NASA Administrator: Global Warming Is Not A ‘Problem’
NASA Administrator: Global Warming Is Not A ‘Problem’
This morning on NPR, NASA administrator Michael Griffin was asked, “Are you concerned about global warming?” His answer: “I’m aware that global warming exists” but “[w]hether that is a longterm concern or not, I can’t say.” Griffin said he is “not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.”
Griffin also charged that people are “arrogant” for assuming that “this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings,” hinting that global warming may actually be good for the earth. This myth is a popular right-wing talking point.
CLICK HERE TO LISTENGriffin’s remarks are stunning, coming just days after his own agency released a report warning of the “disastrous effects” of climate change:
Even “moderate additional” greenhouse emissions are likely to push Earth past “critical tipping points” with “dangerous consequences for the planet,” according to research conducted by NASA and the Columbia University Earth Institute.
With just 10 more years of “business as usual” emissions from the burning of coal, oil and gas, says the NASA/Columbia paper, “it becomes impractical” to avoid “disastrous effects.”
James Hansen, NASA’s top climate scientist, called Griffin’s dismissal of global warming “an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement.” “It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change,” he added.
Also, scientific consensus does not hold that today’s climate is the “best climate.” We are already seeing melting glaciers, higher temperatures, and stronger natural disasters. The most recent assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated, “Changes in climate are now affecting physical and biological systems on every continent.”
UPDATE: House Science and Technology Committee Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) responds: “Setting aside NASA Administrator Griffin’s personal views on the significance of global warming, I remain concerned that NASA is not doing as much as needs to be done on climate change data collection and research. Based on NASA’s own five-year budget plan, the agency will be unable to start any of the new Earth observations initiatives recommended by the National Academies for the foreseeable future. That’s not going to get us where we need to be in our understanding of climate change. NASA needs to do more.”
Transcript:
INSKEEP: It has been mentioned that NASA is not spending as much money as it could to study climate change — global warming — from space. Are you concerned about global warming?
GRIFFIN: I’m aware that global warming exists. I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we’ve had about a one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent. I’m also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down — pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade. Whether that is a longterm concern or not, I can’t say.
INSKEEP: Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?
GRIFFIN: I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change. First of all, I don’t think it’s within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.
INSKEEP: Is that thinking that informs you as you put together the budget? That something is happening, that it’s worth studying, but you’re not sure that you want to be battling it as an army might battle an enemy?
GRIFFIN: Nowhere in NASA’s authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another. We study global climate change, that is in our authorization, we think we do it rather well. I’m proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
187 Responses to “NASA Administrator: Global Warming Is Not A ‘Problem’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Global Warming Is Not A ‘Problem’
Not for me, at least. Im not a polar bear.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:16 pmLike ALF. said, "No problemo".
May 31st, 2007 at 12:18 pm"NASA Administrator" should be read as "Bush Administration/Oil Industry Plant Installed at NASA." Business as usual--another whore on retainer helping sell out our childrens' future to ensure the Bush and Cheney family fortunes.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:18 pm"I don't know nuthin' 'bout no science, but I knows what I believes."
May 31st, 2007 at 12:18 pmNot surprising. Griffin is a Chimpy appointee.
Already bought and paid for.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:19 pmGreat picture with this story. Does anyone know which one is Mutt and which one is Jeff?
May 31st, 2007 at 12:20 pmI hope my friends at NASA read this one. isn't it nice to know your boss is a toadie, idiot, and apparently in the pay of someone other than the people of the country.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:22 pmYer doin' a heckuva job, Griffie.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:22 pmScience is inconclusive.
Maybe it would be better if the world were warmer. We don't know.
Solar activity is responsible for global warming. Either that or underwater volcanic activity. It's definitely not mankind. That's alarmist pseudo-science.
Al Gore flies in jets and heats his home.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:23 pmMichael Griffin has permanently disgraced himself. Five masters degrees my ass. Only an idiot gets five masters degrees. Griffin is pure political climber and always has been.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:26 pmTP failed to say what the science community thinks about what the best climate is. Obviously today's climate is not great. What is the best climate anyways?
May 31st, 2007 at 12:26 pmfrom FAST thread:
President Bush “is under pressure from European allies to give ground on climate change at next week’s meeting of the world’s richest countries, but policy experts say prospects for a breakthrough are slim.â€
guess we now know THAT answer... "slim, to nothing"...
May 31st, 2007 at 12:27 pmI think this sums it up (emphasis mine):
Given the choice, I think I'll go with the guy who a) is an expert in the field, and b) does not have a vested interest in perpetuating a politically expedient lie.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:29 pm"In the years following his first tour with NASA, Griffin was president and chief operating officer of In-Q-Tel, a private, non-profit enterprise funded by the Central Intelligence Agency"
Career opportunist
May 31st, 2007 at 12:30 pmWhat does he mean "the best climate"? How about one where we can continue to grow crops and not relocate millions and millions of people who live near the oceans? That seems like an easy definition to start with as a minimum target.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:30 pmSure, it may not be a problem for the planet. The planet itself will adjust. Now, as for LIFE on this planet, that's another story. Abruptly changing the migratory patterns of animals and their seasonal food supplies (insects, etc.) has a devastating effect, which we are already beginning to see. If one doesn't care about mass extinctions, nor about the millions of folks who live in cities just above sea level along coasts all over the world, I guess it's just not really an issue.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:33 pmRoger_Rhetoric sez:
Thanks for throwing your weight behind Griffin's idiotic screed, RR. You're a credit to your party.
The issue is not whether or not a "better climate" can be reached sometime in the future...the issue is that getting from that climate to this, at the speed climate change is currently being observed, will throw the world into chaos.
No doubt, humanity will survive. nations and governments will probably even survive. But millions will die of hunger in the worldwide famine that accompanies a temperature shift that our agricultural infrastructure is unprepared to withstand, not to mention the worldwide plagues that will erupt as a result of the refugee crisis that ensues as coastal cities are rendered uninhabitable.
Now, I know Griffin isn't that concerned...after all, he's a lapdog of the elite, so he'll always be in milkbones. He and his masters may not be concerned about the proles, but as a prole, I'm concerned, and as a prole, you ought to be concerned as well, RR.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:36 pmRoger_Roger, what does Bush's smag taste like anyway? There is yet to be an action of this pitiful abomination that you don't support. Does the term sycophant mean anything to you?
How about scumsucking whore?
May 31st, 2007 at 12:36 pmHeretic!
May 31st, 2007 at 12:37 pmFor what this is worth...last night I listened to a man who has studied world history in a way I have barely touched. He asked me why the temperature in LA is so cool right now (every night this year it has been unusually cool), I said "because of global warming". We talked some more and then he asked me why I thought people like Bush and others (big oil, corporations) are denying it. "Because they want to make money for themselves and keep their power." He said, "Half true, the other part is far more frightening than just global warming. They want the masses, at minimum, to be confused and, at best (for them), remain in the dark on this issue up until the affects and consequences can no longer be reversed, thus giving them total power and control over people's lives." We talked more in detail about this and I understood what he was saying. It's not just that the facts are there or that they contradict their own because they don't believe, it's truly that they don't care because it's you and me who are going to pay the price.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:38 pmI can hardly wait for the frozen methane in the permafrost to be released. I can't possibly see a down side to that. In fact, it's going to be AWESOME for humans!
LET THE METHANE BE FREE!
/snark
May 31st, 2007 at 12:38 pmGriffin's just doing the job he was hired to do -- BushCo Whore.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:39 pmPatrick1 - stop cutting and pasting your posts....
May 31st, 2007 at 12:40 pm'Time for America to Take Responsibility'
One week ahead of the G-8 summit in Heiligendamm, the US is still refusing to agree on concrete emissions reductions goals. Now, the German environment minister has had enough.
What does it take to get the world's leading industrial nations to agree on a binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gases? That must be the question that German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel is asking himself this week.
The Social Democrat has tried everything in recent months to get nations outside the European Union on board to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. He has helped midwife an EU agreement that foresees a 20 percent reduction in EU emissions
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,485683,00.html
May 31st, 2007 at 12:41 pm'Griffin also charged that people are “arrogant†for assuming that “this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings,†hinting that global warming may actually be good for the earth.'
When I heard this on the radio this morning I almost choked on my PBL (peanut butter & (romaine) lettuce - try it sometime, it's great)!
He works for NASA for crying out loud! You know, those guys with tons of hardware peering down at us from orbit!
Apparently they've been unsuccessful in their new goal of making all NASA projects "dual use", as in serving the scientific AND military agendas! They must have all of their weather satellites tuned to Iran or something and have missed the changes going on in the ocean currents etc.!
All I know is last summer when it was hitting 100 degrees on a regular basis I was having some trouble. If the temps goes much higher we're in deep doo-doo!
May 31st, 2007 at 12:41 pmLooks Like Griffin won't be leading the Gaea program that Richardson (or Gore?) will introduce.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:41 pmI heard the Griffin interview on NPR this morning. Totally out of character, the NPR announcer asked semi-tough questions. Griffin's interview was in response Greg Easterbrook's raking NASA over the coals, saying NASA should do more to combat global warming, and calling a station on the Moon a "Motel 6 in space." Griffin said it was an important outpost on the edge of" [knowledge?] or something. I guess that is where w plans to put all of the people displaced by the rise in sea level. Griffin was arrogant and dismissive of the problem.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:43 pmHmmm... dissent in the ranks... off to the reeducation camps.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:44 pmIt's not that Global Warming isn't a problem. It's that liberals seek to use the issue by wanting to raise taxes along with their other political exploits.
Also, should one believe that most democrats are actively working to help the environment? And should one believe that most Republicans are actively seeking to disintegrate it?
May 31st, 2007 at 12:45 pmHey Chimpy, I want to hear more about your Mars landing plans from your SOTU - how's that going boys?
May 31st, 2007 at 12:46 pmJust watch the spin on that little ditty.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:48 pmBet he doesn't have too many years to go before full, honorable retirement, then he'll return as a highly paid consultant.
Yeah!!!!!!!!!
The liberal cult gets sillier by the day.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:49 pmGiven the choice, I think I’ll go with the guy who a) is an expert in the field, and b) does not have a vested interest in perpetuating a politically expedient lie.
How about these experts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Oh, right, you can't be an expert unless you agree with the liberals!
May 31st, 2007 at 12:50 pmAlso, should one believe that most democrats are actively working to help the environment? And should one believe that most Republicans are actively seeking to disintegrate it?
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — May 31, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
Yes. "Clear Skies Act". QED. Thanks for playing.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:53 pmIf given a choice I will go with the guy who is not being bribed by the Gorgon..cultists.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:56 pmComment by CompTROLLER V-1 — May 31, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
It’s not that Global Warming isn’t a problem. It’s that liberals seek to use the issue by wanting to raise taxes along with their other political exploits.
Proof? Link? Any kind of substantiation for this claim?
Also, should one believe that most democrats are actively working to help the environment? And should one believe that most Republicans are actively seeking to disintegrate it?
One should believe it if that's what the evidence says.
By the way, I don't think "most Republicans are actively seeking to disintegrate" the environment. I think most Republicans are concerned about the envirtonment. It just turns out that virtually everyone who denies the truth of global warming happens to be a Republican.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:57 pmPartisan hack.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:57 pm#33 Fred Singer? Frederick Seitz? You must be kidding. These people have all been thoroughly discredited.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:01 pmDenying global warming is like pinning a sign on your forehead saying STUPID.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:02 pmm12 and comptroller,
Do you think filling our air with toxins is a good thing?
May 31st, 2007 at 1:03 pmI also heard this interview and was appalled on a number of levels. This section of the interview was a follow up to whether NASA should be studying the climate, not whether NASA "should take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another."
Griffin dodged the question and answered honestly that isn't NASA who will "battle" global warming. (All the outrageous statements about the impacts aside.) Inskeep's follow ups did nothing to put NASA back on the hook for providing the data that might allow others to figure out what to do about it.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:04 pmOh, right, you can’t be an expert unless you agree with the liberals!
Comment by m12
Don't cite Wikipedia for facts if you want to be taken seriously -- information only -- you bloodthirsty monster.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:05 pmCaption: "Ruprecht, do you want the genital cuff?"
[think Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, 1988 Michael Caine, Steve Martin....Not that GWB would be anywhere near as suave as Caine...He'd be more like "heh heh don't make me get my interrogation enhancerementos heh heh"]
May 31st, 2007 at 1:15 pmDo you think filling our air with toxins is a good thing?
Probably not. I don't mind, though, if the alternative is liberal tax policy.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:16 pmGore should ground his private jet.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:17 pmThat's right - I choose death by toxins before taxes....cough, cough, choke, aark! (thud)
May 31st, 2007 at 1:18 pmFine, Zooey.
How about these 2 experts? And the countless other scientists who don't agree that GW is manmade?
Oh, right, they are stifled, since they don't agree with the liberal conclusion.
http://guisun3.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/soon+baliunas.cr.2003.pdf
May 31st, 2007 at 1:18 pmWhat does tax policy have to do with creating pollution? what a vapid answer. You realize that someday we will need to clean up everything if we wish to continue living? It isn't like we have another planet to move to once this one is too polluted.
Very tired of profits before people crowd.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:19 pmInstead of labeling it his "personal view", Representative Gordon should have said it was Griffin's religious BELIEF. It's time to call the flat-earthers out for the kooks they really are.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:20 pm.
Also, should one believe that most democrats are actively working to help the environment? And should one believe that most Republicans are actively seeking to disintegrate it?
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1
Based on which party has introduced virtually all of the environmental protection and pollution-control legislation in the past half century, and which party has consistently opposed such legislation in exchange for bribes from industries inconvenienced by such controls, I'd say "Yes."
May 31st, 2007 at 1:21 pmOh, right, you can’t be an expert unless you agree with the liberals!
Comment by m12
Don’t cite Wikipedia for facts if you want to be taken seriously — information only — you bloodthirsty monster.
Comment by Zooey
Need proof for what kind of monster m12 is, see it's posts in yesterdays Gitmo and torture threads......
May 31st, 2007 at 1:21 pmIt’s not that Global Warming isn’t a problem. It’s that liberals seek to use the issue by wanting to raise taxes along with their other political exploits. -Troll
Poitical exploits? What do you think this political experiment/exploit/endeavor, aka Iraq war, is gonna set you back? The price of fuel has doubled under the big government anti-fiscal GOP which has cost you???
May 31st, 2007 at 1:22 pm#40 To erock:
Logic and reason are wasted on these people. They will never, ever admit to being wrong. It explains Bush's astounding 28%.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:22 pmBush wants NASA to build a colony on the moon, so his wealthy corporate friends have a place to go when they have completed ruining the planet we live on. We taxpayers will pay the price for their new colony. We are making them wealthy enough to support the probable high cost of their living on the moon through the obscene profits on oil, war-related manufacturing, and whatever methods they can conjur up.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:22 pmProbably not. I don’t mind, though, if the alternative is liberal tax policy.
Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
You don't mind our world being ruined if it saves you a few bucks every year. You're a sociopath and aren't worth further discussion.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:24 pmOkay, here we go again. Global Warming as cult that was started after the fall of the Soviet Empire. It is where the hardcore communists and socialists ended up after their ideology collapsed. Using GW to get what they couldn't via the ballot or the bullet. Scaring people into giving up their liberty and their hard earned money to a cult based on lies.
Pretty amazing that some people actually fall for this stupidity. The greatest example of the cult of scam is this idea of carbon trading.
Example: Al Gore can use as much electricity at his TN mansion as he wants and fly in his private jet and cruise in his limo as long as he throws some money at a UN bureaucrat or hack. Only Gore would make it mandatory that we all give our money to these criminals under theology of global warming. They then laugh all the way to the bank while we are supposed to scratch our heads and say "why is it snowing?"
May 31st, 2007 at 1:24 pmAnd the countless other scientists who don’t agree that GW is manmade?
Actually they're quite countable, and represent probably about 2% of the scientists weighing in on this subject from a myriad of disciplines.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:25 pmProbably not. I don’t mind, though, if the alternative is liberal tax policy.
Comment by m12
Well just remember that when your in the hospital hacking out cancerous globs of lung while being charged tens of thousands for your treatment
May 31st, 2007 at 1:26 pmcountless other scientists Actually, I counted 33 and only 21 said they thought GW was natural. Did you run out of fingers?
Oh, right, they are stifled, since they don’t agree with the liberal conclusion.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:26 pmBefore your straw man dries up and blows away, you might try to source it?
What does tax policy have to do with creating pollution? what a vapid answer. You realize that someday we will need to clean up everything if we wish to continue living? It isn’t like we have another planet to move to once this one is too polluted.
Very tired of profits before people crowd.
I guess you haven't heard of Gore's ridiculous carbon tax policy? I guess people better not exhale, since they're releasing carbon dioxide!
We don't have to do anything though. I'm sure the UN and the EU can deal with global warming just fine.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:27 pmLogic and reason are wasted on these people. They will never, ever admit to being wrong. It explains Bush’s astounding 28%.
Comment by Gay Witch for Abortion — May 31, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Yeah, I learned that awhile ago. I do it more for the benefit of the undecided who might be reading the thread.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:28 pmGore should ground his private jet.
Comment by Patrick1 — May 31, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Do you sit by your fax waiting for the talking points to come out one at a time, or do you get them all in a group and sit patiently copying them one at a time, releasing them happily into the blogosphere like farts in crowded restaurant?
May 31st, 2007 at 1:29 pmM12,
What about Bush's out-of-control spending? The latest reports say that the economy is faltering. Aren't we amassing huge debt? Aren't other countries holding that debt?
It's absolutely ignorant to think that cutting taxes (when before the wealthy were paying a fair share), then amping up spending is somehow responsible.
It doesn't even follow the supply side economics idea of running the economy with a small amount of deficit instead of a small amount of surplus. What we have here is running the economy with a massive deficit that cannot possibly be paid back by giving out tax cuts.
In my opinion it's just a stupid GOP plan to trick people into thinking that the economy is strong so they will vote for the Repuds in the next cycle. Then later the house of cards falls and the Democrats are forced to fix it.
It's another episode of Reagan's "trickle down economics."
May 31st, 2007 at 1:30 pmLogic and reason have nothing to do with liberalism. Global Warming like all the other failed liberal programs and ideas is about feelings. When you challenge them on the results of the idea they can only fall back and scream "you're stupid!" and then go get a latte.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:31 pmAnd the countless other scientists who don’t agree that GW is manmade?
Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Countless?!? The few of them are easily counted, like those 2 experts you just cited who are paid by the American Petroleum Institute.
You are simply a liar, m12.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:33 pmNeed proof for what kind of monster m12 is, see it’s posts in yesterdays Gitmo and torture threads……
Comment by Wayne — May 31, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
We know much about this creature. It delights in torture, for example. It would destroy the environment for the sake of money (although what is the worth of money on an unlivable planet?). And we know it flat out lies about global warming.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:34 pmI guess you haven’t heard of Gore’s ridiculous carbon tax policy? I guess people better not exhale, since they’re releasing carbon dioxide!
Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
What a stupid strawman from a pathetic, grasping fool. A great many economists, including neoclassical (i.e. conservative) economists believe a carbon tax is the best solution.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:37 pmHe must be planning to blast off and colonize other worlds
May 31st, 2007 at 1:40 pmCountless?!? The few of them are easily counted, like those 2 experts you just cited who are paid by the American Petroleum Institute.
Yep...you can't be an expert unless you toe the liberal agenda.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:41 pmComment by VerbalKint — May 31, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
I myself am mystified as to how all these allegedly 'conservative' trolls have such a problem with carbon credits. If they were true conservatives, they'd be all for a free-market solution.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:43 pmLogic and reason have nothing to do with liberalism.
Patrick, it took me 15 seconds to connect 'liberalism' with it's roots in 'the Age of Reason'. Would you care to comment, or can I go on rolling on the floor laughing at you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism#Origins_of_liberal_thought
May 31st, 2007 at 1:43 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Enlightenment
Yep…you can’t be an expert unless you toe the liberal agenda.
Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Still waiting for you to back this straw man up... well actually, I'm not - you are still the lying, sociopathic tool who was here last night.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:46 pm...releasing them happily into the blogosphere like farts in crowded restaurant?
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — May 31, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
that was rich... a good chuckle there...
May 31st, 2007 at 1:49 pm...
Global warming - schlobal schlarming. Look, there's a very simple solution to the problem of global warming. For each 1 degree Celsius that global average temperatures increase, we just shift the Celsius scale up by one degree and the Fahrenheit scale up by 1.8 degrees. Global temperatures will stay the same, AND it will take less time to boil water since the boiling point will decrease. It's WIN-WIN!
May 31st, 2007 at 1:52 pmyea - keep "toe"-ing that liberal agenda people!...
May 31st, 2007 at 1:52 pm...
#62
Kindly define a few terms:
A "huge" debt (FYI, we have lower debt than 29 other nations)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html
The wealthy's "Fair Share"
A "massive" deficit (FYI, the 2006 deficit was less than 2% of GDP)
Besides, the Democrats control Congress now, and they're running a deficit. How about they cut their education pork and leave my tax cuts in place?
May 31st, 2007 at 1:54 pm#71
Read these 2 pieces.
http://media.www.volanteonline.com/media/storage/paper468/news/2007/05/02/Opinion/Column.Global.Warming.Skeptics.Stifled-2890835.shtml
http://holycoast.blogspot.com/2006/04/oppose-global-warming-and-find.html
May 31st, 2007 at 1:57 pmFYI, we have lower debt than 29 other nations...
Besides, the Democrats control Congress now, and they’re running a deficit. How about they cut their education pork and leave my tax cuts in place?
Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Yay! We're not the worst debtors in the world!
(By the way, m12, I think you either misread or misrepresented the chart you linked to. It ranked nations in terms of public debt as a percentage of GDP -- not national debt).
And how incompetent are those Democrats for not fixing in five months the mess it took Republicans six years to make! And, since the Republicans punted nine of eleven spending bills from last year, the Democrats are obviously responsible for THAT spoending too!
May 31st, 2007 at 2:02 pmPatrick, m12, I'll ask you what I ask the other GW skeptics:
What proof would you require to admit that human-created global warming exists?
How big a study? How many data points over how long a period?
Describe the study. Set out your criteria.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:05 pmHow big a study? How many data points over how long a period?
Describe the study. Set out your criteria.
Comment by pbg
How about all the long term studies in the IPCC?
Nah.....
May 31st, 2007 at 2:09 pmI think it's hilarious that m12 thinks he is part of the 1% class who saw any gains from a tax shift.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:15 pmNo amount of evidence will get in the way of m12 and patrick1's mental block. They are the mysterious 'base' we see holding at 28%, oops, imploding GOP, make that 27%, 25%, er....20%.....10%..... poor little things, all alone in the dark.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:15 pmHow about all the long term studies in the IPCC?
Nah…..
Comment by Zooey — May 31, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
If it conflicts with ExxonMobil's profit-motive consensus, it's junk science.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:16 pmAnd how incompetent are those Democrats for not fixing in five months the mess it took Republicans six years to make! And, since the Republicans punted nine of eleven spending bills from last year, the Democrats are obviously responsible for THAT spoending too!
They are. Since they are writing the spending bills, it falls on them to ensure that those spending bills are at or below 2006 levels.
Oh, and for the purposes of that table, the public debt is the national debt. The figure includes debt between government agencies, ie the SS administration. Divide our $8.8t national debt over our $13.2t GDP and see for yourself.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:20 pmI heard Mr. Griffin and his take on global warming on NPR today morning. It is so sad to see this kind of view from a head of such an important agency like NASA.
Coming as an immigrant and with Engineering degree and seeing person with this kind of view at such a prominent posistion is bit scary.
Not sure where is America going as far the Science and Technology is concerned ?
May 31st, 2007 at 2:22 pmI think it’s hilarious that m12 thinks he is part of the 1% class who saw any gains from a tax shift.
Even if you believe that:
You don't have to be black to appreciate civil rights. Why should one have to be rich to appreciate fairer tax laws?
May 31st, 2007 at 2:24 pmAs if it hadn't already been established. in post 84, m12 proves that it is a poster to be reckoned with when it comes to willful stupidity.
Thanks for setting the bar ever higher, m12.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:24 pm#79
A better question is this:
Even if global warming exists, and even if global warming is manmade, and even if manmade global warming is a problem, why do we need an overbearing government policy when the lefties in Socialist Europe can happily manage it on their own?
May 31st, 2007 at 2:29 pm#87
In the face of facts, resort to personal insults. Yep. Liberal.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:30 pmYou are talking about classical liberalism which has nothing to do with post-modern liberalism that has produced so many failed programs based on feelings that they couldn't begin to be listed here. I'm talking about post-modern liberalism which began in 1972.
I would like a scientist who is not paid by the GW cult crowd to come up with a study that is open to peer review. I will be waiting a long time on that one.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:34 pmLooks like m12 is trying to hide the embarrassment and shame associated with President Bush's record high deficits. We haven't seen records set like this since Ronald "Where am I?" Reagan was in office.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:40 pmEven if you believe that:
You don’t have to be black to appreciate civil rights. Why should one have to be rich to appreciate fairer tax laws?
Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
Well if those "civil rights" are only for white people, that's the equivalent - Jake*ss.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:44 pmI guess you haven’t heard of Gore’s ridiculous carbon tax policy? I guess people better not exhale, since they’re releasing carbon dioxide!
We don’t have to do anything though. I’m sure the UN and the EU can deal with global warming just fine.
Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Considering how full of "hot-air" you are, seems fair...
Yeah, lets just forget about the worlds LARGEST CO2 producer - the US, and let the rest of the world deal with OUR POLLUTION. You're suck a st*pid little pr*ck..
May 31st, 2007 at 2:45 pmOn Wednesday, President Bush once again turned to AIDS for air cover in the battle for global opinion. This time, Bush is trying to deflect criticism of American global warming policy in advance of next week's G8 summit. In 2003, of course, his problem was the looming Iraq war.
For the details, see:
May 31st, 2007 at 2:46 pm"Bush's AIDS PR Scam."
Oh, and for the purposes of that table, the public debt is the national debt. The figure includes debt between government agencies, ie the SS administration. Divide our $8.8t national debt over our $13.2t GDP and see for yourself. Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
You mean the current SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES?
You're a st*pid little d*ck.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:46 pmWell if those “civil rights†are only for white people, that’s the equivalent - Jake*ss.
I guess you are right. The bottom 40% of this nation doesn't pay a cent in federal income taxes, while the top 10% is soaked.
These "Civil rights" are only for a few people I guess.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:51 pmIf only CLINTON were still in office. We'd have RECORD SURPLESES again. No need for our CHILDREN to pay for those deferred taxes BUSH is racking up. LIFE WOULD BE GRAND!
May 31st, 2007 at 2:51 pmLooks like m12 is trying to hide the embarrassment and shame associated with President Bush’s record high deficits. We haven’t seen records set like this since Ronald “Where am I?†Reagan was in office.
There is nothing to hide. The question is why the Democrats in Congress are contuining that $200b deficit today instead of slashing $200b from the budget.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:52 pm"Yep…you can’t be an expert unless you toe the liberal agenda." - m12
I'm sure there is a strong positive correlation between knowledge/wisdom/intelligence and the non-right-wing.
However, you have cause and effect confused.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:52 pmYou are talking about classical liberalism which has nothing to do with post-modern liberalism that has produced so many failed programs based on feelings that they couldn’t begin to be listed here. I’m talking about post-modern liberalism which began in 1972.
patrick1ball, looks like you've moved the goalposts way over here now and stuck a strawman in goal...... why don't you go ahead and express yourself. I'm surprised you wait until 1972 to put your goalposts down....bit like Chimpy eh? 'Drug-free since 1974!' You aren't hiding a pre-1972 secret or two are you? is that when you graduated from public school and stopped sucking on the sweet teat of 'post-modern liberalism'? Hypocrite.
Anyway, here's a little story for you: http://www.libertynewstv.com/HTML%20FILES/Liberallegacy.htm
Gore should ground his private jet.
Comment by Patrick1 — May 31, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Please disclose whether you or a family member have benefitted from any New Deal programs (like rural electrification, GI Bill etc) or whether you drive on Federally funded highways or not. Please indicate whether or not you attended a publically-funded school system.
If you are going to fire off these sweeties then you should first establish your bona fides to debate the New Deal or any other 'post-modern' liberal program.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:53 pmAll those people killed by Islamo Fascism probably would not agree with your characterization of the Clinton years as glorious.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:56 pmI went to James Hansen's website http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ and downloaded one of his newest documents:
Global Warming:
The Threat to the Planet
17 April 2007
2007 Leo Szilard Lecture
Jacksonville, FL
American Physical Society
On page 5 there is a nice temperature versus CO2 and CH4 graph showing last 400k years.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:00 pmI copied the CO2 graph part (blue) and overlaid it on top of the temperature graph (red) in Fireworks.
Here you can see the result:
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/31/hansongraphje3.jpg
you can clearly see that CO2 follows temperature even in this low res graph, where a pixel represents around 700 years.
This is just another confirmation that CO2 (manmade or not) is not the cause of global warming.
I guess you are right. The bottom 40% of this nation doesn’t pay a cent in federal income taxes, while the top 10% is soaked.
These “Civil rights†are only for a few people I guess.
Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
Yet they still pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and work much harder you do, yet struggle to eat and keep a roof over their heads. Sorry dum bass, but they pay more of "their-share" than you do!
Like I said, you're a f*cking fool.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:02 pmIf only CLINTON were still in office. We’d have RECORD SURPLESES again. No need for our CHILDREN to pay for those deferred taxes BUSH is racking up. LIFE WOULD BE GRAND!
Tough to pull that off when John Edwards is planning on spending $300b+ annually on healthcare and John Kerry is paying an 11% tax rate.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:03 pmModern liberalism began in 1972 with the takeover of the once mighty Democrat Party that believed American to be worth defending by a gang of socialists and idiots who came to the bizarre notion that America and free enterprise were the great evils of the world not socialism and communism which have killed millions.
The Great Society was a disaster. A program based purely on feelings. It led to a dependent welfare state that has doomed multiple generations to poverty. Nice going.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:03 pmThis is just another confirmation that CO2 (manmade or not) is not the cause of global warming.
Comment by Compulsive1 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
http://www.realclimate.org/images/lindzen_sunspots.jpg
This graph from Richard Lindzen's door correlates the number of sunspots with the number of Republicans in the U.S. Senate. What's your point?
May 31st, 2007 at 3:03 pmThere is nothing to hide. The question is why the Democrats in Congress are contuining that $200b deficit today instead of slashing $200b from the budget. Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
That's not what democrats campaign on - that's what Republicans campaign on. See dum bass - that's one of "your" core issues, small government - not ours. So we could give a f*ck about spending, we care about "reckless" spending, and unnecessary debt. Your party had 6 years of controlling both houses, and the white house - and what did you do? SPEND MORE!!!!
Yet you expect the "democrats" to fix YOUR ISSUE? BAHAHA, you're brain damaged, you little f*cking nitwit!
It must really rile you, to know that the ONLY president in the last how many decades that balanced the budget was a DEMOCRAT!!!!
May 31st, 2007 at 3:05 pmYet they still pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and work much harder you do, yet struggle to eat and keep a roof over their heads. Sorry dum bass, but they pay more of “their-share†than you do!
Like I said, you’re a f*cking fool.
Most of those aren't federal taxes and have no place in the discussion.
Funny thing, though. The rich pay property and sales taxes too.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:07 pmTough to pull that off when John Edwards is planning on spending $300b+ annually on healthcare and John Kerry is paying an 11% tax rate.
Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
Yeah, but if he raises taxes appropriately as Clinton did, that doesn't preclude a balanced budget. So now you begrudge wealthy people getting tax breaks, while claiming that this is a "good-thing" earlier, just because it's Kerry? BAHAHAHA, what a st*pid little f*cker you are~!!!!!!
You do realize we ALREADY PAY for that health care as a nation - right? Just that we pay for it with the overhead of expensive insurance, and pharma without any sort of price negotiations? You wingnuts thought "public highways" were a bad thing as well - what a bunch of twits!
May 31st, 2007 at 3:07 pmWhen was the last time a Democrat Congress balanced a budget?
May 31st, 2007 at 3:08 pmThis article up on MSNBC.com:
"In hot seat, Bush unveils new climate strategy"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18959819/
Check out the comments section - Bush is getting BASHED! Apparently his new "strategy" is to just get together and talk about it and try to come to some kind of consensus with other countries by the END OF 2008!
In other words, his strategy is to do nothing!
"The U.S. strategy also calls for cutting tariff barriers to sharing environmental technology and for a consensus by the end of 2008 on long-term goals for reducing the greenhouse gases tied to global warming."
link to the comments section:
May 31st, 2007 at 3:09 pmhttp://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?boardid=946&ThreadID=302789
When was the last time a Democrat Congress balanced a budget?
Comment by Patrick1 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
Poor st*pid little f*cker. It was the democratic Congress that raised the taxes in 1993, that boomed the economy, and balanced the budget. But don't let *history* infect your st*pidity - junior!!!
May 31st, 2007 at 3:09 pmThat’s not what democrats campaign on - that’s what Republicans campaign on. See dum bass - that’s one of “your†core issues, small government - not ours. So we could give a f*ck about spending, we care about “reckless†spending, and unnecessary debt. Your party had 6 years of controlling both houses, and the white house - and what did you do? SPEND MORE!!!!
Yet you expect the “democrats†to fix YOUR ISSUE? BAHAHA, you’re brain damaged, you little f*cking nitwit!
It must really rile you, to know that the ONLY president in the last how many decades that balanced the budget was a DEMOCRAT!!!!
So then why are the Democrats engaging in $200b of reckless spending and unneccessary debt?
Can't blame the boogeyman GOP, they aren't in power. But it's not my issue. Last time I checked, taxation and the federal budget was everyone's issue.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:10 pmMost of those aren’t federal taxes and have no place in the discussion.Funny thing, though. The rich pay property and sales taxes too. Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
BAHAHA, social security, medicare, and local sales and property taxes that intermingle with federal taxes to pay for state/federal services have no place in the discussion? BAAHAHA, you're a dum bass - son!!!
The rich do pay property and sales taxes, but the rich also "lease" and use other mechanisms "corporations" to typically avoid those taxes. Or hadn't you Luhrned that in bible skool yet?
May 31st, 2007 at 3:11 pmI will ask the question again since anus couldn't answer it. When was the last Democrat Congress to balance a budget?
May 31st, 2007 at 3:13 pmSo then why are the Democrats engaging in $200b of reckless spending and unneccessary debt? Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
How many *budgets* has the Democratic Controlled Congress passed or had before them yet?
Can’t blame the boogeyman GOP, they aren’t in power. But it’s not my issue. Last time I checked, taxation and the federal budget was everyone’s issue.Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
Last time I checked, the Democrats haven't controlled a budget yet - st*pid little sh*the*d. You can't blame the bogeyman Democrats, they haven't controlled/completed a budget yet - st*pid little f*cker!
May 31st, 2007 at 3:14 pmHmmm, reckless spending....
How about spending 2 freaking BILLION per WEEK wrecking a country that was no threat to the U.S.?!?!
May 31st, 2007 at 3:14 pmm12, sociopathic liar and murdering maniac says:
"Gee Dad, you gave me the keys, I smashed the car up set it on fire and left it in a really bad part of town - here's the keys back and its all your fault"
- typical sociopath. At least you are here instead of out on the streets right now.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:15 pmIf they were no threat why did Clinton bomb them?
May 31st, 2007 at 3:16 pmYeah, but if he raises taxes appropriately as Clinton did, that doesn’t preclude a balanced budget. So now you begrudge wealthy people getting tax breaks, while claiming that this is a “good-thing†earlier, just because it’s Kerry? BAHAHAHA, what a st*pid little f*cker you are~!!!!!!
Kerry deserves every cent of his money. Fortunately for him, Democrats talk the rhetoric about taxing the rich, but never actually succeed in doing it........
You do realize we ALREADY PAY for that health care as a nation - right? Just that we pay for it with the overhead of expensive insurance, and pharma without any sort of price negotiations? You wingnuts thought “public highways†were a bad thing as well - what a bunch of twits!
You act as if that money goes into a vacuum...it doesn't. I'm glad to say it comes back to me and other shareholders!
May 31st, 2007 at 3:16 pm"Most of those aren’t federal taxes and have no place in the discussion."
When taxes must be collected by the State to make up for the underfunding of federal mandates to the States? Of course it has a place in the discussion.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:17 pmPATHETIC little man!!!
May 31st, 2007 at 3:17 pmHow many *budgets* has the Democratic Controlled Congress passed or had before them yet? Last time I checked, the Democrats haven’t controlled a budget yet - st*pid little sh*the*d. You can’t blame the bogeyman Democrats, they haven’t controlled/completed a budget yet - st*pid little f*cker!
They passed one a couple weeks ago. $2.9 trillion, despite expecting about $2.6 trillion in tax receipts.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:19 pm#115
You talking about the latest spending authorized by the *drumroll* Democrats?
May 31st, 2007 at 3:21 pmFine, Zooey.
How about these 2 experts? And the countless other scientists who don’t agree that GW is manmade?
Oh, right, they are stifled, since they don’t agree with the liberal conclusion.
http://guisun3.gkss.de/ G/ Mitarbeiter/ storch/ pdf/ soon+baliunas.cr.2003.pdf
Comment by m12
m12, to find out what von Storch thinks of Soon and Baliunas, you should read http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/ -- or if you can't read it, ask someone to read it to you.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:24 pmFirst, I must go off topic and thank this site for allowing the continued posting of Comments by the readers, unlike so many other sites that require joining before comments are allowed or comments have been removed completely.Now on topic;
Hansen is right on the money about Griffin. The Griffin that stole NASA away from the American people as our leading scientific Agency and turned it into a damaged and perhaps unrepairable laughing stock. NASA can no longer promise a trip to town in safety, let alone a Shuttle flight to space. Today's astronauts are perhaps the bravest that have ever flown, they have to see the cost cutting in every direction and lowered average of yes men administration appointees, and they still take the chance and fly when ever the Shuttle is void of hail or space debris damage. Hansen as well has to have incredible bravery to stand up against what could easily become a CIA trick of demise. When I saw all the comments above, it was only then that I realized that the word that the inside scientists at NASA have been trying to get out to the world has at last been heard.Now everyone that has ears, or is not on a paid political administration troll list, knows what has happened to NASA. The truth is owed to the Astronauts ,and the international community concerned with the ISS, and every human, and other living creature on Earth.A special thank you to Hansen for standing up for the Earth and all who live here.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:25 pmMystery
What will pay for the $59 trillion liability the US has run up ... except taxes?
May 31st, 2007 at 3:25 pmLooks like m12 needs the help of Democrats to fix all the problems caused by Republicans! That is HILARIOUS. Of course, when you govern with the intellect of a three-year-old you're going need some help. I also help my two-year-old put her shoes on . . . same sort of thing as helping Republicans govern.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:26 pmCorrected link for post #123
http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/cr.2003.htm
May 31st, 2007 at 3:27 pmYou talking about the latest spending authorized by the *drumroll* Democrats?
Comment by m12
To keep the troops supplied, so that fewer of them die in this failed experiment in democracy? Is that the question? Did you forget who started the invasion? It wasn't the democrats.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:29 pmWhen taxes must be collected by the State to make up for the underfunding of federal mandates to the States? Of course it has a place in the discussion.
Obviously, then, the new Democrat governors should write to new Democrat Congress to scrap the mandates, such as these 10 below.
http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=environment,_energy_and_land_use&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=15994
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Drinking Water
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Americans With Disabilities Act
Help America Vote Act
Endangered Species Act
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
Uncompensated Health Care
Incarceration of Criminal Illegal Aliens
And in the meantime, it would certainly make sense not to give 10% more funding annually to the teacher's unions.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:33 pmLooks like m12 needs the help of Democrats to fix all the problems caused by Republicans! That is HILARIOUS. Of course, when you govern with the intellect of a three-year-old you’re going need some help. I also help my two-year-old put her shoes on . . . same sort of thing as helping Republicans govern.
That's what they said in the last campaign. If they didn't want to fix problems, why are they there?
May 31st, 2007 at 3:38 pmThat’s what they said in the last campaign. If they didn’t want to fix problems, why are they there? Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
So you expect the Democrats to fix the problem in how many months, that it took how many years to create? It's not to know you have SO MUCH confidence in the Democrats, and so little in the Republicans - even if that wasn't your *intended* implication...
May 31st, 2007 at 3:44 pmObviously, then, the new Democrat governors should write to new Democrat Congress to scrap the mandates, such as these 10 below. Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Thanks for admitting the erroneousness of your post - albeit very "passive-aggressively" and "whiny" as expected...
Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Drinking Water
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Americans With Disabilities Act
Help America Vote Act
Endangered Species Act
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
Uncompensated Health Care
Incarceration of Criminal Illegal Aliens
And in the meantime, it would certainly make sense not to give 10% more funding annually to the teacher’s unions.
Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Yeah, I can see how a wingnut would want to do away with clean air, clean water, and safety nets for those at most risk in our society. You're as much of a heartless, hateful b*st*rd as Osama - you vile piece of sh*t.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:46 pmSo you expect the Democrats to fix the problem in how many months, that it took how many years to create? It’s not to know you have SO MUCH confidence in the Democrats, and so little in the Republicans - even if that wasn’t your *intended* implication…
They're making the problem worse. How else do you explain passing a $2.9t budget when only expecting $2.6t in revenues?
That doesn't give much confidence at all.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:51 pmKerry deserves every cent of his money. Fortunately for him, Democrats talk the rhetoric about taxing the rich, but never actually succeed in doing it…….. Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
You mean like how the Democrats taxed the rich under Clinton, and how that has caused no end of "whining" from you wingnuts.
So your "never" is as debunked, as the rest of your wingnuttery...
You act as if that money goes into a vacuum…it doesn’t. I’m glad to say it comes back to me and other shareholders! Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
It does? Only if you're getting dividends, otherwise the only "money" you're getting is from fellow gamblers willing to "bet" on the direction of the company. You act is if corporate profits and inefficiencies go into "your" pocket. Tell that to the executives with hundreds of millions in "incentives" working for those "companies".
You're a f*cking idiot.
Medicare has 2.1% overhead, no insurance company is better than 6 times that overhead. Period...
Grow up - st*pid dipsh*t.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:51 pmThey passed one a couple weeks ago. $2.9 trillion, despite expecting about $2.6 trillion in tax receipts.
Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
You mean the Democrats that could come up with a budget on their first try, compared to republicans last year that couldn't agree on one despite controlling congress? And is that the same Democrats that didn't significantly increase spending as you've "claimed" they would? Tell me, when do those "tax cuts" run out again - and how much will they add to the tax receipts?
There's a nice tutorial on the "negative" impact of your economic policies here, if you're "smart" enough to understand it. I don't hold any hope of that happening though, loser...
http://www.cbpp.org/1-31-07tax.htm
#115 You talking about the latest spending authorized by the *drumroll* Democrats? Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Wow, being unwilling to f*ck the troops - that's a hard concept for you to understand, isn't it? To you "everything" and "everyone" is a political pawn to be sh*t on - right? F*cking lunatic!
May 31st, 2007 at 3:59 pmYou mean like how the Democrats taxed the rich under Clinton, and how that has caused no end of “whining†from you wingnuts.
They did not do it very successfully.
So, You'd Like To Know How Vice Presidential Candidate John Edwards Saved $600,000 By Forming An S Corporation?
Edwards made about $26.9 million as a trial lawyer in 1995. Trial lawyers typically receive 30% to 50% of any large, legal verdict in favor of their clients. He avoided paying Medicare taxes by forming his own S corporation (also known as a subchapter S corporation). He paid himself a salary of $360,000 each year for four years and had the S corporation pay him the rest in dividends.
Salary is subject to Medicare taxation at a rate of 2.9%, but dividends escape Medicare taxation. There is no wage base for Medicare, all wages or salaries are subject to the full 2.9% tax. (Social Security does have a wage base, which means wages above some limit are exempt from the tax.)
So, calculating, Edwards saved 2.9% of $25,460,000 or $738,000 in Medicare taxation. However, sole proprietorships are allowed to deduct one half of what they pay in Social Security taxes from their income tax. Thus, had he operated as a sole proprietor, he'd get a deduction for $369,000 from his income tax. Figuring tax at a 39.6% rate, he'd reduce his income tax by about $146,124.
Thus, his net savings for forming the S corporation were about $591,000.
S corporations are useful for small business owners who want to semi-opt-out of the Social Security System. But, law requires that S-corporation owners pay themselves a reasonable salary for the work they do.
Whoops?!?!?
May 31st, 2007 at 3:59 pmThey’re making the problem worse. How else do you explain passing a $2.9t budget when only expecting $2.6t in revenues?
That doesn’t give much confidence at all.
Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
They're staying the 'curse', or hadn't you figured that out? Just imagine how close to "balanced" the budget would have been, without the Iraq costs? See, they were planning to reduce the deficit, but you wingnuts were more interested in killing our troops, than balancing the budget. Nice to see you have "priorities".
May 31st, 2007 at 4:00 pmPatrick's raw stupidity is outdone only by m12's rank dishonesty.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:05 pmThey’re staying the ‘curse’, or hadn’t you figured that out? Just imagine how close to “balanced†the budget would have been, without the Iraq costs? See, they were planning to reduce the deficit, but you wingnuts were more interested in killing our troops, than balancing the budget. Nice to see you have “prioritiesâ€.
Those "wingnuts' aren't in power. The Democrats chose to set the budget, withou cutting $300b from spending!
May 31st, 2007 at 4:07 pmYou mean the Democrats that could come up with a budget on their first try, compared to republicans last year that couldn’t agree on one despite controlling congress? And is that the same Democrats that didn’t significantly increase spending as you’ve “claimed†they would? Tell me, when do those “tax cuts†run out again - and how much will they add to the tax receipts?
Ah, so you were lying when you claimed the Democrats hadn't passed a budget.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:09 pmThey did not do it very successfully. Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
BAHAHA, the "balanced budgets" prove you wrong - wingnut!!!
So, You’d Like To Know How Vice Presidential Candidate John Edwards Saved $600,000 By Forming An S Corporation? Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
Very typical - that's because RayGun, BushI & BushII along with the rest of you wingnuts have worked tirelessly to reduce the "tax-burden" of corporations!!! So he took advantage of the law - you think that makes him "wrong"? What he did was legal, ethical, and standard practice - what needs to change is how corporations are taxed.
Thanks for proving an axiom of democratic values - wingnut!
Edwards made about $26.9 million as a trial lawyer in 1995. Trial lawyers typically receive 30% to 50% of any large, legal verdict in favor of their clients. He avoided paying Medicare taxes by forming his own S corporation (also known as a subchapter S corporation). He paid himself a salary of $360,000 each year for four years and had the S corporation pay him the rest in dividends. Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
So you don't think "law-firms" are businesses? BAHAHAHA!!! And you don't think "other-attorneys" were involved on those "big-cases"? That he was a "sole-employee" that just used a corporate structure to protect his money? BAHAHAHAHAHA, you're a real dum bass fool!
Salary is subject to Medicare taxation at a rate of 2.9%, but dividends escape Medicare taxation. There is no wage base for Medicare, all wages or salaries are subject to the full 2.9% tax. (Social Security does have a wage base, which means wages above some limit are exempt from the tax.) Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
Wow, so you're proving the point I made earlier - and you dismissed!!!! You f*ck yourself and show the world what an idiot you are for denying my "truth" - deliciously funny!!!
All capital gains escape taxation - which was my point earlier - thanks for proving it. The wealthy don't pay their fair share, because they use corporations to avoid paying the same percentages on wages poor people pay.
So, calculating, Edwards saved 2.9% of $25,460,000 or $738,000 in Medicare taxation. However, sole proprietorships are allowed to deduct one half of what they pay in Social Security taxes from their income tax. Thus, had he operated as a sole proprietor, he’d get a deduction for $369,000 from his income tax. Figuring tax at a 39.6% rate, he’d reduce his income tax by about $146,124. Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
All perfectly legal, but your calculations are wrong - I won't explain why, where did you copy and paste this from? Wherever you did, the people are f*cking idiots. One clue though - junior - Corporations have 'expenses', and taxes are taken out - AFTER EXPENSES - not before. DUHHHHHH!!!! So then you agree with democrats that capital gain taxes should be higher? Thanks for admitting your entire Republican agenda is flawed.
Thus, his net savings for forming the S corporation were about $591,000. Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
That must make you wingnuts happy? Or are you another one of those jealous whiny wingnuts that hates it when Democrats use your own systems against you?
S corporations are useful for small business owners who want to semi-opt-out of the Social Security System. But, law requires that S-corporation owners pay themselves a reasonable salary for the work they do. Whoops?!?!? Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
Actually Social Security is capped, and most of those "small-business" owners that bother to have an s-corp tend to already receive more than amount. I think you meant avoiding "medicare", which isn't capped. S corporations are also 'pierced' if a person is a sole proprietor hiding taxes. However C-corporations hate S-corporations, because they permit small businesses to get a toe-hold and compete. Whatever C-Corporation is behind this "smear" - sounds like a typical republican wingnut f*cking m*r*n.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:11 pmHey liberal goof-balls. What are you going to do about global warming on Mars and Jupiter? NASA has proof of rising temps........ahhhhh. If your stupid power grabs could only reach to outer space......
May 31st, 2007 at 4:12 pmThose “wingnuts’ aren’t in power. The Democrats chose to set the budget, withou cutting $300b from spending!
Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
They were for the previous, how many years? Setting the stage, the spending, et. al.
Ah, so you were lying when you claimed the Democrats hadn’t passed a budget. Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
Actually I didn't notice the entire budget had been passed yet, but it isn't a "law" yet, so technically speaking it isn't done, is it?
And frankly, it was "bush" and the GOP that refused to cut the budget, he vetoed the version with cuts. But don't let that stop you from your "smears" - *ssh*le.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:13 pmWhoops?!?!?
Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
So m12, once again "plagiarizes".
The little "Edwards" diatribe is from Peter Hupalo
Author of How To Start And Run Your Own Corporation: S-Corporations For Small Business Owners
Not only are you an idiot m12, but you're nothing more than a second rate plagiarizing hack, like that c*nt Ann Coulter. What a sad and pathetic piece of sh*t you are!
How many other "diatribes" have you posted, that are nothing more than copy and paste? St*pid *ssh*le!
May 31st, 2007 at 4:16 pmHey liberal goof-balls. What are you going to do about global warming on Mars and Jupiter? NASA has proof of rising temps……..ahhhhh. If your stupid power grabs could only reach to outer space…… Comment by Eric — May 31, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Already debunked b*llsh*t - catch up - JUNIOR.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:16 pmPatrick’s raw stupidity is outdone only by m12’s rank dishonesty.
Comment by VerbalKint — May 31, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
His dishonesty comes from him plagiarizing the words of others. Poor little sh*the*d has never had a thought of his own in his life.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:17 pmVery typical - that’s because RayGun, BushI & BushII along with the rest of you wingnuts have worked tirelessly to reduce the “tax-burden†of corporations!!! So he took advantage of the law - you think that makes him “wrong� What he did was legal, ethical, and standard practice - what needs to change is how corporations are taxed.
The Democrats had 40 years in charge of Congress to change how corporations were taxed. They didn't change it.
All capital gains escape taxation - which was my point earlier - thanks for proving it. The wealthy don’t pay their fair share, because they use corporations to avoid paying the same percentages on wages poor people pay.
Factually incorrect, but I will let it slide. The Democrats had 40 years in charge of Congress to change how capital gains are taxed. They didn't change it.
That must make you wingnuts happy? Or are you another one of those jealous whiny wingnuts that hates it when Democrats use your own systems against you?
My system? Edwards did this in 1995, after 40 years of Democratic control of Congress. They didn't change it.
The rest of your post clearly shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Hint: S corporations don't pay taxes at all.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:19 pmThey were for the previous, how many years? Setting the stage, the spending, et. al.
Let's blame the boogeyman!
Actually I didn’t notice the entire budget had been passed yet, but it isn’t a “law†yet, so technically speaking it isn’t done, is it?
And frankly, it was “bush†and the GOP that refused to cut the budget, he vetoed the version with cuts. But don’t let that stop you from your “smears†- *ssh*le.
Actually, it is, so you're lying again. Twice, in fact. Bush didn't veto the budget; he vetoed the Iraq supplemental.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:20 pmDebunked my ass. Now TP Uranus has proven NASA wrong. I guess the height of arrogance is not admitting your wrong.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:22 pmI'm trying to figure out something, though, Valiant. First you say Democrats are solving problems. Then you say they are "staying the curse". Which is it?
May 31st, 2007 at 4:22 pmPatrick1 and m12,
Normally the trolls do a much better job of presenting something that at least sounds rational on every thread related to global warming. (Of course, the claims are easily debunked.) You guys are really doing a horrible job today.
m12, your strategy of consistently changing the topic is really annoying.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:38 pmThe Democrats had 40 years in charge of Congress to change how corporations were taxed. They didn’t change it. Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
BAHAHAHA, so now that I point out the st*pidity of your argument - this is your "comeback"? You forget that the Democrats aren't the ones that did away/reduced "capital gains tax", that was you "wingnuts"...
Factually incorrect, but I will let it slide. The Democrats had 40 years in charge of Congress to change how capital gains are taxed. They didn’t change it. Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
BAHAHA, you mean where the tax rate on long-term gains was reduced in 2003 to 15%, or to 5% for individuals in the lowest two income tax brackets...
My system? Edwards did this in 1995, after 40 years of Democratic control of Congress. They didn’t change it. Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
Once again, you *forget* he was part of a "legal corporation". You really don't know how "business" works, do you "sport"? You wingnuts have "pressured" congress (particularly republicans) to reduce corporate taxes consistently. This is "your" policy - wingnut. And as I just showed, you are the ones that "reduced" the figures.
You really shouldn't plagiarize, especially the source you chose. He's not an "accurate" resource - in fact people thing he's a crackpot - like YOU!!!
The rest of your post clearly shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Hint: S corporations don’t pay taxes at all.
Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
Actually they DO pay taxes, through the income taxes of their owner - Jake*ss. They have to file a joint return (Form 1120S), which allocates the "income" to the owners of the S-Corporation based on profits.
Duhhh.... The corporation does pay taxes, but it does on indirectly through the owners... Fool.
I’m trying to figure out something, though, Valiant. First you say Democrats are solving problems. Then you say they are “staying the curseâ€. Which is it? Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
Both, or hadn't that *dawned* on you - Jake*ss. You know, things like the minimum wage increase that get thrown in are *solving* the problem, as was the effort to draw down troops in Iraq. Some of those they're able to get through, others get *blocked* by you wingnuts. But overall, the *direction* is solving the issue. Rome wasn't built in a day, and the pile of sh*t you wingnuts have accumulated since 1994 takes time to clean up...
But nice of you to think the democrats can "fix" in 6 months, what it took *decades* of wingnuts f*cking up! Such a vote of confidence! Or is it it that you just know how f*cking incompetent your fellow wingnuts are.
Thanks for also "ignoring" that you're a plagiarist - COWARD!
May 31st, 2007 at 4:40 pmLet’s blame the boogeyman! Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
BAHAHA, why bother, when we *know* the problem stems from *republican-values*!!!
Actually, it is, so you’re lying again. Twice, in fact. Bush didn’t veto the budget; he vetoed the Iraq supplemental. Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
Yeah, like those aren't related... Where exactly is that *money* coming from? And why must the pentagon receive so much money in the "core" budget?
Debunked my ass. Now TP Uranus has proven NASA wrong. I guess the height of arrogance is not admitting your wrong.
Comment by Eric — May 31, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
NASA never made the "claims" you made - only your fellow "wingnuts" did. Both of those planets have elliptical orbits - f*cking idiot. I would explain to you what that means, but I don't speak 6 year old science...
May 31st, 2007 at 4:43 pmm12, your strategy of consistently changing the topic is really annoying.Comment by Vinnie — May 31, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
Oh, that's standard "wingnut" approach. That way they can avoid admitting each "loss" they have, and only focus on trying to win the "next" point...
It's part of the brain damage that's required to make a wingnut...
Just feel "pity" for them...
And unfortunately Coulter and the rest of the wingnut teach them this "strategy" to avoid having a "real" debate...
May 31st, 2007 at 4:44 pmI’m trying to figure out something, though, Valiant. First you say Democrats are solving problems. Then you say they are “staying the curseâ€. Which is it? Comment by m12 — May 31, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
I'm trying to figure out something, though, m12. First you say that all of those "policies" around taxes are "good" for the economy, then you claim that the democrats implementing what you say are "good-policies" is a failure? Which is it - wingnut?
May 31st, 2007 at 4:45 pmBoth, or hadn’t that *dawned* on you - Jake*ss. You know, things like the minimum wage increase that get thrown in are *solving* the problem, as was the effort to draw down troops in Iraq. Some of those they’re able to get through, others get *blocked* by you wingnuts. But overall, the *direction* is solving the issue. Rome wasn’t built in a day, and the pile of sh*t you wingnuts have accumulated since 1994 takes time to clean up…
Both...that tells me all I need to know about you. Have your cake and eat it too!
Yeah, like those aren’t related… Where exactly is that *money* coming from? And why must the pentagon receive so much money in the “core†budget?
That money is coming from the Democrats in Congress, who are borrowing $300 billion bucks. Duhhh......................
May 31st, 2007 at 4:51 pmFor the impressively numerous reality-challenged posters on this site, here's Bush stooge Michael Griffen's CV:
"Prior to his appointment (to head NASA), Griffin was serving as Space Department Head at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Prior to that, he was President and Chief Operating Officer of In-Q-Tel, Inc. He also served in several positions within Orbital Sciences Corporation, including Chief Executive Officer of Magellan Systems, Inc.
"Earlier in his career, Griffin served as chief engineer and associate administrator for exploration at NASA Headquarters and also worked at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He also served as Deputy for Technology at the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization.
"Griffin received a bachelor's degree in Physics from Johns Hopkins University; a master's degree in Aerospace Science from Catholic University of America; a Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Maryland; a master's degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Southern California; a master's degree in Applied Physics from Johns Hopkins University; a master's degree in Business Administration from Loyola College; and a master's degree in Civil Engineering from George Washington University. "
As you trolls and wingnuts would see if you would open your eyes and clear the Rush juice out of your little brains, Griffen is just another corrupt and incompetent Chimpy/Cheney crony.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:57 pmI’m trying to figure out something, though, m12. First you say that all of those “policies†around taxes are “good†for the economy, then you claim that the democrats implementing what you say are “good-policies†is a failure? Which is it - wingnut?
Not what I said at all. What I said was that Democrats should strongly consider whether they can actually tax the rich successfully before attempting to do it.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:03 pmHey liberal goof-balls. What are you going to do about global warming on Mars and Jupiter? NASA has proof of rising temps
Comment by Eric — May 31, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Different mechanisms, idiot. It has already been explained using the scientific method, something with which you are unfamiliar.
That Eric mistakes this comment for logic is truly pathetic.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:31 pmm12 is a determined little b*stard, isn't he? I think we're dealing with a pro. Probably RNC.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:32 pmGlobal warming will be great for the earth - cos it will eventually kill off all the humans that are poisoning it!
May 31st, 2007 at 5:36 pmI would like to repeat a fact I offered earlier in this thread: denying global warming science is like pinning a sign on your forehead saying STUPID.
Trolls, please read it again and again until it sinks in. You might reduce how often you embarrass yourself in public.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:40 pmI have studied the facts. The Earth as a whole is operating close to the theoritical limit of a black body radiative source. Which means inspite of the CO2 levels, without an increase of insolance (ie; more sunshine) there will be no more global temperature increase.
May 31st, 2007 at 5:47 pmThe climate is inextricably linked to solar output, and now the sun is going into remission (sunspot cycle is on the wane).
All of those climate scientists know this, therefore they are making the big push. Their jobs depend on it. They have to get their worthless climate mitigation legislations passed very quickly before the solar cycle makes it clear to the average voter what a humbug AGW truly is. So of course we see headlines saying in ten years it will be too late (or two years or five years or whatever nebulous time parameter they care to invent).
Don't be fooled.
CO2 isn't a pollutant anymore then oxygen or water. It is a necessary constituent gas without which plant life can not exist.
"I have studied the facts. "
OK, knobcheese - let's see your sources. I have a nine-inch knob myself. See, you can anything you like on a blog without backing it up - why should anyone believe either of us? .... funny that this thread is about climate change - all you've done so far is fart a bunch of hot air....
May 31st, 2007 at 5:59 pmYou don’t have to be black to appreciate civil rights. Why should one have to be rich to appreciate fairer tax laws?
Comment by m12
Except they aren't fair. They are backloaded and shift the cost of this war, off of the wealthy, which this war many have profitted from, onto the people who have nothing to gain from it whatsoever. You think big oil is gonna repay the citizens for the great oil deals in Iraq our troops paid for with their lives?
May 31st, 2007 at 6:06 pmHey liberal goof-balls. What are you going to do about global warming on Mars and Jupiter? NASA has proof of rising temps
Comment by Eric
That warming is due to a change in the albedo of the planets. And since no humans live on them adding to the heat with albedo changing things like concrete cities, highways and buildings reflecting heat there is no reason for man to worry about it now is there?
May 31st, 2007 at 6:13 pmComment #165, meet comment #164.
May 31st, 2007 at 6:37 pmGee, Amanda - What DID you want NASA to do about Global Warming? Drop dry ice on meltingGlaciers and hope it takes?? Are they supposed to buy more Carbon offsets than Al Gore?
May 31st, 2007 at 6:38 pmNASA never made the “claims†you made - only your fellow “wingnuts†did. Both of those planets have elliptical orbits - f*cking idiot. I would explain to you what that means, but I don’t speak 6 year old science…
May 31st, 2007 at 7:03 pmNASA didn't make the claims, but they should have. Eliptical orbits operate according to Kepler's law. The second of Kepler's laws states that planets slow down the further from the sun they travel,and speed up during close approach. This means that the planet spends a long time in the cold part of their orbit and a short time in the warm part. At the distance of Jupiter the difference in insolation between aphihelion and perihelion is effectively nil, but if it were to have an effect on weather, it would tend toward cooling the planet over time (assuming the sun remains constant).
Hey liberal goof-balls. What are you going to do about global warming on Mars and Jupiter? NASA has proof of rising temps
Comment by Eric
That warming is due to a change in the albedo of the planets. And since no humans live on them adding to the heat with albedo changing things like concrete cities, highways and buildings reflecting heat there is no reason for man to worry about it now is there?
Comment by O'Really
First of all the global warming on Jupiter isn't caused by a change in albedo, but even if it were how does a change in albedo negate the fact of warming on Mars being caused by an increase of insolance? Albedo is the reflectivity of the planet. For there to be a change making ice and dust selective with a preference to landing on colder parts (ie; more reflective) of the planet, some new mechanism (ie the sun shining brighter) must be heating the less reflective parts of the planet.
May 31st, 2007 at 7:34 pmi just refreshed the google news page...
the lead story was "Bush proposes greenhouse reduction plan"
with a picture of nuclear coolers next to that...
the juxtaposition was somewhat jarring, but too ironic...
here is the story with the picture:
May 31st, 2007 at 8:18 pmhttp://www.alaskareport.com/z46136_greenhouse_gas_emissions.htm
Hmmm, NASA = Need Another Stupid Administrator
May 31st, 2007 at 8:52 pmDoes anyone know if there is any relationship between Michael Griffin and Tim Griffin, soon-to-be former Arkansas US Attorney? I can't find any, but the spelling is a bit odd and suspicious. I hear Tim is not only Rove's Rove but far worse. Wouldn't surprise me if they are related.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:21 pmDoes anyone know if there is any relationship between Michael Griffin and Tim Griffin,...
Comment by yathink
Not sure.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:50 amBut with this Bush bunch,nothing would surprise me.
Climate Mafia Charged with McCarthyism
May 31, 2007 (LPAC)--British astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, who was featured in the British Channel 4 documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle," published a letter to the editor in the London Times Higher Education Supplement for May 25. Corbyn was writing in response to an earlier article by former Royal Society media spokesman Bob Ward, who had warned universities to beware of "fame-seeking climate denialists."
Piers Corbyn replied that the global warmers would rather not face the inconvenient truth that solar cycles determine climate. They associate questioners of their creed "lurking" in universities with "holocaust denial." They intimidate scientists into silence through fear of attack, of loss of funding, or of "Nuremberg-style climate courts."
Corbyn writes that these attacks on climate sceptics are McCarthyism, and that the attackers have adopted measures that were used earlier by Hitler and Stalin.
Piers Corbyn gave Executive Intelligence Review an exclusive interview featured in the current issue.
See: Interview
June 1st, 2007 at 2:46 amIPCC Expert Says Climate Models Are Just Computer Games
May 30, 2007 (LPAC)--Climate models are nothing more than computer games, an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told EIR News Service today.
The problem with the climate computer models, the scientist said, is that they are based on a bottom-up approach as opposed to a top-down approach. Think of a cat stalking a bird, the climate expert said. You see the cat tense, and creep towards the bird. Now picture only the bird's nervous system, and with that information, try to model the cat stalking. That is the equivalent of a global climate model.
The expert also commented on how information-age thinking has negatively affected science writing. He noted that when he was in school you were taught to use a slide rule, and in using a slide rule you had to have an idea of what the result would be. Nowadays people just grab an algorithm off the shelf and use it, without any thought about what kind of result they will get. He pointed to the trend in articles in leading peer-reviewed journals such as Science and Nature, which use numerical values out to several decimal places, most of which are wrong.
The scientist ended by asking the following scientific question: In the past two and-a-half billion years of the Earth's oxygen atmosphere, there have been only two climate states--one glacial and the other interglacial. In that time, the Sun's output has increased by 30 percent, yet the temperature has only increased and decreased only a small amount over the period. So how can a mere 0.4 percent of man-made CO2 now be catastrophic?
Think about that the next time you hear Al Gore talk about global warming, or you read the next big climate change scare story.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:48 am#178 IPCC Expert Says Climate Models Are Just Computer Games
Comment by RAL — June 1, 2007 @ 2:48 am
Yes, Boeing, Ford, and all the engineering firms must not work with modelling software programs, after all, software programs aren't valid tools for the job they are doing, but costly videogames.
Maybe computer simulations of the climante aren't perfect, but help the scientists to understand concepts and project consequences.
Frankly, your debunking of the computer models computer is frail.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:21 amBTW, #178, you don't say who is the "expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change". As far as I know, I myself am an "expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"
June 1st, 2007 at 10:24 amOK, here is the whole argument on How to Talk to Global Warming Skeptics, who are essentially Exxon/Mobil, George Bush, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbuagh, and Fred Singer (Yes THE Fred Singer..........Same guy hired by the tobacco industry to deny any connection between cigarettes and lung cancer). The total number of skeptics are about 60 vs 50,000 that say Global Warming is real AND manily caused by human induced CO2 emissions.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:26 am
Sorry, the link didnt show up
gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
June 1st, 2007 at 10:26 amAs far as I know, I myself am an “expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeâ€
Comment by Evil Spaniard
Really? Me too! All of my friends are expert reviewers as well.
Small world.... :D
June 1st, 2007 at 10:56 amI dare Dr. Griffin to make that statement to the Inuit and Aleutians. Asshole.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:51 pmI'm standing here.
You have 50,000 people and not one of you can explain to me global warming on Mars, and Jupiter?
By the way there is also GW on Saturn, Uranus ,Neptune, and Pluto.
Of course NASA might be lying, right?
Wrong, You can see the Second Great Red Spot on Jupiter with your own backyard telescope. You don't have to take their's or my word for it, unlike the way you have to take AGW on faith in the word of Al Gore.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:42 pmI can see the first brown spot on Uranus with my telescope. You should see the Greenhouse gases in emits. Stunning.
June 15th, 2007 at 4:47 pm"You have 50,000 people and not one of you can explain to me global warming on Mars, and Jupiter?"
I think the answer is pretty clear--- those uncaring Martian Republicans are driving too many gas-guzzling SUV's.
July 9th, 2007 at 3:12 pm