President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

General Intelligent Discussion & One Thread About That Buttknuckle

Moderator: Andrew

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby AR » Thu Aug 14, 2014 8:57 am

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2 ... r-science/

In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'

President Obama has put salvation from dreaded climate catastrophes on his action agenda hot list. During his inaugural address he said: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” He went on to shame anyone who disagrees with this assessment, saying, “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms.”

This sort of scary presidential prognostication isn’t new. He previously emphasized at the Democratic National Convention that global warming was “not a hoax”, referred to recent droughts and floods as “a threat to our children’s future”, and pledged to make the climate a second-term priority.

As much as I hate to nit-pick his doomsday scenarios, it might be appropriate to correct a few general misconceptions before getting back to that “overwhelming judgment of science” stuff.

Regarding wildfires, for example, their numbers since 1950 have decreased globally by 15%. According to the National Academy of Sciences, they will likely continue to decline until around midcentury.

As for those droughts, a recent study published in the letter of the journal Nature indicates that globally, “…there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.” And as the U.N. Climate panel concluded last year: “Some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia.”

Also, by the way, global hurricane activity, measured in total energy (Accumulated Cyclone Energy), is actually at a low not encountered since the 1970s. In fact, the U.S. is currently experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in over a century. Wilma, the last Category 3 or stronger storm, occurred more than seven years ago.

But supposing these recent circumstances were different…because after all, climate really does change. Even virtually all of those who the president claims “deny” that “overwhelming science” recognize this. (If climate didn’t change, would we even need a word for it?)

The larger issue has to do with just how many of those who stoke the global warming alarm fires have real confidence in that “science”. So let’s briefly review just a few candid comments that some of them have offered on this topic. These are but a very small sampling of my favorites.

How Climate Alarmism Advances International Political Agendas:

The term “climate” is typically associated with annual world-wide average temperature records measured over at least three decades. Yet global warming observed less than two decades after many scientists had predicted a global cooling crisis prompted the United Nations to organize an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and to convene a continuing series of international conferences purportedly aimed at preventing an impending catastrophe. Virtually from the beginning, they had already attributed the “crisis” to human fossil-fuel carbon emissions.

A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

How Some Key IPCC Researchers View Their Science:

For starters, let’s begin with two different views by some of the same researchers that are reported in the same year regarding whether there is a discernible human influence on global climate.

First, taken from a 1996 IPCC report summary written by B.D. Santer, T.M.L Wigley, T.P. Barnett, and E. Anyamba: “…there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcings by greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols…from geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change…These results point towards human influence on climate.”

Then, a 1996 publication “The Holocene”, by T.P. Barnett, B.D. Santer, P.D. Jones, R.S. Bradley and K.R. Briffa, says this: “Estimates of…natural variability are critical to the problem of detecting an anthropogenic [human] signal…We have estimated the spectrum…from paleo-temperature proxies and compared it with…general [climate] circulation models…none of the three estimates of the natural variability spectrum agree with each other…Until…resolved, it will be hard to say, with confidence, that an anthropogenic climate signal has or has not been detected.”

In other words, these guys, several of whom you will hear from later, can’t say with confidence whether or not humans have had any influence at all…or even if so, whether it has caused warming or cooling!

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

The late Stephen Schneider, who authored The Genesis Strategy, a 1976 book warning that global cooling risks posed a threat to humanity, later changed that view 180 degrees, serving as a lead author for important parts of three sequential IPCC reports. In a quotation published in Discover, he said: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters, writing in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the science journal Nature.com, admitted: “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state”.

Christopher Landsea, a top expert on the subject of cyclones, became astounded and perplexed when he was informed that Trenberth had participated in a 2004 press conference following a deadly 2004 Florida storm season which had announced “Experts warn that global warming [is] likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense activity.” Since IPCC studies released in 1995 and 2001 had found no evidence of a global warming-hurricane link, and there was no new analysis to suggest otherwise, he wrote to leading IPCC officials imploring: “What scientific, refereed publications substantiate these pronouncements? What studies alluded to have shown a connection between observed warming trends on Earth and long-term trends of cyclone activity?”

Receiving no replies, he then requested assurance that the 2007 report would present true science, saying: “[Dr. Trenberth] seems to have come to a conclusion that global warming has altered hurricane activity, and has already stated so. This does not reflect consensus within the hurricane research community.” After that assurance didn’t come, Landsea, an invited author, resigned from the 2007 report activity and issued an open letter presenting his reasons.

Some Interesting ClimateGate E-Mail Comments:

A note from Jones to Trenberth: “Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature [journal] paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW [global warming] is having an effect on TC [tropical cyclone] activity.”

Jones wanted to make sure that people who supported this connection be represented in IPCC reviews: “Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.”

Raymond Bradley, co-author of Michael Mann’s infamously flawed hockey stick paper which was featured in influential IPCC reports, took issue with another article jointly published by Mann and Phil Jones, stating: “I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year reconstruction.”

Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote: “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC …”

Wigley and Trenberth suggested in another e-mail to Mann: “If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].”

A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann referred to two papers recently published in Climate Research with a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is.”

A June 4, 2003 e-mail from Keith Briffa to fellow tree ring researcher Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York stated: “I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”

Tom Crowley, a key member of Michael Mann’s global warming hockey team, wrote: “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”

Several e-mail exchanges reveal that certain researchers believed well-intentioned ideology trumped objective science. Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

Phil Jones wrote: “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. …what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.”

Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office advised caution, saying: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary…”

In another e-mail, Thorne stated: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

Another scientist worries: “…clearly, some tuning or very good luck [is] involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.”

Still another observed: “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”

One researcher foresaw some very troubling consequences: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…”

The Costs of Ideology Masquerading as Science:

As Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore observed on Fox Business News in January 2011: “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It’s not good for people and it’s not good for the environment…In a warmer world we can produce more food.”

When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, he said: “A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue.”

Paul Ehrlich, best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book, “The Population Bomb”, reported in a March 2010 Nature editorial that a barrage of challenges countering the notion of a looming global warming catastrophe has his alarmist colleagues in big sweats: “Everyone is scared s***less [fecally void], but they don’t know what to do.”

Yes, and it should, because consequences of subordinating climate science to ideology, however well intentioned, have proven to be incredibly costly.

The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) reports that federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010 (a total $106.7 billion over that period). This doesn’t include $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, tax breaks for “green energy”, foreign aid to help other countries address “climate problems”; another $16.1 billion since 1993 in federal revenue losses due to green energy subsidies; or still another $26 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities in the 2009 “Stimulus Bill”.


Virtually all of this is based upon unfounded representations that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis, a claim based upon speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions. And what redemptive solutions are urgently implored? We must give lots of money to the U.N. to redistribute; abandon fossil fuel use in favor of heavily subsidized but assuredly abundant, “free”, and “renewable” alternatives; and expand federal government growth, regulatory powers, and crony capitalist-enriched political campaign coffers.

It is way past time to realize that none of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made climate change. It never was.
Last edited by AR on Thu Aug 14, 2014 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
AR
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 8530
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:21 am

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Thu Aug 14, 2014 9:00 am

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1354.htm


First of all, this article was writing in 2001...back when even I was a bit skeptical. It is VERY outdated.

The best lies contain a measure of truth. Yes, carbon dioxide in the air has increased in the last century due to the use of fossil fuels. Yes, global average temperature has increased 0.8 degrees F in the same century. Unfortunately, the temperature increase came first: most of the temperature increase was before 1940, and most of the new carbon dioxide was added after 1960. Would you trust a "scientist" who said the result came before the cause?


Only a blatant liar would take the hottest day in the past and compare it the coldest day in the "present" and think they are making a valid comparison. What is quoted above does EXACTLY that and is misinformation at best, and a flat out lie at the worst.

Solar activity may be the cause of the world temperature changes. The global warmers can't explain why satellites show no temperature change in the past 20 years. The computer models that predict disaster in a century have been completely wrong for the past 20 years. And no one can agree on the side effects.


My God, I commented on this in my last post. The above quote is based on a LIE from one of the people on your list. Satellites DID show the temperature change....but the "scientist" doing the research essentially allowed THEIR OWN DATA to be misinterpreted...and then when it was corrected, they LIED about it, and obviously, that LIE continues through to today.

The global warmers have failed to prove that man has caused a problem. This hasn't stopped them from demanding we act, and act now.


Sorry, but if you look and you consider ALL of the facts there is NO DOUBT that man is causing global warming.

\The primary advocates of global warming remain the environmentalists.


This is simply NOT TRUE. Every branch of science that has study it has come to the conclusion that global warming is happening and man is the cause of it.

They propose a drastic solution to a non-existent problem


Funny...this article was written at the start of the WARMEST DECADE ON RECORD.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Thu Aug 14, 2014 9:47 am

I ask for a peer reviewed paper and you give me this...an author who NEVER had a peer reviewed paper and is a known idiot being paid to lead people like you around on a leash.

I'm not going to go through all his lies and misinformation. Here is someone else doing that to one of his other articles...it's his same type of bullshit.

www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/ ... -nonsense/

AR wrote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/

In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their 'Science'

President Obama has put salvation from dreaded climate catastrophes on his action agenda hot list. During his inaugural address he said: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” He went on to shame anyone who disagrees with this assessment, saying, “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms.”

This sort of scary presidential prognostication isn’t new. He previously emphasized at the Democratic National Convention that global warming was “not a hoax”, referred to recent droughts and floods as “a threat to our children’s future”, and pledged to make the climate a second-term priority.

As much as I hate to nit-pick his doomsday scenarios, it might be appropriate to correct a few general misconceptions before getting back to that “overwhelming judgment of science” stuff.

Regarding wildfires, for example, their numbers since 1950 have decreased globally by 15%. According to the National Academy of Sciences, they will likely continue to decline until around midcentury.

As for those droughts, a recent study published in the letter of the journal Nature indicates that globally, “…there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.” And as the U.N. Climate panel concluded last year: “Some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia.”

Also, by the way, global hurricane activity, measured in total energy (Accumulated Cyclone Energy), is actually at a low not encountered since the 1970s. In fact, the U.S. is currently experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in over a century. Wilma, the last Category 3 or stronger storm, occurred more than seven years ago.

But supposing these recent circumstances were different…because after all, climate really does change. Even virtually all of those who the president claims “deny” that “overwhelming science” recognize this. (If climate didn’t change, would we even need a word for it?)

The larger issue has to do with just how many of those who stoke the global warming alarm fires have real confidence in that “science”. So let’s briefly review just a few candid comments that some of them have offered on this topic. These are but a very small sampling of my favorites.

How Climate Alarmism Advances International Political Agendas:

The term “climate” is typically associated with annual world-wide average temperature records measured over at least three decades. Yet global warming observed less than two decades after many scientists had predicted a global cooling crisis prompted the United Nations to organize an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and to convene a continuing series of international conferences purportedly aimed at preventing an impending catastrophe. Virtually from the beginning, they had already attributed the “crisis” to human fossil-fuel carbon emissions.

A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”

How Some Key IPCC Researchers View Their Science:

For starters, let’s begin with two different views by some of the same researchers that are reported in the same year regarding whether there is a discernible human influence on global climate.

First, taken from a 1996 IPCC report summary written by B.D. Santer, T.M.L Wigley, T.P. Barnett, and E. Anyamba: “…there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcings by greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols…from geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change…These results point towards human influence on climate.”

Then, a 1996 publication “The Holocene”, by T.P. Barnett, B.D. Santer, P.D. Jones, R.S. Bradley and K.R. Briffa, says this: “Estimates of…natural variability are critical to the problem of detecting an anthropogenic [human] signal…We have estimated the spectrum…from paleo-temperature proxies and compared it with…general [climate] circulation models…none of the three estimates of the natural variability spectrum agree with each other…Until…resolved, it will be hard to say, with confidence, that an anthropogenic climate signal has or has not been detected.”

In other words, these guys, several of whom you will hear from later, can’t say with confidence whether or not humans have had any influence at all…or even if so, whether it has caused warming or cooling!

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

The late Stephen Schneider, who authored The Genesis Strategy, a 1976 book warning that global cooling risks posed a threat to humanity, later changed that view 180 degrees, serving as a lead author for important parts of three sequential IPCC reports. In a quotation published in Discover, he said: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters, writing in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the science journal Nature.com, admitted: “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state”.

Christopher Landsea, a top expert on the subject of cyclones, became astounded and perplexed when he was informed that Trenberth had participated in a 2004 press conference following a deadly 2004 Florida storm season which had announced “Experts warn that global warming [is] likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense activity.” Since IPCC studies released in 1995 and 2001 had found no evidence of a global warming-hurricane link, and there was no new analysis to suggest otherwise, he wrote to leading IPCC officials imploring: “What scientific, refereed publications substantiate these pronouncements? What studies alluded to have shown a connection between observed warming trends on Earth and long-term trends of cyclone activity?”

Receiving no replies, he then requested assurance that the 2007 report would present true science, saying: “[Dr. Trenberth] seems to have come to a conclusion that global warming has altered hurricane activity, and has already stated so. This does not reflect consensus within the hurricane research community.” After that assurance didn’t come, Landsea, an invited author, resigned from the 2007 report activity and issued an open letter presenting his reasons.

Some Interesting ClimateGate E-Mail Comments:

A note from Jones to Trenberth: “Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature [journal] paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW [global warming] is having an effect on TC [tropical cyclone] activity.”

Jones wanted to make sure that people who supported this connection be represented in IPCC reviews: “Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.”

Raymond Bradley, co-author of Michael Mann’s infamously flawed hockey stick paper which was featured in influential IPCC reports, took issue with another article jointly published by Mann and Phil Jones, stating: “I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year reconstruction.”

Trenberth associate Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote: “Mike, the Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC …”

Wigley and Trenberth suggested in another e-mail to Mann: “If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].”

A July 2004 communication from Phil Jones to Michael Mann referred to two papers recently published in Climate Research with a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” subject line observed: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is.”

A June 4, 2003 e-mail from Keith Briffa to fellow tree ring researcher Edward Cook at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York stated: “I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”

Tom Crowley, a key member of Michael Mann’s global warming hockey team, wrote: “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”

Several e-mail exchanges reveal that certain researchers believed well-intentioned ideology trumped objective science. Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

Phil Jones wrote: “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. …what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.”

Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office advised caution, saying: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary…”

In another e-mail, Thorne stated: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

Another scientist worries: “…clearly, some tuning or very good luck [is] involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer.”

Still another observed: “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”

One researcher foresaw some very troubling consequences: “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multi-decadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably…”

The Costs of Ideology Masquerading as Science:

As Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore observed on Fox Business News in January 2011: “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It’s not good for people and it’s not good for the environment…In a warmer world we can produce more food.”

When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, he said: “A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue.”

Paul Ehrlich, best known for his 1968 doom and gloom book, “The Population Bomb”, reported in a March 2010 Nature editorial that a barrage of challenges countering the notion of a looming global warming catastrophe has his alarmist colleagues in big sweats: “Everyone is scared s***less [fecally void], but they don’t know what to do.”

Yes, and it should, because consequences of subordinating climate science to ideology, however well intentioned, have proven to be incredibly costly.

The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) reports that federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010 (a total $106.7 billion over that period). This doesn’t include $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, tax breaks for “green energy”, foreign aid to help other countries address “climate problems”; another $16.1 billion since 1993 in federal revenue losses due to green energy subsidies; or still another $26 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities in the 2009 “Stimulus Bill”.


Virtually all of this is based upon unfounded representations that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis, a claim based upon speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions. And what redemptive solutions are urgently implored? We must give lots of money to the U.N. to redistribute; abandon fossil fuel use in favor of heavily subsidized but assuredly abundant, “free”, and “renewable” alternatives; and expand federal government growth, regulatory powers, and crony capitalist-enriched political campaign coffers.

It is way past time to realize that none of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made climate change. It never was.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby AR » Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:38 am

Let me ask you a question Monker. Seeing that I don't believe any of us here are scientists and we can go all day with article after article. For the record the IPCC is about as credible to me as Krusty the Clown.

What are your suggestions as to protect the planet from climate change and preserving the environment in general?

I'm for taking certain actions, but I see things going on in the state of Maryland like our governor sending out a contract for his cronies to make money off of super expensive, semi useless windpower. Don't think that people aren't getting rich over going green. They are.

There has also been a "rain tax" aka Storm Water Remediation fee to help save the Chesapeake Bay. Meanwhile while collecting this onerous tax on the citizens of Maryland, the Susquehanna River is pouring sediment into the Bay. Without cooperation with Pennsylvania and New York this tax is merely a useless burden on the tax payers of my home state.

Give me suggestions that do not involve more taxes because that is the only answer progressives ever seem to have. How about something innovative for once?

No one leads me around by a leash. I cross party lines constantly which is something I'll bet you don't.
User avatar
AR
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 8530
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:21 am

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Thu Aug 14, 2014 1:49 pm

I doubt anything serious will be done until gasoline is AT LEAST $5/gallon and industry is forced into using cheaper fuels by consumers. I think that should be encouraged in any way possible. Maybe start with saying no more gasoline refinaries will be built, and the existing ones will not be upgraded. That will be a SERIOUS step.

I don't know anything about what is going on in MD. If wind power is done right, it is NOT useless. Almost %30 of the electric power generated in Iowa comes from wind farms. It creates jobs by manufacturing the wind mills and parts in-state, and engineers have to be trained to install and maintain the equipment. The local community college even has a windmill on campus for training. Saying it is semi-useless may be true for whatever policies MD is coming up with, but it is absolutely NOT TRUE when it is done right. Incentives for wind power, and alternative energy in general, have been happening in Iowa since the early 80's.

And, yes, there IS a one cent per kilowatt/hr energy tax in Iowa, which has been in place for years. It is used for incentives for alternative energy...when used properly - it works. If you are a farmer with a wind mill and/or solar panels, or a home owner with solar panels, you can save a LOT of money or may not have an electric bill at all. it also costs money to upgrade the power grid to move the energy from wind farm.

The same is true for using ethanol blended gasoline. It should be a national policy that E85 be available at all stations nationally and not wait for states to offer it. The same with offering "charge stations" for electric cars.

There are a LOT of ways to generate electricity besides coal and oil. Power companies only need the incentive to make that change...and your state has to be dedicated to make that change as well.

I have no knowledge of the Chesapeake Bay. If they are talking about run-off water, that is pollution and not really climate change.

If you are reading or listening to commentary about climate change without checking that the source is a true peer reviewed published scientist and you take that person seriously....then you are believing propaganda at best, and invented bullshit and lies at the worst...And, yes, you are being led about on a leash.

AR wrote:Let me ask you a question Monker. Seeing that I don't believe any of us here are scientists and we can go all day with article after article. For the record the IPCC is about as credible to me as Krusty the Clown.

What are your suggestions as to protect the planet from climate change and preserving the environment in general?

I'm for taking certain actions, but I see things going on in the state of Maryland like our governor sending out a contract for his cronies to make money off of super expensive, semi useless windpower. Don't think that people aren't getting rich over going green. They are.

Th[/b]ere has also been a "rain tax" aka Storm Water Remediation fee to help save the Chesapeake Bay. Meanwhile while collecting this onerous tax on the citizens of Maryland, the Susquehanna River is pouring sediment into the Bay. Without cooperation with Pennsylvania and New York this tax is merely a useless burden on the tax payers of my home state.

Give me suggestions that do not involve more taxes because that is the only answer progressives ever seem to have. How about something innovative for once?

No one leads me around by a leash. I cross party lines constantly which is something I'll bet you don't.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby AR » Thu Aug 14, 2014 2:06 pm

And, yes, you are being led about on a leash.


No I am not. Pot meet kettle.

You may be about Styx though. :P

"a true peer reviewed published scientist "

Based on whose judgement? You are not a scientist. I am not either. There are disagreements in that community and you are simply not qualified to dismiss anyone's opinion. This where you lose me completely. :?

I'll read the full post tomorrow (on my 46th birthday) and address what you posted.

Off the cuff there are too many people on this planet. My way of solving things. Less people having children. Especially those not equipped to. We require licenses and regulations for everything but yet any fucking idiot can be a parent. That is a problem.

That would be ideal slowing population growth, but unfortunately you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

Economics: The study of man and his use of his limited resources trying to satisfy his unlimited needs and wants.
User avatar
AR
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 8530
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:21 am

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Thu Aug 14, 2014 5:42 pm

AR wrote:Off the cuff there are too many people on this planet. My way of solving things. Less people having children. Especially those not equipped to. We require licenses and regulations for everything but yet any fucking idiot can be a parent. That is a problem.


Very good point. I agree. One of the major issues we have in the U.S.. People that already have children they can't provide for having even more children. Simply because the system will provide them with more support when they do. To me that is a recipe for disaster. My position would be that if they are already getting government support, then they should be informed that's all the support you get. If you have more children you'll have to make it work with the level of assistance that you have now. In other words, show them they have to have accountability for their own actions and choices. That the assistance programs are not there for your continued bad choices. To me having children that you can't support on your own is a form of child abuse. Now some will say that by doing what I suggest it will only hurt the children. It would if the government would not step in to make sure the children are taking care of properly. To that I would say, if it's found that you cannot support the children you have on the current level of assistance you are getting then they will be taken from you and placed up for adoption. My viewpoint may not be the only or right solution but, something has to be done other then keep handing out money to those that choose to have more children when they can't support the ones they already have.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby steveo777 » Thu Aug 14, 2014 6:17 pm

Boomchild wrote:
AR wrote:Off the cuff there are too many people on this planet. My way of solving things. Less people having children. Especially those not equipped to. We require licenses and regulations for everything but yet any fucking idiot can be a parent. That is a problem.


Very good point. I agree. One of the major issues we have in the U.S.. People that already have children they can't provide for having even more children. Simply because the system will provide them with more support when they do. To me that is a recipe for disaster. My position would be that if they are already getting government support, then they should be informed that's all the support you get. If you have more children you'll have to make it work with the level of assistance that you have now. In other words, show them they have to have accountability for their own actions and choices. That the assistance programs are not there for your continued bad choices. To me having children that you can't support on your own is a form of child abuse. Now some will say that by doing what I suggest it will only hurt the children. It would if the government would not step in to make sure the children are taking care of properly. To that I would say, if it's found that you cannot support the children you have on the current level of assistance you are getting then they will be taken from you and placed up for adoption. My viewpoint may not be the only or right solution but, something has to be done other then keep handing out money to those that choose to have more children when they can't support the ones they already have.


Actually, we have two solutions for bad choices.....more government assistance, or planned parenthood, where you can go kill it, if you don't want it. We, the taxed, pay for both options.
User avatar
steveo777
MP3
 
Posts: 11311
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:15 pm
Location: Citrus Heights, Ca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Fri Aug 15, 2014 1:55 am

Perhaps you should move to communist China where such things are already happening.

Boomchild wrote:
AR wrote:Off the cuff there are too many people on this planet. My way of solving things. Less people having children. Especially those not equipped to. We require licenses and regulations for everything but yet any fucking idiot can be a parent. That is a problem.


Very good point. I agree. One of the major issues we have in the U.S.. People that already have children they can't provide for having even more children. Simply because the system will provide them with more support when they do. To me that is a recipe for disaster. My position would be that if they are already getting government support, then they should be informed that's all the support you get. If you have more children you'll have to make it work with the level of assistance that you have now. In other words, show them they have to have accountability for their own actions and choices. That the assistance programs are not there for your continued bad choices. To me having children that you can't support on your own is a form of child abuse. Now some will say that by doing what I suggest it will only hurt the children. It would if the government would not step in to make sure the children are taking care of properly. To that I would say, if it's found that you cannot support the children you have on the current level of assistance you are getting then they will be taken from you and placed up for adoption. My viewpoint may not be the only or right solution but, something has to be done other then keep handing out money to those that choose to have more children when they can't support the ones they already have.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Fri Aug 15, 2014 2:17 am

AR wrote:
And, yes, you are being led about on a leash.


No I am not. Pot meet kettle.


Oh, please. I reserved judgement for years until I understood the facts and evidence behind what was being said. I actually TALKED TO SCIENTISTS...not ones who are in the media, either. I'm not one who is led about on a leash...I find things out for myself rather than being told what to believe by the media.

"a true peer reviewed published scientist "

Based on whose judgement? You are not a scientist. I am not either. There are disagreements in that community and you are simply not qualified to dismiss anyone's opinion. This where you lose me completely. :?


You have no clue what you are talking about. Peer review involves other scientists reviewing the article to ensure it is not made bullshit or blatantly ignoring contrary facts without explanation. It ensures accuracy and honesty in the article and avoids articles written for the expression of opinion rather than presenting the facts. Your Forbes article is an OPINION piece, not anything written for any reputable scientific journal.

Off the cuff there are too many people on this planet.


That is yet another myth. Somebody else posted about the entire population of the US living in Texxas...that is true. In fact, the entire population of the WORLD could fit in Texas:

"I don't know anything about the claim, but I will do the math for you. Using the square milage you gave for Texas: 1 square mile = 5280 x 5280 square feet = 27,878,400 square feet. So 268,581 square miles = 7,487,608,550,400. For simplicity say 7.5 x 10^12. That divided by 7 x 10^9 is indeed over 1000 square feet per person. So if we made one giant one-story compound over Texas, land, water, and all, we would each get a 1,000 square foot unit. "

The problem is NOT population. The problem is how that population uses the resources. Whether you like it or not, we are the only species in the entire history of the planet who have the ability to destroy all life on Earth and make it unsuitable for life. Or, we can be good stewards of the environment and be more deliberate and cautious on how we decide to use our resources.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Fri Aug 15, 2014 2:23 am

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:The White House must needs Monker to read and understand everything for them. Seems they felt a need to respond to hillary's remarks which Monker says she didn't say. Or at least, were "taken out of context".

http://theweek.com/article/index/266253 ... -criticism
j

LOL...I didn't say she didn't say it. I said in the context of the 9 page interview, it was only a few sentences. She talked extensively about foreign policy and is VERY knowledgeable. IMO, she is stating HER VIEWS on things to establish her expertise before the run for President begins...which I think she will win...nobody else comes close.

So, quit making shit up and lying about what I said on the forum.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:37 am

Monker wrote:Perhaps you should move to communist China where such things are already happening.


Yeah I know. Asking people to act responsibly by not having more children if they can't support the ones they already have is such a radical idea. :roll:
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Fri Aug 15, 2014 7:35 am

Boomchild wrote:
Monker wrote:Perhaps you should move to communist China where such things are already happening.


Yeah I know. Asking people to act responsibly by not having more children if they can't support the ones they already have is such a radical idea. :roll:


"Asking people" is reasonable.

The government DEMANDING people limit their own reproduction is NOT. DEMANDING people give their children up for adoption is NOT. Again, if that is what you want, move to China.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Fri Aug 15, 2014 8:24 am

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:The stories about that in China are out and out lies. They can have all the children they want as long as they can pay the Government fee's for Medical, Education, ect.


Yeah, if you are one of China's verion of the %2.

The simplist of Google searches shows the truth:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/opini ... .html?_r=0
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Fri Aug 15, 2014 2:14 pm

Monker wrote:
Boomchild wrote:
Monker wrote:Perhaps you should move to communist China where such things are already happening.


Yeah I know. Asking people to act responsibly by not having more children if they can't support the ones they already have is such a radical idea. :roll:


"Asking people" is reasonable.

The government DEMANDING people limit their own reproduction is NOT. DEMANDING people give their children up for adoption is NOT. Again, if that is what you want, move to China.


I think your confused. The government would not be demanding people limit their reproduction activities. The government would just stop increasing a parents assistance payments when they have additional children. They could continue to have all the children they want. The only difference is the government won't provide additional support. It's not the government's nor the public's responsibility to take care of the bad choices people make. As I said before having children you cannot afford to support is a form of child abuse.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby JBlake » Sat Aug 16, 2014 4:39 am

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:To a degree Monker is correct. My wife was a second daughter in the family. Her parents could afford to feed, cloth,ect her, but the State wanted a massively huge payment for medical. Americans should be finding out about that next year. Anyway, she was taken at the age of five by a armed gaurd and put on a 4 1/2 hour train ride to Hangzhou. They drove her to a house, pushed her out and told her these were her new parents. She found out her father died two years later. She has met her real mother and visited her last week. That's China's answer to healthcare. Her adoptive mother has been waiting over 4 months for knee surgery.She couldn't get it until a family member could stay with her the whole time. Since none of them can afford to miss work, she doesn't get it. So my wife is there, and she SHOULD go in next week, after another five week wait. In China, all Doctors are at the Hospital, no offices. They do have co pays also, so it's not completely free. My wife says a Dentist and Eye Doctor are expensive.

China pays for medical and retirement with the money you paid from work. But if you die, they cash in and keep it all. None of your money goes to family. The workers protection is non existent. If a man dies in his fifties, the Government cashes in.They are every bit as greedy for money as any Corperation. Possibly worse. The people give up something like 60% of what little they get paid.



LOL. Looks like the difference between China and America is in China, the Chinese government cashes in when you die, America's government cashes in while your alive and working.
Last edited by JBlake on Sat Aug 16, 2014 6:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
God better be wearing his titanium cup when I arrive to be judged, cause the very first thing I'm going to do is break my foot off in his balls. Liberals and Dems are proof that Satan has, to some extent, a sense of humor.
JBlake
8 Track
 
Posts: 893
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 6:04 am

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby JBlake » Sat Aug 16, 2014 6:06 am

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:Not true JBlake. Obama made sure they get at least 40%. Remember him reinstating the death tax?


No I don't remember. What's the death tax?
God better be wearing his titanium cup when I arrive to be judged, cause the very first thing I'm going to do is break my foot off in his balls. Liberals and Dems are proof that Satan has, to some extent, a sense of humor.
JBlake
8 Track
 
Posts: 893
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 6:04 am

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Sat Aug 16, 2014 2:51 pm

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:They tax the crap out of your estate when you die.

Sure, if you're a multi-millionaire. Obama didnt have to bring it back. The Bush admin only made it go away temporarily.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Sat Aug 16, 2014 6:14 pm

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:Not true JBlake. Obama made sure they get at least 40%. Remember him reinstating the death tax?


I'm not sure but isn't this tax only if your estate is 5 million or more?
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Sun Aug 17, 2014 3:11 am

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:Honestly, I don't know.

That's the problem with this entire thread. The only thing you DO know is that the Democrats are the source of life's problems. And into that vacuum of ignorance steps up Limbaugh, chain spam emails from relatives, reruns of the 700 Club etc. I sincerely doubt your millionaire friends are down to a few grand thanks to Obama or the Estate tax. Given the level of backwoods stupidity on display here, I wouldn't be surprised to learn they were completely bilked out of their riches by buying Glenn Beck brand survival seeds, nuclear bomb proof safes, and investing in gold.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby AR » Sun Aug 17, 2014 3:30 am

Monker wrote:Perhaps you should move to communist China where such things are already happening.


We are moving that that direction as well. Give it a generation. Only we will be their 3rd World bitches.

I'm not suggesting the Chinese method but I am suggesting tax breaks for those who choose not to have children. Also I'd pass out free birth control like it was candy.
User avatar
AR
Digital Audio Tape
 
Posts: 8530
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:21 am

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby slucero » Sun Aug 17, 2014 7:26 am

lol.. TNC's anger is hilarious...

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


~Albert Einstein
User avatar
slucero
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 5444
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:17 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Sun Aug 17, 2014 8:04 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
K.C.Journey Fan wrote:They tax the crap out of your estate when you die.

Sure, if you're a multi-millionaire. Obama didnt have to bring it back. The Bush admin only made it go away temporarily.


The entire estate tax issue is bullshit. All people have to do is start planning their estate EARLY and they will avoid this no matter what their income. In fact, if you have ANY type of "estate" to be left for inheritance, you should be making plans NOW to avoid all kinds of issues in case something happens.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:37 pm

The_Noble_Cause wrote: The only thing you DO know is that the Democrats are the source of life's problems.


The source of "life's problems" lies with both parties. Neither are doing things that really are for the common good of the citizens. They all have their own personal agendas and all of them have their own special interest groups. If you think that it's only one party that is the cause of this country's ills, then you are blind.
Last edited by Boomchild on Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:44 pm

AR wrote: Also I'd pass out free birth control like it was candy.


That's assuming that those that are having children they cannot afford would act responsibly and use it because it's just handed out. People are having children they can't afford because they aren't responsible and\or don't seem to care. There are programs now that give out free birth control. So, far it's doesn't seem to have that great of an impact.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Sun Aug 17, 2014 2:50 pm

Boomchild wrote:
The_Noble_Cause wrote: The only thing you DO know is that the Democrats are the source of life's problems.


The source of "life's problems" lies with both parties. Neither are doing things that really are for the common good of the citizens. They all have their own personal agendas and all of them have their own special interest groups. If you think that it's only one party that is the cause of this country's ills, then you are blind.


Bullshit. The "source of life's problems" lies inside your own head and what YOU decide is a problem. It is influenced by what YOU allow to influence it. It is expressed by how YOU decide to express it.

It is not one political party or philosophy that defines "problems". It is the people who allow all kinds of influences to their own perspective and how the people decide to express those warped ideas and perceptions.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Rick » Sun Aug 17, 2014 3:03 pm

Boomchild wrote:
AR wrote: Also I'd pass out free birth control like it was candy.


That's assuming that those that are having children they cannot afford would act responsibly and use it because it's just handed out. People are having children they can't afford because they aren't responsible and\or don't seem to care. There are programs now that give out free birth control. So, far it's doesn't seem to have that great of an impact.


True, but there are a lot of hoops to jump through to get them. Lazy people won't bother. Hell, condoms aren't expensive and they won't use those either.
I like to sit out on the front porch, where the birds can see me, eating a plate of scrambled eggs, just so they know what I'm capable of.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby steveo777 » Sun Aug 17, 2014 4:54 pm

Rick wrote:
Boomchild wrote:
AR wrote: Also I'd pass out free birth control like it was candy.


That's assuming that those that are having children they cannot afford would act responsibly and use it because it's just handed out. People are having children they can't afford because they aren't responsible and\or don't seem to care. There are programs now that give out free birth control. So, far it's doesn't seem to have that great of an impact.


True, but there are a lot of hoops to jump through to get them. Lazy people won't bother. Hell, condoms aren't expensive and they won't use those either.


Calling like it is; sex just doesn't feel like sex with a condom. Why don't people just jack off, rather than risk a kid they can't afford? My dad said it best, back in the day. "A man with a hard on thinks he can support the world".
User avatar
steveo777
MP3
 
Posts: 11311
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:15 pm
Location: Citrus Heights, Ca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Rick » Sun Aug 17, 2014 5:04 pm

steveo777 wrote:
Rick wrote:
Boomchild wrote:
That's assuming that those that are having children they cannot afford would act responsibly and use it because it's just handed out. People are having children they can't afford because they aren't responsible and\or don't seem to care. There are programs now that give out free birth control. So, far it's doesn't seem to have that great of an impact.


True, but there are a lot of hoops to jump through to get them. Lazy people won't bother. Hell, condoms aren't expensive and they won't use those either.


Calling like it is; sex just doesn't feel like sex with a condom. Why don't people just jack off, rather than risk a kid they can't afford? My dad said it best, back in the day. "A man with a hard on thinks he can support the world".


Seriously though. Strapping on a 99 cent condom versus 18 years of $700 a month is something to think about. I paid that much, but for 15 years. Do that math. It's a motherfucker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2AbzPngJqc
I like to sit out on the front porch, where the birds can see me, eating a plate of scrambled eggs, just so they know what I'm capable of.
User avatar
Rick
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Texas

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Sun Aug 17, 2014 6:39 pm

Rick wrote:
Boomchild wrote:
AR wrote: Also I'd pass out free birth control like it was candy.


That's assuming that those that are having children they cannot afford would act responsibly and use it because it's just handed out. People are having children they can't afford because they aren't responsible and\or don't seem to care. There are programs now that give out free birth control. So, far it's doesn't seem to have that great of an impact.


True, but there are a lot of hoops to jump through to get them. Lazy people won't bother. Hell, condoms aren't expensive and they won't use those either.


And it seems that there are a large number of lazy, couldn't give a shit people out there creating these children they can't support. So even if you were to hand them a rubber or whatever birth control they would be too lazy to use it. As long as we have government that will hand out money for people continuing to having multiple children they can't afford people won't change. Cutting off the flow of increased support would go a lot further. At least that's my opinion.
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

PreviousNext

Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron