Soros...so this is how they do it...

[Soonerjeepman]

According to Bloomberg, Soros moved assets shortly before the change to Ireland, seen as a possible shelter from the law. But tax attorneys told Bloomberg they don't know of a way for money managers to avoid the bill in 2017.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/01/george-soros-reportedly-could-face-up-to-7b-tax-bill-after-delaying-payment-for/

Could owe up to 7 Billion in tax.

This just makes me so pissed....because him and the left always scream about the pub's being the wealthy and not paying their "fair share"....what a total A$$.

[Serenity Now]

According to Bloomberg, Soros moved assets shortly before the change to Ireland, seen as a possible shelter from the law. But tax attorneys told Bloomberg they don't know of a way for money managers to avoid the bill in 2017.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/01/george-soros-reportedly-could-face-up-to-7b-tax-bill-after-delaying-payment-for/

Could owe up to 7 Billion in tax.

This just makes me so pissed....because him and the left always scream about the pub's being the wealthy and not paying their "fair share"....what a total A$$.

This is like Cheney's Haliburton dealing with Iran out of shell companies in the Caribbean Islands, right?

[rock on sooner]

According to Bloomberg, Soros moved assets shortly before the change to Ireland, seen as a possible shelter from the law. But tax attorneys told Bloomberg they don't know of a way for money managers to avoid the bill in 2017.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/01/george-soros-reportedly-could-face-up-to-7b-tax-bill-after-delaying-payment-for/

Could owe up to 7 Billion in tax.

This just makes me so pissed....because him and the left always scream about the pub's being the wealthy and not paying their "fair share"....what a total A$$.

Dint read the link..maybe this was covered but ALL of those
whose net worth is north of 7 figures take advantage of all
the loopholes...all of 'em! IMHO, close those frickin' holes
and make 'em ALL pay, that includes all the corporations
(after all, they're people, too!).:devilish:

[Turd_Ferguson]

This is like Cheney's Haliburton dealing with Iran out of shell companies in the Caribbean Islands, right?

Not real sure...why don't you tell us all about it.

[Soonerjeepman]

This is like Cheney's Haliburton dealing with Iran out of shell companies in the Caribbean Islands, right?

lol...dude you're just like 8th....comprehend what I wrote...you libs are the ones screaming about the pubs and all their wealth loopholes...but your main supporter took advantage big time...suppose you don't see the irony in it all...lol. Typical.

Where did I say anything about the pubs NOT doing it?

[Serenity Now]

lol...dude you're just like 8th....comprehend what I wrote...you libs are the ones screaming about the pubs and all their wealth loopholes...but your main supporter took advantage big time...suppose you don't see the irony in it all...lol. Typical.

Where did I say anything about the pubs NOT doing it?

I'm happy to shut down all loopholes. I'm good with tariffs to try to penalize businesses for moving out of the US. I'm for penalizing employers for hiring illegals.

Penalize Soros. Please!

Do you equate a critique of the capital gains tax to this?

[Serenity Now]

Not real sure...why don't you tell us all about it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/10/09/cheney-pushed-for-more-trade-with-iran/

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/iran.html

http://www.forbes.com/global/2004/0419/041.html

[champions77]

According to Bloomberg, Soros moved assets shortly before the change to Ireland, seen as a possible shelter from the law. But tax attorneys told Bloomberg they don't know of a way for money managers to avoid the bill in 2017.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/01/george-soros-reportedly-could-face-up-to-7b-tax-bill-after-delaying-payment-for/

Could owe up to 7 Billion in tax.

This just makes me so pissed....because him and the left always scream about the pub's being the wealthy and not paying their "fair share"....what a total A$$.

When the left has meltdowns over the Koch brothers, but can find no fault in George Soros, it is beyond pathetic, it's almost amusing, almost.

[Serenity Now]

I think it's funny that the Koch Brothers have performed a major coupe. They've suckered the base into sharing their plight.

[badger]

"Fair share" is often up for debate. Should there be a flat tax for everyone, should the wealthy pay more, should the poor get more assistance?

The interesting thing about this is when the alleged tax bill comes due... 2017. Guess who will likely have a super duper (House, Senate and Oval Office) majority by then?

[REDREX]

I think it's funny that the Koch Brothers have performed a major coupe. They've suckered the base into sharing their plight.---You know nothing about the Koch brothers

[champions77]

I think it's funny that the Koch Brothers have performed a major coupe. They've suckered the base into sharing their plight.

It would take a lot for the Koch Brothers to rise to the level of evil as the left's "hero" George Soros. To turn in fellow Jews to the Nazis to save himself during World War II is quite an accomplishment. And the left elevates this POS to Sainthood? wow.

I guess this makes some sense in view of the hatred the left has for Israel.

[Eielson]

I think the continual 8th/serenity comparisons are a bit obnoxious. They're both liberals, but that's about where the comparison ends.

[SicEmBaylor]

This is like Cheney's Haliburton dealing with Iran out of shell companies in the Caribbean Islands, right?

Sort of. But that's not the point. The point is that Cheney wasn't running around arguing for higher taxes on 'rich guys like me.' Soros has long made that argument while making moves to shelter his assets overseas and away from the IRS.

Frankly, I have no problem with someone making legal moves to shelter their assets from taxation. But I do have a problem with a bozo who tells everyone they need to pay more only to turn around and shelter his/hers.

[Serenity Now]

---You know nothing about the Koch brothers

Whatever.

[champions77]

I think the continual 8th/serenity comparisons are a bit obnoxious. They're both liberals, but that's about where the comparison ends.

I agree. 8th was a unique personality. Thank goodness.

[SoonerorLater]

Sort of. But that's not the point. The point is that Cheney wasn't running around arguing for higher taxes on 'rich guys like me.' Soros has long made that argument while making moves to shelter his assets overseas and away from the IRS.

Frankly, I have no problem with someone making legal moves to shelter their assets from taxation. But I do have a problem with a bozo who tells everyone they need to pay more only to turn around and shelter his/hers.

I don't like Soros but I have no problem with what he has done in that respect. Yes, he wants higher taxation but he wants higher taxation for everybody, not just him. Why would Soros pay higher taxes while he watches the other uber-rich use all available legal tax strategy to dodge taxes?

[olevetonahill]

I think the continual 8th/serenity comparisons are a bit obnoxious. They're both liberals, but that's about where the comparison ends.

Yup other than them both being Liberals, that Twist spin and deflect every subject back onto repubs and Conservatives they aint much alike cept Ive put SN on iggy like I did 8th.

[Serenity Now]

Sort of. But that's not the point. The point is that Cheney wasn't running around arguing for higher taxes on 'rich guys like me.' Soros has long made that argument while making moves to shelter his assets overseas and away from the IRS.

Frankly, I have no problem with someone making legal moves to shelter their assets from taxation. But I do have a problem with a bozo who tells everyone they need to pay more only to turn around and shelter his/hers.

I see the point. While both may be guilty, they are different "crimes". I love bringing up the Cheney/Iran links. It's good fun.

I also agree on the hypocracy of Soros. I'd encourage anyone to find where I may have ever defended George Soros. As apposed to those other two billionaires, I know little about George other than the fact that he's up there as one of the favorite pinata's from the left - Jeremiah Wright, Saul Alinsky, George Soros, etc.

[SoonerorLater]

I see the point. While both may be guilty, they are different "crimes". I love bringing up the Cheney/Iran links. It's good fun.

I also agree on the hypocracy of Soros. I'd encourage anyone to find where I may have ever defended George Soros. As apposed to those other two billionaires, I know little about George other than the fact that he's up there as one of the favorite pinata's from the left - Jeremiah Wright, Saul Alinsky, George Soros, etc.

Soros is a lot of things but he isn't hypocritical on this point. Hypocritical is a word that is way overused and often incorrectly.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

It would take a lot for the Koch Brothers to rise to the level of evil as the left's "hero" George Soros. To turn in fellow Jews to the Nazis to save himself during World War II is quite an accomplishment. And the left elevates this POS to Sainthood? wow.

I guess this makes some sense in view of the hatred the left has for Israel.The Republican party is the NUMBER 1 enemy of the Left. More than Iran, Castro, N Korea, islamists, Moslem Brotherhood, Putin and Russia, chicoms etc.

[rock on sooner]

---You know nothing about the Koch brothers

I did the post about everyone of those SOB's orta be made to pay
and it went off into the clouds somewhere....

I know a little about the Kochs..their companies employ about 60000 folks.
In some corners, the employees have a loyalty requirement. The super pacs
spent a boatload to elect Ms Ernst here in IA..(3 of the top five pacs are Koch,
one is Karl Rove and the 5th is Ms. Ernst's). They have pledged $889m to further
their agenda thru various candidates and Pubs around the country, they are quite
active in the philanthropic area with art, theatre and the like. They unabashedly
conservative, aggressive in their lobby efforts for fossil fuels and extremely generous
with most efforts against the Dems.

Citizens United is the most egregious SCOTUS decision in my memory....you know the
one...allows unlimited funds into the political arena, in most cases, secretly and the
Kochs, Soros, Anderson and the hedge fund guy whose only issue is climate change
(his name escapes me) are the main beneficiaries....truly needs to be reversed...

Awww, y'all knew all that already...

[Serenity Now]

The Republican party is the NUMBER 1chicoms.
Pure awesomeness!

Murca!

[Serenity Now]

Citizens united is bad.

Did the Koch's support lung cancer in the 70's? Surely they did.

[SoonerorLater]

I did the post about everyone of those SOB's orta be made to pay
and it went off into the clouds somewhere....

I know a little about the Kochs..their companies employ about 60000 folks.
In some corners, the employees have a loyalty requirement. The super pacs
spent a boatload to elect Ms Ernst here in IA..(3 of the top five pacs are Koch,
one is Karl Rove and the 5th is Ms. Ernst's). They have pledged $889m to further
their agenda thru various candidates and Pubs around the country, they are quite
active in the philanthropic area with art, theatre and the like. They unabashedly
conservative, aggressive in their lobby efforts for fossil fuels and extremely generous
with most efforts against the Dems.

Citizens United is the most egregious SCOTUS decision in my memory....you know the
one...allows unlimited funds into the political arena, in most cases, secretly and the
Kochs, Soros, Anderson and the hedge fund guy whose only issue is climate change
(his name escapes me) are the main beneficiaries....truly needs to be reversed...

Awww, y'all knew all that already...

All of which is why it's so much better to rich than poor. This is why people work to acquire wealth and influence, so they can try to shape the world to their own ideals.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

"The Republican party is the NUMBER 1chicoms." -Serenity
Pure awesomeness!

Murca!Get back on your meds, fool.

[REDREX]

Whatever.----That's right you do not have a clue

[REDREX]

I did the post about everyone of those SOB's orta be made to pay
and it went off into the clouds somewhere....

I know a little about the Kochs..their companies employ about 60000 folks.
In some corners, the employees have a loyalty requirement. The super pacs
spent a boatload to elect Ms Ernst here in IA..(3 of the top five pacs are Koch,
one is Karl Rove and the 5th is Ms. Ernst's). They have pledged $889m to further
their agenda thru various candidates and Pubs around the country, they are quite
active in the philanthropic area with art, theatre and the like. They unabashedly
conservative, aggressive in their lobby efforts for fossil fuels and extremely generous
with most efforts against the Dems.

Citizens United is the most egregious SCOTUS decision in my memory....you know the
one...allows unlimited funds into the political arena, in most cases, secretly and the
Kochs, Soros, Anderson and the hedge fund guy whose only issue is climate change
(his name escapes me) are the main beneficiaries....truly needs to be reversed...

Awww, y'all knew all that already...--- Should Unions also be restricted on what they can give?

[SCOUT]

Moveon.org?

[Eielson]

Aren't the Koch brothers paying people to pretend climate change isn't real? They're scum.

[rock on sooner]

--- Should Unions also be restricted on what they can give?

Yup, you bet! Where you might lose sight, though, is how active
the unions are with door-knocking and phone banks. As to Moveon.org,
the "org" part is an issue...that group is more of an issue group, as opposed
to a candidate...at least with ads...on the 'Net, a little different..absolutely
overwhelming with emails, if you are on their list...

[SCOUT]

Yup, you bet! Where you might lose sight, though, is how active
the unions are with door-knocking and phone banks. As to Moveon.org,
the "org" part is an issue...that group is more of an issue group, as opposed
to a candidate...at least with ads...on the 'Net, a little different..absolutely
overwhelming with emails, if you are on their list...

So...dodge?

[Serenity Now]

So...dodge?

I'm happy to see unions limited in giving also. Same with moveon.org

[SCOUT]

I'm happy to see unions limited in giving also. Same with moveon.org

I am glad to hear it. If others apply that equal approach, I will be pleasantly surprised.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Aren't the Koch brothers paying people to pretend climate change isn't real? They're scum.That's rich on 2 counts! Where did you hear that one?

[Serenity Now]

That's rich on 2 counts! Where did you hear that one?
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/koch-pledge-tied-to-congressional-climate-inaction

No brainer.

The same mindset that's wrong about the environment was arguing against the link between cigarettes and cancer 40 years ago.

[Serenity Now]

"Science": http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7080230

[okie52]

Aren't the Koch brothers paying people to pretend climate change isn't real? They're scum.

Heh heh...well according to Al Gore and the global warming scientist(s) he was quoting the North Pole was supposed to be gone 2-3 years ago.

[okie52]

"Science": http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7080230

Wow....the huff post green section blasting the Koch brothers....I can't believe it!!!

So the evil Koch brothers are funding studies that don't support the man made global warming apocalypse that can be attributed to droughts, famine, cancer, rising oceans, destruction of coastlines, food shortages, weather extremes including more severe hurricanes and F5 tornadoes, birth defects, and an increased amount of homosexuality, beastiality, homelessness and divorces (well I just threw that last part in while we were piling on)?

I really enjoyed the comments from the AGW crowd declaring that the f5 tornado that hit Moore in May, 2013 was caused by global warming. Oklahoma having tornadoes in May was unprecedented before "global warming" occurred. Science deniers!!!!!

How can anyone rationally be against subsidizing green energy and the millions of jobs that go with it? Lemmings!!!!

[REDREX]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/koch-pledge-tied-to-congressional-climate-inaction

No brainer.

The same mindset that's wrong about the environment was arguing against the link between cigarettes and cancer 40 years ago.---- Smoking and the Koch brothers--------What a stretch-------The Koch's don't allow smoking even in their parking lots , try again-------I know you are talking about mindset but this is stupid

[Eielson]

Heh heh...well according to Al Gore and the global warming scientist(s) he was quoting the North Pole was supposed to be gone 2-3 years ago.

Who cares about Al Gore? How has not trashing the planet become a partisan issue?

[olevetonahill]

---- Smoking and the Koch brothers--------What a stretch-------The Koch's don't allow smoking even in their parking lots , try again-------I know you are talking about mindset but this is stupid

This why I put the moran on iggy, These folks cant stay on subject, They constantly twist ,spin and deflect.
Yall have let him twist a thread about Soros back around to the Kochs!

[okie52]

Who cares about Al Gore? How has not trashing the planet become a partisan issue?

Al Gore? An inconvenient truth? A primary figure in the global warming debate for the last decade not ring any bells? No problem with AGW fear mongers?

Happy to not trash the planet and reduce mans footprint while maintaining a rational approach to energy.

[Eielson]

I really enjoyed the comments from the AGW crowd declaring that the f5 tornado that hit Moore in May, 2013 was caused by global warming. Oklahoma having tornadoes in May was unprecedented before "global warming" occurred. Science deniers!!!!!

Climate change didn't cause any of these school-shootings, either. What's your point?

Are you just trying to say that not all bad things that happen on this planet are caused by climate change? I agree. What about the bad things that it is causing, though?

[Eielson]

Happy to not trash the planet and reduce mans footprint while maintaining a rational approach to energy.

With you there. Pretending climate change isn't real, or that humans have no effect on it, doesn't seem rational to me, though.

[okie52]

Climate change didn't cause any of these school-shootings, either. What's your point?

Are you just trying to say that not all bad things that happen on this planet are caused by climate change? I agree. What about the bad things that it is causing, though?

Well let's get to the bad things caused by climate change... What exactly are they?

Is there global warming occurring without having anything to do with man? I believe so.

Does man contribute to this naturally occurring cycle? I believe he does this also.
How much is what's debatable, IMO.

[okie52]

With you there. Pretending climate change isn't real, or that humans have no effect on it, doesn't seem rational to me, though.

I won't pretend it's real or unreal. I'll prefer to err on the side of caution, however, and I'll usually support reasonable conservation measures to reduce our footprint even if global warming wasn't an issue.

Going it alone as Obama and some others tried to do in 2009 by passing a cap and trade bill was close to economic suicide...particularly at the height of the recession. Obama tried to handcuff the U.S. Again in his climate bill with China that only required reductions on the U.S. For the next 16 years while China could continue to increase its emissions.

That is not rational to me

[Eielson]

Admittedly, when I have referred to climate change in this thread, I'm referring to something much broader than simply climate change. I'm more concerned about ocean acidification than I am about the temperature rising or falling a couple degrees.

[Eielson]

Also, I'm not a democrat, and I'm not a fan of Obama. Feel free to criticize him and and his party all you want, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.

[yermom]

no one i know talks about Soros as a hero

could you direct me to one of those posts?

[okie52]

Admittedly, when I have referred to climate change in this thread, I'm referring to something much broader than simply climate change. I'm more concerned about ocean acidification than I am about the temperature rising or falling a couple degrees.

I favor global population reduction...instead of 7.5 billion I would prefer it to drop to 1 billion over the next century...the surest way to reduce mans footprint

[Serenity Now]

I won't pretend it's real or unreal. I'll prefer to err on the side of caution, however, and I'll usually support reasonable conservation measures to reduce our footprint even if global warming wasn't an issue.

Going it alone as Obama and some others tried to do in 2009 by passing a cap and trade bill was close to economic suicide...particularly at the height of the recession. Obama tried to handcuff the U.S. Again in his climate bill with China that only required reductions on the U.S. For the next 16 years while China could continue to increase its emissions.

That is not rational to me
You're not wrong. I don't know the answer. I think we could be impacting the earth's ability to adapt to the changes that may well be happening independent of humans. But, they're happening nonetheless.

[okie52]

You're not wrong. I don't know the answer. I think we could be impacting the earth's ability to adapt to the changes that may well be happening independent of humans. But, they're happening nonetheless.

Whatever has to be done to reduce CO2 (if that is indeed the culprit) should be done on a global basis with fair requirements for all countries and severe sanctions globally for those that don't comply.

Developing countries like China and India (as they like to call themselves) want the U.S. And Europe to pay them for going green yet they want us to ignore their incredibly overpopulated countries and the demands/strains it puts on natural resources and pollution control/containment.

[Eielson]

We have a really strong strawman argument going on here. I never said anything about Obama, developing countries, etc.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

This is like Cheney's Haliburton dealing with Iran out of shell companies in the Caribbean Islands, right?
Nope.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Aren't the Koch brothers paying people to pretend climate change isn't real? They're scum.
Don't know about that, but Climate Change is not real. Just look at the real data. No data that is unfudged conforms to any so-called model...

I have not seen anything to convince me the data is there. Most of it is adjusted to conform to that theory. New reviews of NASA data shows some odd manipulation of the data that cannot be explained legitimately. No one can explain the sun radiation data and its pertibations to the climate cycle. Just saying, any climate debate can have holes poked in it. Certainly haven't proven anything and certainly is not "settled science".

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I won't pretend it's real or unreal. I'll prefer to err on the side of caution, however, and I'll usually support reasonable conservation measures to reduce our footprint even if global warming wasn't an issue.

Going it alone as Obama and some others tried to do in 2009 by passing a cap and trade bill was close to economic suicide...particularly at the height of the recession. Obama tried to handcuff the U.S. Again in his climate bill with China that only required reductions on the U.S. For the next 16 years while China could continue to increase its emissions.

That is not rational to meRational and sensible approach. We don't get this in the MSM very much, if at all.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I favor global population reduction...instead of 7.5 billion I would prefer it to drop to 1 billion over the next century...the surest way to reduce mans footprintHOLY TOLEDO! Hard to visualize how that could be done peacefully, and without almost unimaginable consequences.

[Eielson]

Don't know about that, but Climate Change is not real.

The climate never changes?


Just look at the real data. No data that is unfudged conforms to any so-called model...

Last I heard, it was something to the extent of 95% published literature agrees that global warming is real, and that it is caused by human activity. There are plenty of details still up for debate, but that much isn't. I'm not sure data gets any more real than published scientific literature.


I have not seen anything to convince me the data is there.

I guess that means there is about a 95% chance you're not a scientist.


Certainly haven't proven anything and certainly is not "settled science".

Once again, 95% of the scientific community disagrees with that statement...plenty of which are conservative. It's about as settled as it gets.

[Serenity Now]

Cigarettes don't cause lung cancer!

Bipartisan researchers determined that "climate gate" was nothing.

[SoonerorLater]

The trouble with most of this is that it is politically driven and the messenger can twist it to suit their agenda. The shifting terminology makes any worthwhile discussion almost impossible. What are we talking about? Global warming or just Anthropogenic Global Warming? Climate change in general?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The trouble with most of this is that it is politically driven and the messenger can twist it to suit their agenda. The shifting terminology makes any worthwhile discussion almost impossible. What are we talking about? Global warming or just Anthropogenic Global Warming? Climate change in general?It's about government taking more control over our lives. Any attempts to prevent that are spurned by the PC people.

[Serenity Now]

It's about government taking more control over our lives. Any attempts to prevent that are spurned by the PC people.
Sometimes government is in place to protect us from The impact of greed. Think about the Burning of the burning of the rain forests.

[SoonerorLater]

It's about government taking more control over our lives. Any attempts to prevent that are spurned by the PC people.

It's always about the government taking more control. Maybe some of the resident statists on the board can tell us about all of the legislation passed over the last century or so that decreased government control of our daily existence. Lots and lots of rules, not so much liberty.

[Eielson]

The trouble with most of this is that it is politically driven and the messenger can twist it to suit their agenda.

Are you directing this at me?

As I stated, 95% of scientific literature agrees that global warming is real, and that human activity contributes to it. The only people twisting it to suit their agenda are the ones magnifying the 5%, and the ones privately giving millions of dollars for those people to make more.

[Eielson]

It's always about the government taking more control. Maybe some of the resident statists on the board can tell us about all of the legislation passed over the last century or so that decreased government control of our daily existence. Lots and lots of rules, not so much liberty.

Statist is such an overused (and in this case, misused) term on this board. It makes me want to haphazardly start calling everybody anarchists.

All I ever said is that those who pay people to pretend global warming isn't real for their own selfish desires are scum. I never asked for new laws.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

All I ever said is that those who pay people to pretend global warming isn't real for their own selfish desires are scum. I never asked for new laws.Have you considered that Global Warming isn't real, or that if it is, it's not manmade, and if manmade, 3rd world catastrophe countries are setting the standard, and it's not even close?

It's not worth bowing to the screaming media and their politicians just because they drown out the other voices.

[Eielson]

Have you considered that Global Warming isn't real, or that if it is, it's not manmade

Yes. I've definitely considered it.


It's not worth bowing to the screaming media and their politicians

Then why do you keep listening to them? Your beliefs on this are certainly not coming from the scientists.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Yes. I've definitely considered it.



Then why do you keep listening to them? Your beliefs on this are certainly not coming from the scientists.They are indeed. Yours are coming from the screamers. Just asking that you and others not place such faith in those who want to perpetually allow government to always take more control over its citizens.

[Eielson]

Yours are coming from the screamers.

You realize I have a degree in science, right? My beliefs on this are whole-heartedly based on conversations and lectures from professors and scientists (most are a combination of both) with PhD's.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You realize I have a degree in science, right? My beliefs on this are whole-heartedly based on conversations and lectures from professors and scientists (most are a combination of both) with PhD's.I know you believe you are right, and I don't expect you convince you that you aren't. Just asking to consider the very really possibility that we are being fed intentional inaccuracies by those who want to gain more power.

I'm sure on this board and in so many other places people have argued the global warming/climate change til all are blue in the face. Just not willing to let the govt. have its way with the citizens any more than is unavoidable. (You may not be a democrat, but you do have a need to disavow it.) haha

[SoonerorLater]

Are you directing this at me?

As I stated, 95% of scientific literature agrees that global warming is real, and that human activity contributes to it. The only people twisting it to suit their agenda are the ones magnifying the 5%, and the ones privately giving millions of dollars for those people to make more.

Actually no I wasn't, but given your response maybe I should have been. Rephrase the question to scientists if global warming is verifiability anthropogenic in nature and the percentage drops significantly. Even if it was what would would you propose as a solution? There is no fuel source that gives us the bang for the buck that fossil fuel does. There isn't a viable one source alternative. We can nibble around the edges with renewable energy like solar and wind or we can look to nuclear with all of it's attendant problems but there isn't a suitable replacement energy source at this point.

[Eielson]

Actually no I wasn't, but given your response maybe I should have been. Rephrase the question to scientists if global warming is verifiability anthropogenic in nature and the percentage drops significantly.

My statement was that "95% of scientific literature agrees that global warming is real, and that human activity contributes to it." Note that I included the part about human activity. That is what you're getting at, right?


Even if it was what would would you propose as a solution? There is no fuel source that gives us the bang for the buck that fossil fuel does. There isn't a viable one source alternative. We can nibble around the edges with renewable energy like solar and wind or we can look to nuclear with all of it's attendant problems but there isn't a suitable replacement energy source at this point.

I wasn't proposing a solution in this thread. Just stating that anybody that, out of pure selfishness, spends millions of dollars to cover up what the scientific community overwhelmingly agrees on is scum. I certainly am not suggesting we should completely abandon fossil fuels overnight. That would be silly. I do think we should be moving in another direction, though. We're not all going to die tomorrow, but we can't continue with the path we're on.

[Eielson]

I know you believe you are right, and I don't expect you convince you that you aren't. Just asking to consider the very really possibility that we are being fed intentional inaccuracies by those who want to gain more power.

That's essentially what I've been trying to say to you. Many of these scientist I have learned from are very conservative, which is why I don't believe this should be a partisan issue.


(You may not be a democrat, but you do have a need to disavow it.) haha

I'm not.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

That's essentially what I've been trying to say to you. Many of these scientist I have learned from are very conservative, which is why I don't believe this should be a partisan issue.



I'm not.You are saying you think you are getting good information, and I'm saying don't be sure of that, even if you want to believe it's true.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

"It's not worth bowing to the screaming media and their politicians."-RLimc!

Then why do you keep listening to them? Your beliefs on this are certainly not coming from the scientists.That's funny. I'm telling you you're listening to the incessant haranguing of the MSM and other democrats, and you tell me Im listening to people who want to control me and others(with the actual result being NOT to further control us, as opposed to what your sources advocate)

Oh well, we are not going to resolve the GW/CC debate here. Suffice it to say neither are proven, and won't be.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So now, what about ole Georgy Soros and his brand of evil?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

The climate never changes?



Last I heard, it was something to the extent of 95% published literature agrees that global warming is real, and that it is caused by human activity. There are plenty of details still up for debate, but that much isn't. I'm not sure data gets any more real than published scientific literature.



I guess that means there is about a 95% chance you're not a scientist.



Once again, 95% of the scientific community disagrees with that statement...plenty of which are conservative. It's about as settled as it gets.
I am sure that my degree in Meteorology trumps anything you got regarding understanding the research data and understanding of all the forces at play in nature...

While the climate changes, those forces are much greater than Anthropogenic changes. I do not believe the data outside of possibly CO2 emissions shows that Anthropogenic climate change is anything. The data, esp. temperature, shows a colling over the last 15 years or so...

I would say that "95%" or so you claim (where the hell is that number from...) is betting on or needs more government money for funding...I bet that the government wants to take f=more from us on either liberty or money... It is a deal with the devil and those so called 95% are complicite in falsification of data, manipulation of models to show their beliefs and complicit in trying to take over people lives.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Sometimes government is in place to protect us from The impact of greed. Think about the Burning of the burning of the rain forests.
If you think this is the case here, you are sadly duped...

[champions77]

Wow....the huff post green section blasting the Koch brothers....I can't believe it!!!

So the evil Koch brothers are funding studies that don't support the man made global warming apocalypse that can be attributed to droughts, famine, cancer, rising oceans, destruction of coastlines, food shortages, weather extremes including more severe hurricanes and F5 tornadoes, birth defects, and an increased amount of homosexuality, beastiality, homelessness and divorces (well I just threw that last part in while we were piling on)?

I really enjoyed the comments from the AGW crowd declaring that the f5 tornado that hit Moore in May, 2013 was caused by global warming. Oklahoma having tornadoes in May was unprecedented before "global warming" occurred. Science deniers!!!!!

How can anyone rationally be against subsidizing green energy and the millions of jobs that go with it? Lemmings!!!!

+1 What fools. Another way to expand the federal governments reach, scope and control over the masses. Ask one of these clowns what about the times before mankind when the earth warmed? Usually give you a blank look. Ask them why they felt the need to falsify the very data that they were collecting? Ask why they located their probes in areas that would give them the higher temps? Ask them why they had to change the name of Global Warming to "Climate Change" after record low temps were being recorded around the globe? Ask them how some of the very same people predicted the next "Ice Age" back in the early 70's? Ask them if they are really ready to change their lifestyles while the results of their "sacrifice" is it will have zero effect on the environment?

WTHU

[Eielson]

I do not believe the data outside of possibly CO2 emissions shows that Anthropogenic climate change is anything.

If I'm not mistaken, CO2 emissions is primarily what we were talking about...

[okie52]

Eielson-I wasn't trying to paint a straw man for you or state you are a dem...I really don't care about political affiliations on AGW although you can certainly tell which party supports it and doesn't.

You had stated that the Koch's were scum for their paid for analysis of AGW and I merely showed that the "pro" side of AGW had its own BS out there like Al Gore claiming the north pole would be melted by 2012.

95% of scientists may agree on GW or AGW but there is nowhere close to a consensus on a number of critical elements pertaining to GW/AGW such as how much does man contribute, how much is naturally occurring, what is the tipping point, how much does water vapor play in the warming cycle, etc...

As I said I prefer to err on the side of caution and I support taking reasonable steps on a global basis to reduce man's footprint...just not going it alone when we might be the only one's getting our economy killed and doing little to change GW/AGW.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I do not believe the data outside of possibly CO2 emissions shows that Anthropogenic climate change is anything.

If I'm not mistaken, CO2 emissions is primarily what we were talking about...t

There is much more to AGW besides CO2. CO2 alone does not account for the events the models try to mimic. I refer to the temperature data that has seen most of the falsification. This data is needed to drive the models. I dont think at this time, co2 will get you to the model results alone.

From an AGW standpoint, acidification of the ocean and disruption of the saline currents would need further research and IMO a concern.

[champions77]

Eielson-I wasn't trying to paint a straw man for you or state you are a dem...I really don't care about political affiliations on AGW although you can certainly tell which party supports it and doesn't.

You had stated that the Koch's were scum for their paid for analysis of AGW and I merely showed that the "pro" side of AGW had its own BS out there like Al Gore claiming the north pole would be melted by 2012.

95% of scientists may agree on GW or AGW but they is nowhere close to a consensus on a number of critical elements pertaining to GW/AGW such as how much does man contribute, how much is naturally occurring, what is the tipping point, how much does water vapor play in the warming cycle, etc...

As I said I prefer to err on the side of caution and I support taking reasonable steps on a global basis to reduce man's footprint...just not going it alone when we might be the only one's getting our economy killed and doing little to change GW/AGW.

Happy Birthday 52!!

Another aspect of all of this that is disturbing to me is the "sense of urgency" that is always rolled out by the left and the "science is settled" argument that always use. Is science ever settled? I thought it was always evolving, affected by the methodologies in gathering data, the quality of equipment used to gather and analyze data, and the expertise of those evaluating data. Obviously there have been millions if not billions earned by some who have benefited by the "Climate Change" hysteria.

I have come to the conclusion that the urgency that every one of these alarmists exhibits makes one believe that this has to be done now...before contrary information and conclusions about this science are reached. And it doesn't help their cause in that the ringleader of this group is a politician with zero scientific credentials who has made millions from this hysteria he has helped to create and whose reputation and integrity is anything but beyond reproach.

[Soonerjeepman]

Sort of. But that's not the point. The point is that Cheney wasn't running around arguing for higher taxes on 'rich guys like me.' Soros has long made that argument while making moves to shelter his assets overseas and away from the IRS.

Frankly, I have no problem with someone making legal moves to shelter their assets from taxation. But I do have a problem with a bozo who tells everyone they need to pay more only to turn around and shelter his/hers.

BINGO!

[okie52]

Happy Birthday 52!!

Another aspect of all of this that is disturbing to me is the "sense of urgency" that is always rolled out by the left and the "science is settled" argument that always use. Is science ever settled? I thought it was always evolving, affected by the methodologies in gathering data, the quality of equipment used to gather and analyze data, and the expertise of those evaluating data. Obviously there have been millions if not billions earned by some who have benefited by the "Climate Change" hysteria.

I have come to the conclusion that the urgency that every one of these alarmists exhibits makes one believe that this has to be done now...before contrary information and conclusions about this science are reached. And it doesn't help their cause in that the ringleader of this group is a politician with zero scientific credentials who has made millions from this hysteria he has helped to create and whose reputation and integrity is anything but beyond reproach.

Gracias Champs.

Sometimes the the truth is inconvenient...even for Gore.

[Serenity Now]

If you think this is the case here, you are sadly duped...
So, rain forests serve a purpose to help moderate the atmosphere. Is that inaccurate?

My view on the climate is not scientific. From my various reading on the topic I think that man has minimal impact. The influence of the sun trumps anything that we do with regard to "warming". I think there's more to it than just "warming". I just worry that when we clear cut forests and ignore what goes into our ground/water that then goes out to sea that we don't know the outcome. I'm afraid that we are impairing the earth's ability to heal itself or adapt the way the good Lord designed it. Watching video of the flattening and burning of rain forests is disheartening.

I fully get that just the environmental activity of the US alone is not that big of a deal. I don't know the answer. I don't think carbon credits is the way to go. I do think facilitating more efficiency in our world makes sense.

[REDREX]

So, rain forests serve a purpose to help moderate the atmosphere. Is that inaccurate?

My view on the climate is not scientific. From my various reading on the topic I think that man has minimal impact. The influence of the sun trumps anything that we do with regard to "warming". I think there's more to it than just "warming". I just worry that when we clear cut forests and ignore what goes into our ground/water that then goes out to sea that we don't know the outcome. I'm afraid that we are impairing the earth's ability to heal itself or adapt the way the good Lord designed it. Watching video of the flattening and burning of rain forests is disheartening.

I fully get that just the environmental activity of the US alone is not that big of a deal. I don't know the answer. I don't think carbon credits is the way to go. I do think facilitating more efficiency in our world makes sense.---Carbon Credits is one of the stupidest ideas ever

[TheHumanAlphabet]

SN, i was referring to your comment that politicians are there to help or protect you...they are only interested in maintaining power...they will grab at anything and say anything in order to get you to relinquish your power to them. Rain forests not withstanding.

Personally, i am not in disagreement with you regarding ecosystem interconnectedness. They are systems that have evolved to work well. A managed use is what we should strive for.

Gore is an arse and a thief.

[Soonerjeepman]

well, the op went from comparing the hypocrisy of the one of the biggest left wing supporters in Soros (in using the gov loopholes as many wealthy pubs do) to climate change! lol...

As a pub, I'm all for protecting the earth, it's natural resources...I fish, like to hunt...boat..jeep wheeling...etc.

The problem is obama and the dem are selling out this country thinking china/india/russia any of those other countries are going to do the same...lol...what a bunch of morons.

So maybe the climate is changing...you realize the earth has always changed? In the timeline of the earth (according to "scientist" that libs love to use) mankind is only a sliver/edge of a fingernail if the timeline is from wrist to edge of middle finger. On top of that, that is MANKIND'S existence....so take the last 100 yrs for industrial revolution...and that is responsible for GW? right...

[Serenity Now]

SN, i was referring to your comment that politicians are there to help or protect you...they are only interested in maintaining power...they will grab at anything and say anything in order to get you to relinquish your power to them. Rain forests not withstanding.
I'm referring to "government" as a body of "us" and not as a mix of politicians.

[Eielson]

You had stated that the Koch's were scum for their paid for analysis of AGW and I merely showed that the "pro" side of AGW had its own BS out there like Al Gore claiming the north pole would be melted by 2012.

I'm not saying Koch is the only guilty party in this. I just think he is funding research for no other reason than his own selfish greed, and that makes him scum in my book. I'm not a big fan of Gore, either.


95% of scientists may agree on GW or AGW but there is nowhere close to a consensus on a number of critical elements pertaining to GW/AGW such as how much does man contribute, how much is naturally occurring, what is the tipping point, how much does water vapor play in the warming cycle, etc...

True.


As I said I prefer to err on the side of caution and I support taking reasonable steps on a global basis to reduce man's footprint...just not going it alone when we might be the only one's getting our economy killed and doing little to change GW/AGW.

I absolutely agree that this is a global thing. We're only responsible for about 16% of CO2 emissions in the world, which is a lot, but very little would happen if we were the only country to reduce it's CO2 emissions. China is responsible for about 50% more than us, but from a per capita standpoint, we're about 3 times as bad. I'm not saying there is an easy answer to this, or that we should make something happen overnight. I just think we should have the facts in the open, and not try to manipulate them to whatever suits our company the best.


There is much more to AGW besides CO2. CO2 alone does not account for the events the models try to mimic. I refer to the temperature data that has seen most of the falsification. This data is needed to drive the models. I dont think at this time, co2 will get you to the model results alone.

From an AGW standpoint, acidification of the ocean and disruption of the saline currents would need further research and IMO a concern.

I'm not going to claim to know exactly what happens with insanely high amounts of CO2 emissions, and that's part of the problem. We know some of the negative effects it is having, and will continue to have, but there are a lot of other questions not yet answered. We're essentially rolling the dice and saying that we hope this doesn't completely ruin the one environment in our entire galaxy where human life is sustainable. At this point, I think we can safely assume that putting 2.4 million pounds of CO2 in the air every second is really, really bad. The only question is how bad, and I'm not eager to find out.


Another aspect of all of this that is disturbing to me is the "sense of urgency" that is always rolled out

I guess it depends on what you truly mean by that statement on whether or not I agree with you. I agree that we're not going to ruin the planet in the next few years, and I certainly don't think we need to reduce CO2 emissions to zero this year. We need to start making progress now, though. Despite all the attention this topic has received globally, our global CO2 emissions still rose 3% last year, so it's clear that this topic is more urgent than we're treating it at the present moment. CO2 emissions need to halt, and eventually decrease.

It's easy to point to the fact that the United States was one of the only countries whose CO2 emissions decreased last year (Germany's also did, and UK's stabilized), and make China out to be the bad guys. The issue with that, though, is that we're still almost three times as bad as China per capita (it might be closer to twice as bad now).

[okie52]

I absolutely agree that this is a global thing. We're only responsible for about 16% of CO2 emissions in the world, which is a lot, but very little would happen if we were the only country to reduce it's CO2 emissions. China is responsible for about 50% more than us, but from a per capita standpoint, we're about 3 times as bad. I'm not saying there is an easy answer to this, or that we should make something happen overnight. I just think we should have the facts in the open, and not try to manipulate them to whatever suits our company the best.



This is another area where I have a problem. China and India want CO2 calculated on a per capita basis...well that's fine to some degree except it totally ignores the pollution created by their overpopulations. China is roughly the same size as the US in area and has 1.3 billion people compared to our 320 million. India is less than a 1/3 the size of the US in area and has 1.2 billion people. Europe is a high emitter too and has a population density comparable to China.

IMO population density needs to be factored into the equation.

On a positive note the US has been showing steady improvement on its emissions since 2005...a lot of that has to do with switching from coal to NG production for electricity.