created by: CitizenTopix | Oct 12, 2010

California

4,322 votes

CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming

Click on an option to vote

  • Yes
  • No
  • Other (explain below)

Comments (Page 290)

Showing posts 5,781 - 5,800 of7,303
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Grover Nor

Baldwin Park, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6192
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Grover Norquist, and it is hard for the Republicans to accept this, but Grover Norquist is a Muslim Brotherhood facilitator.

Now, he's very popular because of his tax position and the influence that he has over taxes. But the fact of the matter is Grover is the one who brought in Suhail Khan into the conservative movement and has staunchly defended Suhail Khan, who is the son of a very radical Islamic cleric who had Ayman al-Zawahiri in his mosque in San Diego a decade ago raising funds, essentially to support terrorism.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/boykin-...

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6193
Nov 11, 2012
 
james marple wrote:
A blizzard of trivial, irrelevant, false and/or misleading information about 'global warming' has been effective in preventing sensible comment on this and most other forums.
Every scientist competent in the fields of biology-paleoclimate-meteorolo gy-geology-geography knows that our planet has been rewarming over the 20,000 years since the last Ice Age, just as it did between each of the previous ice ages, and that it has not reached temperatures as high as those in many of the previous periods between glacial maximums.
Every capable researcher knows;
-- a) that increased plant and animal growth as a result of this 'normal' rewarming causes increased production of carbon dioxide, which promotes more rapid growth of plants and animals, that in turn accelerate the production of CO2, until a point of balance is reached, and
-- b) that expansion of human and cattle populations has added a nearly insignficant amount of additional production of CO2 and methane, and
-- c) that a rise in global temperature inevitably causes release of some of the enormous volume of natural gases locked into "clathrates" in frozen soils and under cold offshore waters.
Wise researchers and honest politicians recognize the value of all that 'frozen' natural gas and are working hard despite opposition from energy producers and the phony "environmentalists" they sponsor to make this cheap, clean fuel available for use, most notably in fuel cells that emit no air pollution, only pure water.
Thoughtful people realize that the hundreds of billions of dollars extorted from the public by 'green' schemes (carbon credits-windpower-solar cells) would have brought enormous public benefits in the form of widespred use of hydropower, natural gas and the offshore 'clathrates'. The loss of that wealth is just a fraction of the total loss resulting from not using all sources of energy properly.
The false premises and misleading information posted on this and other forums is intended to muddy the water of discussion so that concerned citizens do not communicate effectively to discover the total size and scope of this unreported war between conscientions scientists and the ones who invent and preach global warming mythologies.
Public forum members who continue to contribute foolish distractions are comparable to the paid agents of energy cartels and corporations. These are, in essence, criminals whose actions deprive us all of plentiful cheap energy, wasting funds and opportunities to reduce the suffering and stravation that keeps our world locked into incessant warfare.
Yes, we can each do something useful toward improving our world.
Speaking out firmly to provide information-ideas-opinions that drown out the chatter would be a first and most important step toward recovering from the steep decline of our society that mindless verbiage has caused.
And you couldn't be more wrong, nearly every single scientist involved in Climate Research agrees it is happening AND we are causing it, the jump in CO2 levels alone should be enough evidence.

But I doubt you would even understand.

You are probably are a Creationist too, you fit the profile, anti-science.
little drummer tard

Pulaski, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6194
Nov 11, 2012
 
Pete-o wrote:
<quoted text>
And you couldn't be more wrong, nearly every single scientist involved in Climate Research agrees it is happening AND we are causing it, the jump in CO2 levels alone should be enough evidence.
But I doubt you would even understand.
You are probably are a Creationist too, you fit the profile, anti-science.
Rumpa pum pum!!!!

Consensus SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!

Me guilty polar bears dying!!!!

Why not me blow brains out?

Me breathe polar bear air!!!

RUMPA PUM PUM!!!!!!!!!!

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6195
Nov 11, 2012
 
little drummer tard wrote:
<quoted text>
Rumpa pum pum!!!!
Consensus SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!
Me guilty polar bears dying!!!!
Why not me blow brains out?
Me breathe polar bear air!!!
RUMPA PUM PUM!!!!!!!!!!
Over and over again, how brilliant.
Irving

Pulaski, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6196
Nov 11, 2012
 
Pete-o wrote:
<quoted text>
Over and over again, how brilliant.
A kindergartener looks like Einstein next to a pathetic sack of excrement who said "I meant to do that".
BangaBanga

Baldwin Park, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6197
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Stupid Freeking Republicans are trying the same stupid Confederate states tries, and look what happened to those idiots!
RiccardoFire

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6198
Nov 11, 2012
 
Pete-o wrote:
<quoted text>
And you couldn't be more wrong, nearly every single scientist involved in Climate Research agrees it is happening AND we are causing it, the jump in CO2 levels alone should be enough evidence.
But I doubt you would even understand.
You are probably are a Creationist too, you fit the profile, anti-science.
Al Gore does. "it is happening" Do you mean the climate is changing or global warming? The big problem most of us have is the part that "we are causing it" Most scientist will say that is not true.

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6199
Nov 11, 2012
 
Irving wrote:
<quoted text>
A kindergartener looks like Einstein next to a pathetic sack of excrement who said "I meant to do that".
It was a joke dipshyt.
Rethumpedlicans

Anderson, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6200
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

james marple wrote:
A blizzard of trivial, irrelevant, false and/or misleading information about 'global warming' has been effective in preventing sensible comment on this and most other forums.
Every scientist competent in the fields of biology-paleoclimate-meteorolo gy-geology-geography knows that our planet has been rewarming over the 20,000 years since the last Ice Age, just as it did between each of the previous ice ages, and that it has not reached temperatures as high as those in many of the previous periods between glacial maximums.
Every capable researcher knows;
-- a) that increased plant and animal growth as a result of this 'normal' rewarming causes increased production of carbon dioxide, which promotes more rapid growth of plants and animals, that in turn accelerate the production of CO2, until a point of balance is reached, and
-- b) that expansion of human and cattle populations has added a nearly insignficant amount of additional production of CO2 and methane, and
-- c) that a rise in global temperature inevitably causes release of some of the enormous volume of natural gases locked into "clathrates" in frozen soils and under cold offshore waters.
Wise researchers and honest politicians recognize the value of all that 'frozen' natural gas and are working hard despite opposition from energy producers and the phony "environmentalists" they sponsor to make this cheap, clean fuel available for use, most notably in fuel cells that emit no air pollution, only pure water.
Thoughtful people realize that the hundreds of billions of dollars extorted from the public by 'green' schemes (carbon credits-windpower-solar cells) would have brought enormous public benefits in the form of widespred use of hydropower, natural gas and the offshore 'clathrates'. The loss of that wealth is just a fraction of the total loss resulting from not using all sources of energy properly.
The false premises and misleading information posted on this and other forums is intended to muddy the water of discussion so that concerned citizens do not communicate effectively to discover the total size and scope of this unreported war between conscientions scientists and the ones who invent and preach global warming mythologies.
Public forum members who continue to contribute foolish distractions are comparable to the paid agents of energy cartels and corporations. These are, in essence, criminals whose actions deprive us all of plentiful cheap energy, wasting funds and opportunities to reduce the suffering and stravation that keeps our world locked into incessant warfare.
Yes, we can each do something useful toward improving our world.
Speaking out firmly to provide information-ideas-opinions that drown out the chatter would be a first and most important step toward recovering from the steep decline of our society that mindless verbiage has caused.
you are one of those dimented fools who thinks that allowing our multi national oil cartel to drill all the domestic oil they want, would somehow lower the price of gasoline.???

all the crude oil that ANY big oil company drills,(except those that are nationalized), is sold dircetly to te highest bidder on the world market......remember?? we have global markets??

and if those markets are to be purly capitalistic and unfettered??

they will have to stick to the rules of how business is done.

ps: that was funny how you said our posts sounded like paid for propaghanda.....when that is exactly what we are here battleing against it.....you are a prime example!!

but that is a classic rethuglican tactic.......muddy the waters, by accusing those who fight you of doing what they accusing YOU of.......... its about the lamest old trick in the book.....

pps: you make it sound as if oil companies?? if left to their own devices will rescue the poor and downtrodden(while they steal their oil, presumably)

you obviously have little grasp, of the force used by THE US, already to extract energy resources
RiccardoFire

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6201
Nov 11, 2012
 
Is the climate changing? Of course. The climate always has changed and always will.

Is the earth getting warmer? We should hope so for at least two reasons: First, the world emerged from the Little Ice Age in the 19th century, so it would be worrisome if it weren’t getting warmer. Second, all the history indicates that humans thrive more during warmer periods than colder ones. It is likely, though, that earth has warmed less than many official temperature records indicate for a variety of reasons, including: few long-term records from either the southern hemisphere or the 71 percent of the planet that is covered by water; distortions from the urban heat-island effect and other faulty siting (e.g., temperature sensors next to asphalt parking lots, etc.; the decline in weather station reports from Siberia after the fall of the Soviet government; the arbitrarily ceasing to include measurements from northern latitudes and high elevations, etc.) The most accurate measures of temperature come from satellites. Since the start of these measurements in 1979, they show minor fluctuations and an insignificant net change in global temperature.

Is the earth getting dangerously warm? Probably not, since the earth was warmer than it is now in 7000 of the last 10,000 years. By the way, does anybody know what the “right” amount of global heat is?
RiccardoFire

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6202
Nov 11, 2012
 
Pete-o wrote:
<quoted text>
And you couldn't be more wrong, nearly every single scientist involved in Climate Research agrees it is happening AND we are causing it, the jump in CO2 levels alone should be enough evidence.
But I doubt you would even understand.
You are probably are a Creationist too, you fit the profile, anti-science.
Are we humans causing the warming by our carbon emissions? Actually, most of the “greenhouse effect” is due to water vapor, which makes one wonder why the EPA hasn’t designated H2O a harmful pollutant that they must regulate. Meteorologist Brian Sussman’s calculations in his book “Climategate” show humanity’s share of the greenhouse effect as .9 of 1 percent.

It’s even possible that CO2 may not affect global warming at all. During many stretches of planetary history, there has been no correlation between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. In other long stretches, the variations of the two factors followed a significant sequence: increases in CO2 followed increases in warmth by several centuries. You don’t need to have a degree in climate science to know that, in a temporal universe, cause does not follow its effect.

Even global warming alarmists have tacitly conceded that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change when they responded to the relative cooling in recent years by changing their story and telling us that the earth is likely to cool for a few decades in spite of still-increasing atmospheric CO2. Translation: other factors outweigh CO2 in their impact on global temperatures. Those other factors include variations in solar activity (accounting for 3/4 of the variability in earth’s temperature according to the Marshall Institute); changes in earth’s orbit and axis; albedo (reflectivity, meaning changes in cloud cover which are influenced by fluctuations in gamma ray activity); and volcanic and tectonic activity in the earth’s crust. For humans to presume that they are more than a gnat on an elephant’s rump in terms of impact on climate change is vain and delusive.
RiccardoFire

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6203
Nov 11, 2012
 
RiccardoFire

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6204
Nov 11, 2012
 
During the cap-and-trade debates in 2009 and 2010, proponents cited scientific studies predicting that curtailing American CO2 emission reductions would shave a few hundredths of a degree off future temperatures. And the costs? The United Nations published an estimate that the total planetary cost could reach $552 trillion (approximately a decade’s worth of global GDP) over the course of the 21st century.

One is tempted to say that proposing so colossal a cost for so minuscule an alleged benefit is insane; remember, for plants, animals, and people, warmer is better. When one begins to grasp the magnitude of the burden that people would bear as a result of spending so much to tilt at the carbon dioxide windmill, it’s worse than insane; it’s criminal.

Who would benefit from this catastrophically expensive agenda? Only the political and politically connected elite—the Goldman Sachs outfits that would reap billions from trading carbon permits; the Al Gores and corporate and political insiders that would amass fortunes from their ties to a government-rigged energy market and investments in politically correct technologies. And think of the power that governments would have if they controlled energy consumption. By controlling energy, you control people. No wonder governments have spent tens of billions of dollars promoting this scenario and supporting political panels like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to disseminate the desired “findings.”

Always glad to see reason and facts in support of promulgating knowledge of climate! Fear is an effective tool in support of any agenda. Opposing fear can be a fearful thing to do.
StealingEyes

Baldwin Park, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6205
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

According to a 2011 memoir by former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Norquist was one of Abramoff's first major Republican party contacts.

Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform were also mentioned in Senate testimony relating to the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal which resulted in a 2006 guilty plea by Abramoff to three criminal felony counts of defrauding of American Indian tribes and corrupting public officials.

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6206
Nov 11, 2012
 
Rethumpedlicans wrote:
<quoted text>
you are one of those dimented fools who thinks that allowing our multi national oil cartel to drill all the domestic oil they want, would somehow lower the price of gasoline.???
all the crude oil that ANY big oil company drills,(except those that are nationalized), is sold dircetly to te highest bidder on the world market......remember?? we have global markets??
and if those markets are to be purly capitalistic and unfettered??
they will have to stick to the rules of how business is done.
ps: that was funny how you said our posts sounded like paid for propaghanda.....when that is exactly what we are here battleing against it.....you are a prime example!!
but that is a classic rethuglican tactic.......muddy the waters, by accusing those who fight you of doing what they accusing YOU of.......... its about the lamest old trick in the book.....
pps: you make it sound as if oil companies?? if left to their own devices will rescue the poor and downtrodden(while they steal their oil, presumably)
you obviously have little grasp, of the force used by THE US, already to extract energy resources
It's an argument that repubs keep bringing up and I don't understand why they aren't corrected more.

If they think if we drill more oil here and it would bring prices down, that means it would be nationalized, which they are vehemently against supposedly.

It is one example of them not understanding what irony is.

Since: Jan 08

San Mateo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6207
Nov 11, 2012
 
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Are we humans causing the warming by our carbon emissions? Actually, most of the “greenhouse effect” is due to water vapor, which makes one wonder why the EPA hasn’t designated H2O a harmful pollutant that they must regulate. Meteorologist Brian Sussman’s calculations in his book “Climategate” show humanity’s share of the greenhouse effect as .9 of 1 percent.
It’s even possible that CO2 may not affect global warming at all. During many stretches of planetary history, there has been no correlation between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. In other long stretches, the variations of the two factors followed a significant sequence: increases in CO2 followed increases in warmth by several centuries. You don’t need to have a degree in climate science to know that, in a temporal universe, cause does not follow its effect.
Even global warming alarmists have tacitly conceded that CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change when they responded to the relative cooling in recent years by changing their story and telling us that the earth is likely to cool for a few decades in spite of still-increasing atmospheric CO2. Translation: other factors outweigh CO2 in their impact on global temperatures. Those other factors include variations in solar activity (accounting for 3/4 of the variability in earth’s temperature according to the Marshall Institute); changes in earth’s orbit and axis; albedo (reflectivity, meaning changes in cloud cover which are influenced by fluctuations in gamma ray activity); and volcanic and tectonic activity in the earth’s crust. For humans to presume that they are more than a gnat on an elephant’s rump in terms of impact on climate change is vain and delusive.
Brian Sussman is a radical right wing shill and a meteorologist not a climate scientist.
The CO2 is a contributor and our real enemy is acidification of the oceans.

So I can't take anything Sussman says, he's a kook.
RiccardoFire

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6208
Nov 11, 2012
 
StealingEyes wrote:
According to a 2011 memoir by former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Norquist was one of Abramoff's first major Republican party contacts.
Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform were also mentioned in Senate testimony relating to the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal which resulted in a 2006 guilty plea by Abramoff to three criminal felony counts of defrauding of American Indian tribes and corrupting public officials.
Since you are so concerned about Native Americans, I think the people of Covina should leave and give the land back to The Tongva who were there first and had their land stolen.
RiccardoFire

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6209
Nov 11, 2012
 
Pete-o wrote:
<quoted text>
Brian Sussman is a radical right wing shill and a meteorologist not a climate scientist.
The CO2 is a contributor and our real enemy is acidification of the oceans.
So I can't take anything Sussman says, he's a kook.
What is Al Gore? You take him seriously, why? He flunked science. Nice Liberal response, attack the source, not the content. Ocean life evolved and survived far higher levels of CO2 for millions of years in the past.

Marine organisms actively create carbonate shells (using energy) which means crustacea, corals and molluscs aren’t automatically prey to pH changes in the same way that say a limestone rock would be.

The world’s oceans may have warmed a mere 0.17C since 1955, hardly a significant threat to marine life.

We also find out that acidic water is added to the ocean from rainfall and floods
RiccardoFire

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6210
Nov 11, 2012
 
The latest scare is the possible effect of extra CO2 on the world’s oceans, because more CO2 lowers the pH of seawater. While it is claimed that this makes the water more acidic, this is misleading. Since seawater has a pH around 8.1, it will take an awful lot of CO2 it to even make the water neutral (pH=7), let alone acidic (pH less than 7).

In fact, ocean acidification is a scientific impossibility. Henry's Law mandates that warming oceans will outgas CO2 to the atmosphere (as the UN's own documents predict it will), making the oceans less acid. Also, more CO2 would increase calcification rates. No comprehensive, reliable measurement of worldwide oceanic acid/base balance has ever been carried out: therefore, there is no observational basis for the computer models' guess that acidification of 0.1 pH units has occurred in recent decades
RiccardoFire

Elk Grove, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6211
Nov 11, 2012
 
Scientists have politics too -- sometimes extreme politics

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 5,781 - 5,800 of7,303
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••

Palm Springs Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Palm Springs People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••