Who still takes global warming seriou...

Who still takes global warming seriously?

There are 30878 comments on the Farmington Daily Times story from Jan 28, 2010, titled Who still takes global warming seriously?. In it, Farmington Daily Times reports that:

Despite the recent discovery of the e-mails that resulted in "Climate Gate" and the fact this has been one of the coldest and harshest winters in many years, Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Farmington Daily Times.

gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#31484 Feb 12, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Your last statement exemplifies all of your scientific science fiction.
All of your comments exemplify your peanut gallery status, no thoughts of any consequence, just trolling.

Is there anything you care about other than your public masturbation?
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#31485 Feb 12, 2013
Washington, DC—A team of scientists, led by researchers at Carnegie’s Department of Global Ecology, has determined that the recent widespread die-off of Colorado trembling aspen trees is a direct result of decreased precipitation exacerbated by high summer temperatures. The die-off, triggered by the drought from 2000-2003, is estimated to have affected up to 17% of Colorado aspen forests. In 2002, the drought subjected the trees to the most extreme growing season water stress of the past century.

While often not killing the trees directly, the drought damaged the ability of the trees to provide water to their leaves, leading to a decline in growth and increased mortality that has continued for a decade after the drought. The research is published on-line in Global Change Biology. Another related study appeared earlier this year in the same journal.

Until recently, there has been little attention paid to what drought characteristics (seasonal differences, severity, or durations) actually cause trees to die. Scientists additionally have lacked a sufficient understanding of the processes that lead to die-offs, which inhibits the ability to predict how climate change can affect different ecosystems.

<><><>< ><><><> <><><>< ><><>

Watering all the trees in Colorado is nothing like watering tomatoes.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31486 Feb 12, 2013
PHD wrote:
Scientist correct errors to discover their corrections are in error. Ever wonder why they use terms as prediction,my opinion, could be, should be,as a rule and forecast? Scienceis fact not fiction as mentioned above.
Yes, scientists are human & can make mistakes. But the truth always, ALWAYS comes out. Always. Sometimes it takes months, years, decades or even centuries, but the truth comes out.

It appears you don't understand science. It makes progress over time as more things are learned. Once something is known, it's known, even though more questions can always be asked.

Newtonian physics are completely contained as a special case within Einsteinian physics. However, the CONVERSE IS NOT TRUE. Einsteinian physics cannot be described by Newtonian physics.

It's possible that one of the versions of supersymmetric string theory will prove to be true, & both Einsteinian physics & quantum mechanics, the physics of the very large & very small, will be special cases of that larger string theory.

So scientists do NOT go willy-nilly back & forth from one position to another; they are constantly making progress, however haltingly, however inconsistently.

When it comes to AGW/CC, since they made their correction for aerosols in 1995, the IPCC mid-range predictions have been very close to what's actually happened with temperatures. The predictions of doubters like Lindzen, however, have been WAY off.
PHD

Overton, TX

#31488 Feb 13, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, scientists are human & can make mistakes. But the truth always, ALWAYS comes out. Always. Sometimes it takes months, years, decades or even centuries, but the truth comes out.
It appears you don't understand science. It makes progress over time as more things are learned. Once something is known, it's known, even though more questions can always be asked.
Newtonian physics are completely contained as a special case within Einsteinian physics. However, the CONVERSE IS NOT TRUE. Einsteinian physics cannot be described by Newtonian physics.
It's possible that one of the versions of supersymmetric string theory will prove to be true, & both Einsteinian physics & quantum mechanics, the physics of the very large & very small, will be special cases of that larger string theory.
So scientists do NOT go willy-nilly back & forth from one position to another; they are constantly making progress, however haltingly, however inconsistently.
When it comes to AGW/CC, since they made their correction for aerosols in 1995, the IPCC mid-range predictions have been very close to what's actually happened with temperatures. The predictions of doubters like Lindzen, however, have been WAY off.
So in essence until science makes correction to their errors and the end results would be fact it is scienctific science fiction.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31490 Feb 13, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>So in essence until science makes correction to their errors and the end results would be fact it is scienctific science fiction.
No, that is absolutely incorrect, Penny. Science DOES make progress.

But whatever. If it challenges you, we know you won't bother.
PHD

Overton, TX

#31491 Feb 13, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is absolutely incorrect, Penny. Science DOES make progress.
But whatever. If it challenges you, we know you won't bother.
They make progress with errors, so HOMO you are the one that is factually incorrect. It appears that you are the one that is challenged and never bothers. Cut and paste scientific science fiction proves nothing.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31492 Feb 13, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
...
While it is true a greenhouse effect has a CO2 fertilization effect -- this is only true if there is enough rain and fertilizer to sustain the added growth. Turns out the real world doesn't work like a commercial greenhouse....
You can experimentally test conditions inside a commercial greenhouse but nobody has ever shown a real world test of climate change mitigation. You are promoting an untested prototype and fantasize it can do more good than harm.

.
Wallop10 wrote:
Carbon dioxide and other industrial gases have been a concern for several years because of their impact on the air, raising global temperatures in a process called the greenhouse effect.
CO2 is a trace gas; I'm not concerned. CO2 is required for life, why call it an 'industrial gas'? It used to be in the atmosphere, then it got fossilized; oil, coal and gas production shows the beauty of resurrection. When you see a factory, you might think it stinks but I think jobs.

.
Wallop10 wrote:
....
++++++++++
So cut the right wing crap, ok?
I don't want my government to mitigate climate change, politicians shouldn't promise to make climate better or heal the planet. It offends me.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31493 Feb 13, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>They make progress with errors, so HOMO you are the one that is factually incorrect. It appears that you are the one that is challenged and never bothers. Cut and paste scientific science fiction proves nothing.
OK, PHD, then POST the LINKS to these putative errors. And as I said elsewhere, the only references that count are to actual articles in scientific journals, not to denier (or supporter, FTM) blogs.

I'll tell you one prediction that's been modified: I remember when the prediction was that the Arctic Ocean would be ice free in September (peak melt) in 2050; then it was 2040, then 2030. Now it's 2020, & if you look at the raw volume data, it looks like it'll be gone by 2016 or 2017.

https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegro...

When do YOU think it'll be gone? Hmmm?

They have more graphs, but they don't change things:

https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepingui...

There's a whole thread on this forum on the fact that the Arctic permafrost is melting more quickly than expected. Of course because of the methane & its potency as a GHG, this is BY FAR the most worrisome sign we've seen anywhere in the world.

So - when the truly scientific predictions have been wrong, they've seriously underestimated how bad things are.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31494 Feb 13, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You can experimentally test conditions inside a commercial greenhouse but nobody has ever shown a real world test of climate change mitigation. You are promoting an untested prototype and fantasize it can do more good than harm.
.
<quoted text>CO2 is a trace gas; I'm not concerned. CO2 is required for life, why call it an 'industrial gas'? It used to be in the atmosphere, then it got fossilized; oil, coal and gas production shows the beauty of resurrection. When you see a factory, you might think it stinks but I think jobs.
.
<quoted text>I don't want my government to mitigate climate change, politicians shouldn't promise to make climate better or heal the planet. It offends me.
The main fantasy in play here is the hallucinatory, psychotic delusion that it is "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere. It most assuredly is NOT free. It is potentially an almost incalculable future cost that our progeny will have to pay, potentially orders of magnitude larger than the national debt.

This psychotic delusion is shared by far too many people, & certainly by our governments. It has led government to impose horrendously distorting policies into the energy market.

In fact, ONLY government can mitigate climate change, & it's only way not to kill billions of people & avoid the loss of countless trillions of dollars in infrastructure. It's GOVERNMENT that gives billions of dollars annually to the oil industry. It's GOVERNMENT that fights trillion-dollar oil wars in the Middle East.

And, of course, it's errant government policies that don't allow the cost of burning fossil fuels, including emitting carbon into the atmosphere, into their prices. We've never had a free market for energy because the costs of burning FFs aren't included in the price: those costs will have to be paid by people in the future.

A revenue-neutral carbon tax would finally allow a free market for energy, making sure the cost of burning FFs would be included in their prices. It would remove ZERO money from the economy & add ZERO to the cost or size of government. In fact, government would potentially be much smaller & cheaper: no need for oil wars!

A carbon tax would mean the government wouldn't have to choose Solyndra vs another company; the market would decide. FINALLY, renewable energy technologies would be able to compete with FFs on a level playing field.

So, if we want to kill our children, we should just keep doing what we're doing.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31495 Feb 13, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, PHD, then POST the LINKS to these putative errors. And as I said elsewhere, the only references that count are to actual articles in scientific journals, not to denier (or supporter, FTM) blogs.
I'll tell you one prediction that's been modified: I remember when the prediction was that the Arctic Ocean would be ice free in September (peak melt) in 2050; then it was 2040, then 2030. Now it's 2020, & if you look at the raw volume data, it looks like it'll be gone by 2016 or 2017.
https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegro...
When do YOU think it'll be gone? Hmmm?
They have more graphs, but they don't change things:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepingui...
There's a whole thread on this forum on the fact that the Arctic permafrost is melting more quickly than expected. Of course because of the methane & its potency as a GHG, this is BY FAR the most worrisome sign we've seen anywhere in the world.
So - when the truly scientific predictions have been wrong, they've seriously underestimated how bad things are.
Erratum: 1st link above doesn't work; it's to the upper left chart in the 2nd link.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#31496 Feb 13, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
The main fantasy in play here is the hallucinatory, psychotic delusion that it is "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere. It most assuredly is NOT free. It is potentially an almost incalculable future cost that our progeny will have to pay, potentially orders of magnitude larger than the national debt.
This psychotic delusion is shared by far too many people, & certainly by our governments. It has led government to impose horrendously distorting policies into the energy market.
In fact, ONLY government can mitigate climate change, & it's only way not to kill billions of people & avoid the loss of countless trillions of dollars in infrastructure. It's GOVERNMENT that gives billions of dollars annually to the oil industry. It's GOVERNMENT that fights trillion-dollar oil wars in the Middle East.
And, of course, it's errant government policies that don't allow the cost of burning fossil fuels, including emitting carbon into the atmosphere, into their prices. We've never had a free market for energy because the costs of burning FFs aren't included in the price: those costs will have to be paid by people in the future.
A revenue-neutral carbon tax would finally allow a free market for energy, making sure the cost of burning FFs would be included in their prices. It would remove ZERO money from the economy & add ZERO to the cost or size of government. In fact, government would potentially be much smaller & cheaper: no need for oil wars!
A carbon tax would mean the government wouldn't have to choose Solyndra vs another company; the market would decide. FINALLY, renewable energy technologies would be able to compete with FFs on a level playing field.
So, if we want to kill our children, we should just keep doing what we're doing.
Yes, yes, and yes.

Brian doesn't understand the concept of excess. We need Vitamins A, E, and K, they are good for you and necessary for good health, but you can OD on them.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31497 Feb 13, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, yes, and yes.
Brian doesn't understand the concept of excess. We need Vitamins A, E, and K, they are good for you and necessary for good health, but you can OD on them.
Vitamin D also.

Lots of things are essential for life in "Goldilocks" (just right) amounts. Even oxygen is toxic & will wipe out your lungs if you breathe 100% for a few days. You can die of water intoxication even WITHOUT drowning. Minerals (salts) like sodium & potassium, & countless other things, behave the same way: essential for life in just right amounts, lethal in excess.
PHD

Overton, TX

#31498 Feb 14, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, PHD, then POST the LINKS to these putative errors. And as I said elsewhere, the only references that count are to actual articles in scientific journals, not to denier (or supporter, FTM) blogs.
I'll tell you one prediction that's been modified: I remember when the prediction was that the Arctic Ocean would be ice free in September (peak melt) in 2050; then it was 2040, then 2030. Now it's 2020, & if you look at the raw volume data, it looks like it'll be gone by 2016 or 2017.
https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegro...
When do YOU think it'll be gone? Hmmm?
They have more graphs, but they don't change things:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepingui...
There's a whole thread on this forum on the fact that the Arctic permafrost is melting more quickly than expected. Of course because of the methane & its potency as a GHG, this is BY FAR the most worrisome sign we've seen anywhere in the world.
So - when the truly scientific predictions have been wrong, they've seriously underestimated how bad things are.
All the references have been posted over and again. Therefore- when the truly scientific "predictions" are correct we are back to scientific science fiction. Sorry unlike those out there with their crystal ball I could not venture a guess that would be scientific science fiction.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31499 Feb 14, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>All the references have been posted over and again. Therefore- when the truly scientific "predictions" are correct we are back to scientific science fiction. Sorry unlike those out there with their crystal ball I could not venture a guess that would be scientific science fiction.
Perrhaps you don't feel you can venture a guess because you haven't bothered to learn the science. It's all there if you take the time to learn it.

BTW, my 2nd link wasn't posted before in exactly that form because they'd just updated it a few days before.
PHD

Overton, TX

#31500 Feb 14, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Perrhaps you don't feel you can venture a guess because you haven't bothered to learn the science. It's all there if you take the time to learn it.
BTW, my 2nd link wasn't posted before in exactly that form because they'd just updated it a few days before.
Sorry I don't have the time like you may have to learn scientific scienc fiction. Again thanks for the link will study if it's real science.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#31501 Feb 14, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
The main fantasy in play here is the hallucinatory, psychotic delusion that it is "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere. It most assuredly is NOT free. It is potentially an almost incalculable future cost that our progeny will have to pay, potentially orders of magnitude larger than the national debt.
This psychotic delusion is shared by far too many people, & certainly by our governments. It has led government to impose horrendously distorting policies into the energy market.
In fact, ONLY government can mitigate climate change, & it's only way not to kill billions of people & avoid the loss of countless trillions of dollars in infrastructure. It's GOVERNMENT that gives billions of dollars annually to the oil industry. It's GOVERNMENT that fights trillion-dollar oil wars in the Middle East.
And, of course, it's errant government policies that don't allow the cost of burning fossil fuels, including emitting carbon into the atmosphere, into their prices. We've never had a free market for energy because the costs of burning FFs aren't included in the price: those costs will have to be paid by people in the future.
A revenue-neutral carbon tax would finally allow a free market for energy, making sure the cost of burning FFs would be included in their prices. It would remove ZERO money from the economy & add ZERO to the cost or size of government. In fact, government would potentially be much smaller & cheaper: no need for oil wars!
A carbon tax would mean the government wouldn't have to choose Solyndra vs another company; the market would decide. FINALLY, renewable energy technologies would be able to compete with FFs on a level playing field.
So, if we want to kill our children, we should just keep doing what we're doing.
How much does it cost you to exhale? You might fly once a year, but you always breathe, adding carbon to the atmosphere. So do your children and pets, humans must emit greenhouse gases or die.

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas; don't hate chemicals. Use your mind, look at the experimental data, see how well the theory works. Climate change mitigation works perfectly in computer models but fail in the real world. The physical data shows climate change from man made greenhouse gas is insignificant, computer models use climate 'feedbacks' to amplify the greenhouse gas effect.

Don't be a fool, don't let your government sell you, they can mitigate climate change. Don't let government mitigate climate change on borrowed spending. Don't let politicians near your climate, if you have an ounce of sense.

Don't let them sell you, taxes are revenue neutral. Taxes are taxes and government spends money wastefully, one doesn't balance the other. A real revenue neutral carbon tax is what we have now, zero tax on emitted carbon dioxide. If you can create green, renewable energy, wonderful. If you can produce and use oil, coal and gas, that's even better. Don't be an energy dilettante, we need energy and fuel to produce, survive and grow.

Make your own decisions, if you believe reducing carbon emissions can sell, then sell it. I'm not buying, but your free to peddle pseudo science hype to your heart's content.
PHD

Overton, TX

#31502 Feb 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>How much does it cost you to exhale? You might fly once a year, but you always breathe, adding carbon to the atmosphere. So do your children and pets, humans must emit greenhouse gases or die.
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas; don't hate chemicals. Use your mind, look at the experimental data, see how well the theory works. Climate change mitigation works perfectly in computer models but fail in the real world. The physical data shows climate change from man made greenhouse gas is insignificant, computer models use climate 'feedbacks' to amplify the greenhouse gas effect.
Don't be a fool, don't let your government sell you, they can mitigate climate change. Don't let government mitigate climate change on borrowed spending. Don't let politicians near your climate, if you have an ounce of sense.
Don't let them sell you, taxes are revenue neutral. Taxes are taxes and government spends money wastefully, one doesn't balance the other. A real revenue neutral carbon tax is what we have now, zero tax on emitted carbon dioxide. If you can create green, renewable energy, wonderful. If you can produce and use oil, coal and gas, that's even better. Don't be an energy dilettante, we need energy and fuel to produce, survive and grow.
Make your own decisions, if you believe reducing carbon emissions can sell, then sell it. I'm not buying, but your free to peddle pseudo science hype to your heart's content.
So we agree its all scientific science fiction.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31503 Feb 14, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>How much does it cost you to exhale? You might fly once a year, but you always breathe, adding carbon to the atmosphere. So do your children and pets, humans must emit greenhouse gases or die.
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas; don't hate chemicals. Use your mind, look at the experimental data, see how well the theory works. Climate change mitigation works perfectly in computer models but fail in the real world. The physical data shows climate change from man made greenhouse gas is insignificant, computer models use climate 'feedbacks' to amplify the greenhouse gas effect.
Don't be a fool, don't let your government sell you, they can mitigate climate change. Don't let government mitigate climate change on borrowed spending. Don't let politicians near your climate, if you have an ounce of sense.
Don't let them sell you, taxes are revenue neutral. Taxes are taxes and government spends money wastefully, one doesn't balance the other. A real revenue neutral carbon tax is what we have now, zero tax on emitted carbon dioxide. If you can create green, renewable energy, wonderful. If you can produce and use oil, coal and gas, that's even better. Don't be an energy dilettante, we need energy and fuel to produce, survive and grow.
Make your own decisions, if you believe reducing carbon emissions can sell, then sell it. I'm not buying, but your free to peddle pseudo science hype to your heart's content.
Nobody's talking about reducing our carbon emissions to zero; that's physically impossible. But a reduction of ~25% would be good,~50% would be very good, & ~75% would be outstanding. It'd only work if all of us did it, though.

I don't hate chemicals; I love them. I just want to understand what they'll do. Science helps us understand & predict what'll happen in the future.

EVERYBODY knows mitigation will be problematic after the CO2 is already emitted. Putting hydrates of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, e.g., in an attempt to increase reflective aerosols, could cause more harm than good. That's why it's so important to avoid emitting the CO2 in the 1st place.

You're just dead wrong when you say "...the physical data shows climate change from man made greenhouse gas is insignificant..." On the contrary, careful study has allowed us to understand the climate system & prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that we are now the primary drivers behind climate change. Any other idea is PROFOUNDLY ignorant & arrogant at the same time, surely a dangerous condition.

My government is most assuredly NOT telling me to institute a carbon tax; I'm telling THEM. It may be the only way to reduce the numbers of our children we'll kill.

Let's imagine a large carbon tax that people pay during production or at the pump. ALL of that money can be returned to all legal residents on a monthly basis.

The government already has computers that spit out monthly checks. They already have inspectors to make sure people are paying taxes. The bureaucracy is already in place. They may not always know exactly who is where, but if people are getting money they'll be happy. At MOST, the overhead would be ~1%. OK, so it's "only" ~99% revenue neutral. Big deal.

People who are heavy carbon emitters would pay thru the nose, while low carbon emitters would literally get free money. It'd stimulate creative entrepreneurs to work on renewabe energy. There'd be no need for the government to try to choose a successful Solyndra; the market would choose, because renewable energy would FINALLY be competing on a level playing field.

Lastly you say "...a real revenue neutral carbon tax is what we have now, zero tax on emitted carbon dioxide..." This is the height of PROFOUND anti-scientific ignorance. It's just WRONG.

You are forcing our children to pay for your selfish waste. You are psychotically hallucinating that it's "free." What you are doing is orders of magnitude worse than our national debt. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31504 Feb 14, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody's talking about reducing our carbon emissions to zero; that's physically impossible. But a reduction of ~25% would be good,~50% would be very good, & ~75% would be outstanding. It'd only work if all of us did it, though.
I don't hate chemicals; I love them. I just want to understand what they'll do. Science helps us understand & predict what'll happen in the future.
EVERYBODY knows mitigation will be problematic after the CO2 is already emitted. Putting hydrates of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, e.g., in an attempt to increase reflective aerosols, could cause more harm than good. That's why it's so important to avoid emitting the CO2 in the 1st place.
You're just dead wrong when you say "...the physical data shows climate change from man made greenhouse gas is insignificant..." On the contrary, careful study has allowed us to understand the climate system & prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that we are now the primary drivers behind climate change. Any other idea is PROFOUNDLY ignorant & arrogant at the same time, surely a dangerous condition.
My government is most assuredly NOT telling me to institute a carbon tax; I'm telling THEM. It may be the only way to reduce the numbers of our children we'll kill.
Let's imagine a large carbon tax that people pay during production or at the pump. ALL of that money can be returned to all legal residents on a monthly basis.
The government already has computers that spit out monthly checks. They already have inspectors to make sure people are paying taxes. The bureaucracy is already in place. They may not always know exactly who is where, but if people are getting money they'll be happy. At MOST, the overhead would be ~1%. OK, so it's "only" ~99% revenue neutral. Big deal.
People who are heavy carbon emitters would pay thru the nose, while low carbon emitters would literally get free money. It'd stimulate creative entrepreneurs to work on renewabe energy. There'd be no need for the government to try to choose a successful Solyndra; the market would choose, because renewable energy would FINALLY be competing on a level playing field.
Lastly you say "...a real revenue neutral carbon tax is what we have now, zero tax on emitted carbon dioxide..." This is the height of PROFOUND anti-scientific ignorance. It's just WRONG.
You are forcing our children to pay for your selfish waste. You are psychotically hallucinating that it's "free." What you are doing is orders of magnitude worse than our national debt. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Erratum:
I meant "psychotically hallucinating that it's 'free' TO EMIT CARBON INTO THE ATMOSPHERE WITHOUT RESTRAINT.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#31505 Feb 14, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Erratum:
I meant "psychotically hallucinating that it's 'free' TO EMIT CARBON INTO THE ATMOSPHERE WITHOUT RESTRAINT.
Oops. I forgot to mention that only government can mandate carbon capture. It will always be more expensive over the short term to install carbon capture technology on coal, oil or gas fired power plants. It'll always be cheaper to persist in the psychotic delusion that it's "free" to emit just carbon into the atmosphere.

Yet if we can't get enough energy from conservation, renewable sources & revamped nuclear, our only choice may be burning fossil fuels with carbon capture.

Government is not the enemy. At least if we don't like what they're doing, we can vote them out.

Unless you're a large stockholder, OTOH, you don't get to vote on corporate behavior. Yes, you can take your money elsewhere, but ONLY if a strong government is doing its job & preventing monopolistic & oligopolistic behavior. They usually do well on the former, not so well on the latter.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Farmington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Legal experts analyze CCSD superintendent removal Sat Seeker 1
News Veterans organization suspends local chapter ov... Aug 24 iareheroic 1
News Column: Coal's free ride is costing all of us; ... Aug 24 lolol 1
Barack Obama COUNTDOWN Clock 1000 days left & c... (Apr '14) Aug 23 Sunday 461
News Purple violin causes controversy in classroom (Sep '12) Aug 21 Ted 20
Debate: Gay Marriage - Farmington, NM (Aug '10) Aug 20 maggie 44
News Martinez prefers to stick to issues (Jun '10) Aug 15 Sam A 6,450
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Farmington Mortgages