted an article that said a huge south pole ice sheet is probably impossible to save now. So there is no such thing as a "cap" that is increasing in the total amount of ice.

It's been in the sixties all week here in KC. It should be in the eighties. I had my heat on last week. Patterens have shifted back to the sixties when I was a child. Parts of the Earth are heating up, parts are also cooling down. JUST LIKE IT ALWAYS HAS.

Which is why scientists look at the global average temperature of the Earth, and sometimes usually divide it between land and ocean because they are so different. The average temp of the Earth has been increasing for the past 100yrs...that is just a fact.

[Monker]

So after giving me eye strain after reading all that overload of info, (I was not even referring to global warming, but to name callers in general.) I still think we should and can question whatever we want. Including global warming, farm prices, the price of gasoline, why people feel they can never be wrong and are always right no matter what...and other fun filled topics such as these. I don't know how you got global warming out of what I said though...LOL

And, here is a great explanation of the entire climate change "debate"...and why it should be considered a 'fact':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g-FYa44hiE

[Seven Wishes]

Claim: Petitioners (deniers) say that errors in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report call the entire body of work into question.
Response: Of the alleged errors, EPA confirmed only two in a 3,000 page report. The first pertains to the rate of Himalayan glacier melt and second to the percentage of the Netherlands below sea level. IPCC issued correction statements for both of these errors.

Claim: Petitioners say that new scientific studies refute evidence supporting the Endangerment Finding.
Response: Petitioners misinterpreted the results of these studies. Contrary to their claims, many of the papers they submit as evidence are consistent with EPA’s Finding. Other studies submitted by the petitioners were based on unsound methodologies

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/56eb0d86757cb7568525776f0063d82f!OpenDocument

[Memorex]

Let's say the oceans rise 20 feet. I don't see the issue. Some land goes away - sure. People need to move - sure. So? Has anyone looked at designs of what earth used to look like millions of years ago? Nothing like today. How about back in the day when there was virtually no water until the comets brought it here? Doesn't it seem awfully arrogant that we as a people, in this exact date and time, determine that OUR sea level is the best and ONLY proper sea level? We get to determine how much rain the earth should have forever? Pick a point in time - any point - and imagine if the human race did everything it could to make sure the earth didn't change (as if they could). Would a permanent ice age be ideal?

I just think it's really, really, tremendously stupid to think we should determine the ocean level forever. Or what species survive and die. I mean, there is so much changing in species going on every single day and no one bats an eye. But if a few stupid fish are in danger then hey, we better cut off water to farmland that is critical to feeding the people of this country. Especially in a drought. Better to let an entire economy suffer than harm some species that no one gives a shit about. This is the kind of stuff that makes me realize that the climate change crowd is overboard. There is no balance. Fuck the fish, feed the people, and we'll figure it out as we go.

Fish and Wildlife regulations tightly control water resources in the state, making it impossible earlier this year for the reservoirs to capture the rain, when it fell late last fall. And because of the endangered species in the region, pumping water is also restricted, leaving farmers high and dry.

And how come the global warming arguement ALWAYS goes like this: "We have climate change because of fact A and fact B and this exact thing and this study shows this exact point and we know it as fact and 97% of all the world's people and alien civilizations agree and stupid people should not question us because we are the smartest people on this dying planet and that's because we evaluate the facts!" "Ok, um, why has the warming stopped for 14 or 15 years?" "Oh, well, we don't really have an explanation for that. It doesn't fit into our models. We can't be certain". "Fuck you."

[Seven Wishes]

Wow. What a mind-bogglingly ignorant statement.

Twelve percent of the world's population would be displaced with a sea level rise of just 20 feet. Double that, and the number hits 33%. Now, I know Republicans have no idea how local, regional, national, or global economies work, but it doesn't take a Koch brother to realize the permanent and catastrophic damage that would occur as a consequence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/science/earth/seeking-clues-about-sea-level-from-fossil-beaches.html?hp&_r=0