Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

[tina anne]

deferstoexperts wrote:

notice how deniers make claim after claim and offer no proof or links to back it up?
they are basing their belief on the fact that liberals are speaking about it, therefore they don't believe it.
i remember they reacted the same way to scientific evidence of air pollution, water pollution, loss of wetlands and old growth forests.
i'm reminded of a bumper sticker i once saw...
"drink only fouled water
breathe only polluted air
eat only tainted meat
help only yourself
vote only republican"

I notice that you have yet to post a link. Does that mean you are a denier?

[SpaceBlues]

Jeffrey MacDonald wrote:

<quoted text>
You would be better served and follow your own advice on a previous post, no name calling.
Now please answer the question about the perfect climate.

The poster name is "Tank." Speak English??

I'm not into perfect anything. What I like is perfect for me.

[tina anne]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Let's face it. You don't have a thing to say other than name calling.
Care to read some?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Accelerating-...
http://e360.yale.edu/slideshow/hawaii_carbon_...
http://www.environmentamerica.org/sites/envir...
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases...

Funny, but I didn't see any name calling.

[SpaceBlues]

Mimee wrote:

<quoted text>
.. There is no acceptable climate to satisfy alarmists.

You are so unaware of the undeniable global warming - check the title of the thread - yet you continue with name calling.

Read up my links to learn something relevant.

[tina anne]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>You are so unaware of the undeniable global warming - check the title of the thread - yet you continue with name calling.
Read up my links to learn something relevant.

Relevant what, propaganda. Lets start with the first a well know alarmist propaganda site run but a gent who could not get a job because his views made him unemployable. The second the Yale site has such an bias and is staffed by those who must of educated the gent who owns skepticalscience. The third was another one of those doom and gloom enviromental groups that alarmist seem to love for the fact that they are doom and gloom. And lets not forget the last one. Who mission statement reads more like Greenpeace's cover for propaganda dressed up as research.

Yes the earth is warming but has been since the end of the last ice age which is something you seem to be in denial about. The Greenland Ice Sheet is melting and has been for the most part since the end of the last ice age as well. I sure if you were to look back ten thousand years ago that it was part of a much larger ice sheet.

And yes I have read the title of the this thread and have helped prove that those scientist were only trying to end the arguement before the shoddy research they had conducted had been discovered as such. That is when all you were whining about how it was over and completely undenialable. Then it was discovered that the IPCC sources were opinion articles published in the WWF mag. That the CRU had conspired to cook the numbers and hide data that did not support AGW. Then in June 2008 the first big hole when a climate scientist published a peer reviewed study in a journal.

Now the title should read that man made global warming is undeniably wrong. The earth is warming, that is undeniable just as the fact it has been doing so since the last ice age.

[Lanny D]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>You are so unaware of the undeniable global warming - check the title of the thread - yet you continue with name calling.
Read up my links to learn something relevant.

Couple things following this thread, only you are doing the name calling and you refuse to answer simple questions.

[tina anne]

Lanny D wrote:

<quoted text>
Couple things following this thread, only you are doing the name calling and you refuse to answer simple questions.

He isn't the only one.

[okboston]

Jeffrey MacDonald wrote:

<quoted text>
Misinformation
Reagan doubled government tax revenues with a rockin economy. Top tax rate dropped from 70% to 28%.
Obama has deficits in one month what Reagan had in a year.

Reagan nearly doubled the SS/Medicare taxes on the self-employed small business owner. Facts are not misinformation despite what you want to believe.

He used the increased revenues from the increased SS/Medicare taxes to hide the deficits being run through his tax cut to the rich.

He also increased the capital gains rate back to 28% as well.

How many times did the debt limit have to be increased under Reagan?

Clinton raised taxes and created more jobs than Reagan. bush cut taxes and created only 3,000,000 jobs of which 2,000,000 were government jobs.

[okboston]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
And the point I have been trying to make to you is that you were wrong. The point is that those receiving Social Security paid into it while those on Welfare have not contributed one penny.
Every month those who work have money deducted out of thier paycheck for both Social Security and Medicare. So someone who started working when they were 18 and retired at 68 have invested money for fifty years. Those on welfare have yet to invest a penny into welfare.
If anything you are the one worried about dimes when dollars are being wasted on people who have never worked a day in thier life and never intended to.
Then again I am wondering if the real issue is that as a supporter of Obama's Health Care plan that you realize that those senior citizens are the flaw in the plan. Toss those people on the street and leave them eating cat food and soon you can rid the world of those who will insure that Obama's health care plan will never generate the results promised. Of course those on welfare can be encouraged to die early with a diet of fried and processed foods.

Those receiving SS and Medicare paid for others to recieve it. The money they are spending now is that of today's workers. It is wealth transfer from the working to the non-working.

Take what is in the trust funds today, figure out each persons share based on their contributions and what if any they have recieved, issue each person one check and say it is over.

Healthcare: The US pays more per capita than any other nation on earth.

Out of 23 procedures measured, such as an MRI, the US pays more than any other nation on 22 of them.

Most nationns pay about 11% of GDP on medicine, one pays as little as 7%. They all do as good or better than the US on a number of measurement (longevity, infant mortality, vaccinations, etc...) and we spend about 17% of GDP and rising.

The healthcare bill may not be the best answer, but is a heck of a sight better than what we are doing.

[SpaceBlues]

Lanny D wrote:

<quoted text>
Couple things following this thread, only you are doing the name calling and you refuse to answer simple questions.

HUH

You are out of touch with reality. What name calling? What simple questions to answer?

[okboston]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
The goverment has a legal obligation to repay those people since they required those people to invest. They did not have an option. Meanwhile they goverment pays people to not work. People who have never worked a day in their entire lives.
How about the people who have never contributed one single red cent instead of those who have contributed a large portion of thier income. After all, those on welfare have never contributed one single penny. Now if they were to get jobs and pay thier own way then the goverment would receive money from them instead of paying them.

Find the legal obligation and I might believe you. But you can not because it does not exist.

[Lanny D]

Reagan had 200 billion in annual deficits, Obama does that in one month. Reagan doubled tax revenues by cutting top bracket from 70-28%.

Dem congress allowed this in Exchange only for tax increases.

We both know Reagan would have been happy increasing no taxes and reducing the budget. But to get his top tax bracket reduced he negotiated with a Dem congress.

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
Reagan nearly doubled the SS/Medicare taxes on the self-employed small business owner. Facts are not misinformation despite what you want to believe.
He used the increased revenues from the increased SS/Medicare taxes to hide the deficits being run through his tax cut to the rich.
He also increased the capital gains rate back to 28% as well.
How many times did the debt limit have to be increased under Reagan?
Clinton raised taxes and created more jobs than Reagan. bush cut taxes and created only 3,000,000 jobs of which 2,000,000 were government jobs.

[SpaceBlues]

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
Reagan nearly doubled the SS/Medicare taxes on the self-employed small business owner. Facts are not misinformation despite what you want to believe.
He used the increased revenues from the increased SS/Medicare taxes to hide the deficits being run through his tax cut to the rich.
He also increased the capital gains rate back to 28% as well.
How many times did the debt limit have to be increased under Reagan?
Clinton raised taxes and created more jobs than Reagan. bush cut taxes and created only 3,000,000 jobs of which 2,000,000 were government jobs.

you sound about right.

I don't know who thinks otherwise to give you bad judgements. But a rewrite of history is wrong about Reagan. He was bad for the working people in USA. You did not mention the inflation rate that he bloated as well.

[okboston]

Cold Hard Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Far and away Reagan had net tax decreases. Do the math going from 70 to 28%.
That doubled government tax revenues.

If you want the real decreased, how much did the effective income tax change in relation to the SS/Medicare tax for each income quintile?

Some at the bottom ended up paying more in taxes.

[jwcool64]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny, but I didn't see any name calling.

liberals tend to be ultra-sensitive.....

[okboston]

frontporchreactionary wrote:

@Mothra, "If you can, please tell us about the deregulation that caused the collapse." You've seen the deregulation policies of Senator Phil Graham and G W Bush a million times in the newspaper(do you understand that Allan Greenspan is a neo-classical economist,like Milton Friedman , and what neoclassical economics is based on? That's right ,economic deregulation or uncontrolled growth for growth's sake. A Short History of Glass-Steagall and the Result of Its Murder
... the Johnson –Reed Act ... enter stage right, Phil Graham ... in a position to rig the game. Regulation of derivatives falls within the purview of the Commodity Futures ...
www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Business_1/A-Sh... ...." Phil Graham and a Republican party that believed (and still does believe) that it had found legitimacy and an intellectual voice in Ayn Rand and Objectivism, a generally selfish and soulless pseudo-philosophy with particular appeal to the "me firsters." Would America be a better place if Rand had stayed in Russia, or better yet never learned to read and For some twenty years Republicans had been trying to repeal Glass-Steagall. Twelve times legislation was introduced and eleven times it failed. In Graham they found the water carrier who would finally get the job done. With the passage of the Graham-Leach-Bliley act (officially the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999) in November of that year the job was done, Glass-Steagall was at last officially dead."... Thanks to deregulation in one case and the absence of regulation in the other, banks were able to purchase large blocks of mortgages, divide them into tiers (some likely to paid off, others not so likely), make one profit by selling the packages and another by betting on the lower tier to fail, even though they no longer had a proprietary interest in the loans. There are a number of other reasons why unregulated CDSs can be a threat to America's economy but most significant is that they are another source of unsecured debt. They can, on the other hand, be terribly profitable, particularly if you are in a position to rig the game.Â
Regulation of derivatives falls within the purview of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and during the mid 1990s the CFTC was led by an intelligent, capable and forceful woman named Brooksley Born. In the mid 1990s Ms. Born recognized the particular peril CDSs represented and set about writing regulations to reel them in. She was at once opposed by the triumvirate of Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers and Robert Ruben. In a nut shell, Ms. Born was shouted down, the CDSs market continued to grow unchecked until it played it's part in the crash of 2008 and Greenspan and Summers would be joined by Tim Geithner and go on to become players in the Obama administration.
For an outstanding report on the Born, et. al. battle go the PBS Frontline documentary, The Warning, here:
http://www.pbs.org/..." ;

The Graham, Bligh, etc... bill only legitimized what was already allowed to happen in the Marketplace by Citigroup and others.

Deregulation happens 4 ways:

1. Straight forward throught the removal of legistlative actions.

2. Reduction of regulation for political philosophy reasons. Obama administration regulates carbon emissions and the next administration stops doing it.

3. Underfunding agency positions so that the agency does not have enough employee's to adequately perform its mission.

4. Underpay government employees so that they are unable to get the best and brightest. The top 5 employee's of each of the top 10 fianance companies make more than the entire budget of the agency that regaulates them.(1.e., the top 5 Citigroup employees make more than the entire budget of their regulating agency.)

[jwcool64]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>you sound about right.
I don't know who thinks otherwise to give you bad judgements. But a rewrite of history is wrong about Reagan. He was bad for the working people in USA. You did not mention the inflation rate that he bloated as well.

The ONLY people Reagan may have been "bad" for were the ones expecting a HAND OUT...you obviously don't know squat about Reagan....ps, there was alot to correct after your hero Carter royally screwed this country up......

[okboston]

Lanny D wrote:

Reagan had 200 billion in annual deficits, Obama does that in one month. Reagan doubled tax revenues by cutting top bracket from 70-28%.
Dem congress allowed this in Exchange only for tax increases.
We both know Reagan would have been happy increasing no taxes and reducing the budget. But to get his top tax bracket reduced he negotiated with a Dem congress.
<quoted text>

He q
LMAO

How many times did Reagan increase taxes as Governor of California? He was a tax increaser.

[litesong]

Mimee wrote:

..Please define the perfect climate.

Since when did you have the education to assign homework, specially homework that doesn't mean anything! Did you even get a hi skule deegreee. You must be a relative of 'mememine69', alias 'me me me getting mine in the 69 position'.

[jwcool64]

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
He q
LMAO
How many times did Reagan increase taxes as Governor of California? He was a tax increaser.

but then he "grew up" and became a Republican...You silly liberals always leave out the happy ending.....