Jump to content


Photo

Global warming skeptics send letter to Congress urging members not


  • Please log in to reply
265 replies to this topic

#136 waldo

waldo

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,902 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 March 2011 - 03:00 PM

Please stop filibustering. It's a very easy issue. In 2009, Obama passed an OMNIBUS spending bill that greatly increased discretionary spending. He also passed his economic stimulus bill which also had a discretionary spending increase. He now wants to freeze those elevated levels of spending. Republicans disagree, and are seeking to cut those levels, which were suppose to be temporary. It has nothing to do with the verbal diarrhea of a response your last two paragraphs entail. The Democrats didn't even pass a budget for FY 2010, let alone FY 2012. :rolleyes:

predictable! ShadyPractices pulls out the go-to "filibustering" bluster... look, it's really not that difficult to understand. U.S. government agencies today are generally operating at 2010 spending levels... uhhh... cause budgets are outstanding - hence, wait for it, wait for it... we are discussing the proposed Republican "war on science" spending cuts. Again, particularly in relation to my reference that the House Appropriations Committee has phrased the proposed Republican cuts in the context of 2010 spending, your continued beat-on about 2009 "Obama stimulus spending" is the... verbal diarrhea!

It seems quite contradicting to your claim, that the U.S. Congressional Appropriations Committee unveiled the proposed Republican cuts, a list of programs it planned to pare as part of legislation to roll back discretionary federal spending in the 2012 fiscal year's budget to, $35 billion below 2010 levels, without regard to attachment, so-called stimulus, or otherwise. Repeat... 2010 levels... no reference to your puffery concerning your stated emphasis on the 2009 stimulus spending level, the spending you solely tagged as the, "Obama stimulus". Yes... Shady facts and actual facts!

clearly, your ShadyDubiousSources are dated in terms of what the Democrats have presented, particularly in regards your stated "Obama freeze" reference... what the Democrats have most recently presented is a bill that would set discretionary spending at $1.08 trillion - much less than the Obama 2011 budget request. Of course, if we actually were presented with the ShadyDubiousSources.....

#137 jbg

jbg

    Justin Trudeau - Intellect in Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NYC Area (40 Trudeau Units from NYC)
  • Interests:Politics, running, skiing

Posted 06 March 2011 - 05:22 PM

predictable! ShadyPractices ******** ShadyDubiousSources*********ShadyDubiousSources.....

For bad jokes, bad puns and personal attacks you sure are the king.
Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone."
==============
If it's us or them, I choose us.
==============
Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location?

#138 waldo

waldo

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,902 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 March 2011 - 11:12 PM

still smarting, hey jbg? :lol: btw... thanks for your most illuminating summation of the lukinWay™ dropped link... after all, lukin doesn't have the wherewithal to do anything but blindly drop links without any summation/commentary. Someone has to do it... good on ya, for stepping up!!! Even if you faceplanted :lol:

For bad jokes, bad puns and personal attacks you sure are the king.


notwithstanding your opinionated, most subjective, critical eye review on jokes/puns... I have presented no personal attacks. Your quoted references are simply explanatory, descriptive aids. Now, if you had pointed out someone labeling you a constant whiny pissant, that might be construed as more than an opinionated, most subjective, critical eye review on jokes/puns.

#139 GostHacked

GostHacked

    Watching you watching me.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,484 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa, ON Canada

Posted 07 March 2011 - 04:12 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-12647657

The commission is also set to recommend that some of the 20% reduction can be achieved through buying emission credits from overseas, rather than entirely through cuts at home.

The analysis - leaked in a draft version of the road-map two weeks ago - said the price of carbon should be maintained through "setting aside" some of the allowances to emit that EU nations will receive for the period 2013-2020.

However, the BBC's source said this set-aside would not now be happening.

The door will be left open to adopting a 30% target if there is a new global deal under the UN climate negotiations.


Buying credits does not reduce the amount of emissions, it only allows you to pollute more, but you gotta pay for it.

"The smokestack industries of Europe are wrong when they claim that the only way to meet our targets is through de-industrialisation; investing in new clean energy technologies will actually boost economic activity," she told BBC News.

"They also fail to mention that many of them are handsomely profiting from the sale of spare emissions permits which leave them largely untouched by requirements to reduce emissions."


Edited by GostHacked, 07 March 2011 - 04:14 AM.

Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser
ohm on soundcloud.com

#140 sunsettommy

sunsettommy

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 648 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 April 2011 - 09:06 PM

I mean... really, c'mon wyly... that countering denier letter sent to the U.S. Congress was certainly justified given the unnerving "call to arms" invoked by the earlier letter from scientists who simply asked the U.S. Congress to, "put aside politics, and take a 'fresh look' at climate data". Imagine the trepidation felt by the deniers when they read that initial letter, particularly the following selected extract... oh my... imagine scientists calling for Congressional hearings to understand climate science - actually offering to assist in developing a rational and practical national policy! Just exactly what are the deniers afraid of when they read the following?


I skimmed over this thread.

I wonder why you are against people in examining the information?

#141 Oleg Bach

Oleg Bach

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lower east side TO

Posted 06 April 2011 - 05:34 AM

Stop calling it global warming and call it climate destruction...or destruction of the natural world that sustains us. So-called skeptics are always those that are doing well finacially - the poor and miserable of the world are not skeptical about the fact that they are hungry and going to get more so in the future.

#142 sunsettommy

sunsettommy

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 648 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 April 2011 - 04:11 PM

Stop calling it global warming and call it climate destruction...or destruction of the natural world that sustains us. So-called skeptics are always those that are doing well finacially - the poor and miserable of the world are not skeptical about the fact that they are hungry and going to get more so in the future.


The usual undefined and illogical,skeptics are well supported financially pablum.

A few million spread over 20 years versus BILLIONS a year for Greenpeace.Or billions a year for the AGW believing scientists.

:rolleyes:

#143 bloodyminded

bloodyminded

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,411 posts

Posted 07 April 2011 - 02:59 AM

The usual undefined and illogical,skeptics are well supported financially pablum.

A few million spread over 20 years versus BILLIONS a year for Greenpeace.Or billions a year for the AGW believing scientists.

:rolleyes:



What was Greenpeace's part is navigating climate change theories? What did they have to do with it?
As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.
--Josh Billings

#144 Oleg Bach

Oleg Bach

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lower east side TO

Posted 07 April 2011 - 04:37 AM

The usual undefined and illogical,skeptics are well supported financially pablum.

A few million spread over 20 years versus BILLIONS a year for Greenpeace.Or billions a year for the AGW believing scientists.

:rolleyes:



It is a fact that the climate has change within my life time - and it is not natural or some thousand year cyclical thing. It is most definetly human activity...You do not see such evolution in wheather in less than one human life span....Skeptics are usually people who like the way things are and when they pass from this world they will yell one thing to the next generation "F**k YOU!"

#145 sunsettommy

sunsettommy

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 648 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 April 2011 - 06:22 AM

What was Greenpeace's part is navigating climate change theories? What did they have to do with it?


It is pitiful that you do not know what role Greenpeace has had in this area.

They are one of the groups who attack AGW skeptics on what they say about the climate.

They have produced the funding canard in the past against skeptics.Who get a pittance compared to Greenpeace,James Hansen and Al Gore.

#146 Oleg Bach

Oleg Bach

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lower east side TO

Posted 07 April 2011 - 06:24 AM

It is pitiful that you do not know what role Greenpeace has had in this area.

They are one of the groups who attack AGW skeptics on what they say about the climate.

They have produced the funding canard in the past against skeptics.Who get a pittance compared to Greenpeace,James Hansen and Al Gore.

Al Gore is a funny guy - kind of like the fellow who sells pain killers out side the burn unit.

#147 sunsettommy

sunsettommy

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 648 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 April 2011 - 06:35 AM

It is a fact that the climate has change within my life time - and it is not natural or some thousand year cyclical thing. It is most definetly human activity...You do not see such evolution in wheather in less than one human life span....Skeptics are usually people who like the way things are and when they pass from this world they will yell one thing to the next generation "F**k YOU!"



Of course climate changes.It does it all the time.

The warming trend from 1978-2000 is almost identical from 1920-1940 and from the late 1800's as well.

1860-1880

LINK

1920-1940

LINK

1978-1998

LINK

Since 2001,the warming trend has vanished.

LINK

"Unnatural" warming trend is not showing up.

Edited by sunsettommy, 07 April 2011 - 06:37 AM.


#148 Michael Hardner

Michael Hardner

    Senior Member

  • Forum Facilitator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,166 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Badlist: Leafless
    Goodlist: August1991, Canuck E Stan

Posted 07 April 2011 - 06:40 AM

Hi Sunset....

I have nothing against Blogs per se, but when it comes to the science it isn't very convincing to cite blogs to prove anything. Even the best of them have been shown to have an agenda here.

Best to go directly to the climate scientists - and there are skeptics there if that's what you're looking for.

#149 sunsettommy

sunsettommy

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 648 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 April 2011 - 06:43 AM

Hi Sunset....

I have nothing against Blogs per se, but when it comes to the science it isn't very convincing to cite blogs to prove anything. Even the best of them have been shown to have an agenda here.

Best to go directly to the climate scientists - and there are skeptics there if that's what you're looking for.


The links I posted are completely based on HADCRUT data.

#150 Oleg Bach

Oleg Bach

    Senior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lower east side TO

Posted 07 April 2011 - 06:49 AM

Hi Sunset....

I have nothing against Blogs per se, but when it comes to the science it isn't very convincing to cite blogs to prove anything. Even the best of them have been shown to have an agenda here.

Best to go directly to the climate scientists - and there are skeptics there if that's what you're looking for.

I heard a nasty couple who's dog had bitten and injured a child state to a judge "Our breed does not bit childern - you can look that up on the net - your honour...as if what is contained in glowing black and white within the banks of a machine is gosspel...that's plain lunacy. I could write a blog saying that the deseased Liz Taylor rose from the dead and kissed me....this does not take this silly statement and thrust it into the realm of reality and truth! JUST because this fantacy is published.