climate change report [Archive] - SoonerFans.com Message Boards

Soonerjeepman

5/6/2014, 12:32 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/06/administration-issues-dire-climate-change-warnings-amid-regulatory-push/

I'd agree there is a large push from the liberal side of it all.

From my experience, farmers, hunters, ranchers, etc are some of the most conservation minded folks.

Not only is there as much "science" to prove it isn't mans fault, but I believe it's just the cycle of the earth. I once saw an example of if the life of the earth was the length ... HERE IT IS...

How long has the earth been here?

...a very long time, at least according to the way humans measure time. Based on relative and absolute age dating techniques, geologists now think that the earth was formed about 4,600,000,000 years ago. One of the challenges of any study of the earth is being able to comprehend just how long this is, and for what an extremely small part of it humans have been here.

Let's make a simple scale model to illustrate: Spread your arms straight out from your shoulders. Pretend that all of earth history is represented by the distance between your fingertips. If you start at your left hand, time passed to your left wrist before we know ANYTHING at all - all rocks and other evidence are lost before that time. Sometime between your wrist and elbow, it seems certain that simple, primitive, one-celled life forms appeared. Also by this time, the earth's differentiation process had proceeded far enough to start building some mighty impressive continental land masses (probably nothing living on them, but they're getting ready). One-celled organisms stick around for quite awhile (actually they're still here), but by your shoulder the atmosphere begins to become enriched in free oxygen. The doom of one-cell supremacy is approaching. But it doesn't happen right away. Well past your head, and beyond the far reaches of your right shoulder, the earth finally sees two-celled critters. The expansion of life really picks up from here on, and we have evidence of some pretty complex beings by mid-forearm. It isn't until your right wrist that organisms developed hard parts (shells, bones, teeth) which could be preserved as "fossils" for us to find. Dinosaurs existed between the joints of your fingers. How about humankind? Take a nail file and gently scrape it along the fingernail of your longest finger. Way to go - you just wiped out all of human history (and more).

How many years has the earth existed? The same as how many birds are in a flock - more than you can count!

http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~mstrick/AskGeoMan/geoQuerry16.html

U of Oregon no doubt...

badger

5/6/2014, 01:01 PM

I have no doubt that there are things that we and other Earth inhabitants can do to change the temperature. It's why we have air conditioning and heating, after all.

What matters to me is the overall picture... does it really matter if we all drive gas guzzlers, chop down trees, or stomp our feet as often and loudly as possible to create the greatest carbon footprint.

I have concluded that it does not matter in the grand scheme of things. Science made a similar conclusion a few years ago, that we can do absolutely nothing at all (as in, all emissions and such stop) and our globe would still warm up regardless.

As such, make environmental decisions because you want to, not because Al Gore tells you to, because the government gives tax credits, or because the tree huggers will not end their hunger strike/chain to truck session till you do.

hawaii 5-0

5/6/2014, 01:41 PM

I think the non-believers is at about 7%.

What might not matter to some now might matter a lot to someone's grandkids.

5-0

olevetonahill

5/6/2014, 01:47 PM

Only an Idiot or some one who hasnt lived moren say 30 years will say the Cilmate AINT changing. Im sure we as a species have contributed to this change. Unlike a Lot of folk I aint arrogant enough to think its all US. The climate has and will continue to Change, It did before WE came along and it will Long after we're gone.

Soonerjeepman

5/6/2014, 02:59 PM

badger

5/6/2014, 03:20 PM

I am not so naive and arrogant to say that everything I do has a profound impact on the future of Earth. But yet, I still like doing small things that I think help the environment... not dumping leftover Scott's down the drainage pipe, not mowing or driving as much on Ozone Alert days, planting and caring for trees and shrubs, not littering, not wasting electricity, etc.

I just see those things as the right things to do, the nice things to do, not my small part in preventing climate change, because as scientists have already established... there's nothing I can do to change climate change. It's gonna happen whether I choose paper or plastic at the supermarket

hawaii 5-0

5/6/2014, 03:50 PM

I'm not trying to lay blame on anyone or any one country.

I'm sure God will decide what is best and we can just do whatever we want. Screw science.

5-0

badger

5/6/2014, 04:03 PM

I'm sure God will decide what is best and we can just do whatever we want. Screw science.

I like this argument when I remember that science was not my strongest subject in school. :D But at the same time, God gave us science and brains so that we use knowledge and experience to make better decisions.

Turd_Ferguson

5/6/2014, 05:12 PM

I'm not trying to lay blame on anyone or any one country.

I'm sure God will decide what is best and we can just do whatever we want. Screw science.

5-0

You're the smartest mother ****er on earth...ain't ya?

hawaii 5-0

5/6/2014, 06:59 PM

You're the smartest mother ****er on earth...ain't ya?

Never said it. Never thought it.

Yet again, ad nauseam, your post has nothing to do with the topic but attacks a fellow poster on a message Board. Still caint help yerself, can ya ?

You're much more fun when you actually contribute to a discussion.

5-0

Sooner8th

5/6/2014, 07:16 PM

Never said it. Never thought it.

Yet again, ad nauseam, your post has nothing to do with the topic but attacks a fellow poster on a message Board. Still caint help yerself, can ya ?

You're much more fun when you actually contribute to a discussion.

5-0

:)

SoonerorLater

5/6/2014, 07:23 PM

Even if you buy into anthropogenic climate change, what can anybody offer as a viable solution?

REDREX

5/6/2014, 08:08 PM

Even if you buy into anthropogenic climate change, what can anybody offer as a viable solution?----NOPE

Soonerjeepman

5/6/2014, 08:28 PM

I'm not trying to lay blame on anyone or any one country.

I'm sure God will decide what is best and we can just do whatever we want. Screw science.

5-0

dude did I say ANYTHING about God? Like I said, I can probably find as many science studies, scientist, etc that can argue the opposite. I never said the climate ISN'T changing, just don't agree that the fingernail shaving of humankind, let alone the miniscule 100 yrs of industrialization have this influence on the climate the chicken little's say it has.

Badge, I'm all for doing all those as well. I pulled the gatorade bottles the baseball team used after the team dinner last night and put them in my recycle...I don't send yard waste to the landfill...use cloth "sacks" at the store. I do think every little bit helps.

I would challenge everyone to go to your landfill for an hour or two and just watch the trucks come in...it's amazing. (in a sad way)

8timechamps

5/6/2014, 10:39 PM

I've always subscribed to George Carlin's position on this (RIP):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

TAFBSooner

5/6/2014, 11:00 PM

I've always subscribed to George Carlin's position on this (RIP):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4

Big fan of George Carlin. He's right about the Earth taking care of itself in the long run (how much longer?).

However, the logic of "25 species per day going extinct because of humans," means that "we shouldn't try to change the behavior that's making them extinct" does not compute.

olevetonahill

5/6/2014, 11:02 PM

I'm not trying to lay blame on anyone or any one country.

I'm sure God will decide what is best and we can just do whatever we want. Screw science.

5-0

Moran!

olevetonahill

5/6/2014, 11:09 PM

Yall every ****in ONE are Idiots!

You not throwin yer plastic water Bottles in the trash. Driving a ****in Prius, riding a Bike instead of Driving aint gonna make a sh!t.

Idiots! this world Been here for a bunch of Brazilian years and YOU think a ****ing water Bottle will make a difference?
Sure we can **** it Up but IT can and will fix itself By simply eliminating US ~

TAFBSooner

5/6/2014, 11:38 PM

olevetonahill

5/6/2014, 11:49 PM

Riding a bike instead of driving would just make the people in my office keep their distance.

Screw the Earth. What about saving the humans?

Wait Lets Go Back and save the Fu*kin Dinosaurs. Earth gonna fix shat no matter what You or I think or DO.

TAFBSooner

5/6/2014, 11:53 PM

Wait Lets Go Back and save the Fu*kin Dinosaurs. Earth gonna fix shat no matter what You or I think or DO.

Funny you should mention that:

http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_building_a_dinosaur_from_a_chicken

olevetonahill

5/7/2014, 12:27 AM

Funny you should mention that:

http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_building_a_dinosaur_from_a_chicken

I like You Yer weird !

hawaii 5-0

5/7/2014, 10:48 AM

dude did I say ANYTHING about God?

Actually I was mocking a group of Yahoos running for office I think in the Carolinas. Each was asked recently on a panel if they believed in man-made climate change. Each one said, "No" and one went so far as to say, "No, only God can affect the climate."

5-0

Soonerjeepman

5/7/2014, 02:14 PM

Actually I was mocking a group of Yahoos running for office I think in the Carolinas. Each was asked recently on a panel if they believed in man-made climate change. Each one said, "No" and one went so far as to say, "No, only God can affect the climate."

5-0
ah

Eielson

5/7/2014, 06:42 PM

Soonerjeepman

5/7/2014, 10:48 PM

yermom

5/7/2014, 11:02 PM

show me one that isn't funded by some petroleum think tank

BoulderSooner79

5/7/2014, 11:27 PM

show me one that isn't funded by some petroleum think tank

x1000. Why science gets mingled with politics is something that is beyond my understanding. But it always has, and always will be, I'm sure. Science will always be right in the long run as more data is collected and models get refined. The sad thing about environmental science is that there is never much money behind it and huge amounts to refute it for as long as possible. I have no doubt there are strategy meetings going on behind closed doors debating the costs of refuting the current findings vs. making changes to accommodate them. At some point, there is a cross-over. And it always works just like it did with the tobacco companies. Many people believed their paid experts that the risks of smoking were over-stated right up until the day the companies not only admitted it, but it came to the surface they knew all along. If people were more inclined to believe the research and be skeptical of deniers that have a financial interest, they would be correct a high percentage of the time.

This new report seemed pretty reasonable (and non-political) to me. I just read the summary, but it was even handed in making recommendations on possible scenarios and *actionable* things that could be done to better prepare and adapt to changes. And these are common sense things to do regardless of whether the change is caused by human activity or not. It also list possible impact which should lead to funding to monitor critical indicators. There is a huge volume of data that has been collected in the last 5 years and there will be a huge amount more in the next 5. I'll place my bets on the guys doing the real work and not the ones paying for propaganda to protect their short term interests.

Eielson

5/8/2014, 03:41 PM

really? so all those scientist that disagree with this are ignorant...interesting.

I guess I could have included politically motivated in there, but I think most of those scientist are just crooked. What they think and are paid to say are two different things. Some of them begin to truly believe it, but it's not really science when you're paid to get a certain result. It's kinda like calling WWE a sport.

8timechamps

5/8/2014, 06:23 PM

Big fan of George Carlin. He's right about the Earth taking care of itself in the long run (how much longer?).

However, the logic of "25 species per day going extinct because of humans," means that "we shouldn't try to change the behavior that's making them extinct" does not compute.

Sure, we should try to save what we can, but honestly, I just don't really care enough to actively participate...so, I can't really lecture others on the importance if I don't care enough to be involved.

8timechamps

5/8/2014, 06:29 PM

Anybody who thinks that we haven't done considerable damage to the environment is scientifically ignorant. Earth is probably the only livable planet we'll ever know, and once it becomes unlivable, the human race is done. The Earth will be "fine" in the sense that we won't blow it up, but we won't always be able to survive on it. I don't care how long the Earth lasts if humans aren't on it.

Since the Industrial Age, I think it's fair to say humans have contributed to the (poorer) quality of the air, the trash in the oceans, etc. What I have trouble wrapping my head around is thinking that the US is going to solve this.

We are what, 4% of the world's population? Even if we are the greenest country on the globe, what is it really going to accomplish?

Scientist have discovered that our solar system is one day going to collide with another. It's billions of years away, but eventual. I guess I worry as much about that as I do this. I do what I can to recycle, etc., but I'm admittedly not taking every possible measure to "save the planet".

Eielson

5/8/2014, 06:59 PM

Since the Industrial Age, I think it's fair to say humans have contributed to the (poorer) quality of the air, the trash in the oceans, etc. What I have trouble wrapping my head around is thinking that the US is going to solve this.

We are what, 4% of the world's population? Even if we are the greenest country on the globe, what is it really going to accomplish?

Scientist have discovered that our solar system is one day going to collide with another. It's billions of years away, but eventual. I guess I worry as much about that as I do this. I do what I can to recycle, etc., but I'm admittedly not taking every possible measure to "save the planet".

It's not just a US problem. It's a global thing, but I'd have to say the US probably contributes to it the most, and if we put the time and money into finding greener alternatives, then many other countries will follow our lead (since we did the hard part and all). It would definitely help out if the other world powers pitched in, but I'm pretty sure that most of them are to some extent.

BoulderSooner79

5/8/2014, 07:00 PM

Since the Industrial Age, I think it's fair to say humans have contributed to the (poorer) quality of the air, the trash in the oceans, etc. What I have trouble wrapping my head around is thinking that the US is going to solve this.

We are what, 4% of the world's population? Even if we are the greenest country on the globe, what is it really going to accomplish?

Scientist have discovered that our solar system is one day going to collide with another. It's billions of years away, but eventual. I guess I worry as much about that as I do this. I do what I can to recycle, etc., but I'm admittedly not taking every possible measure to "save the planet".

The US can't solve it, but we do need to take the lead. As far as being 4% of the population, we are a *much* larger contributor to resource consumption per person. I haven't seen the latest figures, but it is a large multiplier. So everyone here switching to LED light bulbs in places it makes sense *does* make a difference. The big problem is that the folks in the under developed world are striving to be as large of consumers as we are and they have lots of population. What they do will spill over unto us. It's sucks to have to cooperate, don't it.

TheHumanAlphabet

5/8/2014, 10:09 PM

the degree, if any, to which humans have influenced global warming is very debatable. The Earth is a living thing, and all living things change. I'm sure in 2100, whether due to humans or the nature of things, when the ocean is 4 foot higher the human race will have figured things out.

As far as my grand-kids, hell even great grand-kids, yes..I do care 5-0. The problem is the rest of the world doesn't. That doesn't mean we shouldn't conserve everything we can and recycle, have better energy producing facilities...but this chicken little the sky is falling due to humans the administration wants to use is BS.

the day the "scientific elite" explain to me the causality of the solar radiation influence or lack thereof, the increasing temperature caused by urban sprawl and poor placement of weather shelters, the albedo influence of the poles and major glaciers and their lifecycle, how the earth had greater amounts of CO2 historically than now and not be in a runaway warming is the day that I will say it is all anthropomorphic. Until then, it is part of the Earth cycles and movement about the sun.

if natural, who are we to try and change? If not futile. We should look at how to adapt or move on into space...

okie52

5/9/2014, 02:07 AM

show me one that isn't funded by some petroleum think tank

The climate change report was funded by whom?

okie52

5/9/2014, 02:20 AM

The US can't solve it, but we do need to take the lead. As far as being 4% of the population, we are a *much* larger contributor to resource consumption per person. I haven't seen the latest figures, but it is a large multiplier. So everyone here switching to LED light bulbs in places it makes sense *does* make a difference. The big problem is that the folks in the under developed world are striving to be as large of consumers as we are and they have lots of population. What they do will spill over unto us. It's sucks to have to cooperate, don't it.

If the CO2 efforts aren't global then what the US does isn't going to make any difference...particularly without India and china that are building a new coal plant every week. But they aren't going to give up their coal.

Unilateral efforts like the idiotic and economically harmful cap and trade bill serve to change little on the CO2 impact on global warming but certainly harm the US and only the US economy. Shear lunacy.

BoulderSooner79

5/9/2014, 11:48 AM

If the CO2 efforts aren't global then what the US does isn't going to make any difference...particularly without India and china that are building a new coal plant every week. But they aren't going to give up their coal.

Unilateral efforts like the idiotic and economically harmful cap and trade bill serve to change little on the CO2 impact on global warming but certainly harm the US and only the US economy. Shear lunacy.

Then sticking our collective heads in the sand is the best course of action; I'm sure that will work out well. We have influence with these other countries and we should use it. It's more of a cattle prod than a steering wheel and it takes time and patience to get results. Not as satisfying a a shock and awe military campaign I suppose, but worth doing, IMO.

badger

5/9/2014, 12:08 PM

The US can't solve it, but we do need to take the lead.

I think we're already doing a lot, testing out alternative energy (for tax credits!) and encouraging lower consumption.

It's the world we were born into. I don't lament that I'll never see the dodo or an endless sea of prairie.

OU68

5/9/2014, 12:22 PM

BoulderSooner79

5/9/2014, 12:31 PM

I think we're already doing a lot, testing out alternative energy (for tax credits!) and encouraging lower consumption.

It's the world we were born into. I don't lament that I'll never see the dodo or an endless sea of prairie.

I agree we're are doing things, but it appears many people think that's a mistake.

You may not lament the endless sea of prairie, but you may regret the unanticipated consequences. President Lincoln opening up the plains for farming in the 1860s directly led to the dust bowl of the 1930s. They didn't have the earth sciences to understand the possible impact back then. Above all, I hope we never have an administration that hamstrings environmental research regardless of the political attitude toward policy. It's a tiny investment with huge leverage over time.

Eielson

5/9/2014, 01:22 PM

REDREX

5/9/2014, 01:48 PM

okie52

5/9/2014, 01:53 PM

Then sticking our collective heads in the sand is the best course of action; I'm sure that will work out well. We have influence with these other countries and we should use it. It's more of a cattle prod than a steering wheel and it takes time and patience to get results. Not as satisfying a a shock and awe military campaign I suppose, but worth doing, IMO.

Sticking your head in the sand would be to embrace nonsensical measures that harm your economy while ignoring the fact that the measures do little to improve global warming (assuming CO2 is the culprit). You have to have the world agree to emission standards that are verifiable and enforceable. The go it alone mentality is just asinine particularly when you are "ignoring" 1/3 of the population.

The cap and trade bill that passed the house in 2009 was going to tax ng @ 22%, oil @ 33% and coal @ 44% with absolutely no reprecussions for foreign countries that used these same energy sources. The cap and trade bill made absolutely no mention of nukes (a virtual 0 net CO2 producer) and gave ethanol favored fuel status. This was at the height of the recession. A year later the bill's cosponsor, Ed Markey, was trying to block ng (LNG) exports to China and Japan claiming that ng gave US industry an "economic advantage" over foreign competitors....the same guy that was trying to tax ng at 22% for US consumers. Logic doesn't seem to be part of the cap and traders equation. .

The US has been reducing its CO2 footprint and because of NG use and lower demand the US dropped about 20% on CO2 in approximately 2 years from 2008-2010...better than anything that was projected through the cap and trade bill with none of the unnecessary economic hardships.

Another factor that should be used in the "CO2" emissions formula is overpopulation. Why should China and India get off cheap because they have 1/3 of the world's population living within their borders? China is roughly the same size as the US with over 4 times our population and India is less than 1/3 of our size with slightly under 4 times our population. That is a huge footprint.

okie52

5/9/2014, 02:02 PM

Climate change isn't my area of expertise, so I don't really want to spend too much time on it, but this appears to just be another symptom of the anti-science movement. Evolution can't be real because Aristotle said so, vaccines are bad because a porn star said so (serously...WTF?!), climate change isn't real because it might inconvenience us a little bit, researching with stem cells is harder than having an abortion, etc. This is going to have awful consequences if this persists (food shortages, post-antibiotic era, etc.)

The parameters are certainly vague regarding manmade CO2 as the culprit as well as any potential "cures". Where is the tipping point? What is the acceptable ratio between man made CO2 and naturally occuring CO2? What role does overpopulation play in the equation? Why aren't nukes being advanced by the dems (the party of science) as part of the solution if the global warming "peril" is so daunting?

BoulderSooner79

5/9/2014, 02:32 PM

Sticking your head in the sand would be to embrace nonsensical measures that harm your economy while ignoring the fact that the measures do little to improve global warming (assuming CO2 is the culprit). You have to have the world agree to emission standards that are verifiable and enforceable. The go it alone mentality is just asinine particularly when you are "ignoring" 1/3 of the population.

The cap and trade bill that passed the house in 2009 was going to tax ng @ 22%, oil @ 33% and coal @ 44% with absolutely no reprecussions for foreign countries that used these same energy sources. The cap and trade bill made absolutely no mention of nukes (a virtual 0 net CO2 producer) and gave ethanol favored fuel status. This was at the height of the recession. A year later the bill's cosponsor, Ed Markey, was trying to block ng (LNG) exports to China and Japan claiming that ng gave US industry an "economic advantage" over foreign competitors....the same guy that was trying to tax ng at 22% for US consumers. Logic doesn't seem to be part of the cap and traders equation. .

The US has been reducing its CO2 footprint and because of NG use and lower demand the US dropped about 20% on CO2 in approximately 2 years from 2008-2010...better than anything that was projected through the cap and trade bill with none of the unnecessary economic hardships.

Another factor that should be used in the "CO2" emissions formula is overpopulation. Why should China and India get off cheap because they have 1/3 of the world's population living within their borders? China is roughly the same size as the US with over 4 times our population and India is less than 1/3 of our size with slightly under 4 times our population. That is a huge footprint.

Embracing nonsensical measures is not like sticking our heads in the sand - it would be over-reacting. The cap and trade may well have been that - I'm not up on the details. I'm talking in general terms of acting pro-actively on environmental issues. And yes, it is painful to be first and do some self sacrifice when others are not helping - but that's the definition of leadership. We are important trading partners with China and India and that gives us a forum to keep chipping away at it. And China is starting to wakeup to these issues and changing policies, so they will be listening (to some degree). Their massive use of coal is causing them huge air quality problem *today*, so they don't need global warming speculation to be motivated.

okie52

5/9/2014, 03:19 PM

Embracing nonsensical measures is not like sticking our heads in the sand - it would be over-reacting. The cap and trade may well have been that - I'm not up on the details. I'm talking in general terms of acting pro-actively on environmental issues. And yes, it is painful to be first and do some self sacrifice when others are not helping - but that's the definition of leadership. We are important trading partners with China and India and that gives us a forum to keep chipping away at it. And China is starting to wakeup to these issues and changing policies, so they will be listening (to some degree). Their massive use of coal is causing them huge air quality problem *today*, so they don't need global warming speculation to be motivated.

Ignoring what the rest of the world is doing is "sticking your head in the sand".

Self sacrifice...like losing jobs? You believe in the 5,000,000 green jobs that were promised 6 years ago?

There's all kinds of leadership...some "leaders" lead their followers off of a cliff.

China and India have also pursued nukes....an area where the US refuses to go even though we pioneered this CO2 free technology. China and India are really more of "all of the above" in their quest for energy rather than the lip service that is given to it here in the US (obama killed Yucca in his first 3 months in office).

We are trade partners with China and India but we don't dictate how their economies are run. Perhaps, along with Europe, we could pursue economic sanctions against those countries that didn't follow emission standards. The risk would be losing trade partners or reducing trade that could stagger those involved economies...but at least that approach would be attacking CO2 on a global basis rather some unilateral approach that is almost certainly doomed to failure.

BoulderSooner79

5/9/2014, 04:32 PM

Soonerjeepman

5/9/2014, 10:07 PM

[QUOTE=Eielson;4544818]Climate change isn't my area of expertise, so I don't really want to spend too much time on it, but this appears to just be another symptom of the anti-science movement. Evolution can't be real because Aristotle said so, vaccines are bad because a porn star said so (serously...WTF?!), climate change isn't real because it might inconvenience us a little bit, researching with stem cells is harder than having an abortion, etc. This is going to have awful consequences if this persists (food shortages, post-antibiotic era, etc.)[/Q wUOTE]

Not sure if you are referring to my original post...but if so, where in hell did I say ANY OF THAT? I NEVER said climate change isn't happening...my point is #1 not sure we humans have contributed HIGH amounts...it's a natural flow. #2 like many have said, if we (USA) is the only country giving a **** it won't matter.

I do everything on a daily basis I can, is it a ton, probably not.

okie52

5/10/2014, 03:08 PM

I see nowhere we ignore what the rest of the world is doing. We invite all countries to all these talks. And nowhere did I say we dictate what China or India do. I claim we have influence and we do. But it is indirect must be worked over years and decades - well beyond the horizon of our election cycles, unfortunately. The fundamental force that will elevate environmental issues to top priority is the fact we all need air and fresh water and food to survive. There will be large scale crises in all these areas as we zoom toward a 10 billion world population. It will lead to either global cooperation or war.

Of course the US should negotiate with china and India as well as other countries to reduce their CO2 emissions but you don't commit our economy to energy sources that are cost prohibitive or non existent in the process.

But you do seem to recognize the real culprit...7.5 billion people. Think we'd have to worry about CO2 emissions, animal loss of habitat, sufficient water, food, and other resources in the same urgency as we do now? Yet few are willing to address this problem.

8timechamps

5/11/2014, 05:48 PM

Of course the US should negotiate with china and India as well as other countries to reduce their CO2 emissions but you don't commit our economy to energy sources that are cost prohibitive or non existent in the process.

But you do seem to recognize the real culprit...7.5 billion people. Think we'd have to worry about CO2 emissions, animal loss of habitat, sufficient water, food, and other resources in the same urgency as we do now? Yet few are willing to address this problem.

China addressed it for quite a while (and I still believe their are limits on offspring in certain situations). Other than that, what can anyone do?

okie52

5/12/2014, 03:05 AM

China addressed it for quite a while (and I still believe their are limits on offspring in certain situations). Other than that, what can anyone do?

Education, removal of tax incentives for families with more than 1 child, free and easy access to birth control.

The US and Europe would both be at negative population growth if it wasn't for illegal and legal immigration. Whites in the US and Europe are reproducing far below replacement quantities. Hispanics (particularly illegals) in the US and Muslim legal and illegal immigrants in Europe reproduce at much greater rates.

Also it appears that as countries develop and move away from agrarian economies that birth rates slow. China is doing that to some degree...India and other 3rd world developing countries....not so much...

Eielson

5/16/2014, 07:19 PM

Education, removal of tax incentives for families with more than 1 child, free and easy access to birth control.

1. Education - People don't know how babies are made?

2. Removal of tax incentives... - from illegals?

3. Birth control access - Pay for free and easy access to birth control for illegals? Not saying that's a bad idea, but it's an interesting use of tax dollars. I don't think Muslims are allowed to use birth control.

SoonerorLater

5/16/2014, 08:41 PM

Pragmatically speaking, if what we are seeing is anthropogenic climate change than the human race is pretty much screwed whatever we do absent some future scientific development.

Sooner8th

5/18/2014, 04:58 PM

----I guess the report must be correct----Because Barack said so

No--------it must be correct because it is " produced by thousands of authors, editors, and reviewers from dozens of countries, citing over 6,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies.". We don't listen to one guy, we listen to thousands of scientists. You can go back to when the link between cigarettes and cancer were first being studied and you will find a minority of "scientists" who said there was no link between the two. Most of which were paid by the cigarette manufactures just like these guys who are denying it now are paid by oil and gas interests.

REDREX

5/18/2014, 05:16 PM

No--------it must be correct because it is " produced by thousands of authors, editors, and reviewers from dozens of countries, citing over 6,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies.". We don't listen to one guy, we listen to thousands of scientists. You can go back to when the link between cigarettes and cancer were first being studied and you will find a minority of "scientists" who said there was no link between the two. Most of which were paid by the cigarette manufactures just like these guys who are denying it now are paid by oil and gas interests.----The study is based on Climate Models none of which that has proven to be the least bit correct----You know nothing about oil and gas interests---Blocking projects like Keystone and drilling on Federal lands are nothing but political moves. It is funning to watch the Gov't pass stupid laws like Ethanol mandates ,and the use of 50 diff grades of gasoline and think they are accomplishing something

okiewaker

5/18/2014, 05:44 PM

The models used to predict our demise are flawed by liberal fallacies and deception. When libtards say something or predict something, they will go to the ends of the earth to make it so.

REDREX

5/18/2014, 06:15 PM

SoonerorLater

5/18/2014, 06:34 PM

No--------it must be correct because it is " produced by thousands of authors, editors, and reviewers from dozens of countries, citing over 6,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies.". We don't listen to one guy, we listen to thousands of scientists. You can go back to when the link between cigarettes and cancer were first being studied and you will find a minority of "scientists" who said there was no link between the two. Most of which were paid by the cigarette manufactures just like these guys who are denying it now are paid by oil and gas interests.

That's not a good analogy. While self interest is always something to be considered, cigarette smoking is something that can be and was/is tackled at a micro level once the facts were in. Global climate change is something that is being approached at the highest macro level. Until there is a viable alternative at that same macro level that this is being approached at there is just nothing that will give us the bang for the buck that fossils fuels do.

Sooner8th

5/18/2014, 06:37 PM

The models used to predict our demise are flawed by liberal fallacies and deception. When libtards say something or predict something, they will go to the ends of the earth to make it so.

Thank you for making my point for me-------no data, no facts, no links to prove your point. Just ignorant name calling.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif

Observed sea level rise since 1970 from tide gauge data (red) and satellite measurements (blue) compared to model projections for 1990-2010 from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (grey band). (Source: The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009)

Here, the models have understated the problem. In reality, observed sea level is tracking at the upper range of the model projections. There are other examples of models being too conservative, rather than alarmist as some portray them. All models have limits - uncertainties - for they are modelling complex systems. However, all models improve over time, and with increasing sources of real-world information such as satellites, the output of climate models can be constantly refined to increase their power and usefulness.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Sooner8th

5/18/2014, 06:40 PM

That's not a good analogy. While self interest is always something to be considered, cigarette smoking is something that can be and was/is tackled at a micro level once the facts were in. Global climate change is something that is being approached at the highest macro level. Until there is a viable alternative at that same macro level this is being approached at there is just nothing that will give us the bang for the buck that fossils fuels do.

You are missing my point - it is about deniers, there are always people who in their own self interest will deny science.

rock on sooner

5/18/2014, 08:38 PM

Sooner8th

5/18/2014, 09:24 PM

Ummm, and those on the right don't do anything of the sort?

NNNNNNNooooooo, not the always telling the truth right! They would never use, I don't know, say -the laffer curve to claim tax cuts actually pay for themselves and INCREASE revenue.

okiewaker

5/18/2014, 09:35 PM

I merely pointed out my position. My humble apology it doesn't fit libturd agenda.

Sooner8th

5/18/2014, 10:40 PM

I merely pointed out my position. My humble apology it doesn't fit libturd agenda.

Lemming

REDREX

5/19/2014, 07:26 AM

NNNNNNNooooooo, not the always telling the truth right! They would never use, I don't know, say -the laffer curve to claim tax cuts actually pay for themselves and INCREASE revenue.---What about Keynesian Economics working over the last six years?-----anyone that believes that is a fool

Sooner8th

5/19/2014, 08:35 AM

---What about Keynesian Economics working over the last six years?-----anyone that believes that is a fool

Yeah-----the economy is doing so much worse than under bush.

Too funny-----despite all the efforts of republicans to purposefully damage the economy with debt ceiling and budget fights that didnt happen under bush or any other president, its working GREAT! Already more jobs than under bush - ALL PRIVATE SECTOR - less government jobs, stock market at record highs, corporate profits at record highs. You are living in an alternate universe, listening to and regurgitating rightwing talking points.

REDREX

5/19/2014, 09:23 AM

Sooner8th

5/19/2014, 09:55 AM

---You are an OBOT if you believe we have had any real recovery -----And what caused the problems in the first place----Govt lending standards through Freddie and Fannie-----Open your eyes

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA TOO FUNNY!!!!

You are just a lemming, following the ignorant rightwing talking points with no clue as to what you're talking about. We have been in recovery since 4th qrt 2009! How was bush's rightwing conservative supply side cutting taxes to the rich performance? HUH?

First off DUMBASS it wasn't only freddie and fannie it was ALL OF THEM. And what really caused the meltdown was the republican idea that credit swap defaults - insurance on the mortgage securities - not be regulated!

olevetonahill

5/19/2014, 10:16 AM

I see Yall still feeding the Troll .

Sooner8th

5/19/2014, 10:20 AM

I see Yall still feeding the Troll .

Tell me what part of what i said isn't true.

REDREX

5/19/2014, 11:02 AM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA TOO FUNNY!!!!

You are just a lemming, following the ignorant rightwing talking points with no clue as to what you're talking about. We have been in recovery since 4th qrt 2009! How was bush's rightwing conservative supply side cutting taxes to the rich performance? HUH?

First off DUMBASS it wasn't only freddie and fannie it was ALL OF THEM. And what really caused the meltdown was the republican idea that credit swap defaults - insurance on the mortgage securities - not be regulated!---I would watch who I called a dumbass you arrogant little prick-------Go look at the jobs most of the good ones are from the energy business ---Barack had nothing to do with those most of the rest are low paying

Soonerjeepman

5/19/2014, 11:27 AM

Yeah-----the economy is doing so much worse than under bush.

Too funny-----despite all the efforts of republicans to purposefully damage the economy with debt ceiling and budget fights that didnt happen under bush or any other president, its working GREAT! Already more jobs than under bush - ALL PRIVATE SECTOR - less government jobs, stock market at record highs, corporate profits at record highs. You are living in an alternate universe, listening to and regurgitating rightwing talking points.

so I guess you are good with the gov going in more debt and folks living off the gov? I teach in the urban schools of KC. The mentality of most of the people I see is to just sit back and the gov OWES them...THAT is what you want this country to be like? wow. I try EVERYDAY to teach the kids you get what you EARN...be focused, work hard, and have a dream. These kids can get more money than mine to go to college but they don't...their parents don't work with them...try to improve them.

Sooner8th

5/19/2014, 01:11 PM

---I would watch who I called a dumbass you arrogant little prick-------Go look at the jobs most of the good ones are from the energy business ---Barack had nothing to do with those most of the rest are low paying

First - go **** yourself you dumbass - everything you said wasn't true. If you and yours would stop spending your time making up ignorant school yard taunts and more time reserching FACTS, you wouldnt be such a dumbass.

Second - show me that data that backs your point up.

Third - isn't low wages what your party wants in the first place?

Sooner8th

5/19/2014, 01:15 PM

so I guess you are good with the gov going in more debt and folks living off the gov? I teach in the urban schools of KC. The mentality of most of the people I see is to just sit back and the gov OWES them...THAT is what you want this country to be like? wow. I try EVERYDAY to teach the kids you get what you EARN...be focused, work hard, and have a dream. These kids can get more money than mine to go to college but they don't...their parents don't work with them...try to improve them.

Do you really want to talk about "the gov going in more debt"? You and your party was fine with it under reagan, bush I and bush II. You must be on the Missouri side of KC. It is a mess up there.

REDREX

5/19/2014, 01:15 PM

You need to grow up

Sooner8th

5/19/2014, 01:26 PM

You need to grow up

Don't insult me first and I won't return fire.

I noticed you are not backing up your claim. Typical conservative.

Sooner8th

5/19/2014, 01:31 PM

so I guess you are good with the gov going in more debt and folks living off the gov? I teach in the urban schools of KC. The mentality of most of the people I see is to just sit back and the gov OWES them...THAT is what you want this country to be like? wow. I try EVERYDAY to teach the kids you get what you EARN...be focused, work hard, and have a dream. These kids can get more money than mine to go to college but they don't...their parents don't work with them...try to improve them.

I missed you bolded the debt ceiling - do you not understand that is paying the bills for things already incurred? Or do you think people shouldn't pay their debts? If you and your party is so worried about spending, why did you start debt ceiling and budget fights that caused our a downgrade in credit rating costing us more money to borrow?

Debt cut in half since Obama took office just like Carter just like Clinton, name a republican who has done that. Seeing a pattern yet?

olevetonahill

5/19/2014, 01:34 PM

Moran alert.

REDREX

5/19/2014, 01:38 PM

Don't insult me first and I won't return fire.

I noticed you are not backing up your claim. Typical conservative.---Like I said grow up

Sooner8th

5/19/2014, 02:00 PM

---Like I said grow up

---Like I said back up your claim.

TheHumanAlphabet

5/19/2014, 02:31 PM

Debt cut in half since Obama took office just like Carter just like Clinton, name a republican who has done that. Seeing a pattern yet?

I want some of what you are smoking or drinking!

Biggest bold faced lie I have ever seen! The debt is the largest it ever has been in history and it is only climbing under this Marxist/Socialist/Communist President. His net worth has only increased while in office...Typical Progressive...Do as I say, not as I live...

Sooner8th

5/19/2014, 02:51 PM

I want some of what you are smoking or drinking!

Biggest bold faced lie I have ever seen! The debt is the largest it ever has been in history and it is only climbing under this Marxist/Socialist/Communist President. His net worth has only increased while in office...Typical Progressive...Do as I say, not as I live...

My bad - I meant DEFICIT.

Eielson

5/19/2014, 09:44 PM

My bad - I meant DEFICIT.

That's kind of like having the higher shooting percentage, but still losing by 40. Congrats.

Sooner8th

5/19/2014, 10:41 PM

That's kind of like having the higher shooting percentage, but still losing by 40. Congrats.

Admitting when you misspoke is losing? No wonder very few on here will admit to it.

dwarthog

5/20/2014, 08:30 AM

I missed you bolded the debt ceiling - do you not understand that is paying the bills for things already incurred? Or do you think people shouldn't pay their debts? If you and your party is so worried about spending, why did you start debt ceiling and budget fights that caused our a downgrade in credit rating costing us more money to borrow?

Debt cut in half since Obama took office just like Carter just like Clinton, name a republican who has done that. Seeing a pattern yet?

Here you go, deficits by year.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k19/dwarthog/federaldeficit2001-2016_zps34cc58ba.jpg (http://s84.photobucket.com/user/dwarthog/media/federaldeficit2001-2016_zps34cc58ba.jpg.html)

Now obfuscate, deflect and spin away.....

Sooner8th

5/20/2014, 09:30 AM

Here you go, deficits by year.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k19/dwarthog/federaldeficit2001-2016_zps34cc58ba.jpg (http://s84.photobucket.com/user/dwarthog/media/federaldeficit2001-2016_zps34cc58ba.jpg.html)

Now obfuscate, deflect and spin away.....

No need to obfuscate, deflect or spin away. You gave me everything anyone needs to prove MY point in one easy chart.

2001 128 SURPLUS
2009 1,412 DEFICIT
2016 531 DEFICIT

wanna try again?

dwarthog

5/20/2014, 10:07 AM

No need to obfuscate, deflect or spin away. You gave me everything anyone needs to prove MY point in one easy chart.

2001 128 SURPLUS
2009 1,412 DEFICIT
2016 531 DEFICIT

wanna try again?

Not with someone who is clearly operating with diminished mental faculties.

Sooner8th

5/20/2014, 10:18 AM

Not with someone who is clearly operating with diminished mental faculties.

How is that? 2001 would be the last clinton budget 2009 is the last bush budget. Do you not understand budgets are done a year and advance? Do we have to go over CBO report of January 9, 2009 that showed the deficit BEFORE STIMULUS was going to be $1.2 trillion?

You really do live in an alternate universe. YOUR OWN DATA proves MY point not YOURS and you say I'm operating with diminished mental faculties.

Try again---------------

Turd_Ferguson

5/20/2014, 10:19 AM

Not with someone who is clearly a ****'n moran.

Concur.

Sooner8th

5/20/2014, 10:30 AM

Concur.

You people are so ****ing stupid you don't even know the basics of how bugeting works. GEORGE W. BUSH SIGNED THE 2009 BUDGET INTO LAW. There was some stimulus spending but this is GEORGE W. BUSH deficit. CBO said before obama took office and before stimulus the deficit would be $1.2 TRILLION dollars. Sorry it was January 7 not 9.

$1.2 trillion deficit looms
Housing collapse and financial turmoil leads to steep rise in estimated U.S. shortfall for '09, Congressional Budget Office says.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. budget deficit in 2009 is projected to spike to a record $1.2 trillion, or 8.3% of gross domestic product, the Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

The dramatic jump to the highest-ever deficit in dollar terms compares to a $455 billion deficit in fiscal year 2008 and $161 billion in 2007. The estimate does not account for the massive spending and tax cuts proposed in President-elect Barack Obama's economic rescue plan.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/07/news/economy/cbo_2009_budget_outlook/

What else do you need? It's right there!

Turd_Ferguson

5/20/2014, 10:36 AM

You people are so ****ing stupid you don't even know the basics of how bugeting works. GEORGE W. BUSH SIGNED THE 2009 BUDGET INTO LAW. There was some stimulus spending but this is GEORGE W. BUSH deficit. CBO said before obama took office and before stimulus the deficit would be $1.2 TRILLION dollars. Sorry it was January 7 not 9.

$1.2 trillion deficit looms
Housing collapse and financial turmoil leads to steep rise in estimated U.S. shortfall for '09, Congressional Budget Office says.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. budget deficit in 2009 is projected to spike to a record $1.2 trillion, or 8.3% of gross domestic product, the Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

The dramatic jump to the highest-ever deficit in dollar terms compares to a $455 billion deficit in fiscal year 2008 and $161 billion in 2007. The estimate does not account for the massive spending and tax cuts proposed in President-elect Barack Obama's economic rescue plan.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/07/news/economy/cbo_2009_budget_outlook/

What else do you need? It's right there!

Try again---------------------

Sooner8th

5/20/2014, 10:48 AM

Try again---------------------

What is it you don't get? It is right there in bold red.

olevetonahill

5/20/2014, 12:31 PM

What is it you don't get? It is right there in bold red.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRTjNiPKbpQua__ROwfayYEGLWr-tMPoZwXv_HV2if9kS9cNyOD

yermom

5/20/2014, 12:34 PM

ok, so let's throw out 2009, no one has to take credit for it. what does the trend look like? how is it possible that it's dropped so much with Obama in office?

olevetonahill

5/20/2014, 01:25 PM

ok, so let's throw out 2009, no one has to take credit for it. what does the trend look like? how is it possible that it's dropped so much with Obama in office?

If you are discounting 2009 then Obammys numbers at his best year reported are 1/3 higher still than W's worst year.
Those last 3 are Projected .

Eielson

5/20/2014, 02:15 PM

Admitting when you misspoke is losing? No wonder very few on here will admit to it.

I wasn't referring to your correction. I was referring to the fact that it doesn't matter what your deficit looks like if debt still goes through the roof. In theory, decreasing the deficit should help, but if it doesn't, then who cares? In the same way, having a high shooting percentage should help you win, but if you lose by 40, then nobody cares what your shooting percentage was.

Sooner8th

5/20/2014, 03:37 PM

If you are discounting 2009 then Obammys numbers at his best year reported are 1/3 higher still than W's worst year.
Those last 3 are Projected .

**** you people are stupid. 2009 is mostly bush's. Reagan got into office and the deficit around tripled from the time he took office to when he left, bush I got into office deficit doubled, bush II surplus to $1.2 trillion DEFICIT. ALL GREW - following so far? Now - Obama the deficit has been cut in half since he has been in office. What part do you not get? Look at the figures. It's right there. You have to solve the deficit before you solve the debt. IF dumbass dubya would have followed the clinton plan - it would have been paid off by now.

Republicants raise the deficit and democrats lower it.

Sooner8th

5/20/2014, 03:38 PM

I wasn't referring to your correction. I was referring to the fact that it doesn't matter what your deficit looks like if debt still goes through the roof. In theory, decreasing the deficit should help, but if it doesn't, then who cares? In the same way, having a high shooting percentage should help you win, but if you lose by 40, then nobody cares what your shooting percentage was.

OK - so with republicants the shooting percentage is even lower and you are losing by 80. Lousy analogy. Face facts - republicants raise the deficit democrats lower it.

Eielson

5/20/2014, 04:44 PM

OK - so with republicants the shooting percentage is even lower and you are losing by 80. Lousy analogy. Face facts - republicants raise the deficit democrats lower it.

You still don't get it.

Sooner8th

5/20/2014, 05:28 PM

You still don't get it.

I do get it. You have to solve the deficit before you solve the debt. If you voted for reagan or either bush, you don't get it.

olevetonahill

5/20/2014, 05:57 PM

**** you people are stupid. 2009 is mostly bush's. Reagan got into office and the deficit around tripled from the time he took office to when he left, bush I got into office deficit doubled, bush II surplus to $1.2 trillion DEFICIT. ALL GREW - following so far? Now - Obama the deficit has been cut in half since he has been in office. What part do you not get? Look at the figures. It's right there. You have to solve the deficit before you solve the debt. IF dumbass dubya would have followed the clinton plan - it would have been paid off by now.

Republicants raise the deficit and democrats lower it.

Hey Moran, Read this then do a Little cyphering

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution written and submitted by the 110th Congress to be forwarded to the President was approved by the House on June 5, 2008.[2] The final spending bills for the budget were not signed into law until March 11, 2009 by President Barack Obama, nearly five and a half months after the fiscal year began.

Now that THATS been cleared up go back and re read that Graph Einstein, Its Talking about DEFICIT not Budget and Obammy owns all of 2009. since he took over on 1-20-09

Sooner8th

5/20/2014, 06:08 PM

Hey Moran, Read this then do a Little cyphering

AND ITS MORON NOT MORAN - TOTAL DUMBASS.

http://mtcowgirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Moran.jpg

Now that THAT'S been cleared up go back and re read that Graph Einstein, Its Talking about DEFICIT not Budget and Obammy owns all of 2009. since he took over on 1-20-09

You are a ****ing moron. You don't even understand how budgeting and surpluses and deficits work. Where do you think DEFICITS COME FROM? THE BUDGET YOU DUMBASS! It sets the spending and the tax rates for the year. Do I have to go over how to budget? Why do you think your party wants a balanced BUDGET amendment? NOT a deficit admendment. ****ing dumbass.

olevetonahill

5/20/2014, 06:09 PM

OK Ive chummed the waters for the troll Yall have at him.

olevetonahill

5/20/2014, 06:17 PM

You are a ****ing moron. You don't even understand how budgeting and surpluses and deficits work. Where do you think DEFICITS COME FROM? THE BUDGET YOU DUMBASS! It sets the spending and the tax rates for the year. Do I have to go over how to budget? Why do you think your party wants a balanced BUDGET amendment? NOT a deficit admendment. ****ing dumbass.

You sure seem to have a Lot of Anger issues. Is Charlie your Therapist?

Sooner8th

5/20/2014, 06:21 PM

OK Ive chummed the waters for the troll Yall have at him.

Keep telling yourself that

Hey Moran, Read this then do a Little cyphering

Too funny - This is MORAN

http://video.foxbusiness.com/thumbnails/071312/640/360/071312_fbn_moran.jpg

This is you

http://hyperbully.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/get-a-brain-morans.jpg?w=600&h=300&crop=1

olevetonahill

5/20/2014, 06:29 PM

Sooner8th

5/20/2014, 06:35 PM

You are a pitiful small person, You Jump in these discussions Talking DOWN to every one. Correctin our spelling thats been an inside joke for years here , and then wonder WHY People dont see your Points. Cause we too dayum busy making FUN of yer Ignorant ,self righteous Pompous arsehole self!

Hey Moran, Read this then do a Little cyphering

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THAT DUMBASS!

Do ya like my new sig? :friendly_wink:

olevetonahill

5/20/2014, 06:54 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA KEEP TELLING YOURSELF THAT DUMBASS!

Do ya like my new sig? :friendly_wink:

You Bet, its an Honor to be quoted in a Sig around here.

Sooner8th

5/20/2014, 06:58 PM

You Bet, its an Honor to be quoted in a Sig around here.

You know, you are right about one thing - stupid people are funny. You are HILARIOUS!

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

5/20/2014, 08:39 PM

I've always subscribed to George Carlin's position on this (RIP):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4Carlin's off base on some things, but this is a great monologue, and I agree with it, FWIW. I like his description of humans as an evolutionary cul de sac.

okie52

5/21/2014, 09:50 AM

Climate Change Remains Unsettled, Say 31,072 Scientists
Tuesday, 20 May 2014 03:26 PM
By Cheryl K. Chumley

While the United Nations and the Obama administration assert that climate change is settled science and requires dramatic regulatory oversight, 31,072 U.S. scientists have signed the Petition Project, saying the issue remains decidedly unsettled.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition says.

"The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of 'settled science' and an overwhelming 'consensus' in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong," the petition asserts. "No such consensus or settled science exists."

Over 9,000 of the petition's signatories have a Ph.D. in a scientific field.

For all the talk of "settled science," all that has been settled is the stunning inaccuracies of alarmists — from failed computer models and a discredited "hockey stick" graphic that pointed to exponential warming, to dire predictions of melting Himalayan glaciers, receding rain forests, increases in hurricane activity, and the end of snow.

Other climate-change claims include assertions that the United States has suffered the warmest temperatures ever recorded in recent years and that the melting polar icecaps will cause drastic sea rises, leading to widespread flooding and death.

But those are all myths, according to the World Climate Report, whose editor is climatologist Patrick Michaels, a prominent skeptic of anthropogenic global warming — the notion that mankind's greenhouse gas emissions are driving catastrophic climate change.

Historical temperature records for the United States are spotty at best, and "after removing biases caused by urbanization, thermometer relocations, instrument changes, and so on, it is clear that there is no trend in mean annual temperatures in the last 65 years" in the United States, the World Climate Report found. In fact, "aside from a sharp rise from 1915 to 1930, when trace-gas concentrations were low, the trend is essentially zero."

The report also found that Northern Hemisphere temperature changes have been greatly exaggerated, and "based on the best available temperature records," the region has actually warmed only "about 0.65 degrees Celsius [about 1.1 degree F.] since 1860."

The report noted, "We weren't producing much [carbon dioxide] prior to 1945, so the greenhouse effect should have been most prevalent in the last 40 years. But most of the temperature increase occurred prior to 1945."

Todd Myers, director of the Center for the Environment at the Washington Policy Center, said: "It's true, temperatures have risen, but not in the last 15 years."

"We've seen glaciers receding since 1862 — long before human activities that caused carbon dioxide."

As for melting icecaps causing worldwide flood-related disasters, the World Climate Report found that in Antarctica, "there is absolutely no evidence of increasing temperatures since the mid-1960s."

What about the dire predictions of the looming deaths of polar bears, owing to melting ice and dwindling livable space? Gross exaggerations and emotionally charged fallacies, other scientists and researchers say.

"We tend to hear nothing but alarming messages about the current status and future welfare of polar bears from animal advocates of all kinds, including lobby groups and activist scientists," Susan Crockford, a zoologist and evolutionary biologist with 35-plus years of experience who works at the University of Victoria, Canada, said in a previously published statement.

"Many of these tales of imminent doom, however, have important facts left out, glossed over or misrepresented — and much of the uncertainty in the underlying research has been downplayed," she said.

One more fallacy that the climate-change movement doesn't like to remember is the infamous "hockey stick" predictor, said Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "That's the curve that showed an exponential increase with the hike attributed largely to human activities that emit greenhouse gases."

"They are otherwise burdened by the only 'climate-change denial' on record: rewriting history — the hockey stick — to pretend [temperatures] didn't change until the horrors of industrial society were unleashed."

Horner said the science touted by climate-change proponents often falls by the wayside, a victim of factual evidence.

"The most notable changes were the cessation of a brief warming trend they vowed would continue linearly and without interruption, that the noisy hurricane season of 2005 was the future here and now – only to see things go remarkably quiet," Horner said.

Nevertheless, President Barack Obama is determined to make climate change regulation one of his legacies, declaring in his State of the Union address that "climate change is fact" and embracing the notion that the issue is "settled science."

White House spokesman Jay Carney recently said that "97 percent of scientists who study this issue agree that climate change is real and it is the result of human activity."

But even the White House's assertion that there is a consensus among scientists about the influence of human behavior on the environment is a matter of debate, as the Petition Project demonstrates.

Adherents of the "science-is-settled" argument often cite a study that tabulated the number of times global warming appeared in abstracts of articles and concluded that 97 percent of climate scientists accept the theory that human activity causes global warming.

The 97 percent figure is highly misleading considering that only 32.6 percent of the scientists endorsed anthropogenic global warming, while two-thirds expressed no position.

In 2013, Popular Technology contacted some of the scientists cited as belonging to the 97 percent. Craig D. Idso, chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, was one of the scientists whose paper was cited as supporting the argument that humans cause global warming.

Asked by the magazine whether his work was properly represented, he said it was "not an accurate representation of my paper" and that it "would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."

The impartiality of the scientific community backing climate change was also brought into question after emails exchanged between scientists were made public in 2009, showing how key researchers skewed evidence and blackballed dissenters.

"Once you grasp who and what they are, their desperation and seemingly irrational moves make much more sense," Horner, an author of several books about the pitfalls of environmental politics, told Newsmax.

However, daring to raise questions — a pursuit normally associated with the scientific method — is a sure-fire path toward receiving attacks as skeptics in the research community are subjected to harsh criticisms from colleagues, often isolated and derided for their findings.

Swedish meteorologist Professor Lennart Bengtsson recently accused the climate change world of "McCarthyist"-type pressure for scientists having to tow the alarmism line or face professional shunning, the Daily Mail reported.

Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading in England, joined with four of his scholarly colleagues to pen a study that suggested the planet might be less vulnerable to greenhouse gases than previously believed — a notion that flies directly in the face of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's claim that the Earth's temperatures are due to rise by 4.5 degrees Celsius if greenhouse gas levels double.

Bengtsson's paper simply suggested that the IPCC might want to conduct further research to "reduce the underlying uncertainty" of its findings.

"The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist," said Bengtsson, who spoke of unbearable pressure coming from other researchers after he submitted his paper. "It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn't been keeping up with the models."

Climate change alarmism is big business for some – including Al Gore, who was on a path a few years ago to become what The Telegraph described as the world's first "carbon billionaire" for pushing government environmental controls that would direct a vast fortune to his personal business ventures.

But to at least one environmental analyst, the rhetoric surrounding the green debate is too harsh and vicious to be all about money.

"My basic argument is that climate change is an identity, and changing their mind about science means changing their identity," Myers told Newsmax, referring to how many in the environmental movement refuse to acknowledge when climate change alarmism falters in the face of facts.

"That's too much for people to do — to say 'I've been living a lie.' It's become all about who they are as a person, as their identity. And that's why the attacks have become so personal."

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-scientists-petition/2014/05/20/id/572409#ixzz32MQvpRuR
.

TheHumanAlphabet

5/21/2014, 10:58 AM

Love it when Biden says if he is wrong, what's the deal...

I'll tell you, Government intrusion in my life, increased taxes, increased schemes to rule my life, decreased freedoms, decreased ability to do as one wants, living and doing as the Progressives and Gov't. Elitists want us to live, living life hamstrung like the Europeans, reduced ability to earn money... That's what, Mr. Plagiarer in Chief...

Sooner8th

5/21/2014, 11:17 AM

.

The Global Warming Petition Project, also known as the Oregon Petition

http://debunking.pbworks.com/w/page/17102969/Oregon%20Petition

What if the Oregon Petition names were real?
This fraud is the source of the Denier myth that (variously) 17,000, 30,000, 60,000 etc "scientists have
The Oregon Petition is a project by Arthur B. Robinson head of the tiny, industry funded so-called Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

It is an updated version of his notoriously fraudulent earlier attempts , the most recent being the 1998 Oregon Petition.

It's even been debunked at the Skeptics Society (the irony) "Misleading by Petition Just What is the Consensus on Global Warming?

For a thorough debunking of the alleged science accompanying the Petition
Of moles and whacking: Oregon Petition, Redux
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
The Oregon Petition
Debunking the Oregon Petition Project
debunked Oregon Petition on global warming
Ignore Oregon petition
Infamous Oregon Global Warming Petition
RealClimate scientists take on latest manifestation of global warming disinformation campaign

Most of the names (of those that are legitimate, which aren't many) are from over a decade ago, in some cases almost twice that age - like there's been no updates in the science recently?

Quote from National Academy of Sciences
"The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that:
The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science." Source

Some of the alleged signatories are actually dead.

Of tobacco apologist Frederick Seitz see (enough said)

Oh yeah, here's another example of Denier math (19=500) when counting "skeptics"
And on and on; it's a joke. A sad pathetic joke that is a waste of everyone's time.
Debunking Denier Myths

Sooner8th

5/21/2014, 11:45 AM

Turd_Ferguson

5/21/2014, 05:55 PM

I'm the innerweb moran champion!!! Look at me everone!!! I'm the smartest mother****er in the world!!! Look at me!!!

Yep. What a dooch.

olevetonahill

5/21/2014, 06:01 PM

Yep. What a dooch.

This Matlock/Marfa/ and that other ignorant mutha all rolled into onw.

8timechamps

5/21/2014, 06:09 PM

Carlin's off base on some things, but this is a great monologue, and I agree with it, FWIW. I like his description of humans as an evolutionary cul de sac.

No doubt, he's certainly not completely accurate, but I like the tone and overall feeling in what he said.

Sooner8th

5/21/2014, 06:26 PM

This Matlock/Marfa/ and that other ignorant mutha all rolled into onw.

Hey Moran, Read this then do a Little cyphering

That is never going to get old.

SCOUT

5/21/2014, 06:51 PM

That is never going to get old.

I don't know why I am doing this, but you should understand a couple of things. The intentional misspelling of several words have been part of the board for years. In fact, the exact photo you chose to make fun of Moran is the reason for that joke. Another example would be pole vs. poll. Lighten up Francis.

I realize I am feeding the troll but it isn't as funny when he keeps harping on the same inside joke.

Sooner8th

5/21/2014, 08:11 PM

I don't know why I am doing this, but you should understand a couple of things. The intentional misspelling of several words have been part of the board for years. In fact, the exact photo you chose to make fun of Moran is the reason for that joke. Another example would be pole vs. poll. Lighten up Francis.

I realize I am feeding the troll but it isn't as funny when he keeps harping on the same inside joke.

First off---when one of you people attacked me, calling me stupid, I responded and corrected his FIVE spelling errors. No one mentioned how it was a running joke blah blah blah. Then I was attacked for correcting his spelling errors. So much for the joke, huh?

I will say that calling me stupid and having FIVE spelling errors was goddamn funny. Ironic isn't it?

No wonder you people love you some sarah palin, ignorance and stupidity is celebrated. It's too bad you people get to vote.

SCOUT

5/21/2014, 09:47 PM

First off---when one of you people attacked me, calling me stupid, I responded and corrected his FIVE spelling errors. No one mentioned how it was a running joke blah blah blah. Then I was attacked for correcting his spelling errors. So much for the joke, huh?

I will say that calling me stupid and having FIVE spelling errors was goddamn funny. Ironic isn't it?

No wonder you people love you some sarah palin, ignorance and stupidity is celebrated. It's too bad you people get to vote.

Your're welcome.

olevetonahill

5/21/2014, 09:49 PM

Sooner8th

5/21/2014, 10:44 PM

Thank you, Sincerely. I am so happy that YOU have NEVER made a mistake in spelling Or In any way Misstated a Point here . I am in AWE of you and yer ****in perfectness. Go **** up a rope.

It wasn't A mistake it was FIVE. When you call someone stupid, you should make sure you don't prove you are stupid. And I have misstated a point in here, when i realize my mistake I admit it and correct myself. I make the effort, unlike others who claim a la herman cain that any screw up is a joke.

SCOUT

5/21/2014, 10:47 PM

It wasn't A mistake it was FIVE. When you call someone stupid, you should make sure you don't prove you are stupid. And I have misstated a point in here, when i realize my mistake I admit it and correct myself. I make the effort, unlike others who claim a la herman cain that any screw up is a joke.

I tried. It was worth a shot.

Sooner8th

5/21/2014, 10:58 PM

I tried. It was worth a shot.

Scout, are you seriously going to try to tell me that those FIVE spelling errors were on purpose as a joke? I just don't buy it. Like I said - a la herman cain. It is a ploy conservatives try to use to cover up ignorance and stupidity. I get the moran, I caught it right away - hence the sign pic. I'm just bustin' 'ol vets balls, he insulted me the first post I had on here setting the tone. And no, I won't let it go. Learn to play nicely in the sandbox.

SCOUT

5/21/2014, 11:47 PM

Scout, are you seriously going to try to tell me that those FIVE spelling errors were on purpose as a joke? I just don't buy it. Like I said - a la herman cain. It is a ploy conservatives try to use to cover up ignorance and stupidity. I get the moran, I caught it right away - hence the sign pic. I'm just bustin' 'ol vets balls, he insulted me the first post I had on here setting the tone. And no, I won't let it go. Learn to play nicely in the sandbox.

No 8th, you didn't get any of the jokes. If you had, you would have reacted to the number of comments that said, "we are making fun of you."

Your anger towards a political party doesn't allow you to be fair when other opinions are put forward.

I made fun of your punctuation because you made fun of others grammar. Glass houses and all.

Lighten up, stop calling names, and have a fun conversation. It is worth it.

Sooner8th

5/22/2014, 07:23 AM

No 8th, you didn't get any of the jokes. If you had, you would have reacted to the number of comments that said, "we are making fun of you."

Your anger towards a political party doesn't allow you to be fair when other opinions are put forward.

I made fun of your punctuation because you made fun of others grammar. Glass houses and all.

Lighten up, stop calling names, and have a fun conversation. It is worth it.

Scout, I know when you people are making fun of me on here, mostly it's just childish and ignorant name calling. NONE of you can back up any of the position you take when pressed. Then you all try to claim it is a joke. Did I mention making fun of my punctuation? NO, and you were wrong about it anyway., I was using the dots for dramatic effect, not to replace words. This is typical for conservatives, defend a fellow conservative with the most implausible agreements and attack a liberal on a point you made up.

As for stop the name calling - that is ****ing rich, vet attacked me on my first post, hardly a post goes by where I'm not called a libtard. I know you are going to try to claim it is all in fun - I don't buy it. People on here can't back up their positions, so they resort to name calling. It's all conservatives can do, because it's they've got.

REDREX

5/22/2014, 07:46 AM

Anyone that thinks more and bigger Gov't is helping the country is wrong

Turd_Ferguson

5/22/2014, 08:50 AM

Anyone that thinks more and bigger Gov't is helping the country is wrong

Yes, and the people like the ****wad in this thread are nothing more than racist bigots that think they are holier than thou. They also think they're the smartest mother****er's on earth...

Sooner8th

5/22/2014, 09:19 AM

Yes, and the people like the ****wad in this thread are nothing more than racist bigots that think they are holier than thou. They also think they're the smartest mother****er's on earth...

Scout - this is exactly what I'm talking about. Just can't handle the truth about their positions so they resort to name calling.

SCOUT

5/22/2014, 12:12 PM

Scout, I know when you people are making fun of me on here, mostly it's just childish and ignorant name calling. NONE of you can back up any of the position you take when pressed. Then you all try to claim it is a joke. Did I mention making fun of my punctuation? NO, and you were wrong about it anyway., I was using the dots for dramatic effect, not to replace words. This is typical for conservatives, defend a fellow conservative with the most implausible agreements and attack a liberal on a point you made up.

As for stop the name calling - that is ****ing rich, vet attacked me on my first post, hardly a post goes by where I'm not called a libtard. I know you are going to try to claim it is all in fun - I don't buy it. People on here can't back up their positions, so they resort to name calling. It's all conservatives can do, because it's they've got.

The point of the punctuation correction was to make fun of you for critiquing the grammar of others. You see the humor now? And yes, I am correct.

As for the rest, you need to get a grip. You start every post like a bull in a china shop. Relax a little bit.

yermom

5/22/2014, 01:03 PM

**** off dip****

olevetonahill

5/22/2014, 01:09 PM

Heh

Sooner8th

5/22/2014, 03:24 PM

The point of the punctuation correction was to make fun of you for critiquing the grammar of others. You see the humor now? And yes, I am correct.

As for the rest, you need to get a grip. You start every post like a bull in a china shop. Relax a little bit.

I saw the humor before, it's not funny it's childish and immature.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

5/22/2014, 03:38 PM

You're espousing democrat(authoritarian) government. Is that adultish and mature?

REDREX

5/22/2014, 03:57 PM

The VA is a great example of how poorly the Gov't runs programs----Anyone think the Gov't is doing a good job at the VA ?----Come on guys this is Gov't run healthcare----This is the future

Sooner8th

5/22/2014, 04:54 PM

You're espousing democrat(authoritarian) government. Is that adultish and mature?

No, I'm not espousing authoritaria government. Show me where I am. Conservatives (republicants) have been conditioned to think that anyone who does not quickly and completely agree with them is espousing an authoritarian government.

Sooner8th

5/22/2014, 04:56 PM

The VA is a great example of how poorly the Gov't runs programs----Anyone think the Gov't is doing a good job at the VA ?----Come on guys this is Gov't run healthcare----This is the future

The VA has been underfunded for years and was being poorly run when bush was president - remember walter reed? Obama needs to get this fixed. He promised it. The future is medicare for all, I hope.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

5/22/2014, 04:59 PM

No, I'm not. Show me where I am. Conservatives (republicants) have been conditioned to think that anyone who does not quickly and completely agree with them is espousing an authoritarian government.if reasoning = conditioning to you, then yeah.

Sooner8th

5/22/2014, 05:00 PM

if reasoning = conditioning to you, then yeah.

Give me examples.

Turd_Ferguson

5/22/2014, 05:58 PM

Give me examples.

Your spekker is red...

8timechamps

5/22/2014, 06:01 PM

Scout, I know when you people are making fun of me on here, mostly it's just childish and ignorant name calling. NONE of you can back up any of the position you take when pressed. Then you all try to claim it is a joke. Did I mention making fun of my punctuation? NO, and you were wrong about it anyway., I was using the dots for dramatic effect, not to replace words. This is typical for conservatives, defend a fellow conservative with the most implausible agreements and attack a liberal on a point you made up.

As for stop the name calling - that is ****ing rich, vet attacked me on my first post, hardly a post goes by where I'm not called a libtard. I know you are going to try to claim it is all in fun - I don't buy it. People on here can't back up their positions, so they resort to name calling. It's all conservatives can do, because it's they've got.

I'm going to make this really clear. If you want to come on here and debate, fine. If you want to call someone names (so long as they are tame), fine. If you want to start playing the role of victim, and start all the poor me bull****, then continue to talk down to the other posters, you WILL get banned.

This board is moderated very lightly for a reason, but enough is enough.

Stick to the topic.

Sooner8th

5/22/2014, 07:15 PM

I'm going to make this really clear. If you want to come on here and debate, fine. If you want to call someone names (so long as they are tame), fine. If you want to start playing the role of victim, and start all the poor me bull****, then continue to talk down to the other posters, you WILL get banned.

This board is moderated very lightly for a reason, but enough is enough.

Stick to the topic.

What is said it true - vet did attack me on my first post and hardly a post goes by where I'm not called a libtard. Turd just told me that i have obamas schlong down my throat, but he changed it. Are you going to ban them? NO you won't.

REDREX

5/22/2014, 08:13 PM

The VA has been underfunded for years and was being poorly run when bush was president - remember walter reed? Obama needs to get this fixed. He promised it. The future is medicare for all, I hope.----The VA has been poorly run for 45 or more years ----It is an excellent object lesson on Gov't failure ----Why would anyone think single payer would work any better?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

5/22/2014, 08:38 PM

----The VA has been poorly run for 45 or more years ----It is an excellent object lesson on Gov't failure ----Why would anyone think single payer would work any better?Why would anyone think the govt. having complete control(Single Payer) over any industry, including coercive and punitive powers, be considered as viable and preferred?

Sooner8th

5/22/2014, 09:19 PM

Why would anyone think the govt. having complete control(Single Payer) over any industry, including coercive and punitive powers, be considered as viable and preferred?

Medicare pays 94% of their money out to claims - ASA makes other insurance companies pay at least 85% and 80% for smaller companies. Having health insurance companies has lead us to having care costs skyrocketing for the last 40 years.

REDREX

5/22/2014, 09:29 PM

Medicare pays 94% of their money out to claims - ASA makes other insurance companies pay at least 85% and 80% for smaller companies. Having health insurance companies has lead us to having care costs skyrocketing for the last 40 years.

Medicare fraud every year costs about four times the profit of the top 10 health insurance companies COMBINED------We currently have a huge unfunded liability for medicare----Don't try and say that insurance companies are the problem

REDREX

5/22/2014, 09:41 PM

One of my friends is a Radiologist------He gets paid $6 by Medicare to read a chest X-Ray and $3 to read a Medicaid chest X-Ray-----Do you really believe that docs want to take more Medicare and Medicaid patients?

Sooner8th

5/22/2014, 10:32 PM

Medicare fraud every year costs about four times the profit of the top 10 health insurance companies COMBINED------We currently have a huge unfunded liability for medicare----Don't try and say that insurance companies are the problem

I never said they were the problem, I was showing how medicare returns of premiums to payments then private insurance. Private insurance has fraud too. $24 billion is what i saw. And if you want to talk about medicare fraud, the largest penalty for medicare fraud was paid by Columbia/HCA whose CEO at the time was Rick Scott, who is now the republican governor of Florida. Medicare fraud didn't seem to be too big of a deal to republican voters in Florida, just like cheating on your spouse didn't seem to be too big of a deal to Oklahoma voters for governor.

olevetonahill

5/22/2014, 10:37 PM

What is said it true - vet did attack me on my first post and hardly a post goes by where I'm not called a libtard. Turd just told me that i have obamas schlong down my throat, but he changed it. Are you going to ban them? NO you won't.

Your wrong again as usual My young idiotic friend. All I did was call you a MORAN and it was about yer 10 er 15post. Then you get all Butt hurt and start slinging Poo like a deranged Baby cleaning its diaper.Since then Ive pretty much ignored yer ignorant Asz other than to come by and Poke you with a sharp stick, now and then. Now get Obammys dong out yer mouth and post some thing that is NOT condescending Or Tryin to Talk down to Everyone else. There are other Liberal posters here who get treated with respect Because they show respect in return.

Now was that stick sharp enough?

Sooner8th

5/22/2014, 10:53 PM

Your wrong again as usual My young idiotic friend. All I did was call you a MORAN and it was about yer 10 er 15post. Then you get all Butt hurt and start slinging Poo like a deranged Baby cleaning its diaper.Since then Ive pretty much ignored yer ignorant Asz other than to come by and Poke you with a sharp stick, now and then. Now get Obammys dong out yer mouth and post some thing that is NOT condescending Or Tryin to Talk down to Everyone else. There are other Liberal posters here who get treated with respect Because they show respect in return.

Now was that stick sharp enough?

8timechamps posted If you want to call someone names (so long as they are tame), fine.

Is telling me "Now get Obammys dong out yer mouth" tame? Are you going to get banned?

REDREX

5/22/2014, 10:54 PM

I never said they were the problem, I was showing how medicare returns of premiums to payments then private insurance. Private insurance has fraud too. $24 billion is what i saw. And if you want to talk about medicare fraud, the largest penalty for medicare fraud was paid by Columbia/HCA whose CEO at the time was Rick Scott, who is now the republican governor of Florida. Medicare fraud didn't seem to be too big of a deal to republican voters in Florida, just like cheating on your spouse didn't seem to be too big of a deal to Oklahoma voters for governor.---Medicare is a poorly run program with a huge amount of Fraud, and you want to go to a single payer system. What about amount the docs receive from Medicare and Medicaid do you think that is fair?----If it was not for the payments by private insurance many would stop practicing

REDREX

5/22/2014, 10:57 PM

I guess the American voters did not care that Bubba cheated on his wife-----Try and stay on the subject

Sooner8th

5/22/2014, 11:03 PM

---Medicare is a poorly run program with a huge amount of Fraud, and you want to go to a single payer system. What about amount the docs receive from Medicare and Medicaid do you think that is fair?----If it was not for the payments by private insurance many would stop practicing

You take one anecdotal evidence and want to disregard the whole thing. A real good friend of mine got out of med school 15 years ago and told me stories of graduates being offered half a million dollars a year to join a practice, that was on top of having a home at a lake to live in for free and paying off their student debt. I don't have a problem with anyone getting rich, I have a problem with people getting rich off of me and driving up costs to consumers so much it hurts our competitiveness. Over the last 40 some odd years real wages have risen 6%, health insurance paid by businesses and employees has what tripled? Gone up four times? We have tried your way and health care keep going up, it's a rigged system.

Sooner8th

5/22/2014, 11:04 PM

I guess the American voters did not care that Bubba cheated on his wife-----Try and stay on the subject

Just showing its systematic with republicans-------------and by the way the topic is climate change not health care.

But good point - lets get back on topic.

olevetonahill

5/22/2014, 11:05 PM

8timechamps posted If you want to call someone names (so long as they are tame), fine.

Is telling me "Now get Obammys dong out yer mouth" tame? Are you going to get banned?

Prolly Not But If I do he wont be gettin My Cherry? Hell Phil Perma Bained me a few years back. Oh well . Ill stay around to Poke at ya for as long as I can ! Plus I dint call you a name I merely made a suggestionhttp://www.olevetpossehideout.com/forums/images/smilies/fuk2.jpghttp://www.olevetpossehideout.com/forums/images/smilies/cheers2.gif

Sooner8th

5/23/2014, 12:05 AM

Prolly Not But If I do he wont be gettin My Cherry? Hell Phil Perma Bained me a few years back. Oh well . Ill stay around to Poke at ya for as long as I can ! Plus I dint call you a name I merely made a suggestionhttp://www.olevetpossehideout.com/forums/images/smilies/fuk2.jpghttp://www.olevetpossehideout.com/forums/images/smilies/cheers2.gif

If you got perma banned how did you get back on?

olevetonahill

5/23/2014, 12:11 AM

If you got perma banned how did you get back on?

Im that dayum Good! Plus I been here a Long time and Know where the bodies are buried, Plus havin those certain Pics Helps a lot.

REDREX

5/23/2014, 07:12 AM

You take one anecdotal evidence and want to disregard the whole thing. A real good friend of mine got out of med school 15 years ago and told me stories of graduates being offered half a million dollars a year to join a practice, that was on top of having a home at a lake to live in for free and paying off their student debt. I don't have a problem with anyone getting rich, I have a problem with people getting rich off of me and driving up costs to consumers so much it hurts our competitiveness. Over the last 40 some odd years real wages have risen 6%, health insurance paid by businesses and employees has what tripled? Gone up four times? We have tried your way and health care keep going up, it's a rigged system.---Go ask your buddy how he feels about Medicare and single payer----Bottom line is that Medicare Medicaid and the VA are all Gov't run health systems that are very expensive and poorly run

Sooner8th

5/23/2014, 08:10 AM

---Go ask your buddy how he feels about Medicare and single payer----Bottom line is that Medicare Medicaid and the VA are all Gov't run health systems that are very expensive and poorly run

I don't have to ask - I'm sure he hates it because the pay is lower than private health. The VA has been poorly run for years and congress has sat in their hands to fix it. Private health has fraud too just like Medicare and Medicaid.

I'm not saying force everyone to have medicare, just open it up so if you want that insurance you can buy it there. Private health care would have to compete.

One of my friends is a Radiologist------He gets paid $6 by Medicare to read a chest X-Ray and $3 to read a Medicaid chest X-Ray-----Do you really believe that docs want to take more Medicare and Medicaid patients?

Medicare and Medicaid are not paying him/her. Radiologists are usually employed a group who only reads the x-rays Medicare and Medicaid pay the practice who took the x-rays and the radiologist group is sub contracted out to read them. Unfortunately, reading x-rays can easily be moved around, not all are film. BTW - my friend was going to be a radiologist until his brother, a fellow doctor, talked him into being a gas passer. The practice that took the x-ray is probably pocketing the same amount as what they get for private insurance and forcing the difference on the radiologist. It's the free market at work. Forcing costs up by increasing the payout from medicare only adds to the problem, the radiologist should take the low pay up with who the contract is with.

REDREX

5/23/2014, 10:20 AM

Sooner8th

5/23/2014, 03:50 PM

You are wrong ----he is a partner ---------The group is getting paid almost nothing for the service--------Why do you think it is that many and an ever growing number of docs will not take medicare patients?

Is he shooting the x-rays too or just reading them? We got way off track on the the topic.

Turd_Ferguson

5/23/2014, 04:42 PM

You are wrong ----he is a partner ---------The group is getting paid almost nothing for the service--------Why do you think it is that many and an ever growing number of docs will not take medicare patients?
RR, please do not question the knowledge of Snr8th, she is the smartest mother****er on earth.

Sooner8th

5/23/2014, 07:59 PM

RR, please do not question the knowledge of Snr8th, she is the smartest mother****er on earth.

Picking up where vet left off huh? Having a polite discussion and you throw this out. I was warned not to talk down to people, so i'll fight off my natural inclination and not explain to you that it was a question and not a statement and that my friend and I did talk about length about the structure of being a radiologist. We were both business majors. :peaceful:

TheHumanAlphabet

5/26/2014, 10:45 PM

I don't have to ask - I'm sure he hates it because the pay is lower than private health. The VA has been poorly run for years and congress has sat in their hands to fix it. Private health has fraud too just like Medicare and Medicaid.

I'm not saying force everyone to have medicare, just open it up so if you want that insurance you can buy it there. Private health care would have to compete.

Just look to the VA health system and the Indian Health system if you want to see what our future is with the government involved in health care... Not a good picture, just like the UK Health service. Death panels, people waiting months for service, increased taxes and then occasional extra taxes for good measure (Alberta comes to mind recently). At least in the private insurance market, we can go elsewhere and make choices. These a&&holes in the admin and dems wrote the rules to reduce the average person's ability to go on the market by reducing the annual FSA amount we can set aside. This is ALL about control of the US population by so called political elitist to be able to rule over the "little people" of America...

Sooner8th

5/26/2014, 11:45 PM

Just look to the VA health system and the Indian Health system if you want to see what our future is with the government involved in health care... Not a good picture, just like the UK Health service. Death panels, people waiting months for service, increased taxes and then occasional extra taxes for good measure (Alberta comes to mind recently). At least in the private insurance market, we can go elsewhere and make choices. These a&&holes in the admin and dems wrote the rules to reduce the average person's ability to go on the market by reducing the annual FSA amount we can set aside. This is ALL about control of the US population by so called political elitist to be able to rule over the "little people" of America...

As I stated earlier the VA health care system has been underfunded for years. Just this February all but two republicans in the senate voted not to add 27 new clinics and facilities.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/27/us-usa-veterans-congress-idUSBREA1Q26O20140227

U.S. Senate Republicans blocked legislation on Thursday that would have expanded federal healthcare and education programs for veterans, saying the $24 billion bill would bust the budget.

Even though the legislation cleared a procedural vote on Tuesday by a 99-0 vote, the measure quickly got bogged down in partisan fighting.

Supporters said the measure would have brought the most significant changes in decades to U.S. veterans' programs. For example, it called for 27 new medical facilities to help a healthcare system that is strained by veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

With Democrats pressing for passage this week, Senate Republicans, backed by their leader, Mitch McConnell, attempted to attach controversial legislation calling for possible new sanctions on Iran that President Barack Obama opposes.

"The issue of Iran sanctions ... has nothing to do with the needs of veterans," complained Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Bernard Sanders of Vermont, the main sponsor of the bill.

Republicans also raised budget concerns, forcing another key procedural vote that ended up killing the bill. By a vote of 56-41, the Senate failed to waive budget rules that would have allowed the bill to proceed. Sixty votes were needed and 41 of the chamber's 45 Republicans voted against the waiver.

Deathpanels? You lose all credibility if you think there are death panels.

You forget - this is a republican idea.

Remind me how the private insurance market is working so well with double figure per year increases. It is republicans who are keeping exchanges from opening so people can have a choice.

This is about control of the US populations by making health insurance less expensive? I think your tinfoil hat is on to tight.

dwarthog

5/27/2014, 07:33 AM

As I stated earlier the VA health care system has been underfunded for years. Just this February all but two republicans in the senate voted not to add 27 new clinics and facilities.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/27/us-usa-veterans-congress-idUSBREA1Q26O20140227

U.S. Senate Republicans blocked legislation on Thursday that would have expanded federal healthcare and education programs for veterans, saying the $24 billion bill would bust the budget.

Even though the legislation cleared a procedural vote on Tuesday by a 99-0 vote, the measure quickly got bogged down in partisan fighting.

Supporters said the measure would have brought the most significant changes in decades to U.S. veterans' programs. For example, it called for 27 new medical facilities to help a healthcare system that is strained by veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

With Democrats pressing for passage this week, Senate Republicans, backed by their leader, Mitch McConnell, attempted to attach controversial legislation calling for possible new sanctions on Iran that President Barack Obama opposes.

"The issue of Iran sanctions ... has nothing to do with the needs of veterans," complained Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Bernard Sanders of Vermont, the main sponsor of the bill.

Republicans also raised budget concerns, forcing another key procedural vote that ended up killing the bill. By a vote of 56-41, the Senate failed to waive budget rules that would have allowed the bill to proceed. Sixty votes were needed and 41 of the chamber's 45 Republicans voted against the waiver.

Deathpanels? You lose all credibility if you think there are death panels.

You forget - this is a republican idea.

Remind me how the private insurance market is working so well with double figure per year increases. It is republicans who are keeping exchanges from opening so people can have a choice.

This is about control of the US populations by making health insurance less expensive? I think your tinfoil hat is on to tight.

Complete bull$****. Just more democratic obfuscation, deflection and spin to avoid owning the issue.

The VA budget has been increased from 97 billion to over 150 billion since 2009.

This isn't about some chump bill that dems want to use to escape culpability, but flat out incompetent leadership across the board by this administration and it's appointees.

Sooner8th

5/27/2014, 08:00 AM

Complete bull$****. Just more democratic obfuscation, deflection and spin to avoid owning the issue.

The VA budget has been increased from 97 billion to over 150 billion since 2009.

This isn't about some chump bill that dems want to use to escape culpability, but flat out incompetent leadership across the board by this administration and it's appointees.

Truth hurts huh?

Remember Walter Reed? Like I said, it's been a mess for a long time and yes obama said he'd take care of it and didn't. At least we can admit it, unlike conservatives - what failed response to katrina?

dwarthog

5/27/2014, 08:36 AM

Truth hurts huh?

Remember Walter Reed? Like I said, it's been a mess for a long time and yes obama said he'd take care of it and didn't. At least we can admit it, unlike conservatives - what failed response to katrina?

You are physically unable to type a reply where you don't provide some obfuscation or deflection to an issue where the Dems have screwed up, aren't you.

I have to admit, you're great at providing the comic relief in this Shakespearean tragedy that is the the Obama presidency.

Well done!

Sooner8th

5/27/2014, 09:30 AM

You are physically unable to type a reply where you don't provide some obfuscation or deflection to an issue where the Dems have screwed up, aren't you.

I have to admit, you're great at providing the comic relief in this Shakespearean tragedy that is the the Obama presidency.

Well done!

Do you not acknowledge the VA health care has been screwed up for years? Do you not acknowledge that YOUR party wouldn't vote to add $21 billion on it in February? Did you not read I said Obama promised to fix it and he hasn't? That is a lot more than any conservative republican will admit to with Reagan or the bush's.

You live in an alternate universe.

dwarthog

5/27/2014, 09:44 AM

Do you not acknowledge the VA health care has been screwed up for years? Do you not acknowledge that YOUR party wouldn't vote to add $21 billion on it in February? Did you not read I said Obama promised to fix it and he hasn't? That is a lot more than any conservative republican will admit to with Reagan or the bush's.

You live in an alternate universe.

1) Yes
2) No. I'll play your role here. They did NOT vote against giving money to the VA. That passed 99 -0. The vote was against passing the legislation without the necessary funding in place to keep from adding to the deficit. You know, like those great Dem fiscal hawks that have cut the deficit in half? Do stay on track with your story on how Obama and team are cutting the deficit in half instead of adding to it.
3)More obfuscation and deflection...

Sooner8th

5/27/2014, 09:56 AM

1) Yes
2) No. I'll play your role here. They did NOT vote against giving money to the VA. That passed 99 -0. The vote was against passing the legislation without the necessary funding in place to keep from adding to the deficit. You know, like those great Dem fiscal hawks that have cut the deficit in half? Do stay on track with your story on how Obama and team are cutting the deficit in half instead of adding to it.
3)More obfuscation and deflection...

You are physically unable to type a reply where you don't provide some obfuscation or deflection to an issue where the conserves and repubs have screwed up, aren't you?

Here is a link to the washington post where REPUBLICANS acknowlge there is a wait problem and the cost was covered BUT -

Sanders had said he would be open to paying for the provisions with savings from reduced overseas contingency operations, formerly known as the global war on terrorism. But Republicans indicated that they prefer to dedicate the savings toward deficit reduction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/senate-rejects-far-reaching-veterans-affairs-bill/2014/02/27/1d10801c-a001-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_story.html

So you are WRONG - again. Stop watching fox "news" and get the truth. Is the deficit is half since he took office? YES!

REDREX

5/27/2014, 09:56 AM

Sooner8th

5/27/2014, 10:09 AM

----You are not going to fix it with money-----The problem is that the VA and well as the other govt run health programs are poorly run---- Govt bureaucracy will not solve the problem

If we want to keep this up lets start a new thread. This is climate change.

dwarthog

5/27/2014, 11:46 AM

You are physically unable to type a reply where you don't provide some obfuscation or deflection to an issue where the conserves and repubs have screwed up, aren't you?

Here is a link to the washington post where REPUBLICANS acknowlge there is a wait problem and the cost was covered BUT -

Sanders had said he would be open to paying for the provisions with savings from reduced overseas contingency operations, formerly known as the global war on terrorism. But Republicans indicated that they prefer to dedicate the savings toward deficit reduction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/senate-rejects-far-reaching-veterans-affairs-bill/2014/02/27/1d10801c-a001-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_story.html

So you are WRONG - again. Stop watching fox "news" and get the truth. Is the deficit is half since he took office? YES!

Bernie Sanders Bill 1982...

Some of the items contained within the 400 pages.

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140204/NEWS/302040027/Senate-vote-come-soon-massive-veterans-bill

"In the bill are provisions authorizing fertility services for severely wounded veterans, extending access to Veterans Affairs Department health care for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans from five years to 10, broadening care for military sexual assault victims and expanding the VA dental program, among others."

"On Tuesday, two veterans groups came out against the bill, citing concerns about its proposed funding source — diverted war appropriations — and comprehensive nature, which they described as “everything but the kitchen sink.”

"Representatives of AMVETS and Concerned Veterans for America said their groups support the bill’s provision to repeal caps on annual cost-of-living increases in military retired pay, but feel the broader legislation would burden a VA that still has a backlog of 400,000 benefits claims and faces problems providing timely, adequate health care for its current beneficiaries.

“We’re opposed to the bill basically because it’s bad for veterans and bad for VA. It increases mission creep and reduces VA’s ability to properly serve veterans,” said Darin Senick, VA adviser for Concerned Veterans Of America."

Now lets investigate some of that "magical" funding as dreamed up by the dems.

"To cover the bill’s estimated $30 billion cost over 10 years, bill supporters propose using the “peace dividend” for ending the war in Afghanistan.

The bill would establish spending caps for Overseas Contingency Operations approprations starting in 2018 and using the projected budget savings to pay for the legislation.

Sanders said the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that $1.025 trillion will be needed for overseas contingency operations in the next 10 years. But the Obama administration has projected that just $260 billion will be needed, meaning nearly $800 billion could be available for other purposes."

That sure looks like a bill to expand the scope of what the VA provides instead of a bill to fix a broken system.

So explain how this bill was designed to fix a broken VA system?

Sooner8th

5/27/2014, 12:37 PM

Bernie Sanders Bill 1982...

Some of the items contained within the 400 pages.

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140204/NEWS/302040027/Senate-vote-come-soon-massive-veterans-bill

Now lets investigate some of that "magical" funding as dreamed up by the dems.

That sure looks like a bill to expand the scope of what the VA provides instead of a bill to fix a broken system.

So explain how this bill was designed to fix a broken VA system?

You really are laughable. "magical" funding? Too funny - why don't we just declare it an emergency and fund it off the books so the deficits wont look as bad? You know what I'm talking about.

You really don't think opening 27 new clinics would help? Doing what we have been doing for years sure hasn't worked.

OK- that was my last on this - this thread is about climate change, start a new one on the VA and/or health care if you want to go on.

dwarthog

5/27/2014, 12:47 PM

You really are laughable. "magical" funding? Too funny - why don't we just declare it an emergency and fund it off the books so the deficits wont look as bad? You know what I'm talking about.

You really don't think opening 27 new clinics would help? Doing what we have been doing for years sure hasn't worked.

OK- that was my last on this - this thread is about climate change, start a new one on the VA and/or health care if you want to go on.

You're killing me here with this stuff...

Go play with your AGW now.

Oh and while you're talking climate change why hasn't the Arctic ice cap completely melted yet like that noted climate scientist Al Gore predicted in his award winning yarn, "An Inconvenient Truth"?

Sooner8th

5/27/2014, 01:58 PM

You're killing me here with this stuff...

Go play with your AGW now.

Oh and while you're talking climate change why hasn't the Arctic ice cap completely melted yet like that noted climate scientist Al Gore predicted in his award winning yarn, "An Inconvenient Truth"?

Since when did anyone besides the right claim Al Gore was a "noted climate scientist". Funny, Al Gore says something that didn't work out and rightwingnuts proclaim the whole thing is a farce. But when regean said cutting taxes to the wealthy will pay for themselves and we can cut taxes to the wealth and at the same time raise defense spending and balance the budget and bush II proclaimed there won't be any deficit if we cut taxes to the wealth rightwingnuts don't abandon supply side, trickle down "economics". HUM

okie52

5/27/2014, 04:42 PM

Since when did anyone besides the right claim Al Gore was a "noted climate scientist". Funny, Al Gore says something that didn't work out and rightwingnuts proclaim the whole thing is a farce. But when regean said cutting taxes to the wealthy will pay for themselves and we can cut taxes to the wealth and at the same time raise defense spending and balance the budget and bush II proclaimed there won't be any deficit if we cut taxes to the wealth rightwingnuts don't abandon supply side, trickle down "economics". HUM

Is anything less than 100% tax on the high revenue producers part of trickle down economics?

Turd_Ferguson

5/27/2014, 04:55 PM

Is anything less than 100% tax on the high revenue producers part of trickle down economics?

Don't get her cornfused...

okie52

5/27/2014, 05:01 PM

Don't get her cornfused...

Heh heh..

champions77

5/27/2014, 05:15 PM

Climate change? It's been going on for tens of thousands of years.

The credibility factor is huge with these scientists. Back in 1970, I recall distinctly that Popular Science magazine ran a front page cover about the forthcoming "Ice Age". Then you have the data that was falsified by scientist that felt it necessary to generate more compelling data to further their "cause". That made this "political". Most of these scientists promoting "climate change" also are benefitting from Government grants of some sort.

Global Warming became such a joke with all of the record low temps around the world that they had to change the name to "Climate change".

Answer me why climate change existed thousands of years ago before the Internal Combustion engine or manufacturing plants existed and you will get my attention.

Damage our economy even more while the likes of Russia, China and India continue to ignore any climate change demands, thus negating any effort on our part to help the environment? No thanks.

Sooner8th

5/27/2014, 07:53 PM

Is anything less than 100% tax on the high revenue producers part of trickle down economics?

You done drank the kool-aid so much you don't even realize your voting for supply side, trickle down "economics". The whole rightwingnut freakout about not raising taxes on "job creators". Frank Luntz ran some focus groups and changed the term wealthy to job creators. Rightwingnuts took to the mats because bush's tax cut was expiring and it wasn't going to extend it for over $450k.

olevetonahill

5/27/2014, 08:59 PM

Troll still running his mouth, Thot he wernt gonna say nuthin else cept Climate warming shat.:soap:

TheHumanAlphabet

5/27/2014, 10:04 PM

As I stated earlier the VA health care system has been underfunded for years. Just this February all but two republicans in the senate voted not to add 27 new clinics and facilities.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/27/us-usa-veterans-congress-idUSBREA1Q26O20140227
U.S. Senate Republicans blocked legislation on Thursday that would have expanded federal healthcare and education programs for veterans, saying the $24 billion bill would bust the budget.

Even though the legislation cleared a procedural vote on Tuesday by a 99-0 vote, the measure quickly got bogged down in partisan fighting.

Supporters said the measure would have brought the most significant changes in decades to U.S. veterans' programs. For example, it called for 27 new medical facilities to help a healthcare system that is strained by veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

With Democrats pressing for passage this week, Senate Republicans, backed by their leader, Mitch McConnell, attempted to attach controversial legislation calling for possible new sanctions on Iran that President Barack Obama opposes.

"The issue of Iran sanctions ... has nothing to do with the needs of veterans," complained Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Bernard Sanders of Vermont, the main sponsor of the bill.

Republicans also raised budget concerns, forcing another key procedural vote that ended up killing the bill. By a vote of 56-41, the Senate failed to waive budget rules that would have allowed the bill to proceed. Sixty votes were needed and 41 of the chamber's 45 Republicans voted against the waiver.

Deathpanels? You lose all credibility if you think there are death panels.

You forget - this is a republican idea.

Remind me how the private insurance market is working so well with double figure per year increases. It is republicans who are keeping exchanges from opening so people can have a choice.

This is about control of the US populations by making health insurance less expensive? I think your tinfoil hat is on to tight.

I noticed how you conveniently overlooked the failure of the UK and Canadian health care system and their abysmal performance and death panels... Yes 8th, death panels do exist. The make decisions every day to determine who gets what treatment and what medication...if denied a treatment and no money to go into private care, you die...

Sooner8th

5/27/2014, 10:16 PM

I noticed how you conveniently overlooked the failure of the UK and Canadian health care system and their abysmal performance and death panels... Yes 8th, death panels do exist. The make decisions every day to determine who gets what treatment and what medication...

First off he was talking about UK not canada and second - THEY DON'T EXIST IN THE ACA BILL.

In August of 2009, Sarah Palin claimed that the health legislation being crafted by Democrats at the time would create a “death panel,” in which government bureaucrats would decide whether disabled and elderly patients are “worthy of healthcare.” Despite being debunked by fact-checkers and mainstream media outlets, this myth has persisted, with almost half of Americans stating recently that they believe the Affordable Care Act (ACA) creates such a panel.

The death panel myth killed neither the ACA nor Obama’s reelection bid. But persistence of this myth could threaten the Obama administration’s efforts to implement the law, because many of its most controversial features are scheduled to be implemented over the next few years. Why is the death panel myth so hard to shake and why is its persistence relevant to the unfolding of Obamacare?

In part, the myth is hard to shake because most people have a very poor understanding of the complex law. The ACA tries to increase access to health insurance through a bewildering combination of Medicaid expansions, private insurance subsidies, health insurance exchanges, and the infamous health insurance mandate. It attempts to improve healthcare quality through things such as reimbursement reforms and promotion of electronic medical records. And it encourages the formation of more efficient healthcare organizations, with inscrutable names like “accountable care organizations” and “medical homes”.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2013/01/09/why-it-is-so-difficult-to-kill-the-death-panel-myth/

Who says they are a failure, even stupid sarah palin scurried her ignorant *** to canada to steal health care from canada. It was good enough for her.

World Health Organization rankings and spending. UK 18, Canada 30, USA 37. If those two are a failure, what do you call the US health care system? Look at spending - USA is #1 USA USA USA USA USA!

Ranking Country Expenditure Per Capita
1 France France 4
2 Italy Italy 11
3 San Marino San Marino 21
4 Andorra 23
5 Malta 37
6 Singapore Singapore 38
7 Spain Spain 24
8 Oman Oman 62
9 Austria Austria 6
10 Japan Japan 13
11 Norway 16
12 Portugal Portugal 27
13 Monaco 12
14 Greece Greece 30
15 Iceland Iceland 14
16 Luxembourg 5
17 Netherlands Netherlands 9
18 United Kingdom United Kingdom 26
19 Republic of Ireland Ireland 25
20 Switzerland Switzerland 2
21 Belgium 15
22 Colombia Colombia 49
23 Sweden Sweden 7
24 Cyprus Cyprus 39
25 Germany Germany 3
26 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia 63
27 United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates 35
28 Israel Israel 19
29 Morocco Morocco 99
30 Canada Canada 10
31 Finland Finland 18
32 Australia Australia 17
33 Chile 44
34 Argentina Argentina 15
35 Denmark 8
36 Dominica 70
37 Costa Rica Costa Rica 50
37 United States United States 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_system s_in_2000

olevetonahill

5/28/2014, 01:21 AM

First off he was talking about UK not canada and second - THEY DON'T EXIST IN THE ACA BILL.

In August of 2009, Sarah Palin claimed that the health legislation being crafted by Democrats at the time would create a “death panel,” in which government bureaucrats would decide whether disabled and elderly patients are “worthy of healthcare.” Despite being debunked by fact-checkers and mainstream media outlets, this myth has persisted, with almost half of Americans stating recently that they believe the Affordable Care Act (ACA) creates such a panel.

The death panel myth killed neither the ACA nor Obama’s reelection bid. But persistence of this myth could threaten the Obama administration’s efforts to implement the law, because many of its most controversial features are scheduled to be implemented over the next few years. Why is the death panel myth so hard to shake and why is its persistence relevant to the unfolding of Obamacare?

In part, the myth is hard to shake because most people have a very poor understanding of the complex law. The ACA tries to increase access to health insurance through a bewildering combination of Medicaid expansions, private insurance subsidies, health insurance exchanges, and the infamous health insurance mandate. It attempts to improve healthcare quality through things such as reimbursement reforms and promotion of electronic medical records. And it encourages the formation of more efficient healthcare organizations, with inscrutable names like “accountable care organizations” and “medical homes”.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2013/01/09/why-it-is-so-difficult-to-kill-the-death-panel-myth/

Who says they are a failure, even stupid sarah palin scurried her ignorant *** to canada to steal health care from canada. It was good enough for her.

World Health Organization rankings and spending. UK 18, Canada 30, USA 37. If those two are a failure, what do you call the US health care system? Look at spending - USA is #1 USA USA USA USA USA!

Ranking Country Expenditure Per Capita
1 France France 4
2 Italy Italy 11
3 San Marino San Marino 21
4 Andorra 23
5 Malta 37
6 Singapore Singapore 38
7 Spain Spain 24
8 Oman Oman 62
9 Austria Austria 6
10 Japan Japan 13
11 Norway 16
12 Portugal Portugal 27
13 Monaco 12
14 Greece Greece 30
15 Iceland Iceland 14
16 Luxembourg 5
17 Netherlands Netherlands 9
18 United Kingdom United Kingdom 26
19 Republic of Ireland Ireland 25
20 Switzerland Switzerland 2
21 Belgium 15
22 Colombia Colombia 49
23 Sweden Sweden 7
24 Cyprus Cyprus 39
25 Germany Germany 3
26 Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia 63
27 United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates 35
28 Israel Israel 19
29 Morocco Morocco 99
30 Canada Canada 10
31 Finland Finland 18
32 Australia Australia 17
33 Chile 44
34 Argentina Argentina 15
35 Denmark 8
36 Dominica 70
37 Costa Rica Costa Rica 50
37 United States United States 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_system s_in_2000

Hey Moran! Thot you were thru with this and ONLY gonna talk about Climate Change/Global warming In this thread ????
Yer such a Liar.

I think I just decreased the Ozone cause I farted!

okie52

5/28/2014, 07:58 AM

You done drank the kool-aid so much you don't even realize your voting for supply side, trickle down "economics". The whole rightwingnut freakout about not raising taxes on "job creators". Frank Luntz ran some focus groups and changed the term wealthy to job creators. Rightwingnuts took to the mats because bush's tax cut was expiring and it wasn't going to extend it for over $450k.

Easy now 8th-objectivity...objectivity....objectivity...

Bush's tax cuts gave all tax payers a tax break...hopefully you didn't wander through the last decade mouthing "tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich" as many mindless lefty drones did without the slightest acknowledgement/awareness that everyone (well, at least those who paid taxes) received tax breaks from Bush's tax cuts. And Bush's tax cuts were expiring for everyone (that paid taxes) which neither the left nor the right wanted but the left "took to the mats" to make sure that only the high income producers would be taxed. Heh, I was hoping that all of the Bush tax cuts would expire so we could go back to the utopian tax levels of the Clinton era and "everybody" would pay their fair share but that idea didn't seem popular to the left or right.

But that wasn't the question 8th. At what tax level does a person/president become "trickle down" scum or show he is a "trickle up" hero? 40% tax on top revenue producers?- 70% ? 90%? Surely this isn't a fact that is hidden in some lefty code book only to be revealed to those that attend a Hillary rally.

REDREX

5/28/2014, 10:36 AM

Like my Canadian friends say----Their healthcare system is great-----As long as you don't get sick------------Many of the come to the US to get treatment for anything very serious

champions77

5/28/2014, 11:36 AM

Climate change, Affordable Care Act, Cap and Trade, gun control, phasing out the incandescent light bulbs, EPA with their heavy handed tactics, food police, IRS, NSA, the list goes on and on. Why? The socialist utopia that the far left desperately seeks to achieve, only works when they have complete control.....of everything. Can't have these individuals out there "doing their own thing". Control, control, control, that's the ticket.

The concept conservatives like to say over and over, more government control and less freedoms. It's the natural order of things. Why is that so hard to see? How can a citizenry that comprises only 20% of the population be so powerful, and force such unnatural things, contrary to the very principles this nation was founded on? Shrewd politicians and a complicit media, and an opposing party that has moved to the left so far, they would be called democrats 30 years ago. Tea party are extremists? Hardly. They would have been Reagan democrats 30 years ago.
The extremists in this country reside in the Democratic party whose ideas today would have labeled you a Communist 40 years ago.

OU68

5/28/2014, 01:11 PM

Hell, Kenedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" would make him a tea-party candidate today!

Turd_Ferguson

5/28/2014, 01:22 PM

Hell, Kenedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" would make him a tea-party candidate today!

Oh no you dint!!!!!!!

rock on sooner

5/28/2014, 02:02 PM

Hey Moran! Thot you were thru with this and ONLY gonna talk about Climate Change/Global warming In this thread ????
Yer such a Liar.

I think I just decreased the Ozone cause I farted!

That 'splains the report I read about "green house gases" in
and around Wister, OK.....:biggrin:

BetterSoonerThanLater

5/28/2014, 02:58 PM

Beer farts cause the polar ice caps to melt......use the ice that breaks off to fill your cooler and keep your beer cold. its a win win...

Sooner8th

5/30/2014, 10:49 PM

Easy now 8th-objectivity...objectivity....objectivity...

Bush's tax cuts gave all tax payers a tax break...hopefully you didn't wander through the last decade mouthing "tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich" as many mindless lefty drones did without the slightest acknowledgement/awareness that everyone (well, at least those who paid taxes) received tax breaks from Bush's tax cuts. And Bush's tax cuts were expiring for everyone (that paid taxes) which neither the left nor the right wanted but the left "took to the mats" to make sure that only the high income producers would be taxed. Heh, I was hoping that all of the Bush tax cuts would expire so we could go back to the utopian tax levels of the Clinton era and "everybody" would pay their fair share but that idea didn't seem popular to the left or right.

But that wasn't the question 8th. At what tax level does a person/president become "trickle down" scum or show he is a "trickle up" hero? 40% tax on top revenue producers?- 70% ? 90%? Surely this isn't a fact that is hidden in some lefty code book only to be revealed to those that attend a Hillary rally.

okie52 - your question shows you don't have a grasp of, well pretty much anything. How to argue a point, economics and most importantly what trickle down supply side "economics" is all about. It is not about a level of taxation on the wealthy - but a belief that cutting their taxes will improve the financial situation for everyone - not just for them. Tell me - who benefits from "eliminating taxation of investment income of most individual taxpayers, reducing the corporate income tax, eliminating the estate tax, and repealing the alternative minimum tax (AMT)" the middle class? The poor?

In his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney has proposed permanently extending the 2001-03 tax cuts, further cutting individual income tax rates, broadening the tax base by reducing tax preferences, eliminating taxation of investment income of most individual taxpayers, reducing the corporate income tax, eliminating the estate tax, and repealing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and the taxes enacted in 2010’s health reform legislation. The Tax Policy Center (TPC) has completed a preliminary analysis of the Romney plan, based on information posted on the campaign website and email exchanges with campaign policy advisors. Because we have received no details on proposals to reduce tax preferences, the TPC analysis does not include those proposals.1

http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm

olevetonahill

5/31/2014, 06:32 AM

okie52 - your question shows you don't have a grasp of, well pretty much anything. And Im the smartest mother ****er in the world

You are so full of yourself

Sooner8th

5/31/2014, 07:26 AM

I am so full of ****

This is fun.

olevetonahill

5/31/2014, 07:38 AM

This is fun.

Aint it tho? Now yer catchin on. We Might make a Real Sooner out of you yet.

okie52

5/31/2014, 02:11 PM

okie52 - your question shows you don't have a grasp of, well pretty much anything. How to argue a point, economics and most importantly what trickle down supply side "economics" is all about. It is not about a level of taxation on the wealthy - but a belief that cutting their taxes will improve the financial situation for everyone - not just for them. Tell me - who benefits from "eliminating taxation of investment income of most individual taxpayers, reducing the corporate income tax, eliminating the estate tax, and repealing the alternative minimum tax (AMT)" the middle class? The poor?

In his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney has proposed permanently extending the 2001-03 tax cuts, further cutting individual income tax rates, broadening the tax base by reducing tax preferences, eliminating taxation of investment income of most individual taxpayers, reducing the corporate income tax, eliminating the estate tax, and repealing the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and the taxes enacted in 2010’s health reform legislation. The Tax Policy Center (TPC) has completed a preliminary analysis of the Romney plan, based on information posted on the campaign website and email exchanges with campaign policy advisors. Because we have received no details on proposals to reduce tax preferences, the TPC analysis does not include those proposals.1

http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm

8th-perhaps you could provide a template for questioning ideologues...surely you have one handy or could get one from the DNC (Carney probably still has plenty of extras).

Tax levels do seem to be very important in the left's quest to punish the big money makers (pssst...see the last tax increase). Weren't you satisfied with the Clinton utopia tax levels for all tax payers and everyone "paying their fair share" or did those rates only apply to the top income producers? Are tax cuts for everyone "trickle down" economics or "trickle up"?

But in an effort to understand your alleged keen grasp of economics, taxes and their consequences...are you satisfied that the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world? Perhaps you'd like it higher to help even more "people"? Is that the "economics" of the left?

Another Study Confirms: U.S. Has One of the Highest Effective Corporate Tax Rates in the World

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/another-study-confirms-us-has-one-highest-effective-corporate-tax-rates-world

Do you think that companies would not reinvest in their companies or add more employees with additional income? Is that how you would run a business?

You did vote for Obama didn't you? Perhaps twice if you've been voting that long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJimLZRC9N8

So even if tax revenues would decrease with a capital gains tax hike you would want to raise them for "fairness"? Is that what trickle up economics is all about?

While your at it, please explain how taxing ONLY US natural gas at 22%, Oil at 33% and coal at 44% at the height of the recession would have been good for US consumers, the poor and middle class and the economy in general.

I haven't (yet) embraced your "tax yourself into prosperity" ideology but I'm certainly willing to hear an economic savant such as yourself describe how you came to such an "enlightened" position.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

5/31/2014, 02:50 PM

You did vote for Obama didn't you? Perhaps twice if you've been voting that long...

...I haven't (yet) embraced your "tax yourself into prosperity" ideology but I'm certainly willing to hear an economic savant such as yourself describe how you came to such an "enlightened" position.
It isn't complicated. The government is the smartest, and fairest investor of all entities. So, they should own all money, and dole out as much as they want to whomever they want, and all will be hunky-dorey, and yes , prosperous.:obama icon:

Constitution schmonstitution.

Sooner8th

6/1/2014, 11:04 AM

8th-perhaps you could provide a template for questioning ideologues...surely you have one handy or could get one from the DNC (Carney probably still has plenty of extras).

Tax levels do seem to be very important in the left's quest to punish the big money makers (pssst...see the last tax increase). Weren't you satisfied with the Clinton utopia tax levels for all tax payers and everyone "paying their fair share" or did those rates only apply to the top income producers? Are tax cuts for everyone "trickle down" economics or "trickle up"?

But in an effort to understand your alleged keen grasp of economics, taxes and their consequences...are you satisfied that the US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world? Perhaps you'd like it higher to help even more "people"? Is that the "economics" of the left?

Do you think that companies would not reinvest in their companies or add more employees with additional income? Is that how you would run a business?

You did vote for Obama didn't you? Perhaps twice if you've been voting that long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJimLZRC9N8

So even if tax revenues would decrease with a capital gains tax hike you would want to raise them for "fairness"? Is that what trickle up economics is all about?

While your at it, please explain how taxing ONLY US natural gas at 22%, Oil at 33% and coal at 44% at the height of the recession would have been good for US consumers, the poor and middle class and the economy in general.

I haven't (yet) embraced your "tax yourself into prosperity" ideology but I'm certainly willing to hear an economic savant such as yourself describe how you came to such an "enlightened" position.

Thanks you for making my point me for. You have regurgitated the rightwingnut supply side trickle down "economics" talking points - you and your party still thinks that cutting taxes to wealthy is the way to prosperity and jobs for all.

You keep deriding the Clinton years and it is only because he is a DEMOCRAT. The economy under his presidency kicked ANY republicans *** during his term - so yes I would LOVE to return to the clinton glory years of massive job growth and SURPLUSES and not go back to the supply side trickle down "economic" policies of either bush or regean, where there were less jobs and huge deficits. Facts are facts. Game over. End of argument.

Curly Bill

6/1/2014, 11:18 AM

olevetonahill

6/1/2014, 11:38 AM

Only losers at life resort to the ol game over, end of argument shtick to make themselves feel like they've won something. Congratulations, your mommy will be proud of your achievement.

This arsehole is a Combo Matlock/Marfa/LAS. :soap:

Turd_Ferguson

6/1/2014, 12:15 PM

I am the smartest mother ****er in the world.Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. One of these days you might grow up and pull that scrotum out of your mouth.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

6/1/2014, 12:56 PM

This arsehole is a Combo Matlock/Marfa/LAS. :soap:She's possibly the most complete Leftist package currently on this board.

olevetonahill

6/1/2014, 01:35 PM

She's possibly the most complete Leftist package currently on this board.

Heh IT calls US wing nuts, Just remember Lefty Loosey

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

6/1/2014, 01:45 PM

Only losers at life resort to the ol game over, end of argument shtick to make themselves feel like they've won something. Congratulations, your mommy will be proud of your achievement.The Global Warming crowd is deeply esconced in that behavior, even though it hasn't occurred in a while.

Curly Bill

6/2/2014, 12:20 AM

The Global Warming crowd is deeply esconced in that behavior, even though it hasn't occurred in a while.

Oh I know, the left apparently thinks that because they say something is proven, settled, game over, the science is conclusive, ad nauseam...that the rest of us are as gullible and stupid as they are, and we'll accept their crap at face value.

It's really kinda cute that they keep trying the same tactic over and over.

yermom

6/2/2014, 12:28 AM

so besides ad hominems, do you guys have any thing to add on the actual topic besides a lack of understanding of math and/or science?

Curly Bill

6/2/2014, 12:43 AM

so besides ad hominems, do you guys have any thing to add on the actual topic besides a lack of understanding of math and/or science?

Yeah, you guys quit being full of your hand-wringing selves and admit that there are people, many even real scientists(!!!) that don't agree with you and your fearless leader.

yermom

6/2/2014, 12:45 AM

i've still yet to see anyone that wasn't bought and paid for by oil and gas that has this opinion. can you present someone?

Curly Bill

6/2/2014, 12:47 AM

i've still yet to see anyone that wasn't bought and paid for by oil and gas that has this opinion. can you present someone?

Sure, I'll get right on it. You go hide under the bed in the meantime.

Curly Bill

6/2/2014, 12:49 AM

...and by "I'll get right on it", I mean: No I won't, that I don't care enough to do so. I just like making fun of the wimps and perpetual victims on the left that think they have all the answers, but that it's really an act to cover that they're scared ****less of leaving their parents basement. :applause:

olevetonahill

6/2/2014, 04:58 AM

so besides ad hominems, do you guys have any thing to add on the actual topic besides a lack of understanding of math and/or science?

Dave, I havnt Nor will I study this very deeply. But to me its quite simply that even tho "Scientist's" say sompun dont necessarily make it so. Hell they've told us since I was in Grade school that the earth heated up then froze heated up then froze again. hence all the "Ice " ages.
Im sure Mankind has accelerated this Changing Climate , But Im not Vain enough to even think that WE as in Mankind are completely at fault for this.

Remember when "THEY" said Coffee was bad for you? Now they say its actually Good for you.
Remember when "They " said Egs were Bad for you? Now they say they are Good.
I could go on an on But I think you see my point.

Now Ive said this for years Only a ****in idiot that has Never been outside in his life will try to say the Climate aint changing, Hell I know it is. This past Winter was one of the worst we have had in 30 years , But for the Most part I have been able to see (and feel) that the weather is warming up.
Not Lets see if we can agree about WHY its warming up. Like I said we are speeding it up But I firmly believe its gonna happen with or with out us.

olevetonahill

6/2/2014, 05:00 AM

Heh, One of My longest Post and I dint even call No one a Moran. http://www.olevetpossehideout.com/forums/images/smilies/Vet.png

dwarthog

6/2/2014, 07:38 AM

i've still yet to see anyone that wasn't bought and paid for by oil and gas that has this opinion. can you present someone?

Ok, how about making this "fair" then.

Name someone who supports anthropogenic induced global climate change who isn't reliant on continuing funding earmarked for the study of AGW from a group or groups with a stated agenda that AGW is real and the sole cause of climate change on the planet.

Curly Bill

6/2/2014, 07:55 AM

Ok, how about making this "fair" then.

Name someone who supports anthropogenic induced global climate change who isn't reliant on continuing funding earmarked for the study of AGW from a group or groups with a stated agenda that AGW is real and the sole cause of climate change on the planet.

I should have said something like this ^^^^^, but I felt more like just plain ol making fun of him & the rest of the hand-wringers.

Eielson

6/2/2014, 08:47 AM

Yeah, you guys quit being full of your hand-wringing selves and admit that there are people, many even real scientists(!!!) that don't agree with you and your fearless leader.

Getting 5 scientists to go against the other 95 doesn't mean much. You'll always get that kind of dissent in any kind of group. Not everybody has to agree with something for it to be true. Saying something is "scientifically proven" is anti-scientific. Science doesn't prove anything. It supports and refutes claims. Global warming has been supported strongly enough that it needs to have our attention. Even if global warming wasn't real, I don't see any reason not to cut down on pollution.

champions77

6/2/2014, 09:11 AM

All about control, increasing the scope of the federal government in your lives. Most hard working, self reliant, personally responsible people do not want government intrusion into their lives. Why? Because you lose some degree of freedom as the role of the government increases. For those that are disabled, mentally, physically or emotionally, assistance is welcomed and very much warranted because most cannot do for themselves.
The Socialist State demands control, that is the ONLY way that they can best manage and control lives, from a Centralized government, top down approach. The framers saw the danger in that, therefore they vested most of the power in the individual states, The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. They gave the federal Government "limited" powers for that reason.

The Affordable Care Act moved that narrative forward in a huge leap, Cap and Trade would further that overreach. Are the lefties on here just not that big on personal freedoms or are they just terribly naïve as to the plans the leftists leaders have for this country? The United States becoming a Socialist State does not end well. It is a "failed ideology". As the percentage of Americans on some type of federal assistance increases exponentially, my question is, Who will end up doing all of the work".

okie52

6/2/2014, 10:12 AM

Thanks you for making my point me for. You have regurgitated the rightwingnut supply side trickle down "economics" talking points - you and your party still thinks that cutting taxes to wealthy is the way to prosperity and jobs for all.

You keep deriding the Clinton years and it is only because he is a DEMOCRAT. The economy under his presidency kicked ANY republicans *** during his term - so yes I would LOVE to return to the clinton glory years of massive job growth and SURPLUSES and not go back to the supply side trickle down "economic" policies of either bush or regean, where there were less jobs and huge deficits. Facts are facts. Game over. End of argument.

So you can't answer the question(s), could you 8th? So far the only point that has been made in our conversation is you obviously can't or don't want to answer the questions. Let me dumb it down for you which unfortunately seems necessary. Why are tax cuts for everyone supply side economics?

I didn't deride the Clinton years at all. (sigh) I have to keep dumning things down for you. We had a very good economy under Clinton with a Republican controlled congress. We had Clinton tax rates that were HIGHER FOR EVERYONE that paid taxes except that Clinton reduced the Capital gains tax and that tax cut INCREASED TAX REVENUES. Was Clinton just trying to help the rich by giving that tax cut? Quite a different approach than from Obama who wants to raise the capital gains tax EVEN IF IT REDUCED TAX REVENUES. You did vote for Obama, didn't you?

W reduced taxes on EVERYONE. Why? Because he inherited a RECESSION FROM CLINTON primarily due to the Tech crash of 2000 and wanted to stimulate the economy. You did know that didn't you? Obama inherited a RECESSION FROM W and wanted to keep those same tax cuts in place for the same reasons W did...to stimulate the economy. But by 2010 he wanted to raise taxes only on the upper income producers and he did not want to return to the Clinton tax rates of the 90's for everyone. You know, the glory years for our economy with higher tax rates for all AND OUR SHARED RESPONSIBILITY as Obama was so fond of saying. Why not go back to the Clinton tax rates for everyone and return to our glory years?

Now I know a lot of this infomation must be new to you given your embarrassing responses up to this point and it will probably take you a while to digest it. But, while you are at it, I hope you can find on the DNC talking points website an answer to my question about how taxing only US natural gas at 22%, US oil at 33%, and US coal at 44% was good for the little guy...you know, the poor, the middle class, small businesses, etc...you know all of those people that dems are out to protect.

okie52

6/2/2014, 10:19 AM

Getting 5 scientists to go against the other 95 doesn't mean much. You'll always get that kind of dissent in any kind of group. Not everybody has to agree with something for it to be true. Saying something is "scientifically proven" is anti-scientific. Science doesn't prove anything. It supports and refutes claims. Global warming has been supported strongly enough that it needs to have our attention. Even if global warming wasn't real, I don't see any reason not to cut down on pollution.

I can go along with reducing man's footprint even if AGW isn't real...but only if it isn't destroying our economy in the process. For the most part, reducing CO2 has to be done on a global basis with everyone playing by the same rules. It doesn't do much good for the US and Europe to pay much higher energy costs to reduce their CO2 emissions if China and India are building a new coal plant every week.

champions77

6/2/2014, 11:22 AM

Sooner8th

6/2/2014, 12:17 PM

So you can't answer the question(s), could you 8th? So far the only point that has been made in our conversation is you obviously can't or don't want to answer the questions. Let me dumb it down for you which unfortunately seems necessary. Why are tax cuts for everyone supply side economics?

I didn't deride the Clinton years at all. (sigh) I have to keep dumning things down for you. We had a very good economy under Clinton with a Republican controlled congress. We had Clinton tax rates that were HIGHER FOR EVERYONE that paid taxes except that Clinton reduced the Capital gains tax and that tax cut INCREASED TAX REVENUES. Was Clinton just trying to help the rich by giving that tax cut? Quite a different approach than from Obama who wants to raise the capital gains tax EVEN IF IT REDUCED TAX REVENUES. You did vote for Obama, didn't you?

W reduced taxes on EVERYONE. Why? Because he inherited a RECESSION FROM CLINTON primarily due to the Tech crash of 2000 and wanted to stimulate the economy. You did know that didn't you? Obama inherited a RECESSION FROM W and wanted to keep those same tax cuts in place for the same reasons W did...to stimulate the economy. But by 2010 he wanted to raise taxes only on the upper income producers and he did not want to return to the Clinton tax rates of the 90's for everyone. You know, the glory years for our economy with higher tax rates for all AND OUR SHARED RESPONSIBILITY as Obama was so fond of saying. Why not go back to the Clinton tax rates for everyone and return to our glory years?

Now I know a lot of this infomation must be new to you given your embarrassing responses up to this point and it will probably take you a while to digest it. But, while you are at it, I hope you can find on the DNC talking points website an answer to my question about how taxing only US natural gas at 22%, US oil at 33%, and US coal at 44% was good for the little guy...you know, the poor, the middle class, small businesses, etc...you know all of those people that dems are out to protect.

How condescending. I answered your question - i'll try again - it's not about level of taxes, it is the belief that if you cut taxes to the wealthy, everyone prospers.

Where do you get this stuff at? Talk about embarrassing, lets get the truth in here

1. The economy was NEVER in recession under CLINTON. GDP 1999 4.85%, 2000 4.09%, 2001 .95% OH NO - from 4% growth to under 1% from clintons last year to bushs first wwwaaaaaa.

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&hl=en&dl=en&idim=country:USA:CAN:AUS#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

2. Your reasoning is there was a recession when bush took over and a recession when obama took over. First - I've proved you're misinformed or a liar or you just don't know and are making **** up about the recession under clinton. Was it slowing down yes, so lets talk about that. 4.85 - 4.09 - .95 slowing down one year before bush took office. Under bush - 2004 was the high point of 3.8, notice how bushes high point is lower than clinton, so for 2005, 06, 07 and 08 the economy was slowing down - four years of slow down to one year and at the end of it bush was at -0.29 in a free fall to -2.9 in obama's first year. Saying each had started with a recession is like saying OU and K-State both play football in the b12 so they are equal. Rightwing talking point.

2. Capital gains tax and that tax cut INCREASED TAX REVENUES - again from rightwing talking points. No link to backup your statement. Revenue went up - tax cuts pay for themselves. Yes they did increase, temporally - but they were increasing for the last three years before clintons tax cut and the line didn't change - until 2001. It was going back up again when bush cut them. As of 2004 they were just about back to pre clinton tax cut levels. The revenue follows stock market growth. Do you think stock market growth has nothing to do with it?

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/90xx/doc9076/05-02-taxrevenues.pdf

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/pete-davis/298/capital-gains-revenues-jumped-under-clinton-and-fell-under-bush-reasons-had-litt

AGAIN - OBAMA WANTED TO RAISE THE TOP RATE - CONTRARY TO SUPPLY SIDE TRICKLE DOWN "ECONOMICS" THAT STATE IF YOU CUT TAXES TO THE WEALTHY JOBS AND THE ECONOMY ARE GROWN. He - like liberals understand the our economy is CONSUMER SPENDING DRIVEN and it's the middle class that drives the economy, not the wealthy.

What do you think the whole "don't tax the job creators" is about? DUH!

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

6/2/2014, 12:42 PM

Ok, how about making this "fair" then.

Name someone who supports anthropogenic induced global climate change who isn't reliant on continuing funding earmarked for the study of AGW from a group or groups with a stated agenda that AGW is real and the sole cause of climate change on the planet.This shouldn't be all that difficult for anyone to notice or learn about, unless maybe they only read and hear "news" from the Left.

Sooner in Tampa

6/2/2014, 01:04 PM

AGAIN - OBAMA WANTED TO RAISE THE TOP RATE - CONTRARY TO SUPPLY SIDE TRICKLE DOWN "ECONOMICS" THAT STATE IF YOU CUT TAXES TO THE WEALTHY JOBS AND THE ECONOMY ARE GROWN. He - like liberals understand the our economy is CONSUMER SPENDING DRIVEN and it's the middle class that drives the economy, not the wealthy.

What do you think the whole "don't tax the job creators" is about? DUH!

Hey Einstein...who do you thinks creates the jobs and employs those middle class???

Here's a hint...it ain't you or me!!!

Sooner8th

6/2/2014, 01:33 PM

Hey Einstein...who do you thinks creates the jobs and employs those middle class???

Here's a hint...it ain't you or me!!!

Here is it - trickle down supply side "economics". You really should read up on who came up with that political policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Who do I think creates the jobs and employs the middle class? I don't think, I know. Henry Ford knew. Consumer spending is 2/3's of the economy. Middle class make up a majority of consumer spending. Why do you think the middle class is so important to countries throughout history?

As for the hint-----either way by your definition or mine, I'm doing it and you're only doing one way. :triumphant:

Turd_Ferguson

6/2/2014, 02:05 PM

Here is it - trickle down supply side "economics". You really should read up on who came up with that political policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Who do I think creates the jobs and employs the middle class? I don't think, I know. Henry Ford knew. Consumer spending is 2/3's of the economy. Middle class make up a majority of consumer spending. Why do you think the middle class is so important to countries throughout history?

As for the hint-----either way by your definition or mine, I'm doing it and you're only doing one way. :triumphant:

You still didn't answer his question...Einstein.

Sooner8th

6/2/2014, 02:31 PM

You still didn't answer his question...Einstein.

You cannot gather from the below quote my answer?

Who do I think creates the jobs and employs the middle class? I don't think, I know. Henry Ford knew. Consumer spending is 2/3's of the economy. Middle class makes up a majority of consumer spending. Why do you think the middle class is so important to countries throughout history?

As for the hint-----either way by your definition or mine, I'm doing it and you're only doing one way.

I'll make it simple -

IT'S THE MIDDLE CLASS WHO SPENDS THE MONEY THAT DRIVES THE ECONOMY WHICH GENERATES THE JOBS! It's about demand, not supply. How many in here do budgets at work? What is your key driver? DEMAND!

I cannot break it down any more for you - two posters on here have totally backed my contention up. I'm done with this discussion.

okie52

6/2/2014, 02:37 PM

How condescending. I answered your question - i'll try again - it's not about level of taxes, it is the belief that if you cut taxes to the wealthy, everyone prospers.

Where do you get this stuff at? Talk about embarrassing, lets get the truth in here

1. The economy was NEVER in recession under CLINTON. GDP 1999 4.85%, 2000 4.09%, 2001 .95% OH NO - from 4% growth to under 1% from clintons last year to bushs first wwwaaaaaa.

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&hl=en&dl=en&idim=country:USA:CAN:AUS#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:USA&ifdim=region&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

2. Your reasoning is there was a recession when bush took over and a recession when obama took over. First - I've proved you're misinformed or a liar or you just don't know and are making **** up about the recession under clinton. Was it slowing down yes, so lets talk about that. 4.85 - 4.09 - .95 slowing down one year before bush took office. Under bush - 2004 was the high point of 3.8, notice how bushes high point is lower than clinton, so for 2005, 06, 07 and 08 the economy was slowing down - four years of slow down to one year and at the end of it bush was at -0.29 in a free fall to -2.9 in obama's first year. Saying each had started with a recession is like saying OU and K-State both play football in the b12 so they are equal. Rightwing talking point.

2. Capital gains tax and that tax cut INCREASED TAX REVENUES - again from rightwing talking points. No link to backup your statement. Revenue went up - tax cuts pay for themselves. Yes they did increase, temporally - but they were increasing for the last three years before clintons tax cut and the line didn't change - until 2001. It was going back up again when bush cut them. As of 2004 they were just about back to pre clinton tax cut levels. The revenue follows stock market growth. Do you think stock market growth has nothing to do with it?

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/90xx/doc9076/05-02-taxrevenues.pdf

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/pete-davis/298/capital-gains-revenues-jumped-under-clinton-and-fell-under-bush-reasons-had-litt

AGAIN - OBAMA WANTED TO RAISE THE TOP RATE - CONTRARY TO SUPPLY SIDE TRICKLE DOWN "ECONOMICS" THAT STATE IF YOU CUT TAXES TO THE WEALTHY JOBS AND THE ECONOMY ARE GROWN. He - like liberals understand the our economy is CONSUMER SPENDING DRIVEN and it's the middle class that drives the economy, not the wealthy.

What do you think the whole "don't tax the job creators" is about? DUH!

The stock market crash of 2000–2002 caused the loss of $5 trillion in the market value of companies from March 2000 to October 2002.[18] The 9/11 terrorist destruction of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers, killing almost 700 employees of Cantor-Fitzgerald, accelerated the stock market drop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

The actual burst of the stock market bubble occurred in the form of the NASDAQ crash in March 2000. Growth in gross domestic product slowed considerably in the third quarter of 2000 to the lowest rate since a contraction in the first quarter of 1991.[3]

From 2000 to 2001, the Federal Reserve in a move to quell the stock market, made successive interest rate increases, credited in part for "plunging the country into a recession."[6] Using the stock market as an unofficial benchmark, a recession would have begun in March 2000 when the NASDAQ crashed following the collapse of the Dot-com bubble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

I'm just trying to help you out 8th....you seem to be laboring under the delusion that you aren't an ideologue.

I've never said that tax cuts for the rich help everybody anymore than I've said tax cuts for the poor or middle class helps "everybody" which seems to be your manifesto. The idea behind most tax cuts is to stimulate the economy...there is a balance to it. But you've held fast that tax cuts for the high income earners is some type of economic heresy but are certainly willing to overlook tax cuts for everyone (well, except for the high income producers, of course). The middle class (along with everyone else) certainly got a tax cut under W. Why can't you acknowledge that simple fact? Is your liberal mantra against the high income producers (they aren't all rich, either) so pervasive that you can't deal with facts?

You are also equating "raising taxes" on the high income producers as some type of anti supply side theology. Raising taxes on the rich certainly doesn't GROW THE ECONOMY in any way but it can certainly retard economic growth.

Like other facts you seemed to have missed the link I already provided you about capital gains tax increases involving your "economic dogma".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJimLZRC9N8

Had you paid attention Gibson mentions to Obama that every time capital gains taxes were decreased revenues went up and when they were increased revenues went down. Yet it wasn't that fact that was so disconcerting (along with your obvious inability to follow the question), it was Obama's answer that he would raise captital gains taxes even if tax revenues would decrease as a matter of "fairness". Is that the liberal belief on taxation...raise taxes even when it decreases revenues? Is that the "anti supply side economics" And you didn't answer who Clinton was trying to help by doing it...the rich? Bill Clinton, a democrat president, was trying to help the rich by a capital gains tax cut...doesn't that go against your left wing dogma?

And (not surprisingly) you still haven't answered how raising taxes on ONLY US ENERGY PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS by 22% on natural gas, 33% on oil, and 44% on coal is good for the economy and the little guy...you know, that liberal know how on how the economy works.

okie52

6/2/2014, 02:53 PM

Obama campaigned on higher taxes, more regulations, Obamacare, Cap and Trade, and has successfully fulfilled all of these with the exception of Cap and Trade, and he is doing a lot that dirty work behind the scenes by empowering the EPA using gestapo tactics allover the county.....and Obama can't figure out why we have had such poor GNP numbers, .5 revised for the last quarter? With the uncertainty this President has created, is it a surprise to anyone why this economy has not created more jobs? He has created a culture that is adverse to the job creators in this Nation.

The EPA announcements are due out soon...maybe even today or tomorrow. I'm really surprised Obama would do this before the midterms but I'm sure most of the impacts of his EPA anti energy crusade will be after the midterms so that average voter will remain ignorant...as usual.

Sooner8th

6/2/2014, 03:10 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession

I'm just trying to help you out 8th....you seem to be laboring under the delusion that you aren't an ideologue.

I've never said that tax cuts for the rich help everybody anymore than I've said tax cuts for the poor or middle class helps "everybody" which seems to be your manifesto. The idea behind most tax cuts is to stimulate the economy...there is a balance to it. But you've held fast that tax cuts for the high income earners is some type of economic heresy but are certainly willing to overlook tax cuts for everyone (well, except for the high income producers, of course). The middle class (along with everyone else) certainly got a tax cut under W. Why can't you acknowledge that simple fact? Is your liberal mantra against the high income producers (they aren't all rich, either) so pervasive that you can't deal with facts?

You are also equating "raising taxes" on the high income producers as some type of anti supply side theology. Raising taxes on the rich certainly doesn't GROW THE ECONOMY in any way but it can certainly retard economic growth.

Like other facts you seemed to have missed the link I already provided you about capital gains tax increases involving your "economic dogma".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJimLZRC9N8

Had you paid attention Gibson mentions to Obama that every time capital gains taxes were decreased revenues went up and when they were increased revenues went down. Yet it wasn't that fact that was so disconcerting (along with your obvious inability to follow the question), it was Obama's answer that he would raise captital gains taxes even if tax revenues would decrease as a matter of "fairness". Is that the liberal belief on taxation...raise taxes even when it decreases revenues? Is that the "anti supply side economics" And you didn't answer who Clinton was trying to help by doing it...the rich? Bill Clinton, a democrat president, was trying to help the rich by a capital gains tax cut...doesn't that go against your left wing dogma?

And (not surprisingly) you still haven't answered how raising taxes on ONLY US ENERGY PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS by 22% on natural gas, 33% on oil, and 44% on coal is good for the economy and the little guy...you know, that liberal know how on how the economy works.

Okie52 - I was done - but the first link that I clicked on that YOU gave says "The early 2000s recession was a decline in economic activity which mainly occurred in developed countries. The recession affected the European Union during 2000 and 2001 and the United States in 2002 and 2003".

First a recession is a CONTRACTION of the economy - it didn't contract.

Second - who was the ****ing president in 2002 and 2003? HUH? HUH? Blaming clinton for a recession that started a year after he left office? I'm done - this is the the third time one of you on the right has posted something that proves MY CONTENTION!!!!!!

okie52

6/2/2014, 03:28 PM

Okie52 - I was done - but the first link that I clicked on that YOU gave says "The early 2000s recession was a decline in economic activity which mainly occurred in developed countries. The recession affected the European Union during 2000 and 2001 and the United States in 2002 and 2003".

First a recession is a CONTRACTION of the economy - it didn't contract.

Second - who was the ****ing president in 2002 and 2003? HUH? HUH? Blaming clinton for a recession that started a year after he left office? I'm done - this is the the third time one of you on the right has posted something that proves MY CONTENTION!!!!!!

My God you evidently can't read. The 3rd quarter of 2000 was the lowest rate since the contraction of 1991...who was president in 2000? The article also stated the "unofficial" recession started in with the NASDQ crash in March of 2000? Who was president then? Did you miss the federal reserve being also blamed adding to the recession for their actions in 2000-2001? Do you blame Obama for the economy in his first 2 years in office or do you blame it on W?

But you still aren't answering the questions are you 8th? I suspected your lack of understanding (like many libs) would cause you to bail. What about those taxes on energy 8th...anti supply sider? What about Obama wanting to raise taxes even if it would decrease tax revenues? What about Clinton's tax cut for capital gains?

Sooner8th

6/2/2014, 03:49 PM

My God you evidently can't read. The 3rd quarter of 2000 was the lowest rate since the contraction of 1991...who was president in 2000? The article also stated the "unofficial" recession started in with the NASDQ crash in March of 2000? Who was president then? Did you miss the federal reserve being also blamed adding to the recession for their actions in 2000-2001? Do you blame Obama for the economy in his first 2 years in office or do you blame it on W?

But you still aren't answering the questions are you 8th? I suspected your lack of understanding (like many libs) would cause you to bail. What about those taxes on energy 8th...anti supply sider? What about Obama wanting to raise taxes even if it would decrease tax revenues? What about Clinton's tax cut for capital gains?

YES I can read - it's you who can't!

The 3rd quarter of 2000 was the lowest rate since the contraction of 1991

It does not say it contracted.

You also used "unofficial" recission. No contraction no resession. PERIOD.

I don't answer the question about energy taxes because we are talking about INCOME taxes. I answer the capital gains question.

okie52

6/2/2014, 04:18 PM

YES I can read - it's you who can't!

The 3rd quarter of 2000 was the lowest rate since the contraction of 1991

It does not say it contracted.

You also used "unofficial" recission. No contraction no resession. PERIOD.

I don't answer the question about energy taxes because we are talking about INCOME taxes. I answer the capital gains question.

You need it to be official..eh? Ahh, well hang onto the idea that Clinton gave Bush a good economy...

Bush inherited Clinton's recession

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-80312

You didn't answer the capital gains question as to WHY Clinton gave those tax cuts to capital gains. Did you finally get to see Gibson's questions or did you miss them again? You still didn't answer that incredible logic of Obama's that he would raise taxes even if it decreased tax revenues....come on, tell me how you anti supply siders support that line of reasoning.

You've been explaining in your limited way about tax cuts for the rich and supply side economics and how it impacts the economy...but anti supply side economics doesn't extend to energy? As you have already stated, you libs understand about the US being a "consumer based economy" but taxes on energy isn't part of that picture? No impact on consumers, businesses, imports, exports, the poor, middle class, etc...surely tax the rich isn't all you know. So venture out there free thinker...tell me how Obama's and the dem's taxes on energy "would stimulate the economy" and be good for the little guy.

champions77

6/2/2014, 04:24 PM

My God you evidently can't read. The 3rd quarter of 2000 was the lowest rate since the contraction of 1991...who was president in 2000? The article also stated the "unofficial" recession started in with the NASDQ crash in March of 2000? Who was president then? Did you miss the federal reserve being also blamed adding to the recession for their actions in 2000-2001? Do you blame Obama for the economy in his first 2 years in office or do you blame it on W?

But you still aren't answering the questions are you 8th? I suspected your lack of understanding (like many libs) would cause you to bail. What about those taxes on energy 8th...anti supply sider? What about Obama wanting to raise taxes even if it would decrease tax revenues? What about Clinton's tax cut for capital gains?

Some would argue that the GOP led Congress actually saved Clinton's Presidency. If you recall, his numbers were not very good his first two years, in part due to the ill conceived, behind closed doors "HillaryCare". The contract with America forced Clinton's hand on welfare reform and the budget. Bill Clinton was a politician first, liberal second. BHO is a liberal first, politician second. Bill Clinton would work with the Repubs. BHO? Not a chance.

I hope the History Books treat BHO as a divisive, uncompromising, polarizing hard left radical...because that is what is he. He would say how can I fundamentally change this country by compromising?

okie52

6/2/2014, 04:32 PM

Some would argue that the GOP led Congress actually saved Clinton's Presidency. If you recall, his numbers were not very good his first two years, in part due to the ill conceived, behind closed doors "HillaryCare". The contract with America forced Clinton's hand on welfare reform and the budget. Bill Clinton was a politician first, liberal second. BHO is a liberal first, politician second. Bill Clinton would work with the Repubs. BHO? Not a chance.

I hope the History Books treat BHO as a divisive, uncompromising, polarizing hard left radical...because that is what is he. He would say how can I fundamentally change this country by compromising?

Clinton did have a congress that he could work with to get through pro business legislation...so he was certainly helped there. Clinton was more pragmatic than Obama IMO and I've got to give him credit for when he crossed party lines to get some things accomplished. He was lucky enough to be prez when the tech boom occured and he didn't really stand in its way. He was still enough of a politician to satisfy his boys on the left but he did step on some of their toes. That repub sweep in the 1994 elections kind of steered Bill back on course.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

6/2/2014, 07:35 PM

Sooner8th

6/2/2014, 07:56 PM

Sooner8th

6/2/2014, 08:00 PM

You need it to be official..eh? Ahh, well hang onto the idea that Clinton gave Bush a good economy...

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-80312

You didn't answer the capital gains question as to WHY Clinton gave those tax cuts to capital gains. Did you finally get to see Gibson's questions or did you miss them again? You still didn't answer that incredible logic of Obama's that he would raise taxes even if it decreased tax revenues....come on, tell me how you anti supply siders support that line of reasoning.

You've been explaining in your limited way about tax cuts for the rich and supply side economics and how it impacts the economy...but anti supply side economics doesn't extend to energy? As you have already stated, you libs understand about the US being a "consumer based economy" but taxes on energy isn't part of that picture? No impact on consumers, businesses, imports, exports, the poor, middle class, etc...surely tax the rich isn't all you know. So venture out there free thinker...tell me how Obama's and the dem's taxes on energy "would stimulate the economy" and be good for the little guy.

You are a joke. The link to a story to "prove" your point making it "official" is NOT a CNN story and was written - By cher | Posted September 8, 2008. Too ****ing funny.

Turd_Ferguson

6/2/2014, 09:40 PM

You are a joke. The link to a story to "prove" your point making it "official" is NOT a CNN story and was written - By cher | Posted September 8, 2008. Too ****ing funny.

I think 52 has handed you your *** enough times in this thread. You still want more?

Sooner8th

6/2/2014, 09:51 PM

I think 52 has handed you your *** enough times in this thread. You still want more?

He hasn't handed anything to me. All of his posts and links are rightwing circle jerk talking points. Trying to move the conversation to energy taxes when I am talking about income taxes. Bottom line - republicans are still pushing trickle down supply side "economics" which have been proven not to work, there was no recession inherited from from clinton because the economy never went into recession regardless of what "cher" says, economy better under dems than conservatives. Republicans didn't "save" clintons presidency. Get a ****ing clue or stop voting.

Turd_Ferguson

6/2/2014, 10:09 PM

He hasn't handed anything to me. All of his posts and links are rightwing circle jerk talking points. Trying to move the conversation to energy taxes when I am talking about income taxes. Bottom line - republicans are still pushing trickle down supply side "economics" which have been proven not to work, there was no recession inherited from from clinton because the economy never went into recession regardless of what "cher" says, economy better under dems than conservatives. Republicans didn't "save" clintons presidency. Get a ****ing clue or stop voting.

Can you read? If so, go back and re-read 52's post again and tell me he didn't hand you your ***. It's evident to everyone on here but you. Get a clue.

Sooner8th

6/2/2014, 10:15 PM

Can you read? If so, go back and re-read 52's post again and tell me he didn't hand you your ***. It's evident to everyone on here but you. Get a clue.

Posting a link by "cher" to "prove" "officially" when the recession started is handing my *** to me? LAUGHABLE. ALL OF YOU ARE. He lost all credibility with that link.

SCOUT

6/2/2014, 10:20 PM

He hasn't handed anything to me. All of his posts and links are rightwing circle jerk talking points. Trying to move the conversation to energy taxes when I am talking about income taxes. Bottom line - republicans are still pushing trickle down supply side "economics" which have been proven not to work, there was no recession inherited from from clinton because the economy never went into recession regardless of what "cher" says, economy better under dems than conservatives. Republicans didn't "save" clintons presidency. Get a ****ing clue or stop voting.

I will give this a shot. I know it is a long shot, but you have to give it a try. A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. 6 months of a downturn. Picking a specific date (an inaugural date for example) as the start of a recession is stupid. It takes 9-12 months to begin and 6 months to be recorded.

This is an economic definition. If Cher said it, it would be as true as if Lady Gaga or Milton Friedman said it.

Turd_Ferguson

6/2/2014, 10:38 PM

Posting a link by "cher" to "prove" "officially" when the recession started is handing my *** to me? LAUGHABLE. ALL OF YOU ARE. He lost all credibility with that link.

And yet, WE are all laughable. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. What a moran. No wonder you've been negged to bolivia.

Sooner8th

6/2/2014, 11:22 PM

I will give this a shot. I know it is a long shot, but you have to give it a try. A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. 6 months of a downturn. Picking a specific date (an inaugural date for example) as the start of a recession is stupid. It takes 9-12 months to begin and 6 months to be recorded.

This is an economic definition. If Cher said it, it would be as true as if Lady Gaga or Milton Friedman said it.

Let me take a shot at this.

From The National Bureau of Economic Research

US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions

Quarterly dates are in parentheses

March 2001(I) November 2001 (IV)
June 2009 (II) December 2007 (IV)

You see---The National Bureau of Economic Research downgraded the third quarter 2000 to -0.5%, the fourth quarter was +2.1% - oh no - A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. 6 months of a downturn.

The National Bureau of Economic Research, the official arbiter of when recessions begin and end, has determined that the recession began in March 2001 and ended in November of that year.

NOT AGAIN - Picking a specific date (an inaugural date for example) as the start of a recession is stupid.

The National Bureau of Economic Research sure must be stupid.

and AGAIN - your OWN post proves my point. The first rule of being in a hole is STOP DIGGING!

HEY- maybe you can find another post by cher!

olevetonahill

6/2/2014, 11:26 PM

And yet you Dig on!

Sooner8th

6/2/2014, 11:31 PM

And yet you Dig on!

reread last post----------

sappstuf

6/3/2014, 12:45 AM

i've still yet to see anyone that wasn't bought and paid for by oil and gas that has this opinion. can you present someone?

How about this guy?

Daniel B. Botkin, a world-renowned ecologist, is Professor (Emeritus), Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, UC Santa Barbara, and President of The Center for The Study of The Environment, which provides independent, science-based analyses of complex environmental issues. The New York Times said his book, *Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the 21st Century* is considered by many ecologists to be the classic text of the [environmental] movement.” His Environmental Science, now in its Sixth Edition, was named 2004′s best textbook by the Textbook and Academic Authors Association.

WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY.
MAY 29, 2014 (http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY-WState-DBotkin-20140529.pdf)

The concerns I have mentioned with the IPCC apply as well to the White House's National Climate Assessment. I reviewed and provided comments on the draft White House's National Climate assessment and, unfortunately, it appears that these issues have not been addressed in the final assessment. For example, I stated: "The executive summary is a political statement, not a scientific statement. It is filled with misstatements contradicted by well-established and well-known scientific papers." "Climate has always affected people and all life on Earth, so it isn't new to say it is 'already affecting the American people.' This is just a political statement." "It is inappropriate to use short-term changes in weather as an indication one way or another about persistent climate change."

My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports are "scientific-sounding" rather than based on clearly settled facts or admitting their lack. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think.

He then goes on to give an example.

Some of the reports conclusions are the opposite of those given in articles cited in defense of those conclusions. For example, the IPCC 2014 Terrestrial Ecosystem Report states that “there is medium confidence that rapid change in
the Arctic is affecting its animals. For example, seven of 19 subpopulations of the polar bear are declining in number” citing in support of this an article by Vongraven and Richardson, 2011. That report states the contrary, that the “‘decline’ is
an illusion. In addition, I have sought the available counts of the 19 subpopulations. Of these, only three have been counted twice; the rest have been counted once. Thus no rate of changes in the populations can be determined. The first count was done 1986 for one subpopulation. 1 The U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, charged with the conservation of this species, acknowledges “ Accurate estimates of the current and historic sizes of polar bear stocks are difficult to obtain for several reasons–the species‘ inaccessible habitat, the movement of bears across international boundaries, and the costs of conducting surveys .” According to Dr. Susan Crockford, “out of the 13 populations for which some kind of data exist, five populations are now classified by the PBSG [IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group] as ‘stable’ (two more than 2009), one is still increasing, and three have been upgraded from ‘declining’ to ‘data deficient’. .
.
That leaves four that are still considered ‘declining’ ‐ two of those judgments are based primarily on concerns of overhunting, and one is based on a statistically insignificant decline that may not be valid and is being reassessed (and really should have been upgraded to ‘data deficient’). That leaves only one population – Western Hudson Bay – where PBSG biologists tenaciously blame global warming for all changes to polar bear biology, and even then, the data supporting that conclusion is still not available.“

This last point is great because we just found out in a completely unrelated article, that all of that "science" concerning polar bear populations, was just sciency... stuff. (http://polarbearscience.com/2014/05/30/iucn-polar-bear-specialist-group-says-its-global-population-estimate-was-a-qualified-guess/#more-5280)

As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic. Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand. It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated. Furthermore, there are no abundance estimates for the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and the Russian subpopulations. Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy. Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.”