Global Warming.

Coyote-Loco wrote:

We still haven't hit the temps of the mid 30's by at least 16 degrees yet, so much for their global warming.

Does lying make you right?

Farscape699 wrote:

People need to learn what empirical data is and how science works....the mere notion that laypeople try to debate the merits of climate change really makes those living in this country seem somewhat retarded.

Science may not always be correct and forecasting future impact is not a 100% accurate ordeal, but when there is about a 99% consensus on climate change, and our species' role in it, it is rather ridiculous to "argue" the fact on the intrawebs.


At the very least, it is fairly clear that our manufacturing methods are terribly unclean and pollute our air and water sources and last time I checked, clean air and water was fairly tantamount to our existence....or is that "liberal bias"?

So, the science overwhelming shows that mankind is having a detrimental impact on the climate and despite the severity of said impact, everyone should agree that, at the very least, putting trillions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere = not so good for humanity (or any other species).

Our manufacturing methods are far cleaner then what they used to. Compared to the 20 through the 60s In the 60s we started cleaning it up. Maine where I am from Salmon stopped swimming up rivers that had paper mills on them. Today the Salmon are thriving even the scientist said they would never return. I do not think anyone is against making the environment better. Matter of fact liberal conservative are on the same page as far as the environment goes. The difference is how do we deal with it? Environmentalist want us to go so far it kills jobs. Conservatives want the environment taken care of but in a responsible way that does not kill jobs. Kind of funny how both sides agree but cannot agree on how to get there.

That's such an irrelevant and pointless argument though......whether or not someone uses a private plane and/or has central air has almost nothing to do with this argument.

This is an issue that involves corporation dumping trillions of tons of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, coupled with our dependency on a substance that presents both an ecological danger AND a national security risk (not to mention it's a finite resource).

This type of nonsense is analogous to me saying the republicans have no right to preach family values and homophobia because some of their members have been caught in gay love triangles.....hypocrisy does not supersede the merits of the argument.

What bothers me is that the people against any sort of new energy and/or climate change, seem to be nothing more than corporate whores....why else would you defend a corporation's right to pollute you and your family's water/air?

I'm curious, have you seen the documentary, "Gasland"? Tap water that catches on fire is clearly good for your kids!

Quote :

This is an issue that involves corporation dumping trillions of tons of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, coupled with our dependency on a substance that presents both an ecological danger AND a national security risk (not to mention it's a finite resource).

Again though compared to the 20s through the 60s it is far better. And as the technology becomes more available it will always get better. Those companies that do not fallow the rules everyone agrees they should be hammered. No one here is against a cleaner environment. No one is against new energy heck everyone on this board loves it when someone posts about new energy. No one is against cleaner energy. I think the argument is clean safe cheap energy. No one wants the electric bill to double or triple. Hell myself I am looking at windmills because the wind blows all the time here. Not only will it save me money I wont be beholding to the electric company. I think that is what it all boils down to.

You are correct in that as technology has advanced, so too has pollution decreased. However, as China and India industrialize, which comprises almost half of the planet's population, we are seeing pollution rates skyrocket. This problem also ties into our current unemployment problem because US corporations are moving operations overseas to subvert US taxes and use older/cheaper technologies to also subvert pollution laws.

So, the government taking action against US corporations not only improves our air quality, but would also lead to jobs coming back to the US, but politicians from both parties are sponsored by said corporations and nothing every gets done.

Also, you need to account for just how big the oil monopoly is and how NO corporation will be able to make affordable alternative energy without government subsidation.

I was talking with some friends on another forum about what the top 25 sports franchises, around the world are worth and an interesting little fact came out of that article: Exxon Mobile makes more PROFIT in one QUARTER than the top 25 sports organizations are worth combined....in other words, Exxon could buy almost every major sports franchise in the world with 3 months profit and that's ONE oil company.

The industry makes more in profit, in a single quarter, than Microsoft is worth....hell, they make enough in profit each year to buy just about every tech company on earth all together.

So, how does ANY corporation compete with that? We need the government to subsidize alternative energy heavily and to tax the hell out of oil companies to negate some of those ridiculous profits....when one corporation earns more in profit in one quarter than the GDP of most countries, there is something horribly wrong.

BTW, Exxon could pay off our entire 1.3 tril deficit with their profits and still be profitable....go figure.

Quote :

You are correct in that as technology has advanced, so too has pollution decreased. However, as China and India industrialize, which comprises almost half of the planet's population, we are seeing pollution rates skyrocket. This problem also ties into our current unemployment problem because US corporations are moving operations overseas to subvert US taxes and use older/cheaper technologies to also subvert pollution laws.

There is an old saying going back to Vietnam. We cannot police the whole world. Those countries you talk about are sovereign countries. Nothing we can do about that. Except lower taxes on corporations so they stay here in America. I was watching Fox News. New Balance shoes they are only sports shoes made in America today. Myself from here on out that will be the only shoe I will ever buy. But I digress I will deny that companies are shipping jobs overseas. But what you state is not the only reason. Oppressive taxes cheaper labor also play a big role in that. Those things cannot be discounted.

I also blame labor unions for destroying jobs. Labor unions at one time were good for the workers and now are nothing more then a political arm of the democratic party. Case in point labor unions destroying jobs. My brother in law at one paper mill they were union the paper mill was taking it on the chin yet the labor unions would not yield they asked the workers to take a 2 dollar an hour pay cut. Now starting pay was 23 bucks an hour. Unions said piss off we are not doing you lying about your books.

5 months later the mill shuts down into bankruptcy. Not one but 2. 2000 jobs lost. 5 years later the mill finally opened under new ownership. Now they get paid 12 bucks an hour no sick time and one week vacation a year. They lost everything retirement the whole 9 yards. So tell me what is better 2 dollar an hour pay cut or and make 21 dollars an hour or get laid off come back and only make 12? This has played out all over the country. Not just what I said but many people have said the unions screwed them. Now does this mean all unions are bad no.

My father in law is a member of a great construction union. They make sure they have work there is no labor disputes the union takes care of there medical and retirement. They look out for the workers not themselves.

Quote :

BTW, Exxon could pay off our entire 1.3 tril deficit with their profits and still be profitable....go figure.

I will take your word for it then they would just pass the cost on to us at the pump. Now I will agree oil companies should not get tax breaks but also the oil companies are paying more then 50 percent in taxes on any profit they make. Once you add in federal state and local. Hell Texas and Alaska the people pay no state taxes because the oil companies pay it all. I just have decided where I am going to move to once I retire Florida, Texas or Alaska. However where I live our taxes are severely cheap because of the taxes paid by the coal companies.

Please show me some stat where oil companies are paying a 50% tax rate......in most cases, not only are they paying NO taxes, but they're also getting government subsidies.

BTW, how does making less profit force them to charge more "at the pump"? As long as they remain profitable, they shouldn't be passing along ANY costs at all....well, unless they just want to be greedy bastards, which they are.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

There is an old saying going back to Vietnam. We cannot police the whole world. Those countries you talk about are sovereign countries. Nothing we can do about that. Except lower taxes on corporations so they stay here in America. I was watching Fox News. New Balance shoes they are only sports shoes made in America today. Myself from here on out that will be the only shoe I will ever buy. But I digress I will deny that companies are shipping jobs overseas. But what you state is not the only reason. Oppressive taxes cheaper labor also play a big role in that. Those things cannot be discounted.

Our corporate tax rate is about on par with most other nations, yet most other nations don't see their corporations marching away to foreign countries; ours are just greedy and could care less about this country.

And this is most definitely something we could easily address by simply adding a tariff to imported goods. You see, the politicians and corporations keep crying about the "world economy" and how stopping them from "expanding into foreign markets" is somehow a horrible thing to do with foreign countries and stifles corporate growth. But that line is all BS, because we're not talking about "expansion" and those corporations aren't there to sell to foreign markets; they are merely moving their corporate locations to avoid paying ANY taxes and moving their industry to rape cheap foreign labor and pollute foreign water. In essence, they are moving their base of operations to China, only to sell the crap they make there back to the US...that is NOT globalization, nor is it "expansion".

Now, I'm all for companies opening branches overseas to sell to local markets, but that's clearly not the case here. These companies are pissing all over America by driving down mean wages in this country and sending all of the jobs overseas so that they can continue to supply goods to us that we can afford with our lowered wages.

The government needs to step in and tax the living hell out of imported goods until they quit being greedy bastards. And if they try to pull the, "well we just won't incorporate in America anymore" crap, then kick them off of the NYSE and let them die.

Quote :

I also blame labor unions for destroying jobs. Labor unions at one time were good for the workers and now are nothing more then a political arm of the democratic party. Case in point labor unions destroying jobs. My brother in law at one paper mill they were union the paper mill was taking it on the chin yet the labor unions would not yield they asked the workers to take a 2 dollar an hour pay cut. Now starting pay was 23 bucks an hour. Unions said piss off we are not doing you lying about your books.

God forbid workers want a fair income for the work they do! Do yourself a favor and look up mean income over the last 30 years and see how the top 5% have made HUGE gains, while everyone else's income has remained stagnant. Now correlate that data with "right to work states" versus unionized states and see how piss poor non-union states wages are and how horrible their working conditions are.

It kills me that people actually defend corporate profits at the cost of their own paychecks.....maybe your brother's papermill should have cut those 7 figure upper-management salaries THEN asked their workers to take a cut?

40-50 years ago, most companies paid enough in wages to support a family, at a solid level, on ONE income and they had generous retirement packages, benefits and, typically, profit sharing and/or stock incentives. Now, due to union busting and conservatism corporatism, it takes TWO incomes to just make the bills, we have next to no benefits, we have no profit sharing and no one gives stock incentives anymore......yeah, that's great for the workers!

Quote :

5 months later the mill shuts down into bankruptcy. Not one but 2. 2000 jobs lost. 5 years later the mill finally opened under new ownership. Now they get paid 12 bucks an hour no sick time and one week vacation a year. They lost everything retirement the whole 9 yards. So tell me what is better 2 dollar an hour pay cut or and make 21 dollars an hour or get laid off come back and only make 12? This has played out all over the country. Not just what I said but many people have said the unions screwed them. Now does this mean all unions are bad no.

What is better, is for corporations not to try to drive employee wages down and for our trade policy to not allow foreign corporations, and those who ship jobs overseas, to have a decided advantage on US companies.

BTW, since you used a papermill, I'll use one of my own: Here in Camas, the entire economy was built around the papermill here....the HS team is even called the "Papermakers". This is a non-union company who pays poo wages, yet has downsized over and over again and will likely end up being relocated overseas within the decade. So, no union, they drove down wages, they reduced the workforce (making those who remain work harder) and they STILL fail.

So, no, unions aren't the problem.....

Quote :

My father in law is a member of a great construction union. They make sure they have work there is no labor disputes the union takes care of there medical and retirement. They look out for the workers not themselves.

Unions have flaws....all organizations have flaws. That doesn't give you carte blanch to blanket the whole concept or blame unions as a whole.....there is NO data to support such a philosophy.

BTW, my dad made nearly 60K in the 1980s as a foreman at a printing press....that same job, today, pays about 30-40K depending on the area. I guess unions caused that?

Farscape699 wrote:

Does lying make you right?

Well it surely didn't make the climatologists that made all the global warming data correct.

So, all scientists are now part of a vast left wing conspiracy to come up with alternative energy sources? Me thinks that tinfoil hat might be too tight:-)

Farscape699 wrote:

Our corporate tax rate is about on par with most other nations, yet most other nations don't see their corporations marching away to foreign countries; ours are just greedy and could care less about this country.

We have high tax rates, higher and more costly government regulations, and higher employee pay rates, put that all together and they go to Mexico or Asia where they pay employees a weekly wage that equates to a day or less here. They have little or no government regulation costs, and less taxes. Even if the taxes are the same, the other costs make the difference.

Farscape699 wrote:

And this is most definitely something we could easily address by simply adding a tariff to imported goods. You see, the politicians and corporations keep crying about the "world economy" and how stopping them from "expanding into foreign markets" is somehow a horrible thing to do with foreign countries and stifles corporate growth. But that line is all BS, because we're not talking about "expansion" and those corporations aren't there to sell to foreign markets; they are merely moving their corporate locations to avoid paying ANY taxes and moving their industry to rape cheap foreign labor and pollute foreign water. In essence, they are moving their base of operations to China, only to sell the crap they make there back to the US...that is NOT globalization, nor is it "expansion".

Now, I'm all for companies opening branches overseas to sell to local markets, but that's clearly not the case here. These companies are pissing all over America by driving down mean wages in this country and sending all of the jobs overseas so that they can continue to supply goods to us that we can afford with our lowered wages.

The government needs to step in and tax the living hell out of imported goods until they quit being greedy bastards. And if they try to pull the, "well we just won't incorporate in America anymore" crap, then kick them off of the NYSE and let them die.

I agree. I'd even go one further, ban the sale of any of their products in the US all together. And I'd include their parent, sister, etc companies as well. If we're not good enough to make the stuff, we're not good enough to buy it either.

Farscape699 wrote:

God forbid workers want a fair income for the work they do! Do yourself a favor and look up mean income over the last 30 years and see how the top 5% have made HUGE gains, while everyone else's income has remained stagnant. Now correlate that data with "right to work states" versus unionized states and see how piss poor non-union states wages are and how horrible their working conditions are.

It kills me that people actually defend corporate profits at the cost of their own paychecks.....maybe your brother's papermill should have cut those 7 figure upper-management salaries THEN asked their workers to take a cut?

40-50 years ago, most companies paid enough in wages to support a family, at a solid level, on ONE income and they had generous retirement packages, benefits and, typically, profit sharing and/or stock incentives. Now, due to union busting and conservatism corporatism, it takes TWO incomes to just make the bills, we have next to no benefits, we have no profit sharing and no one gives stock incentives anymore......yeah, that's great for the workers!

Once again I agree with you. It's true that Unions have become very corrupt, but they still do far more good than bad. Even non unionized shops are forced to pay better rates simply because their unionized competition in the area does. It's because of that the companies move to poorer states or areas without union shops, if not out of the country, to avoid having to pay decent rates. Some union pay, like in the automotive industry is way high, but then again so is the cost of the cars. All of that cost is just artificially inflated to make bigger profits and the union wanted their cut too.

In the sixties a person could work a minimum wage job and buy a house for $30-$50k and a new car for $5-$8k. Min Wage in 62 was $1.15 which is equal to $5.97 in todays dollar, yet Fed min wage today is $7.25. That's a 21% increase. Yet houses that cost $30-$50k then now cost $1.25M-$2M and the cars that cost $5k-$8k now cost $50k-$80k, that's more than a thousand percent increase. It was possible back then to make a living and support a family off of one single minimum wage job, now it isn't. And I'm not advocating a min wage increase, that does no good as long as companies are allowed to artificially increase the cost of goods and services to make bigger profits. And the gap between wages and cost is only growing as unions are slowly done away with.

eber322 wrote:

We have high tax rates, higher and more costly government regulations, and higher employee pay rates, put that all together and they go to Mexico or Asia where they pay employees a weekly wage that equates to a day or less here. They have little or no government regulation costs, and less taxes. Even if the taxes are the same, the other costs make the difference.

Again, one just can't make up facts than base their rationale on it. You see, our tax rates are about on par with the rest of the world:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world...I know, wiki sucks, but the source they used is solid and it's a quick search.

Quote :

I agree. I'd even go one further, ban the sale of any of their products in the US all together. And I'd include their parent, sister, etc companies as well. If we're not good enough to make the stuff, we're not good enough to buy it either.

Agreed.

Quote :

Once again I agree with you. It's true that Unions have become very corrupt, but they still do far more good than bad. Even non unionized shops are forced to pay better rates simply because their unionized competition in the area does. It's because of that the companies more to poorer states or areas, if not out of the country, to avoid having to pay decent rates. Some union pay, like in the automotive industry is way high, but then again so is the cost of the cars. All of that cost is just artificially inflated to make bigger profits and the union wanted their cut too.

I'd have to dig up the article/study, but we really aren't paying our auto workers anymore than Japan, Korea, etc. are...the reason our companies are being killed is because we have to pay them insurance benefits, which aren't applicable in any other country (Japan, Germany and Korea all have universal health care). But, the biggest cost to our companies are the legacy costs.....benefits they promised to last generations employees such as 50% pensions and lifetime health insurance. That alone adds something like $30/hr to the hourly wages of CURRENT employees.

But our current employees are making about $25/hr, which is on par with manufacturers around the world.

Quote :

In the sixties a person could work a minimum wage job and buy a house for $30-$50k and a new car fro $5-$8k. Min Wage in 62 was $1.15 which is equal to $5.97 in todays dollar, yet Fed min wage today is $7.25. That's a 21% increase. Yet houses that cost $30-$50k then now cost $1.25M-$2M and the cars that cost $5k-$8k now cost $50k-$80k, that's more than a thousand percent increase. It was possible back then to make a living and support a family off of one single minimum wage job, now it isn't. And I'm not advocating a min wage increase, that does no good as long as companies are allowed to artificially increase the cost of goods and services to make bigger profits. And the gap between wages and cost is only growing as unions are slowly done away with.

Well, I think the fact that women entered the work force around that time, did cause some inflation and wage stagnation, but I think the bigger issue is corporate greed and a growthcentric economy. But it's a difficult and nuanced thing to deal with.

P.S. - the corporate tax rates, listed above, do not reflect the myriad of tax loop holes in our system, nor government corporate welfare.....we actually pay much less than most other nations, but pollution laws and slave wages negate tax benefits every time.

Never ever use wikipedia here. It is absolutely not reliable. Anyone can edit it to make it say what they want.

Farscape699 wrote:

Please show me some stat where oil companies are paying a 50% tax rate......in most cases, not only are they paying NO taxes, but they're also getting government subsidies.

BTW, how does making less profit force them to charge more "at the pump"? As long as they remain profitable, they shouldn't be passing along ANY costs at all....well, unless they just want to be greedy bastards, which they are.

All corporations right not are taxed at 35 percent depending on how much they make that is going to go up to 38. Add in the state taxes depending on what state it is even higher. Now add in the property tax of those companies and it goes higher. I agree they get subsidies and should not get them. But they do have to pay those taxes before they get those.

Then we have us poor consumers. Who have to pay the taxes at the pump. Government does not pay those subsidies we do. Oh ya they will tell you it goes for roads but I have a different theory on that and that is that.

Your right Oil companies do not pay taxes matter of fact in reality no company pays taxes they just add that in the price of the goods. We end up paying.

Farscape699 wrote:

Again, one just can't make up facts than base their rationale on it. You see, our tax rates are about on par with the rest of the world:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world...I know, wiki sucks, but the source they used is solid and it's a quick search.

I did not make up any facts. Did you even look at the chart you linked to on Wiki, Corporate tax rates for 2005? Almost 40%, second only to Japan. Followed closely by Canada, Spain, Germany. Meanwhile Mexico is under 30% and Korea is even less than them. Look at the table on that page we find Taiwan and Indonesia at 25%. All four of those countries destinations for the corporations that leave.

Farscape699 wrote:

I'd have to dig up the article/study, but we really aren't paying our auto workers anymore than Japan, Korea, etc. are...

Sure we are for the same reasons you then went on to list, insurance, pensions, benefits, vacations, etc. Those are all part of your wage if you get them as part of your employment. Just like drivers license renewal, car plate renewal, and state mandatory car insurance (which all have built in kick backs to the state from the ins company) are all just more taxes.

Farscape699 wrote:

Well, I think the fact that women entered the work force around that time, did cause some inflation and wage stagnation, but I think the bigger issue is corporate greed and a growthcentric economy. But it's a difficult and nuanced thing to deal with.

That's true, the equal rights movement simply let the greedy corporations charge even more, after all now that both spouses are working they have twice the money so we can charge twice as much for the same thing!!!

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Never ever use wikipedia here. It is absolutely not reliable. Anyone can edit it to make it say what they want.

Wiki should not be cited in official research (this is kinda what I do), but people need to get over themselves when knocking it without merit. It's a fairly decent means of locating quick information and, generally speaking, it's highly accurate.

In this particular case, it was sourced by the OECD, which is accurate and you can go to the source and get the same info.

Now, if you have some counter-evidence to suggest it is wrong, then so be it.....

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

All corporations right not are taxed at 35 percent depending on how much they make that is going to go up to 38. Add in the state taxes depending on what state it is even higher. Now add in the property tax of those companies and it goes higher. I agree they get subsidies and should not get them. But they do have to pay those taxes before they get those.

Again, not true. Try reading these:

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/accounting/papers/Hanlon.pdf

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-950

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php

Quote :

Then we have us poor consumers. Who have to pay the taxes at the pump. Government does not pay those subsidies we do. Oh ya they will tell you it goes for roads but I have a different theory on that and that is that.

This is theory and really has no empirical validity outside of that realm. What we do know is that oil companies will raise gas prices despite record profits, which seems to suggest that revenue does not drive pricing as much as the theorists would like to believe.

Read this.

http://www.taxrates.cc/html/us-tax-rates.html

But then again those taxes are passed along with the consumer.

Quote :

his is theory and really has no empirical validity outside of that realm. What we do know is that oil companies will raise gas prices despite record profits, which seems to suggest that revenue does not drive pricing as much as the theorists would like to believe.

Like I said it is my theory and I am sticking to it.

Yes, the base corporate tax rate IS 35% (actually, I think it's 37% now), but that is irrelevant, because there are multitudes of deductions and corporations have various means of subverting the established rate.

This is why I linked the papers I did, it explains this process and how most US corporations pay closer to 29% on average and some US corporations actually pay a NEGATIVE tax rate (meaning they get more government money than they pay....See: Boeing).

Additionally, the corporate tax rates around the world are about on par with ours; especially after you factor in deductions and corporate welfare.

As for being passed on to the consumer: How else do you propose taxing corporations? What alternative taxes on consumers/corporations would you suggest?

Personally, I think capital gains and dividends need to be taxed at a MUCH higher rate, but republicans and democrats cry about how that will destroy the economy (which is BS), because they're all corporate whores who make the majority of their earnings off of capital gains/dividends.

Farscape699 wrote:

People need to learn what empirical data is and how science works....the mere notion that laypeople try to debate the merits of climate change really makes those living in this country seem somewhat retarded.

Science may not always be correct and forecasting future impact is not a 100% accurate ordeal, but when there is about a 99% consensus on climate change, and our species' role in it, it is rather ridiculous to "argue" the fact on the intrawebs.

My problem when I hear 'consensu' is the definition of what consensus is--->
Consensus is defined in English as, firstly - general agreement and, secondly - group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in a Latin word meaning literally to feel together.[1]

The formal process of achieving consensus ideally requires serious treatment of the considered opinion of each group member: those advocating the adoption, say, of a particular course of action, genuinely wish to hear those who may be against the proposal, since discussion, it is supposed, can only enhance ultimate consensus. The hope is that in such circumstances action, or the adoption of group opinion, without resolution of dissent will be rare. A consensus rather than a voting process is often employed with this intention, as well as to minimize any possible damage to interpersonal relationships.


What this really means is 'consensus' isn't scientific! Where does true science 'vote' on what is real or what is not real? Ergo, when I hear Gore talk about he has a consensus about this, I can do nothing but laugh out loud!

[quote="Walterth3rd"]

Farscape699 wrote:

What this really means is 'consensus' isn't scientific! Where does true science 'vote' on what is real or what is not real? Ergo, when I hear Gore talk about he has a consensus about this, I can do nothing but laugh out loud!

Consensus is at the very heart of the scientific method.....someone does an experiment, publishes it and the scientific community vets it, which is, in essence, a "consensus".

In this particular case, not only is the data peer reviewed and widely accepted/proven, but various meta-analyses have been done to test the body of work as a whole and compare all of the various studies done to come to an "average", which, again, is common in the scientific process.

Farscape699 wrote:

Coyote-Loco wrote:

We still haven't hit the temps of the mid 30's by at least 16 degrees yet, so much for their global warming.

Does lying make you right?

If you had done Your scientific research (in this case something as simple as reading page 3, third post from the bottom) properly, you would have seen that, this was a continuation of a conversation concerning My area temperatures Only.

Coyote-Loco wrote:

eber322 wrote:

On my local news tonight they claimed that June was the warmest June world wide on record. And that that was the fourth month in a row to set a world wide record for warmth. Now they claim this is proof of Global Warming and we must act now. Interesting that these warm months happened at the same time it was revealed that all the climate data for years has been fudged or outright fabricated. Kind of makes me question this newest claim. In my area it was warm, but not out of the norm.

That's interesting, because in the 1930's in my area (Cumberland Mountains of South Eastern KY), it was in the 100's and I think the highest it ever got in July (around 1932 or 34) was 114F. We haven't even reached 100F this year. Thought it was supposed to get hotter, not cooler for it to be called Global Warming? Oh!, Wait!, I forgot, we are so deep in the mountains that we are always a few years behind the rest of the world, ya that's it!

SEE for your proof record high temp ky

You might consider being nicer with less arrogance attached to your statements to others, then people may be willing to learn from what you have to teach. Calling a man a lier, is not a nice thing to do, especially when you really don't know who (or what) you are really dealing with in the first place.

Here is a fine example of proper educational methods, using compassion and understanding (something you appear to lack) concerning Internet security and perceived anonymity.

Just because a person does not fill out an on-line profile, every time they visit a web site (logged in or not), they leave a trial back to themselves. This trail is call an IP (Internet Protocol) address unique to their accessing the Internet. This IP address leads right back to the persons ISP (Internet Service Provider) which in tern is attached to a unique MAC (Media Access Control) address of their modem (Hardware given to them by their ISP to access the Internet). This modem is attached to their router, which also has a unique MAC address, which intern is attached to their computer (I believe, a Laptop?) which holds all of their "personal" information. With cracking and hacking software access (through ports 110, 995, 443 email, 80, 8080 web browser, 5190 aol, msn, icq, etc...) is a cinch and then the sky is the limit.

There are people in this world that think using the Internet insulates them from their actions with others and therefore, they can be hateful, arrogant, and down right nasty with others( either directly or through innuendos). This misguided thought and feelings of anonymity, really does not exist at all, as can be seen by the above example.

So in conclusion, in a world where we must deal with others (on-line, in person, by mail, or what ever), we should become more civil, you just never know. see my profile. Soooo, lets you and I start being nicer to everyone and each other, OK?

Well I am going to dispute the 99 percent scientist thing. No way it that high.

Quote :

What happened to global warming?
By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News
10/9/09

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any
increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no
control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is
currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

Ocean cycles

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.

“ In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down ”

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool
cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that
means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has
recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate
predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never
increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of
slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global
temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be
hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is
possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing
global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Published: 2009/10/09 15:22:46 GMT
Other sources:

Here are some other links where the mainstream news media is starting to admit (sometimes very reluctantly) that global warming is not happening, some rather Orwellian too:


"The world leaders who met at the United Nations to discuss climate change on Tuesday are faced with an intricate challenge: building momentum for an international climate treaty at a time when global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years."
Source: Stable Global Temperatures Could Stifle Action on Climate - NYTimes.com
Address : http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html?hp=&pagew...

“Warming might be on hold, study finds – Discovery.com- msnbc.com” -

“[a]ccording to a new study, global warming may have hit a speed bump and could go into hiding for decades.” . . . Following a 30-year trend of warming, global temperatures have flatlined since 2001 despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations, and a heat surplus that should have cranked up the planetary thermostat.”

Saturday, March 07, 2009 9:10:06 PM http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/

“An average of all 38 available standard runs from the IPCC shows that models expect a temperature increase in this decade of about 0.2C. But this is not at all what we have seen. And this is true for all surface temperature measures, and even more so for both satellite measures. Temperatures in this decade have not been worse than expected; in fact, they have not even been increasing. They have actually decreased by between 0.01 and 0.1C per decade. . .Likewise, and arguably much more importantly, the heat content of the world’s oceans has been dropping for the past four years where we have measurements. . . . over the last two years, sea levels have not increased at all – actually, they show a slight drop.over the last two years” Source: Let the data speak for itself, Björn Lomborg:
guardian.co.uk,

Address : http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/14/climatechange-scienceofclimatechange

"A clearer view of whether the recent temperature plateau undermines arguments for dangerous climate change in the long run should come in a few years, as the predictions made by the British climate researchers are tested. Their paper appeared in a supplement to an August issue of The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. While the authors concluded that there was a 1 in 8 chance of having a decade-long pause in warming like the current plateau, even with rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, the odds of a 15-year pause, they wrote, are only 5 in 100. As a result, the next few years of observations could tip the balance toward further concern or greater optimism."

Source: Stable Global Temperatures Could Stifle Action on Climate - NYTimes.com
Address : http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html?hp=&pagew...

NATURE magazine:
(Keenlyside et al. 2008
(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html ).
"we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade”
Source: Access : Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector : Nature
Address : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html
See also “Next decade may see no Warming” (5/1/08)

Source: BBC NEWS |
Science/Nature | Address : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm


My favorite of the Orwellian stuff:

From the NY Times Science – Dot Earth Blog, the title of a recent blog:

“A Cooler Year on a Warming Planet” at
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/a-cooler-year-on-a-warmi...

And also from the New York Times is a very telling caption which appeared underneath a photo in a story about the global warming debate:

“Discordant findings aside, the theory of rising human influence on climate endures. “

That's actually a very good summary of how the news media has covered this global warming theory for years - generally ignoring all discordant findings, and these findings just keep adding up until there is nothing left to the global warming myth.

(Caption to photograph appeared accompanying this article: “Climate Experts Tussle Over Details. Public Gets Whiplash at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/science/earth/29clim.html )

Oh, and here’s a good article about how bad the computer modeling – and that’s the whole factual basis of the global Computer modelling of temperatures - in the Antarctic have proved wildly inaccurate, scientists have admitted

Source: Antarctic ‘not as warm as feared’ – Telegraph
Address : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/05/08/eatemp108.xml

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241/17_200_Scientists_Dispute_Global_Warming