Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

About That Global Warming...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    This is what happens to you if you want to investigate all avenues: Disagree with liberals and pay the price.
    Liberals Swarm W. Virginia School Board For Standards Questioning Man-Made Global Warming

    West Virginia School Board member Wade Linger didn’t want to cause controversy, but that’s what he got when he worked with state education officials to bring more balance to the global warming debate.
    Liberals and environmentalists have relentlessly attacked Linger when it was revealed by the Charleston Gazette in December that he recommended changing proposed science standards to be more skeptical of man-made global warming.


    http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/06/li...lobal-warming/

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #32
      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


      But you would believe that nest of vipers in DC.
      That's you makig that baseless claim not I. At no point on these boards have I ever been a proponent of AGW and the sin tax carbon trading schemes so I have no idea why you would even begin to make the assertion that I trust the idiots in D.C. on the matter?

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #33
        Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post

        That's you makig that baseless claim not I. At no point on these boards have I ever been a proponent of AGW and the sin tax carbon trading schemes so I have no idea why you would even begin to make the assertion that I trust the idiots in D.C. on the matter?

        My apologies. I can't keep it straight who believes our scientists who are funded by the government and who doesn't.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #34
          Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
          This is what happens to you if you want to investigate all avenues: Disagree with liberals and pay the price.
          Liberals Swarm W. Virginia School Board For Standards Questioning Man-Made Global Warming

          [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

          http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/06/li...lobal-warming/[/FONT][/COLOR]
          How did AGW become a liberal cause? Is it because they see themselves a environmentalists? And although plenty of liberal elites make money from fossil fuels, the liberal voter doesn't? And why did the anti AGW folks, the republicans take their position? Is it because they are against environmentalists, and against gov't imposing regulations on fossil fuel burning, and are for business generally speaking, and against anything that would harm big oil?

          Or was this ever actually over the science? Are both sides really concerned about scientific credibility, as the driving force that makes them take the positions they take. For this has clearly become a political thing, AGW.

          What the hysterical fail to even consider are things like Freeman Dyson, a scientist brought up in regareds to co2. He says we could manage it, bring it down, by something simple like changes in land management. Makes sense, for trees suck in co2. Others have offered up ideas like building greenhouses around all power plants that put co2 into the atmosphere, since greenhouse owners are having to pump in extra co2 to their plants to make them higher yielding, to help growth and to promote plant health.

          We know that the earth is greening up more, naturally from the little higher levels of co2, yet that is ignored as well. So why is it that only a singular attack on co2 is the meme? With that attack trying to tax co2 emissions? This really tells me that the liberals are not that concerned about co2 levels at all, but its just another way to tax people, to bring down fossil fuel use, even as many of them drive big SUVs for that is the current status symbol, that all but the far left liberals want to own.


          Until these liberals actually act seriously, instead of hysterically, they are not worthy to pay much attention to. Hysterical people can hardly be considered to be serious about anything.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #35
            There is a lot at stake, economically, depending on which side one takes of the AGW debate. That says nothing of the science or those who study the issue in a scientific manner. It speaks loud and clear for those -on both sides- who have politicized the issue.

            In short, the debate centers on the economics of AGW, rather than the actual science. The science was debated, and went from mostly against AGW in the 60's, to mostly for that hypothesis by today. I've yet to see the anti-AGW crowd claim the scientists could be wrong, in the same sense that "scientists" were wrong about astronomy 20 years before Copernicus had to defend his position. That might make more sense. Instead, we have unsupported claims that climate/physical scientists are somehow singled out and fired, or frozen out of funded research if they don't give their full support to the pro-AGW hypothesis. Plenty of lefties at our universities in the 60's when anti-AGW was dominant. Plenty of lefties now.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #36
              Originally posted by radcentr View Post
              There is a lot at stake, economically, depending on which side one takes of the AGW debate. That says nothing of the science or those who study the issue in a scientific manner. It speaks loud and clear for those -on both sides- who have politicized the issue.

              In short, the debate centers on the economics of AGW, rather than the actual science. The science was debated, and went from mostly against AGW in the 60's, to mostly for that hypothesis by today. I've yet to see the anti-AGW crowd claim the scientists could be wrong, in the same sense that "scientists" were wrong about astronomy 20 years before Copernicus had to defend his position. That might make more sense. Instead, we have unsupported claims that climate/physical scientists are somehow singled out and fired, or frozen out of funded research if they don't give their full support to the pro-AGW hypothesis. Plenty of lefties at our universities in the 60's when anti-AGW was dominant. Plenty of lefties now.

              The lefties line up which ever way the government wants them to.
              Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

              http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...arming-crisis/

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #37
                Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                There is a lot at stake, economically, depending on which side one takes of the AGW debate. That says nothing of the science or those who study the issue in a scientific manner. It speaks loud and clear for those -on both sides- who have politicized the issue.

                In short, the debate centers on the economics of AGW, rather than the actual science. The science was debated, and went from mostly against AGW in the 60's, to mostly for that hypothesis by today. I've yet to see the anti-AGW crowd claim the scientists could be wrong, in the same sense that "scientists" were wrong about astronomy 20 years before Copernicus had to defend his position. That might make more sense. Instead, we have unsupported claims that climate/physical scientists are somehow singled out and fired, or frozen out of funded research if they don't give their full support to the pro-AGW hypothesis. Plenty of lefties at our universities in the 60's when anti-AGW was dominant. Plenty of lefties now.
                The billions that have been given to scientists, have been given to research only the man produced co2 factor. That isn't an unsupported claim, its public knowledge. Afterall, that is what the IPCC concentrated on, man made co2 production. These grants are targeted in that one area, while we know there are other factors involved in climate change, including the cycles of our sun. In fact, sun activity is said to be the most contributing factor to climate change. Yet to this very day, we still don't have enough knowledge to understand what creates the cyclical ice ages. We have guessed about the totality of the causes, but we still cannot say with certainty what causes them. Truth is, we really don't know many things about climate change, all of the factors. Co2 is an easy fruit, a low hanging one, and that is where the funding has gone. And that is not just something pulled out of someone's ass.


                Now, I believe the climate is changing. I am not a denier of climate change at all. But there is an agenda here, and that agenda is not serious about addressing seriously co2 levels. For it's only concentrated on taxing carbon, while it should be concentrated on removing co2 by using natural methods, land management, and a widespread planting of carbon removing plants and trees, instead of cutting down the lung of the earth, the rainforests. It's a one sided attack, so it's not serious at all. It's all about extracting more money from the public, in the form of taxes and climate change is the new way of doing just that. It's about driving up the cost for humanity to survive. It's a way to take away national sovereignty and place it in the hands of some group. It is about CONTROL, more of it.

                You want to stabilize co2 levels? Use a natural method, and bring the power to bear on what is happening to the rain forests, because the less rainforests that we have, the higher the co2 goes. Plant trillions of trees and manage existing lands greening them up. Build greenhouses around fossil fueled plants, so they don't have to pump in tanked co2. That would address the problem without hurting economies that actually feed populations, until we move away from fossil fuels for energy. This is the intelligent thing to do, not the hysterical way that some want to address this. So, I smell a dead rat.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #38
                  What are the CO2 folks selling, then? Carbon credits ponzi schemes? Carbon, like all other cycled products throughout the history of the world, was easily processed by nature. Man has proven he can alter nature, poisoning larger areas of land for longer periods of time than volcanoes (nature's atom bombs). The CO2 proponents are claiming CO2 is now on the list of weapons man uses against nature (against himself, then). Are politicians and other opportunists abusing the research? Of course. But that is a debate on the economics of AGW, not the science.

                  Your proposals to offset CO2 over-production are all sound, and all would be supported by the scientific community. We'll need to add protection for the world's oceans, which are the true lungs of the world (they produce and cycle way more oxygen, carbon & nitrogen then the world's forests). Supporting tree and other plantings are a no-brainer for stabilizing local climates. We're up against the "economics first" crowd, however. They make little to no connection between a healthy environment and a healthy economy.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                    What are the CO2 folks selling, then? Carbon credits ponzi schemes? Carbon, like all other cycled products throughout the history of the world, was easily processed by nature. Man has proven he can alter nature, poisoning larger areas of land for longer periods of time than volcanoes (nature's atom bombs). The CO2 proponents are claiming CO2 is now on the list of weapons man uses against nature (against himself, then). Are politicians and other opportunists abusing the research? Of course. But that is a debate on the economics of AGW, not the science.

                    Your proposals to offset CO2 over-production are all sound, and all would be supported by the scientific community. We'll need to add protection for the world's oceans, which are the true lungs of the world (they produce and cycle way more oxygen, carbon & nitrogen then the world's forests). Supporting tree and other plantings are a no-brainer for stabilizing local climates. We're up against the "economics first" crowd, however. They make little to no connection between a healthy environment and a healthy economy.
                    The political powers that want carbon taxed are just looking for more money to waste. More money to hand out, that they get a kickback of 5 percent on. It is about control and power. Just another scheme to bring in money to the federal gov't that they run.

                    That these people talk about co2 like it was a poisonous gas, that will destroy nature is the absurdity here. Chances are, all of the plants that were once alive and then died, buried, that tuned into a form of fossil fuel, were so prolific when co2 was much higher, which created all of the plants in abundance that would later serve as fossil fuels. There is NO proper and correct level of co2. When its higher as in the past, the earth is greener, when it drops, the earth degreens. Is plant life important to other life? I would think so. Can you have too much? I doubt it.

                    What I cannot fathom, is the hysteria over the earth warming up a bit, and it getting greener. Of course I understand if the seas rise, man will have to relocate inland a bit, but is that really that horrible? It will happen so slowly that there is plenty of time to slowly move inward. And we should know that when the next ice age arrives, we will gain the old coasts back, but if you are in the northern hemisphere, you will have miles of ice on top of the land.

                    So, I see other environmental issues as much more important than this co2, and the slight warming. Warming benefits humanity, and we have enough history to see that fact. I am more concerned about the deforestation of rain forests, of polluting ground water with fracking, of the soot China ejects into a common atmosphere shared by all on earth, the dangerous chemicals that we allow into our oceans, the radioactive waste that we hardly have control over, in the long term, the depletion of our seas of sea life, the mass extinction of species, especially in rain forests. Those are very important environmental issues, and much more important than co2, which is a natural gas that plants have to have. And they could use more of that gas. So the hysteria surrounding co2 levels just seems misplaced and absurd, and very difficult to understand.

                    Given that the earth is a closed system, and given that the environment does matter, and given that resources are finite, while banking capitalism is based upon infinite growth, we will have to move to a resource based economy, that is friendly to our life support system, the environment. But co2 levels are way down, if they should even be on a list. The greatest danger from climate change is when it moves in the other direction, and the earth starts to cool. The lung of the ocean you spoke of will pull co2 from the atmosphere as it cools, reducing co2 levels, and degree the earth, even the parts not covered by a mile or so thick sheet of ice. Now, hysteria about such a cooling is well placed, but misplaced when it comes to warming and higher co2 levels. Too many people are hysterical about the wrong thing. LOL.

                    So HOW did this become such a hysterical deal? One would think the world is ending, instead of recognizing that historically when the earth warms, more people get to eat, and prosper. One really has to wonder if an new way for a few to get richer isn't driving it. For that seems to drive all things these days.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #40
                      Man made global warming is a lie and will continue to be proven as such.

                      The most interesting thing about the topic is how a politician/public figure can make a lot of money based on lies and convince millions of people to believe in the lie.

                      .... silly really, that's what politicians/public figures do isn't it ?

                      But we still listen to them don't we ?

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #41
                        Public administration = politicians and other public sector employees. Can't stop them from lying, but we can pay attention to what they are saying and hold them accountable.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                          Man made global warming is a lie and will continue to be proven as such.

                          The most interesting thing about the topic is how a politician/public figure can make a lot of money based on lies and convince millions of people to believe in the lie.

                          .... silly really, that's what politicians/public figures do isn't it ?

                          But we still listen to them don't we ?
                          And it is spun to be some sort of catastrophe. When history tells us, it has always been a great benefit to humanity. There is a giant dead rat here, and its stinking to high heaven. The people who are hysterical over it the left, are not capable of even thinking about it, in a rational fashion. It's not like co2 is some poisonous gas, but a very natural gas, and essential for life on earth. If it gets higher, the earth greens up. But now, even that is bad, or rather, they just ignore that, for generally speaking they would be in favor of more plant life, healthier plants, higher yields in food crops. Yet instead, co2 levels, a bit of warming is causing hysterics. LOL. They should be on their knees praying to a god they do not believe in, that the earth isn't cooling. For that is the other way climate changes, yet they demand that climate does not change at all. Which is totally, utterly impossible LOL

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                            Public administration = politicians and other public sector employees. Can't stop them from lying, but we can pay attention to what they are saying and hold them accountable.
                            And realistically, we need the news media to do it, and they've been woefully falling short in that part of their job, all so busy chasing ratings and editorializing, rather than delivering hard, factually oriented news.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                              So you guys think scientists with decades of experience in the field who supply the reports and research about climate change just forgot about that massive shiny thing in the sky?

                              Do you seriously think they're all geeks who sit inside all day at the computer so maybe they just forgot the sun exists?

                              Follow the money:

                              Mann is typical of pro-warming scientists who have taken millions from government agencies. The federal government — which will gain unprecedented regulatory power if climate legislation is passed — has funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989, according the Science and Public Policy Institute. That is an amount that dwarfs research contributions from oil companies and utilities, which have historically funded both sides of the debate. Mann, for example, has received some $6 million, mostly in government grants — according to a study by The American Spectator — including $500,000 in federal stimulus money while he was under investigation for his Climategate e-mails.
                              Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ey-henry-payne

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #45
                                And if you don't toe the government line, we'll investigate you:
                                Dem. Congressman on Witch Hunt Against Climate Scientists

                                On his blog this morning, Roger Pielke Jr. at the University of Colorado, a respected climate scientist, reveals that he was one of seven academics being being investigated by Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Natural Resources. Grijalva wants to know all university financial disclosure policies that are applicable to Pielke, detailed information about any sources of external funding and grants he may have received, as well as any communications related to external funding. He also wants copies of any speeches and testimony before lawmakers Pielke has delivered, as well as salary and travel expense information.
                                https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...ts_866050.html

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X