Rush Limbaush Calls Obama An "Immature Little Kid". Palin Asks Obama Not To Go To Copenhagen
Crap Detector
Sarah Palin in popularity by only one point. Another poll shows that only
26% of Americans think he deserves Nobel Peace Prize. We could go on but why
bother.
http://www.breitbart.tv/immature-little-kid-rush-rips-obama-jobs-speech/
--
By the test of serious intellectual
persuasiveness, Marx was hardly a
a 'great thinker", though he often appears
as such in low-level academic curricula.
---Robert Conquest "Reflections on a
Ravaged Century".
edi...@netpath.net
early-twenty-something law students, who've never worked in anything
yet all swear they'll be a House or Senate member someday.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/04/where-is-your-townhall/ is
the all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Igor
The naughty librarian will have been completely forgotten by 2012.
James Of Tucson
> Rush is correct. Obama - today - still reminds me of all the half of
> early-twenty-something law students, who've never worked in anything
> yet all swear they'll be a House or Senate member someday.
How many of them are sitting heads of state today?
David Hartung
There is no "naughty librarian" in this thread.
Bottom line, Rush nailed it. Rush was exactly right.
For eight years, every time someone had the temerity to point out that
some of the things Bush had to deal with were the responsibility of his
predecessor, he was accused of not taking the responsibility which was
his. Now the same folks are excusing Obama for doing that which they
excoriated Bush for.
Straightarrow
Hussein was a librarian too?? Hoodathunkit??
Christopher Helms
Maybe some day President Obama will have the maturity to do a little
dance, give the German Chancellor a backrub or refer to himself as The
Decider.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
And nobody in her immediate family would dare admit ever having heard of
her.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
> Rush is correct. Obama - today - still reminds me of all the half of
> early-twenty-something law students, who've never worked in anything yet
> all swear they'll be a House or Senate member someday.
I doubt you've ever stepped foot on a campus, let alone a law school.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but Obama DID end up a Senate member one day.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
When he got into his second term and he was still doing it, it got pretty
ridiculous. Especially since Clinton left him a country that was
prosperous and at peace.
Phlip
> The naughty librarian will have been completely forgotten by 2012.
Noooooo!!!
Chom Noamsky
> Things are not getting any better for O.B. A recent poll has him leading
> Sarah Palin in popularity by only one point. Another poll shows that
> only 26% of Americans think he deserves Nobel Peace Prize. We could go
> on but why bother.
Are Limbaugh and Palin relevant to anything that matters?
Straightarrow
wrote:
How?? Because of his leadership abilities or the color of his skin??
Straightarrow
Only to you left brained modern day castrati. They drive you
bottomfeeding mouth breathing knuckledraggers absolutely INSANE !!
What a HOOT !!
Phlip
>> Are Limbaugh and Palin relevant to anything that matters?
>
> Only to you left brained modern day castrati.
Ah, we are in perfect agreement - they are both utterly irrelevant!
Perry Brown
> Are Limbaugh and Palin relevant to anything that matters?
>
By Alan I. Leshner
Wednesday, December 9, 2009; 6:48 PM
Don't be fooled about climate science. In April, 1994 -- long after
scientists had clearly demonstrated the addictive quality and
devastating health impacts of cigarette smoking -- seven chief
executives of major tobacco companies denied the evidence, swearing
under oath that nicotine was not addictive.
Now, the American public is again being subjected to those kinds of
denials, this time about global climate change. While former Alaska
governor Sarah Palin wrote in her Dec. 9 op-ed that she did not deny
the "reality of some changes in climate," she distorted the clear
scientific evidence that Earth's climate is changing, largely as a
result of human behaviors. She also badly confused the concepts of
daily weather changes and long-term climate trends when she wrote that
"while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical
environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's
activities cause weather changes." Her statement inaccurately suggests
that short-term weather fluctuations must be consistent with long-term
climate patterns. And it is the long-term patterns that are a cause
for concern.
Climate-change science is clear: The concentration of atmospheric
carbon dioxide -- derived mostly from the human activities of fossil-
fuel burning and deforestation -- stands at 389 parts per million
(ppm). We know from studying ancient Antarctic ice cores that this
concentration is higher than it has been for at least the past 650,000
years. Exhaustive measurements tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide
is rising by 2 ppm every year and that the global temperature has
increased by about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.
Multiple lines of other evidence, including reliable thermometer
readings since the 1880s, reveal a clear warming trend. The broader
impacts of climate change range from rapidly melting glaciers and
rising sea levels to shifts in species ranges.
Thousands of respected scientists at an array of institutions
worldwide agree that major health and economic impacts are likely
unless we act now to slow greenhouse gas emissions. Already, sea
levels are estimated to rise by 1 to 2 meters by the end of this
century. Some scientists have said that average temperatures could
jump by as much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit if the atmospheric carbon
dioxide level reaches 450 ppm. We may face even more dangerous impacts
at 550 ppm, and above that level, devastating events. U.S. crop
productivity would be affected, while European communities might
suffer increased fatalities because of intensely hot summers.
Doubters insist that the earth is not warming. This is in stark
contrast to the consensus of 18 of the world's most respected
scientific organizations, who strongly stated in an Oct. 21 letter to
the U.S. Senate that human-induced climate change is real. Still, the
doubters try to leverage any remaining points of scientific
uncertainty about the details of warming trends to cast doubt on the
overall conclusions shared by traditionally cautious, decidedly non-
radical science organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences
and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which
represents an estimated 10 million individual scientists through 262
affiliated societies. Doubters also make selective use of the
evidence, noting that the warming of the late 1990s did not persist
from 2001 to 2008, while ignoring the fact that the first decade of
the 21st century looks like it will be the warmest decade on record.
None of these tactics changes the clear consensus of a vast majority
of scientists, who agree that the Earth is warming as greenhouse gas
levels rise. The public and policymakers should not be confused by a
few private e-mails that are being selectively publicized and, in any
case, remain irrelevant to the broad body of diverse evidence on
climate change. Selected language in the messages has been interpreted
by some to suggest unethical actions such as data manipulation or
suppression. To be sure, investigations are appropriate whenever
questions are raised regarding the transparency and rigor of the
scientific process or the integrity of individual scientists. We
applaud that the responsible authorities are conducting those
investigations. But it is wrong to suggest that apparently stolen
emails, deployed on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit, somehow
refute a century of evidence based on thousands of studies.
Palin also errs by claiming that America can't afford to reduce
greenhouse gases. The highly regarded Stern Commission revealed that
inaction could cost us the equivalent of between 5 and 20 percent of
global gross domestic product per year. In contrast, the price of
slowing emissions was estimated to be 1 percent of GDP. China,
meanwhile, reportedly is investing heavily in clean energy
technologies.
Now, policymakers must decide whether to act on the evidence or to
avoid facing one of the most crucial issues of our generation.
Alan I. Leshner is the chief executive officer of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of
the journal Science.
Perry Brown
TimK
"Perry Brown" <PBR...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.258b36953...@news.x-privat.org...
> By Alan I. Leshner
> Wednesday, December 9, 2009; 6:48 PM
>
> Now, the American public is again being subjected to those kinds of
> denials, this time about global climate change. While former Alaska
> governor Sarah Palin wrote in her Dec. 9 op-ed that she did not deny
> the "reality of some changes in climate," she distorted the clear
> scientific evidence that Earth's climate is changing, largely as a
> result of human behaviors. She also badly confused the concepts of
> daily weather changes and long-term climate trends when she wrote that
> "while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical
> environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's
> activities cause weather changes." Her statement inaccurately suggests
> that short-term weather fluctuations must be consistent with long-term
> climate patterns. And it is the long-term patterns that are a cause
> for concern.
Ain't it tragic how an idiot like Palin has any audience at all concerning a
matter of science...
If this isn't yet more evidence that the U.S. is failing its citizens in
science education I don't know what is.
James
Pricks like you also think Al Gore is scientist enough to know what he is talking about. lol
David Hartung
According to this : http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
The total human contribution to the green house effect is less that
3/1000th of the total. three tenths of one percent of the total
greenhouse effect is caused by human activity. As yet, no one has been
able to explain how this three tenths of one percent is causing
catastrophic warming.
Among the tidbits included in this piece is the fact that since the
beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 has increased by
80,400 parts per billion, of which 68,500 parts per billion is from
natural causes, leaving only 11,880 coming from man made causes.
In other words, the overwhelming majority of the CO2 increase is beyond
man's control.
Please explain.
anorton
"David Hartung" <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b2176c9$0$5345$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
Not true at all. You are even exagerating the common distortion of the data
. This is one of the 7 major commonly-cited distortions that Scientific
American took the pains to refute:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense
Refuting all crap like that posted by Mr. Hartung and others is a bit like
playing whack-a-mole.
David Hartung
Obviously you did not take the time to follow the link I provided.
Had you done so, you would realize that the data from which they draw
their conclusions comes from the US Department of energy.
Murray Kramer
> the sun. Since you seem to believe anything you read...
>
>
>
> > Among the tidbits included in this piece is the fact that since the
> > beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 has increased by
> > 80,400 parts per billion, of which 68,500 parts per billion is from
> > natural causes, leaving only 11,880 coming from man made causes.
>
>
> > In other words, the overwhelming majority of the CO2 increase is beyond
> > man's control.
>
> > Please explain.
>
He's a Republican. Gullibility is a core tenet of their Ideology
(Religion). Facts never matter to them because lies are all they
have to fall back on. Repeating debunked lies was a Nazi tactic as
well.
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
Leadership abilities.
David Hartung
I wish he would start to use those abilities. Thus far Obama is on
scheduled to be on schedule to be the worst president ever, and after
Bill Clinton, that takes some doing.
anorton
No, sorry. Looks like have not read any of this carefully. First of all
even your erroneous initial link claims the man-made conribution is 3.207%
not the 0.3% you mentioned above. Second if you look at the citation from
the department of energy that is supposedly the source of this table, there
are NO columns breaking out man made versus natural contributions. Also the
other numbers in the cited table do not exactly match those in your link.
This is another example of apparent fraud. Whack-a-Mole again.
Freestyle
Utter Horseshit.
Bumbler Bush didn't hand Obama a booming economy and a surplus like
Clinton did for him.
Bumbler Bush blew it all in Iraq on Hookers and Coke and now you want
to blame Obama for it.
Blaming Bush is proper considering he nearly destroyed America.
Blaming Clinton because he got a blowjob in the Oval is a dodge for
bumbler Bush.
Blaming Obama for bumbler Bush and the Republicons pile of shit he has
to clean up is just dogshit stupid.
You dumbshit Rightarded fuckheads are fucking joke.
Sid9
.
.
In your world black is white and white is black.
Lots of topsy -turvy....little reality!
5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09
Give it a rest, you partisan crybaby.
Clinton was declared a disaster by the GOP after his first year, but
by the end of his terms, the stock market had tripled, poverty
declined, average wage earners saw and increase, and the country was
at peace.
You sad little fucks had to steal the 2000 election so you could undo
all that.
David Hartung
> You sad little fucks had to steal the 2000 election so you could undo
> all that.
And I am accused of willing ignorance.
Anyone who truly believes that Bush stole anything, let alone an
election simply ignores reality.
David Hartung
> Blaming Bush is proper considering he nearly destroyed America.
> Blaming Clinton because he got a blowjob in the Oval is a dodge for
> bumbler Bush.
> Blaming Obama for bumbler Bush and the Republicons pile of shit he has
> to clean up is just dogshit stupid.
>
> You dumbshit Rightarded fuckheads are fucking joke.
More willing ignorance.
David Hartung
You may wish to look again.
From the very top of the site:
"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?"
"It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%,
if not."
> Second if you look at the citation from
> the department of energy that is supposedly the source of this table, there
> are NO columns breaking out man made versus natural contributions.
That may be because the reference was to a table updated in 2002, while
the current site was updated in 2009, I have no idea why the current
table doesn't break out man made vs natural.
Sid9
.
.
Nope...it's the reality that you refuse to admit.
You can start by admitting that bush,jr is a world class loser.
Sid9
.
The reality is Jeb and Katherine Harris conspired....In the history of
her office it had never been opened on a Sunday.....but that's all
ancient history.
Clinton handed over a nation, repaired financially from the excesses
of Reagan and HW Bush, a nation intact, prosperous, respected world
wide....then came a president second only to Ronald Reagan in the
damage he would do to America.
bush,jr, incompetent, a liar, a world class loser, disrespected
worldwide.
bush,jr turned an America over to Obama that was on the edge of a
financial precipice not seen since 1929.
A direct result of Republican dismantling financial controls
legislated by the New Deal.
Obama moves forward domestically and in foreign affairs to restore
America's greatness.
Phlip
> "David Hartung" <d_hart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Durr that's oll jist Librul talk coz they want da terrorists ta win
fost...@gmail.com
> You dumbshit Rightarded fuckheads are fucking joke.
We will bring you to justice.
Hell we may even slap you upside the head while your "life partner"
has his dick in your mouth.
You fail....massively!!!!!
anorton
You are correct, I did not anticipate your author would take this falacy one
step further (one has to wade through a lot of crap to get to that point).
Most of the other sites that promulgate this type of falacy stop at the
larger number. Of course natural water vapor is a huge factor, but if you
compare man made CO2 to natural water vapor, why not include all natural
heating effects like sunlight? If you do that it becomes obvious that you
would then have to have to include all the natural cooling effects as well
that have delicately balanced to create the temperature we have been used to
(without any gases we would burn in sunlight and freeze in darkness like on
the moon) . So you really need to compare the man-made changes to the NET
natural changes. Even your authors' table shows that the man made
greenhouse gas additions are 15% of the total additions (they neglect to
calculate this number for you).
But Even this 15% number is very low. Deniers usually base it on total
natural CO2 contributions that varies throughout the year with the seasons
while ignoring total natual take-up that also varies with the seasons and
nearly balances out over the whole year. In actuality most of the added net
CO2 is man made as shown by isotope studies. See the references in the
Scientific American article e.g.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
In addition, man made warming adds more water vapor to the atmosphere that
exacerbates the warming effect.
What you are seeing in your cited blog (among many others) is a marketing
strategy called F.U.D. ( Fear Uncertaintly Doubt). When your product (or
ideology) is deficient, you confuse the market as much as possible by
spreading rumors, specious allegations, and disinformation about your
competitor through your network of salesmen and the internet. The idea is
usually to slow the sales of the competitor until you come up with a new
product. With Russia, China, Saudia Arabia, and oil companies standing to
loose many, many trillions of dollars if oil and coal are replaced, you can
bet they are using every marketing trick in the book to delay that.
Aratzio
"James" <king...@iglou.com> got double secret probation for writing:
No, he is a concerned citizen with a platform and is espousing a
cogent and rational policy.
You do know how to tell the difference between policy and science,
right?
So, eplain why the "left" would create the conspiracy of global
warming:
Aratzio
David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
>TimK wrote:
Which has a worse outcome:
1. Making the world more energy efficient and less polluting and being
wrong about the effects of humans upon global warming.
2. Not becoming more energy efficient and less polluting and being
wrong about the effects of humans upon global warming.
which of the two above has the most dire long term effects for all of
humanity?
Aratzio
"anorton" <ano...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> got double secret
probation for writing:
>
All of which does not matter, cost benefit analysis is simple, if
humans are not affecting global warming creating a less carbon based
energy policy will not damage the global environment. Whereas
continuimg in the same mode and being wrong will kill millios and
quite possibly billions of people and with a possibility of all
humanity.
Being wrong and having no effect or being wrong and we all die. Make
that decision and explain it to your grandchildren in 40 years.
I M @ good guy
wrote:
Tell the engineers how to create a less carbon
based energy policy.
Please.
>Being wrong and having no effect or being wrong and we all die.
From what, weather like in Florida, or Hawaii,
Rio, the Riviera?
>Make
>that decision and explain it to your grandchildren in 40 years.
That is something I would like to do, but
at 120 there might be difficulty talking.
pyotr filipivich
<PBR...@yahoo.com> reported Elvis on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:47:57 -0500
in misc.survivalism:
>By Alan I. Leshner
>Wednesday, December 9, 2009; 6:48 PM
>
>Don't be fooled about climate science. In April, 1994 -- long after
>scientists had clearly demonstrated the addictive quality and
>devastating health impacts of cigarette smoking -- seven chief
>executives of major tobacco companies denied the evidence, swearing
>under oath that nicotine was not addictive.
>
>Now, the American public is again being subjected to those kinds of
>denials, this time about global climate change.
Sorry schmuck, but trying to deflect the problem to Sarah Palin
just isn't going to wash.
the problem is that in the data dump from the Climate Research
Unit there is program code. The instructions to make the computer
software to run. And in that code is evidence that they were making
it all up as they went. Hard coding the "variables" in order to get
the answer they wanted. That's not science, that's fraud.
>
>Alan I. Leshner is the chief executive officer of the American
>Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of
>the journal Science.
Like I'm suppose to believe someone who is tainted by the bogus
"science".
Sorry, there is no data to support the GlobalWarmists, or the
Climate Changists, or the Algorians, or any of the other modern day
pagans worshiping the earth.
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
Rob Dekker
"Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:66m3i55hom636lac8...@4ax.com...
Aratzio, which newsgroup are you posting from ?
We can sure use some rational thinkers in the alt.global-warming group,
which seems to be dominated by denialist liers these days.
socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11
"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:qfn3i51pg1sae2ls5...@4ax.com...
> the problem is that in the data dump from the Climate Research
> Unit there is program code. The instructions to make the computer
> software to run. And in that code is evidence that they were making
> it all up as they went. Hard coding the "variables" in order to get
> the answer they wanted. That's not science, that's fraud.
You people are missing the bigger picture coming forth, as the whole point
of pushing this fraud called global warming isn't about the science, the
fraud, and lies, it nothing more then:
1.. The condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief.
2.. Something, such as a fantastic plan or desire, that causes an
erroneous belief or perception tp create a new order out of Kaos.
it is al about creating a one world government, where nations will have to
give up their sovereign rights and that is what people should be concerned
about.
Rob Dekker
"anorton" <ano...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:JrWdnS-Dq_LwTbzW...@earthlink.com...
Anorton, which newsgroup are you posting from ?
We can sure use some more rational thinkers in the alt.global-warming group,
Rob Dekker
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
news:scn3i5lpnsuqshl2n...@4ax.com...
You do not have to tell the engineers. They already know.
There are alternatives to fossil fuel burning, starting with plug-in
hybrids, nationwide upgraded grid, wind, solar, nuclear (thorium plants),
geothermal etc etc. All we need is the political will and the capital to
start this process of transformation of our civilisation's energy need.
And that is where the problem is (at least for the fossil fuel industry and
fossil fuel producing countries and a small but very vocal group of science
deniers).
>
>>Being wrong and having no effect or being wrong and we all die.
>
> From what, weather like in Florida, or Hawaii,
> Rio, the Riviera?
>
>
>>Make
>>that decision and explain it to your grandchildren in 40 years.
>
>
> That is something I would like to do, but
> at 120 there might be difficulty talking.
>
Maybe you make it to 120 in your dreams..
We all die, with 100% certainty.
What we leave behind is what counts.
>
>
>
>
>
Rob Dekker
"socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11"
<Libertarian...Neo-.Con.kook@"KentCowen.conservatarian".free.police.protection.gcmail>
wrote in message news:U_mUm.57047$PH1.53686@edtnps82...
You are listening to Fox News and Lord Monckton too much.
There is a reason why he is called the "lord of the lies".
He juggles formula's and graphs that look scientific but are completely
fabricated.
He is a puppet of some very powerfull opinions.
Google "lord monckton magical mystery tour" to see who is pulling his
strings.
Rob
socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11
"Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message
news:E_adnX5iH-dtnb_W...@giganews.com...
Rob, you are either an idiot, or you just don't get out very much, this came
from the new EU leader, the WTO and the UN and to top it off, world leaders
spoke of it at the G20 summit. So either you are clueless twit, or just
another dumbass socialist kook or sheep...either way, you better get off
your fat ass and wake up to the real world emerging... all for the New Order
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
Cliff
>You may wish to look again.
>
> From the very top of the site:
>"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?"
>
>"It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%,
>if not."
<Sheesh>
IF we assume you are correct in any meaningful way
then the *old* steady state can be represented by a "greenhouse warming
equilibrium factor" of 1.
Energy in = energy out but what's the temp?
IOW Without that much greenhouse effect (1) the average temp
would be something akin to -50 C.
IOW 1^N = 1 (compounded energy gains).
Now you say it's up to 1.0553.
What is 1.0553^N ? Say in 50 to 100 years?
PLUS the "5.53%" factor grows each year as more
greenhouse gasses are added.
So try 1.3^N on for size ....
--
Cliff
Cliff
Just the melting of the glaciers in the Himalayas is putting
the water & irrigation supplies of China, India & much of the
rest of Asia at severe risk.
That would turn into several billion starving people looking
at the US & other places for food & water .... IF the US is
unimpacted. And guess who would get the blame ....
--
Cliff
Cliff
We really need cheap fusion worldwide ASAP.
Anybody that makes, exports & maintains such power plants ....
>And that is where the problem is (at least for the fossil fuel industry and
>fossil fuel producing countries and a small but very vocal group of science
>deniers).
>
>>
>>>Being wrong and having no effect or being wrong and we all die.
>>
>> From what, weather like in Florida, or Hawaii,
>> Rio, the Riviera?
>>
>>
>>>Make
>>>that decision and explain it to your grandchildren in 40 years.
>>
>>
>> That is something I would like to do, but
>> at 120 there might be difficulty talking.
>>
>
>Maybe you make it to 120 in your dreams..
>
>We all die, with 100% certainty.
>What we leave behind is what counts.
Wingers love rubble.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>because CO2 is
>only a trace gas in the atmosphere and the amount produced by humans
>is dwarfed by the amount from volcanoes
That is untrue on the face of it.
--
Cliff
Rob Dekker
"socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11"
wrote in message news:grnUm.57056$PH1.43470@edtnps82...
Mmmm. You wrote "You people are missing the bigger picture coming forth, as
the whole point of pushing this fraud called global warming isn't about the
science, the fraud, and lies..."
but I can't seem to find that anywhere in the EU, WTO or UN top notes.
Do you have a cite for that ?
> So either you are clueless twit, or just
> another dumbass socialist kook or sheep...either way, you better get off
> your fat ass and wake up to the real world emerging... all for the New
> Order
OK. When you are done with your tantrum, can you Google "lord monckton
magical mystery tour", and share your findings with us as to what is really
going on behind the screens of the denialist science-smear campaign ?
>
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Cliff
wrote:
>Although CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, that small
>number says nothing about its significance in climate dynamics. Even
>at that low concentration, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and acts as
>a greenhouse gas, as physicist John Tyndall demonstrated in 1859. The
>chemist Svante Arrhenius went further in 1896 by estimating the impact
>of CO2 on the climate; after painstaking hand calculations he
>concluded that doubling its concentration might cause almost 6 degrees
>Celsius of warming�an answer not much out of line with recent, far
>more rigorous computations.
IIRC he came up with an underestimate .... it's about double that.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>
>According to this : http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
>
>The total human contribution to the green house effect is less that
>3/1000th of the total. three tenths of one percent of the total
>greenhouse effect is caused by human activity.
It says no such thing !!!
It DOES say Carbon dioxide (CO2) Pre-1750 tropospheric concentration
280 ppm.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) Recent tropospheric concentration 384.8 ppm !
PLUS all the others.
AND Increased radiative forcing = 2.65+ W/m2.
>As yet, no one has been
>able to explain how this three tenths of one percent is causing
>catastrophic warming.
[
Assuming 1.5 watts per square meter (some give the current
actual figure as 2.4 Watts per square meter) ... an average 24X7 world wide ...
Air at 50 degrees C & one atmosphere has a density of 1.09 (Kg/m3)
and a specific heat of 1.40.
A one kilometer high column of air (one meter square) would have a
mass of 1,400 Kg.
In one year (31,556,926 seconds) that's an added energy of
47,335,389 watt seconds or about 47,335 kilowatt seconds.
(47,335 kilowatt seconds)/(1.40 *1,400 Kg) = ~ 24 degrees C
(or 75 degrees F) per year in temperature rise (roughly)
But we have a spot of luck here ... the atmosphere is much
deeper than one kilometer (though the density declines with
altitude) and the soil, ice & water can also remove a bit of the
added energy ... while warming up.
]
So
[
In one year (31,556,926 seconds) that's an added energy of
47,335,389 watt seconds or about 47,335 kilowatt seconds.
(47,335 kilowatt seconds)/(1.40 *1,400 Kg) = ~ 24 degrees C
(or 75 degrees F) per year in temperature rise (roughly)
]
Now adjust that from "Assuming 1.5 watts per square meter" to the
current 2.65+ W/m2 figure .....
>Among the tidbits included in this piece is the fact that since the
>beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 has increased by
>80,400 parts per billion, of which 68,500 parts per billion is from
>natural causes, leaving only 11,880 coming from man made causes.
Given the core stable background of Pre-1750 tropospheric concentration
280 ppm the current (but rapidly growing) 384.8 ppm would give
104.8 ppm in increase or about 37.5% so far.
An increase of 104,000 parts per billion.
Per YOUR cite.
>
>In other words, the overwhelming majority of the CO2 increase is beyond
>man's control.
BS.
But we soon may get a cascade of increases ....
>Please explain.
See above.
HTH
--
Cliff
Steve
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:01:12 -0600, David Hartung
><d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:49:49 -0800 (PST), Straightarrow
>>> <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 10, 11:02 am, "5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:33:34 -0800, edi...@netpath.net wrote:
>>>>>> Rush is correct. Obama - today - still reminds me of all the half of
>>>>>> early-twenty-something law students, who've never worked in anything yet
>>>>>> all swear they'll be a House or Senate member someday.
>>>>> I doubt you've ever stepped foot on a campus, let alone a law school.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct me if I'm mistaken, but Obama DID end up a Senate member one day.
>>>> How?? Because of his leadership abilities or the color of his skin??
>>>
>>> Leadership abilities.
>>
>>I wish he would start to use those abilities. Thus far Obama is on
>>scheduled to be on schedule to be the worst president ever, and after
>>Bill Clinton, that takes some doing.
>
>Give it a rest, you partisan crybaby.
>
>Clinton was declared a disaster by the GOP after his first year, but
>by the end of his terms, the stock market had tripled, poverty
>declined, average wage earners saw and increase, and the country was
>at peace.
>
>You sad little fucks had to steal the 2000 election so you could undo
>all that.
Poor widdle Democrats.. got whipped by George Bush and all they can
do is whimper and whine.... Now Obammy has the lowest approval rating
of any president in recent history at this point in their term and all
they can do is whine about that too....
Steve
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:49:49 -0800 (PST), Straightarrow
><hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 10, 11:02�am, "5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
>>wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:33:34 -0800, edi...@netpath.net wrote:
>>> > Rush is correct. �Obama - today - still reminds me of all the half of
>>> > early-twenty-something law students, who've never worked in anything yet
>>> > all swear they'll be a House or Senate member someday.
>>>
>>> I doubt you've ever stepped foot on a campus, let alone a law school.
>>>
>>> Correct me if I'm mistaken, but Obama DID end up a Senate member one day.
>>
>>How?? Because of his leadership abilities or the color of his skin??
>
>Leadership abilities.
>
because of the crooked Chicago politics..
David Hartung
People generally use this line of argument when all else fails.
There is the possibility that I am wrong, but right now I believe that
the greater possibility is that I am right. We do not know what has
caused the warming trends of recent past, and to "fix" the wrong problem
could have unintended consequences, which could make things worse. The
rational thing to do is to continue the research but not make drastic
changes until we have more fact to go on.
David Hartung
Your evidence?
Cliff
Just look up the numbers.
Pretty simple.
Man-made CO2 emissions alone far exceed volcanic ones each year.
BTW, The US alone uses over 2 cubic miles just of imported oil each year.
Then there are coal & natural gas, burning forests, destroyed soils,
dead seas & etc.
--
Cliff
Cliff
Is 100% a "possibility"?
>but right now I believe that
>the greater possibility is that I am right.
Faith based science, eh?
>We do not know what has
>caused the warming trends of recent past,
Which ones?
>and to "fix" the wrong problem
>could have unintended consequences, which could make things worse. The
>rational thing to do is to continue the research but not make drastic
>changes until we have more fact to go on.
The scientists & experts have far more
data, science, facts & info than is needed.
Wingers just have confusion, ignorance & lies. Why buy from them?
--
Cliff
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>
Not that it has been evident in the available products.
>There are alternatives to fossil fuel burning, starting with plug-in
>hybrids,
Half the people can't afford a new car, few used ones.
>nationwide upgraded grid, wind, solar, nuclear (thorium plants),
>geothermal etc etc.
So start activism where it will do some good.
>All we need is the political will and the capital to
>start this process of transformation of our civilisation's energy need.
The will is there, the perception of what capital
must be is outmoded, if I had a say there would be
an all-out shallow geothermal installation program,
all space heating should be geothermal with just
electric air or fluid handlers.
>And that is where the problem is (at least for the fossil fuel industry and
>fossil fuel producing countries and a small but very vocal group of science
>deniers).
No it isn't, you fail to see the role skeptics play,
my message is broader than yours, go all out to
develop alternate energy, because fossil fuels
are limited in quantity and a lot should be saved
for the plastics and chemical industries.
Money is no object, presidents and legislators
can ask for guidance.
Marvin the Martian
Yes. For the people that run this conspiracy, it is all about one
socialist world government. It is also literally about reducing the human
population by billions; either by lowering the birth rate or simple
genocide by intentional starvation.
If you read the Science Czar's Manifesto, "Ecoscience", he advocates
forced abortions and a law similar to China's on one child per couple.
This is a subject to be discussed at Copenhagen.
Now, for the rank and file common stooge, it is about their religion.
They believe humans to be evil and the root of all that is wrong in the
world, and they want to see some sort of die off. Of course, they always
view themselves as the worthy folk to be spared but the truth is once
their leaders are done with these tools, they'll be useless and the first
up against the wall.
Marvin the Martian
repetitive drivel that I cut out.
Okay. First all, in rational thought, it doesn't matter who says
something or why they are saying it, you have to look at what they are
saying to judge the argument itself on its own merits. This "so and so is
backed by THEM, so it must not be true" is called an "irrelevant
argumentum ad hominem" fallacy. IT is gibberish and drivel, and it is Mr.
Dekker's favorite fallacy, so I snipped it to avoid Mr. Dekker any
further self embarrassment.
Is what Lord Monckton saying about Climate Gate and the AGW arguments
true? If you know simple chemistry of equilibrium, yes, you know that
there is no way humans could have caused the increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere with their piddly 5 Gt carbon/year being added to a 40,000 Gt
Carbon system, a system which has a sink of carbonate rock should the
carbon levels rise to much. If we didn't put the carbon there, then we
aren't causing the warming, EVEN IF CO2 can be shown to be causing the
warming. You even know that CO2 is an EFFECT of warming, not a cause of
warming.
But CO2 can't be causing the warming, because we know that there is a
much stronger correlation of warming with solar cycle than there is
between CO2 and solar cycle. There is no way global temperatures on
earth could affect solar cycle, so there can be no causal connection on
the part of the earth. The warming, and the CO2 with it, MUST be related
to solar cycle. A bright fellow named Svensmark bucked the system and
showed how this works at CERN, and has successfully tested his
hypothesis. The AGW advocates don't even have a hypothesis to test
anymore since all their computer models failed to predict.
So, Lord Monckton is right, and the IPCC is clearly and utterly wrong.
NOW you can talk about why each side advocates what they do. There is
little justification needed to justify saying the truth, but why would
the IPCC lie?
I hate to bring it up, but the IPCC is full of greedy frauds trying to
make a financial killing and power mad commies trying to establish a one
world government where they can dictate how much fuel everyone can use,
how many children they can have, and even what they can eat.
Mind you, these idiot commies, had they tried to make the case for their
totalitarian government, would immediately go up against the wall.
They're talking Hitler like eugenic stuff. They can't make their case
directly, so they do this big "we're all going to die!! Do as I say and I
may save you" crap.
TUKA
Thanks for trivializing the Holocaust by equating people who are skeptical
of an unproven theory with those who deny recorded history.
--
I don't want to get to the end of my life and find I have just
lived the length of it. I want to have lived the width of it as
well. -- Diane Ackerman
TUKA
Exactly. I hear people saying "the precautionary principle", like there
is only one scenario to be concerned about.
Here is a great article:
http://volokh.com/2009/12/09/applying-the-precautionary-principle-consistently/
TUKA
Any of them.
>
>>and to "fix" the wrong problem could have unintended consequences,
>>which could make things worse. The rational thing to do is to
>>continue the research but not make drastic changes until we have more
>>fact to go on.
>
> The scientists & experts have far more data, science, facts & info
> than is needed.
Huh? Our ignorance is enormous.
> Wingers just have confusion, ignorance & lies. Why buy from them?
"Wingers"? Are you claiming that you have the one, the only, the
authoritive answer?
http://volokh.com/2009/12/09/applying-the-precautionary-principle-consistently/
--
Celebrate Diversity...
except veterans, small-business owners, practicing Catholics, gun
owners, talk-radio listeners, tea-party attendees, Texans, smokers, limited-
government proponents, pro-lifers, taxpayers, NASCAR fans, Boy Scouts,
oil-company employees, secure-border advocates, capitalists, global-
warming agnostics, Cuban refugees, school-choicers.. -- Peter Kirsanow
TUKA
Explain what happened to them in the MWP then. Or the Roman Optimum.
>
> That would turn into several billion starving people looking at the US
> & other places for food & water .... IF the US is unimpacted. And
> guess who would get the blame ....
If my grandmother had wheels she would become a taxi.
--
Unix version of an Outlook-style virus:
It works on the honor system. Please forward this message to everyone
you know, and delete a bunch of your files at random.
Straightarrow
> >On Dec 10, 11:02 am, "5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> >> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:33:34 -0800, edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> >> > Rush is correct. Obama - today - still reminds me of all the half of
> >> > early-twenty-something law students, who've never worked in anything yet
> >> > all swear they'll be a House or Senate member someday.
>
> >> I doubt you've ever stepped foot on a campus, let alone a law school.
>
> >> Correct me if I'm mistaken, but Obama DID end up a Senate member one day.
>
> >How?? Because of his leadership abilities or the color of his skin??
>
> Leadership abilities.
LEADERSHIP ABILITIES ??!!!! ROTGDFLMMFAO !!! IT TOOK THE IGNORANT
DOOFUS 3 MONTHS TO DECIDE ON A DOG FFS !!! IT TOOK THE STUPID
MOTHERFUCKER 3 MONTHS TO DECIDE ON WHETHER TO SEND THE 40,000 TROOPS
HIS HAND PICKED GENERAL AXKED FOR !!!!!! THEN THE STUPID,BIG EARED
COCKSUCKER AGREES TO 30,000 !! LMGDAO !!! LEADERSHIP ??!!!!
HHHAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAAHHAAAHHHHAAAHHAHHHHAAHAHHAHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHAAAAHH
(cough-cough) HHAAAHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH !!!!! STOP IT !!
YOU'RE KILLING ME !!!! HHHHAAAAAAHHHHAAAARRRGGGHHH (cough-hack-hack-
cough) !!!!!!!!!
TUKA
That's right. Rob's hybrid plugs into a wall with electricity he made
himself by cycling during the night. Emissions free -- well, mostly.
Depending on his bean consumption.
> nationwide upgraded grid, wind, solar,
Right. No one has shown how this can supply more than a small amount
of electricity.
> nuclear (thorium plants),
Now we're talking.
> geothermal etc etc.
All of which will happen, presuming the technology is there, when
fossil fuels become expensive enough.
> All we need is the political will and the capital to
> start this process of transformation of our civilisation's energy need.
You are going to legislate research and innovation? How about a law
making pi == 3?
>
> And that is where the problem is (at least for the fossil fuel industry and
> fossil fuel producing countries and a small but very vocal group of science
> deniers).
"Science deniers"? What science? When alternative energy is price-
competitive and plentiful, it won't be turned away. And until it is price-
competitive, it won't do any good. Remember we were supposed to have third-
generation bio-diesel available plentifully in 2005? Well, there seems
to be a little problem even with subsidies. Now they are saying 2012,
but no one believes them.
Speaking of denying, what about denying reality by thinking that you can
stop using fossil fuels unilaterally? Any we don't use the Chinese and
Indians will gladly use for us.
>
>>
>>>Being wrong and having no effect or being wrong and we all die.
>>
>> From what, weather like in Florida, or Hawaii,
>> Rio, the Riviera?
>>
>>
>>>Make that decision and explain it to your grandchildren in 40 years.
>>
>>
>> That is something I would like to do, but at 120 there might be
>> difficulty talking.
>>
>
> Maybe you make it to 120 in your dreams..
>
> We all die, with 100% certainty. What we leave behind is what counts.
And if you teach your crap to your children, as many have, you leave
behind the false impression that man is guilty of "global warming". The
hubris is amazing.
--
Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
-- Karl Lehenbauer
Straightarrow
> 5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>
> > You sad little fucks had to steal the 2000 election so you could undo
> > all that.
>
>
> Anyone who truly believes that Bush stole anything, let alone an
> election simply ignores reality.
I find it amusing that the same snivelling anklebiters that claim Bush
"stole" the election will argue to the death that Al Franken won his
election fair and square. LMFAO !!
Straightarrow
> "David Hartung" <d_hart...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b21ad6b$0$5357$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...> 5295 Dead, 428 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>
> >> You sad little fucks had to steal the 2000 election so you could
> >> undo
> >> all that.
>
> > And I am accused of willing ignorance.
>
> > Anyone who truly believes that Bush stole anything, let alone an
> > election simply ignores reality.
>
> .
> The reality is Jeb and Katherine Harris conspired....In the history of
> her office it had never been opened on a Sunday.....but that's all
> ancient history.
>
> Clinton handed over a nation, repaired financially from the excesses
> of Reagan and HW Bush, a nation intact, prosperous, respected world
> wide....then came a president second only to Ronald Reagan in the
> damage he would do to America.
>
> bush,jr, incompetent, a liar, a world class loser, disrespected
> worldwide.
>
> bush,jr turned an America over to Obama that was on the edge of a
> financial precipice not seen since 1929.
>
> A direct result of Republican dismantling financial controls
> legislated by the New Deal.
>
> Obama moves forward domestically and in foreign affairs to restore
> America's greatness.
I know. Hanging chads. YADA-YADA-YADA-YADA-YADA !! But the one thing
we can ALL agree on is thank GAWD Al Gore was NEVER POTUS !!! If you
think the inexperienced,clueless community organizer that's CIC now is
a totally fucked-up "spread the wealth" marxist/racist/anti-capitalist/
apologist Dr.Gore would be ten times worse !! LMAO !! Gore couldn't
even carry his home state FFS !! Maybe those toothless inbreds in
Tennessee know something you guilty,white,tingly legged eggheads don't
know about Dr.Gore.
Straightarrow
RESTORES ???!! By doing what? Passing a healthcare fiasco that'll
destroy the best healthcare system on the planet and cause the loss of
hundreds of thousands of jobs?? By passing Cap&Tax that'll cause
utility bills to skyrocket,increase taxes on every American
taxpayer,give the U.N power to tax the American people,cost hundreds
of thousands of jobs and force thousands of businesses to close?? Sure
thing pal. How's that Rope&Chains working for you kooks so far??
Straightarrow
>
> - Show quoted text -
YEBBITWHADDABOUTBUSH ???!!!
socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11
It's been posted many times, and you can find it on you tube also...
>
> > So either you are clueless twit, or just
> > another dumbass socialist kook or sheep...either way, you better get off
> > your fat ass and wake up to the real world emerging... all for the New
> > Order
>
> OK. When you are done with your tantrum, can you Google "lord monckton
> magical mystery tour", and share your findings with us as to what is
really
> going on behind the screens of the denialist science-smear campaign ?
This whole thing is to keep you people fighting, so you don't see that the
one world government will be forced on you all, and when it is a done deal,
not one of you will be able to do anything about it...
>
> >
> >>
> >> Rob
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
�n�hw��f
of pure thought with
news:sb44i595bkqm27rvl...@4ax.com:
>>[...]
>>In other words, the overwhelming majority of the CO2 increase is
>>beyond man's control.
>
> BS.
No, actually it is. Its beyond the generally agreed upon number of
380ppm as a 'safe" level.
> But we soon may get a cascade of increases ....
>
When the ocean stops absorbing the excess...
Then you get the fun co-effect of ocean acidification.
>>Please explain.
>
> See above.
>
> HTH
And this is worth a read:
http://www.rall.com/2009/12/ted-rall-column-give-hoot-but-were.html
FYI
^_^
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COaoYqkpkUA
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
socialist that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11
"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:RuadnT7Pl54hx7_W...@giganews.com...
You hit the whole issue on the nose and your right, the sheep are falling in
line, and it just like rounding up the cattle to the slaughter.....I like to
compair this to the Jews who denied Hitler was killing them off, until they
went to the camps and today we see the same thing coming into view and you
think the Jewish people would have seen this coming....oh well who said
histroy doesn't repete itself..
> They believe humans to be evil and the root of all that is wrong in the
> world, and they want to see some sort of die off.
These global elite are into some real weird stuff, from sacifices, to
worshiping their sun god.. The strange part is the sheep just can't see what
is going to bring them down.
anorton
This is the cosmic ray hypothesis. Only the first minor link in a long
chain of assumptions was tested. Nothing else suggests it is correct. See
for exapmple:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/recent-warming-but-no-trend-in-galactic-cosmic-rays/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=3
Marvin the Martian
Thanks for the junk science political links. They start of with a straw
dog fallacy, and go down hill.
I would point out that there isn't even a hypothesis how CO2 causes
climate, yet the same AGW advocates who dismiss the Svensmark theory
ignore that their arguments are far weaker.
Lastly, these attacks on Svensmark's theory don't address that the size
of the carbon cycle system is far larger than the AGW admit, and they
tell a bogus story, using isotope ratios, how man made CO2 doesn't go
into the ocean all the while claiming that natural CO2 does to the tune
of 20 times what humans add. This is bogus.
I M @ good guy
Gee, cry over a few beers and maybe you
will feel more depressed.
anorton
What fallacy exactly and why? And why is Scientific American (the oldest
continuously published periodical in the USA) junk science?
>
> I would point out that there isn't even a hypothesis how CO2 causes
> climate, yet the same AGW advocates who dismiss the Svensmark theory
> ignore that their arguments are far weaker.
Again, blatantly false claim. Here are the detailed calculations of the CO2
green house effect:
http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf
>
> Lastly, these attacks on Svensmark's theory don't address that the size
> of the carbon cycle system is far larger than the AGW admit, and they
> tell a bogus story, using isotope ratios, how man made CO2 doesn't go
> into the ocean all the while claiming that natural CO2 does to the tune
> of 20 times what humans add. This is bogus.
>
All this according to who?
(rest snipped)
Phlip
>>> How?? Because of his leadership abilities or the color of his skin??
>> Leadership abilities.
>
> LEADERSHIP ABILITIES ??!!!! ROTGDFLMMFAO !!! IT TOOK THE IGNORANT
> DOOFUS 3 MONTHS TO DECIDE ON A DOG FFS !!! IT TOOK THE STUPID
> MOTHERFUCKER 3 MONTHS TO DECIDE ON WHETHER TO SEND THE 40,000 TROOPS
> HIS HAND PICKED GENERAL AXKED FOR !!!!!! THEN THE STUPID,BIG EARED
> COCKSUCKER AGREES TO 30,000 !! LMGDAO !!! LEADERSHIP ??!!!!
> HHHAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAAHHAAAHHHHAAAHHAHHHHAAHAHHAHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHAAAAHH
> (cough-cough) HHAAAHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH !!!!! STOP IT !!
> YOU'RE KILLING ME !!!! HHHHAAAAAAHHHHAAAARRRGGGHHH (cough-hack-hack-
> cough) !!!!!!!!!
Hey, at least his teleprompter doesn't spell nuclear "new-clear"
Marvin the Martian
S-T-R-A-W D-O-G Fallacy(1). Sometimes called a straw man. The person
making the argument intentionally misstates the opposing argument into a
weaker argument and then attacks the weaker argument.
In this case, the argument was that no one has shown how CO2 can cause
the observed warming. It is a trace gas, and most of the warming is due
to water vapor. Simple physics shows that CO2 can't cause the warming. No
one has been able to show how CO2 causes the claimed warming. There have
been climate computer models, but they all failed to predict.
The author misstated the argument and turned it on it's head, saying that
the deniers had to PROVE that CO2 can't cause the warming, and he then
claimed that the only argument was that CO2 was a trace gas; he then
attacked the non-sequitor in his straw dog argument.
(1) http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/straw.htm
> And why is Scientific American (the
> oldest continuously published periodical in the USA) junk science?
First I note that you add some loaded language in your "question" that
amounts to an appeal to authority question. It doesn't matter what their
laurels are, they are publishing crap now. "Crap" being straw dog
fallacies that turn science and logic on its head. See, for example, the
article in question.
>> I would point out that there isn't even a hypothesis how CO2 causes
>> climate, yet the same AGW advocates who dismiss the Svensmark theory
>> ignore that their arguments are far weaker.
>
> Again, blatantly false claim. Here are the detailed calculations of the
> CO2 green house effect:
> http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf
Oh please. I debunked this crap power point before.
Charts 1 & 2: data from a live, CO2 emitting volcano being used as
representative of the whole world's CO2 level. That's non-science.
Chart 3 through 9: Here he calculates the amount of CO2 added and the
amount of CO2 increase. He shows that the amount of CO2 we add is larger
than the increase from the volcano data, ERGO he fallaciously concludes,
we put the CO2 there. This is a fallacy of omission, and pathetically bad
science. He should have included the entire carbon cycle system, and not
just a part of it. A huge amount of carbon, 20X what humans produce,
enters and is exchanged with the ocean. The we add about 5 Gt carbon to a
system 40,000 Gt carbon in size. If you use THOSE numbers, there is no
way we are causing the CO2 increase. It must be a natural event. The
amount of CO2 we add is then divided up into the total system, atmosphere
plus ocean. Chemistry tells us the ONLY way for the ratio between
atmospheric CO2 and ocean CO2 to change is if the temperature of the
ocean changes. And the only way that the amount of CO2 in the ocean can
change is if the temperature of the ocean changes, causing the
equilibrium between carbonate rock and dissolved CO2 to change.
>> Lastly, these attacks on Svensmark's theory don't address that the size
>> of the carbon cycle system is far larger than the AGW admit, and they
>> tell a bogus story, using isotope ratios, how man made CO2 doesn't go
>> into the ocean all the while claiming that natural CO2 does to the tune
>> of 20 times what humans add. This is bogus.
>>
>>
> All this according to who?
Why don't you have the person who tells you what to think do your
posting.
> (rest snipped)
TimK
"�n�hw��f" <snuh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CDE694CD5994...@216.196.97.142...
You know, I have to agree. We won't stop it or even slow it down. We ought
to be looking at how we're going to adapt to it - managed retreat, etc. But
we still have to get off oil as a national security issue.
TimK
> It is a trace gas, and most of the warming is due to water vapor.
Um, the gap between your assertion and reality is pretty wide there skippy.
In the first place, water is a feedback not a forcing. And in the second
place, water is, for the most part, in equilibrium in the atmosphere.
Although I have no reason to believe you're clever enough to come in out of
it, you probably have seen what happens when the atmosphere becomes
"saturated" with water vapor.
But thanks for playing; it's always nice when deniers spout such utter
nonsense - it's a great way of showing those of us who actually understand
some of this stuff that you don't even get the basics.
TimK
"TUKA" <tu...@tuka.valuemedia.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhi4qb...@bill.heins.net...
> Explain what happened to them in the MWP then. Or the Roman Optimum.
How many people were on the earth then compared to now?
anorton
Huh? Those particular links were talking about problems with the cosmic ray
hypothesis not trying to prove CO2 causes warming. The Scientific American
article does ALSO talk about the CO2 trace gas issue But there is no
strawman (or dog), it is simply hard to include every variation of every
specious argument to counter as new ones keep cropping up as old ones are
debunked.
> (1) http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/straw.htm
>
>> And why is Scientific American (the
>> oldest continuously published periodical in the USA) junk science?
>
> First I note that you add some loaded language in your "question" that
> amounts to an appeal to authority question. It doesn't matter what their
> laurels are, they are publishing crap now. "Crap" being straw dog
> fallacies that turn science and logic on its head. See, for example, the
> article in question.
>
>
>
>
>>> I would point out that there isn't even a hypothesis how CO2 causes
>>> climate, yet the same AGW advocates who dismiss the Svensmark theory
>>> ignore that their arguments are far weaker.
>>
>> Again, blatantly false claim. Here are the detailed calculations of the
>> CO2 green house effect:
>> http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf
>
> Oh please. I debunked this crap power point before.
>
> Charts 1 & 2: data from a live, CO2 emitting volcano being used as
> representative of the whole world's CO2 level. That's non-science.
So that means you think the true CO2 concentration is actually significantly
different? What about readings from many other stations that show nearly
identical results.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.html
>
> Chart 3 through 9: Here he calculates the amount of CO2 added and the
> amount of CO2 increase. He shows that the amount of CO2 we add is larger
> than the increase from the volcano data, ERGO he fallaciously concludes,
> we put the CO2 there. This is a fallacy of omission, and pathetically bad
> science.
No, this is NOT what he does here. He calculates the total mass of carbon
entering the atmosphere each year due to ALL sources and sinks based on the
observed increased in CO2 ( which are basically the same at stations across
the world). He makes no attempt to say how much is put there by humans. He
simply compares that to the total mass of human generated CO2 to give the
reader an idea of the magnitude.
But the important point, that you did not rebut, is the main part of the
paper. The paper does not deal with where the CO2 comes from. He calculates
the effect of the earth's heat flux and temperature due to a change in CO2
concentration (from any source). This is something you claimed no one has
even shown, yet here it is. And there are a whole bunch of other people that
have done similar if not so detailed calculations.
Marvin the Martian
Not the last one. You wanted an example, I gave it to you.
> The Scientific
> American article does ALSO talk about the CO2 trace gas issue But there
> is no strawman (or dog), it is simply hard to include every variation of
> every specious argument to counter as new ones keep cropping up as old
> ones are debunked.
Simple denial, and then you follow up by admitting it isn't the argument
and use another fallacy to defend it.
>> (1) http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/straw.htm
>>
>>> And why is Scientific American (the
>>> oldest continuously published periodical in the USA) junk science?
>>
>> First I note that you add some loaded language in your "question" that
>> amounts to an appeal to authority question. It doesn't matter what
>> their laurels are, they are publishing crap now. "Crap" being straw dog
>> fallacies that turn science and logic on its head. See, for example,
>> the article in question.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I would point out that there isn't even a hypothesis how CO2 causes
>>>> climate, yet the same AGW advocates who dismiss the Svensmark theory
>>>> ignore that their arguments are far weaker.
>>>
>>> Again, blatantly false claim. Here are the detailed calculations of
>>> the CO2 green house effect:
>>> http://www.hfranzen.org/Global_Warming.pdf
>>
>> Oh please. I debunked this crap power point before.
>>
>> Charts 1 & 2: data from a live, CO2 emitting volcano being used as
>> representative of the whole world's CO2 level. That's non-science.
>
> So that means you think the true CO2 concentration is actually
> significantly different?
Got any objective data? I don't know what the CO2 concentrations are. I
know CO2 concentrations vary throughout the world, and that it is clearly
junk science to use one data point as representative of the entire world.
> What about readings from many other stations
> that show nearly identical results.
> http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.html
Quite frankly, the CRU emails proves that such nice, agreeable graphs are
often the product of collusion. So, that doesn't prove much, especially
when the source is a fraud website.
But lets say that CO2 is increasing. That in no way proves it is a man
made increase. That doesn't follow, especially since CO2 levels have
shown changes in the past.
>> Chart 3 through 9: Here he calculates the amount of CO2 added and the
>> amount of CO2 increase. He shows that the amount of CO2 we add is
>> larger than the increase from the volcano data, ERGO he fallaciously
>> concludes, we put the CO2 there. This is a fallacy of omission, and
>> pathetically bad science.
>
> No, this is NOT what he does here. He calculates the total mass of
> carbon entering the atmosphere each year due to ALL sources and sinks
> based on the observed increased in CO2 ( which are basically the same at
> stations across the world). He makes no attempt to say how much is put
> there by humans. He simply compares that to the total mass of human
> generated CO2 to give the reader an idea of the magnitude.
Okay, so you agree with me and admit he is gibbering, and his calculation
meaningless. I thought you were taken in by his one sided BS.
So, why are you foisting what you know is Bullshit at me? It doesn't do
your credibility any good at all.
> But the important point, that you did not rebut, is the main part of the
> paper. The paper does not deal with where the CO2 comes from. He
> calculates the effect of the earth's heat flux and temperature due to a
> change in CO2 concentration (from any source). This is something you
> claimed no one has even shown, yet here it is. And there are a whole
> bunch of other people that have done similar if not so detailed
> calculations.
Now you're being stupid on purpose. If we humans didn't put the CO2
there, then we're not causing the warming and the discussion is over.
I didn't bother with the rest of his paper when I got to the point where
he failed to prove a human cause for the CO2 increase. Now you throw a
fallacy-fallacy at me?
When you are making a sequential argument and each step is critical, you
can't blow BS at one and then claim your argument is good because the
next step hasn't been rebutted yet.
IF We caused the CO2 increase (failed to prove)
and
IF the CO2 caused the warming (I didn't bother much with...)
and
IF the warming is bad... (never really got there)
THEN
Do something about it.
You have to prove the first IF. Any "If" that isn't true invalidates your
argument.
TimK
> But lets say that CO2 is increasing.
Well, it is being measured...
>That in no way proves it is a man made increase.
Of course, how could it be man-made, as we go scurrying around in our cars
pumping about 10 kg of CO2 for every 4 litres we burn...
Aratzio
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> got double secret probation for
writing:
>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:40:00 -0800, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>> effect is caused by human activity. As yet, no one has been able to
>>>> explain how this three tenths of one percent is causing catastrophic
>>>> warming.
>>>>
>>>> Among the tidbits included in this piece is the fact that since the
>>>> beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 has increased by
>>>> 80,400 parts per billion, of which 68,500 parts per billion is from
>>>> natural causes, leaving only 11,880 coming from man made causes.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, the overwhelming majority of the CO2 increase is beyond
>>>> man's control.
>>>>
>>>> Please explain.
>>>
>>>Not true at all. You are even exagerating the common distortion of the data
>>>. This is one of the 7 major commonly-cited distortions that Scientific
>>>American took the pains to refute:
>>>
>>>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense
>>>
>>>Refuting all crap like that posted by Mr. Hartung and others is a bit like
>>>playing whack-a-mole.
>>>
>>
>>All of which does not matter, cost benefit analysis is simple, if
>>humans are not affecting global warming creating a less carbon based
>>energy policy will not damage the global environment. Whereas
>>continuimg in the same mode and being wrong will kill millios and
>>quite possibly billions of people and with a possibility of all
>>humanity.
>
> Tell the engineers how to create a less carbon
>based energy policy.
>
> Please.
Nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, solar/microwave.
As an Engineer I can say that isn't the even the hard part. Getting
the less informed educated and relieving their self-indulgent
ignorance is the majot roadblock.
>
>>Being wrong and having no effect or being wrong and we all die.
>
> From what, weather like in Florida, or Hawaii,
>Rio, the Riviera?
Just a few: Flooding, droughts, snow pack melting sooner, increased
water vapor in the atmosphere as temps increase causing ever greater
increases.
You sure don't know much about the process.
>
>
>>Make
>>that decision and explain it to your grandchildren in 40 years.
>
>
> That is something I would like to do, but
>at 120 there might be difficulty talking.
>
So you are 80 now, right.
Aratzio
"Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
>
>"Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>news:66m3i55hom636lac8...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:23:27 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>> "James" <king...@iglou.com> got double secret probation for writing:
>>
>>>TimK wrote:
>>>> "Perry Brown" <PBR...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:MPG.258b36953...@news.x-privat.org...
>>>>> By Alan I. Leshner
>>>>> Wednesday, December 9, 2009; 6:48 PM
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Now, the American public is again being subjected to those kinds of
>>>>> denials, this time about global climate change. While former Alaska
>>>>> governor Sarah Palin wrote in her Dec. 9 op-ed that she did not deny
>>>>> the "reality of some changes in climate," she distorted the clear
>>>>> scientific evidence that Earth's climate is changing, largely as a
>>>>> result of human behaviors. She also badly confused the concepts of
>>>>> daily weather changes and long-term climate trends when she wrote
>>>>> that "while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical
>>>>> environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's
>>>>> activities cause weather changes." Her statement inaccurately
>>>>> suggests that short-term weather fluctuations must be consistent
>>>>> with long-term climate patterns. And it is the long-term patterns
>>>>> that are a cause for concern.
>>>>
>>>> Ain't it tragic how an idiot like Palin has any audience at all
>>>> concerning a matter of science...
>>>
>>>Pricks like you also think Al Gore is scientist enough to know what he is
>>>talking about. lol
>>
>> No, he is a concerned citizen with a platform and is espousing a
>> cogent and rational policy.
>>
>> You do know how to tell the difference between policy and science,
>> right?
>>
>> So, eplain why the "left" would create the conspiracy of global
>> warming:
>>
>
>Aratzio, which newsgroup are you posting from ?
The Spanish Inquisition.
(Didn't expect that, eh?)
>We can sure use some rational thinkers in the alt.global-warming group,
>which seems to be dominated by denialist liers these days.
>
Well, I'm less of a rationalist and more of a fuckheadalist. I am also
a big fan of smoking craters.
Aratzio
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> got double secret
probation for writing:
>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:40:00 -0800, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:46:14 -0800, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>"anorton" <ano...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> got double secret
>>probation for writing:
>>
>>>
>>>"David Hartung" <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4b2176c9$0$5345$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>>>> TimK wrote:
>>>>> "Perry Brown" <PBR...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:MPG.258b36953...@news.x-privat.org...
>>>>>> By Alan I. Leshner
>>>>>> Wednesday, December 9, 2009; 6:48 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, the American public is again being subjected to those kinds of
>>>>>> denials, this time about global climate change. While former Alaska
>>>>>> governor Sarah Palin wrote in her Dec. 9 op-ed that she did not deny
>>>>>> the "reality of some changes in climate," she distorted the clear
>>>>>> scientific evidence that Earth's climate is changing, largely as a
>>>>>> result of human behaviors. She also badly confused the concepts of
>>>>>> daily weather changes and long-term climate trends when she wrote that
>>>>>> "while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical
>>>>>> environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's
>>>>>> activities cause weather changes." Her statement inaccurately suggests
>>>>>> that short-term weather fluctuations must be consistent with long-term
>>>>>> climate patterns. And it is the long-term patterns that are a cause
>>>>>> for concern.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ain't it tragic how an idiot like Palin has any audience at all
>>>>> concerning a matter of science...
>>Being wrong and having no effect or being wrong and we all die. Make
>>that decision and explain it to your grandchildren in 40 years.
>
> Just the melting of the glaciers in the Himalayas is putting
>the water & irrigation supplies of China, India & much of the
>rest of Asia at severe risk.
>
> That would turn into several billion starving people looking
>at the US & other places for food & water .... IF the US is
>unimpacted. And guess who would get the blame ....
The US will not be unaffected. The snowpack which supplies much of the
water to the major river systems in the USA will melt earlier. Places
like California that depend upon water storage to supply agro and
municipal water will have to release most of their water due to
overfilling and then when the dry months arrive there will be no
snowpack to replenish the reservoirs.
The earlier melt will also cause massive flooding in the midwest
wiping out crops there and removing milions of acres of top soil.
Aratzio
David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Aratzio wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:31:35 -0600, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> got double secret probation for
>> writing:
>>
>> Which has a worse outcome:
>>
>> 1. Making the world more energy efficient and less polluting and being
>> wrong about the effects of humans upon global warming.
>>
>> 2. Not becoming more energy efficient and less polluting and being
>> wrong about the effects of humans upon global warming.
>>
>> which of the two above has the most dire long term effects for all of
>> humanity?
>
>People generally use this line of argument when all else fails.
>
>There is the possibility that I am wrong, but right now I believe that
>the greater possibility is that I am right. We do not know what has
>caused the warming trends of recent past, and to "fix" the wrong problem
>could have unintended consequences, which could make things worse. The
>rational thing to do is to continue the research but not make drastic
>changes until we have more fact to go on.
We know the results of lower levels of greenhouse gasses so your
concerns are shown false by empirical evidence.
Even so, the ability to add greenhouse gases is available at almost a
moments notice. The inverse is a technological process requiring
decades.
Bottom line: you are willing to gamble the lives of billions of people
based upon no evidence other than your own suppositions. People who
will be dying long after your own demise.
Aratzio
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> got double secret
probation for writing:
> Is 100% a "possibility"?
>
>>but right now I believe that
>>the greater possibility is that I am right.
>
> Faith based science, eh?
>
>>We do not know what has
>>caused the warming trends of recent past,
>
> Which ones?
>
>>and to "fix" the wrong problem
>>could have unintended consequences, which could make things worse. The
>>rational thing to do is to continue the research but not make drastic
>>changes until we have more fact to go on.
>
> The scientists & experts have far more
>data, science, facts & info than is needed.
> Wingers just have confusion, ignorance & lies. Why buy from them?
Empirical data for less greeenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is
available.
Empirical evidence of runaway greenhouse is also: Venus.
Aratzio
"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> got double secret probation for
writing:
>On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:08:02 -0800, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote in message
>>news:scn3i5lpnsuqshl2n...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:40:00 -0800, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:46:14 -0800, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>"anorton" <ano...@removethis.ix.netcom.com> got double secret
>>>>probation for writing:
>>>>>
>>>>>"David Hartung" <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:4b2176c9$0$5345$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>>>>>Not true at all. You are even exagerating the common distortion of the
>>>>>data
>>>>>. This is one of the 7 major commonly-cited distortions that Scientific
>>>>>American took the pains to refute:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense
>>>>>
>>>>>Refuting all crap like that posted by Mr. Hartung and others is a bit
>>>>>like
>>>>>playing whack-a-mole.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>All of which does not matter, cost benefit analysis is simple, if
>>>>humans are not affecting global warming creating a less carbon based
>>>>energy policy will not damage the global environment. Whereas
>>>>continuimg in the same mode and being wrong will kill millios and
>>>>quite possibly billions of people and with a possibility of all
>>>>humanity.
>>>
>>> Tell the engineers how to create a less carbon
>>> based energy policy.
>>>
>>> Please.
>>
>>You do not have to tell the engineers. They already know.
>
>
> Not that it has been evident in the available products.
*BOGGLE*
Really? You can't find any evidence?
>
>
>>There are alternatives to fossil fuel burning, starting with plug-in
>>hybrids,
>
> Half the people can't afford a new car, few used ones.
Well, I am convinced, fuck it, trash the dump.
>
>>nationwide upgraded grid, wind, solar, nuclear (thorium plants),
>>geothermal etc etc.
>
>
> So start activism where it will do some good.
*BOGGLE*
Really? You don't see any local activism? Like those crazy kids
running the State of California?
Aratzio
"TimK" <tim...@cfl.rr.com> got double secret probation for writing:
That is what always amazes me, the basic denier is more often than not
big on defense issues. They don't get that disconnect.
pyotr filipivich
that fear the truth and want the new Holocaust for 9/11"
reported Elvis on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:00:52 GMT in misc.survivalism:
>
>"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:qfn3i51pg1sae2ls5...@4ax.com...
>
>> the problem is that in the data dump from the Climate Research
>> Unit there is program code. The instructions to make the computer
>> software to run. And in that code is evidence that they were making
>> it all up as they went. Hard coding the "variables" in order to get
>> the answer they wanted. That's not science, that's fraud.
>
>You people are missing the bigger picture coming forth, as the whole point
>of pushing this fraud called global warming isn't about the science, the
>fraud, and lies, it nothing more then:
> 1.. The condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief.
> 2.. Something, such as a fantastic plan or desire, that causes an
>erroneous belief or perception tp create a new order out of Kaos.
>it is al about creating a one world government, where nations will have to
>give up their sovereign rights and that is what people should be concerned
>about.
All true. But the globalists are dressing up their religion in
the guise of "Science" - they have computer models!
When it is pointed out that their computer models are not "models"
but rigged demos, it hammers at the quality of their "science".
revealing that their beleif is based not on "science" but on faith -
religion, ideology, mania, delusion, the madness of crowds, whatever.
>
-
pyotr filipivich.
Just about the time you finally see light at the end of the tunnel,
you find out it's a Government Project to build more tunnel.
TimK
> When it is pointed out that their computer models are not "models"
> but rigged demos, it hammers at the quality of their "science".
> revealing that their beleif is based not on "science" but on faith -
> religion, ideology, mania, delusion, the madness of crowds, whatever.
You've obviously never seen a model compared to actual measurements in the
primary literature or you'd realize what a fucking ignorant statement that
is. But that's how the deniers work, you just make the shit up as you go
along.
Straightarrow
> Straightarrow wrote:
> >>> How?? Because of his leadership abilities or the color of his skin??
> >> Leadership abilities.
>
> > LEADERSHIP ABILITIES ??!!!! ROTGDFLMMFAO !!! IT TOOK THE IGNORANT
> > DOOFUS 3 MONTHS TO DECIDE ON A DOG FFS !!! IT TOOK THE STUPID
> > MOTHERFUCKER 3 MONTHS TO DECIDE ON WHETHER TO SEND THE 40,000 TROOPS
> > HIS HAND PICKED GENERAL AXKED FOR !!!!!! THEN THE STUPID,BIG EARED
> > COCKSUCKER AGREES TO 30,000 !! LMGDAO !!! LEADERSHIP ??!!!!
> > (cough-cough) HHAAAHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH !!!!! STOP IT !!
> > YOU'RE KILLING ME !!!! HHHHAAAAAAHHHHAAAARRRGGGHHH (cough-hack-hack-
> > cough) !!!!!!!!!
>
> Hey, at least his teleprompter doesn't spell nuclear "new-clear"
Well hell. Then that alone makes Hussein a "great" leader huh?
Geo. Morgan
Not the least. He hasn't even been President for a year yet and you
consider him a failure.
He's inherited a mess.
The Executive Branch (President) lays out the budget, it's passed to
the Legislature, and then back to the President for final approval.
So it means that Bush is responsible for the mess.
The Bush budget ended in October, and you are blaming Obama.
And you dwell on his use of a teleprompter as if it is significant?
Bush had one as well, but obviously preferred to shoot from the hip.
"This is my maiden voyage. My first speech since I was the president
of the United States and I couldn't think of a better place to give it
than Calgary, Canada." --George W. Bush, as reported by the Associated
Press, Calgary, Canada, March 17, 2009
"I'm going to put people in my place, so when the history of this
administration is written at least there's an authoritarian voice
saying exactly what happened." --George W. Bush, on what he hopes to
accomplish with his memoir, as reported by the Associated Press,
Calgary, Canada, March 17, 2009
"One of the very difficult parts of the decision I made on the
financial crisis was to use hardworking people's money to help prevent
there to be a crisis." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 12,
2009
"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America,
Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And
I wish him all the very best." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.,
Jan. 12, 2009
"In terms of the economy, look, I inherited a recession, I am ending
on a recession." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009
"I guess it's OK to call the secretary of education here 'buddy.' That
means friend." --George W. Bush, Philadelphia, Jan. 8, 2009
"I guess it's OK to call the secretary of education here 'buddy.' That
means friend." --George W. Bush, Philadelphia, Jan. 8, 2009
"So I analyzed that and decided I didn't want to be the president
during a depression greater than the Great Depression, or the
beginning of a depression greater than the Great Depression." --George
W. Bush, Washington D.C., Dec. 18, 2008
"People say, well, do you ever hear any other voices other than, like,
a few people? Of course I do." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.,
Dec. 18, 2008
"I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market
system." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 2008,
But we know that you're a 22 year-old hillbilly. So everyone respects
your input.