Global Warming News

[IH3444]

And as I stated before, the only way to judge a news outlet is to measure the accuracy of their reporting. I would put Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/Wall st. Journal up against New York times/Air America/Chris Matthews any time. Any takers?

The people of Massachusetts already have.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

I accept the Wall Street Journal as a legitimate News Source ( with an agenda to promote their political leanings) The rest of you sources are just entertainers.

Rush has many times freely admitted that his is an entertainer and that he does not have to live by what hew preaches. IE: multiple divorces, drug addiction etc, etc.

Glenn Beck is so credible

Leaked video: Glenn Beck 爽ses Vicks to cry on cue | Raw Story

Not that the NYTimes air america or Chris Matthews has any political bias.
"Freedom of the press belongs to those that own one"
I restate my original point. You judge a news outlet by the accuracy of its reporting. And I think a fair examination of say the Wall St Journal vs New York Times would be enlightening.

 

[IH3444]

Haven't looked into it lately, but I though that the NY Times was imploding. Going to go and read up on that.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

I accept the Wall Street Journal as a legitimate News Source ( with an agenda to promote their political leanings) The rest of you sources are just entertainers.

Rush has many times freely admitted that his is an entertainer and that he does not have to live by what hew preaches. IE: multiple divorces, drug addiction etc, etc.

Glenn Beck is so credible

Leaked video: Glenn Beck 爽ses Vicks to cry on cue | Raw Story

And if you want someone who can cry on cue, even without Vicks, one Recalls Bill Clinton at Ron Brown's funeral.

 

[Loren49]

FallbrockFarmer,
You missed my point on democracy question. I meant what does that have to do with it. I taught high school for many years and have a far grasp of American History. Concerning your question - If the Representative Republic is set up so that 2% of the population can obstruct any change, there is a problem. I didn't say that is where we are now. When our Constitution was written and the Senate was set up the range in population from largest to smallest state was relatively close.
Reference site
U.S. Population by State, 1790 to 2008 — Infoplease.com
1790 range Virginia (included West Virginia at time) 750,000, Tennessee 36,000 ratio 21 to 1
2008 range California 38,000,000 , Wyoming 533,000 ratio 71 to 1

Current Senate- California pop. 38,000,000 .......... 2 votes
Montana,Wyoming, Idaho, ND, SD, Neb, Kansas, OK, Utah, Alaska, Arizona, West Virginia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Miss, pop 36,000,000......30 votes which is 11 short of keeping any bill from being voted on. Is this what the forefathers intended? (this is about 12% of US population) What percent of the population should to obstruct - or how popular should a change have to be for it to happen?

Concerning your other question. If you believe that spewing over 28,000,000,000 metric tons of CO2 into our atmosphere each year (more now) couldn't possibly cause problems so be it. As I believe that there is likely an issue the table below shows that China is #1, I think you can figure it out. We are the winners per capita, though we do better compared to GNP.

List of countries by 2006 emissions

Rank Country Annual CO2 emissions[8][9]
(in thousands of metric tons) Percentage of global total [[List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita|Per Capita] -- Seems to have an error for many countries: off by 2 decimal places][10]
(metric ton) Reduction needed to reach world per capita average Emissions intensity[11]
(kg of CO2 per $1 GDP (PPP))

- World 28,431,741 100.0 % 4.4[12] 0.48[12]
1 China 6,103,493 21.5 % 4.62 4.8 % 1.03
2 United States[13] 5,752,289 20.2 % 18.99 76.8 % 0.45
- European Union[14] 3,914,359 13.8 %
3 Russia 1,564,669 5.5 % 10.92 59.7 % 0.86
4 India 1,510,351 5.3 % 1.31 -236 % 0.56
5 Japan 1,293,409 4.6 % 10.11 56.5 % 0.33
6 Germany 805,090 2.8 % 9.74 54.8 % 0.30
7 United Kingdom 568,520 2.0 % 9.40 53.2 % 0.28
8 Canada 544,680 1.9 % 16.72 73.7 % 0.47
9 South Korea 475,248 1.7 % 9.89 55.5 % 0.44
10 Italy[15] 474,148 1.7 % 8.06 45.4 % 0.2


I repeat that your implication of anyone who disagrees with your philosophy must be for the terrorists is as absurd as it was when GWB used that tactic. Also I see no rational response to the healthcare rating of how we're doing which is what that post was about.

Loren

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

FallbrockFarmer,
You missed my point on democracy question. I meant what does that have to do with it. I taught high school for many years and have a far grasp of American History. Concerning your question - If the Representative Republic is set up so that 2% of the population can obstruct any change, there is a problem. I didn't say that is where we are now. When our Constitution was written and the Senate was set up the range in population from largest to smallest state was relatively close.
Reference site
U.S. Population by State, 1790 to 2008 — Infoplease.com
1790 range Virginia (included West Virginia at time) 750,000, Tennessee 36,000 ratio 21 to 1
2008 range California 38,000,000 , Wyoming 533,000 ratio 71 to 1

Current Senate- California pop. 38,000,000 .......... 2 votes
Montana,Wyoming, Idaho, ND, SD, Neb, Kansas, OK, Utah, Alaska, Arizona, West Virginia, South Carolina, Louisiana, Miss, pop 36,000,000......30 votes which is 11 short of keeping any bill from being voted on. Is this what the forefathers intended? (this is about 12% of US population) What percent of the population should to obstruct - or how popular should a change have to be for it to happen?

Concerning your other question. If you believe that spewing over 28,000,000,000 metric tons of CO2 into our atmosphere each year (more now) couldn't possibly cause problems so be it. As I believe that there is likely an issue the table below shows that China is #1, I think you can figure it out. We are the winners per capita, though we do better compared to GNP.

List of countries by 2006 emissions

Rank Country Annual CO2 emissions[8][9]
(in thousands of metric tons) Percentage of global total [[List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita|Per Capita] -- Seems to have an error for many countries: off by 2 decimal places][10]
(metric ton) Reduction needed to reach world per capita average Emissions intensity[11]
(kg of CO2 per $1 GDP (PPP))

- World 28,431,741 100.0 % 4.4[12] 0.48[12]
1 China 6,103,493 21.5 % 4.62 4.8 % 1.03
2 United States[13] 5,752,289 20.2 % 18.99 76.8 % 0.45
- European Union[14] 3,914,359 13.8 %
3 Russia 1,564,669 5.5 % 10.92 59.7 % 0.86
4 India 1,510,351 5.3 % 1.31 -236 % 0.56
5 Japan 1,293,409 4.6 % 10.11 56.5 % 0.33
6 Germany 805,090 2.8 % 9.74 54.8 % 0.30
7 United Kingdom 568,520 2.0 % 9.40 53.2 % 0.28
8 Canada 544,680 1.9 % 16.72 73.7 % 0.47
9 South Korea 475,248 1.7 % 9.89 55.5 % 0.44
10 Italy[15] 474,148 1.7 % 8.06 45.4 % 0.2


I repeat that your implication of anyone who disagrees with your philosophy must be for the terrorists is as absurd as it was when GWB used that tactic. Also I see no rational response to the healthcare rating of how we're doing which is what that post was about.

Loren

I think you are confused as to the make up of the Congress.
The Senate has 2 members from each state, regardless of population. The House was set up to send representatives to Washington based on the number of people in the district.
I don't think there is ANY problem with which the country was "set up".
Question: When you taught high school, did you have your students read the Constitution and perhaps talk about the implications of what out Founding Fathers hammered out.
RE ***** Bin Laden, I didn't say that "anyone who disagrees with me must be for terrorists" I asked if you argee with his statements that were published vis a vis AGW.
I'll ask it again, Do you agree with him?

 

[turbo36]

If I may,
The difference between a pure democracy and a Representative republic, is that in a pure democracy, majority rules, in other words 50% + 1 does whatever it wants. In a representative republic, minorities are protected.
Their rights cannot be extinguished by a majority vote.
Which one do you want to live in?

Pretty close but not totally true, the rights of a minority are only protected if the constitution allows; change the constitution and that minority is no longer protected.

Generally republics have documents that define governance and democracies do not.
The US is considered a Republic with Democratic origins.

 

[piller]

In the news this week it has been reported that some scientists are suggesting that the lack of global warming over the past decade might be linked to a decrease in water vapor in the upper atmosphere.

 

[turbo36]

And if you want someone who can cry on cue, even without Vicks, one Recalls Bill Clinton at Ron Brown's funeral.

Is Bill Clinton on Fox "news" now? I didn't know that.

 

[Loren49]

FallbrockFarmer_please read my post more carefully - I am quite aware of the setup of Congress. I demonstrated how 1 large state's 2 votes in the senate can be nullified by 15 (red) states 30 votes in the Senate though the large state has population equal to the 15 states. It seems to me that the intent of the Constitution for Senate passage of a Bill in most cases is a simple majority. In my opinion, the misuse of the filibuster (used or threatened more in the past year than ever in history) is now requiring 60% of the members to even get a vote on a bill. This could allow and in this congress has allowed Senators representing about 30% of the population to block what 70% of the population desires.
With the way the Senate is made up the the small state is on equal footing but the use of the filibuster has gone beyond the intent. (Obviously this is an opinion)
I didn't tell you that I am a history teacher though I have spent considerable time working with history students and I can read and think.

Concerning your other question - I stated that by the research I did (the table) it appears that China is the #1 contributor of CO2 and so my conclusion is China is the #1 contributor to Climate change - of course they have many times our population. I didn't figure I'd have to explain this but if I consider them #1 then it can't be the US. Now concerning the person you seem to be determined to make me agree with, it looks like I disagree. So looks like we agree on something.

Now for your information I am a Mathematician with a Master's Degree, but more importantly I was raised on a farm and ran a dairy farm and had no degree past HS until I was 40. I also had no health insurance for a good number of years because there was no way I could pay my feed bill, mortgage, etc and afford it. I was just lucky that we stayed relatively healthy. Now at 60 I am retired from teaching (20 years at school with 15 as a teacher) - my health insurance costs about $12000/yr - I pay a little over $6000 and the school district pays the balance. (i just paid $75 co-pay for 3 month supply of a medicine I need). Now lets suppose that in your perfect world that the government was out of health care business. My rates would go up significantly as I got into my 70s and clearly without regulations of any sort I would be dropped as soon as I was a poor enough risk. Very soon in this scenario my insurance premium would exceed my school pension. Of course in what I think your perfect world is there would also be no Social Security.
One note - I have always been very conservative in the way I spend money and have lived within my means. We have been debt free for 25 years but have very modest savings. The only way we would not be broke and on the street in the above scenario is if we went without insurance and both died quickly without much time in a hospital.

The good news is that in that world the top 50 oil and healthcare CEOs could make 2 or 3 billion between them instead of the mere 1 billion they made last year. (sources post a couple days back)

Loren

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

FallbrockFarmer_please read my post more carefully - I am quite aware of the setup of Congress. I demonstrated how 1 large state's 2 votes in the senate can be nullified by 15 (red) states 30 votes in the Senate though the large state has population equal to the 15 states. It seems to me that the intent of the Constitution for Senate passage of a Bill in most cases is a simple majority. In my opinion, the misuse of the filibuster (used or threatened more in the past year than ever in history) is now requiring 60% of the members to even get a vote on a bill. This could allow and in this congress has allowed Senators representing about 30% of the population to block what 70% of the population desires.
With the way the Senate is made up the the small state is on equal footing but the use of the filibuster has gone beyond the intent. (Obviously this is an opinion)
I didn't tell you that I am a history teacher though I have spent considerable time working with history students and I can read and think.

Concerning your other question - I stated that by the research I did (the table) it appears that China is the #1 contributor of CO2 and so my conclusion is China is the #1 contributor to Climate change - of course they have many times our population. I didn't figure I'd have to explain this but if I consider them #1 then it can't be the US. Now concerning the person you seem to be determined to make me agree with, it looks like I disagree. So looks like we agree on something.

Now for your information I am a Mathematician with a Master's Degree, but more importantly I was raised on a farm and ran a dairy farm and had no degree past HS until I was 40. I also had no health insurance for a good number of years because there was no way I could pay my feed bill, mortgage, etc and afford it. I was just lucky that we stayed relatively healthy. Now at 60 I am retired from teaching (20 years at school with 15 as a teacher) - my health insurance costs about $12000/yr - I pay a little over $6000 and the school district pays the balance. (i just paid $75 co-pay for 3 month supply of a medicine I need). Now lets suppose that in your perfect world that the government was out of health care business. My rates would go up significantly as I got into my 70s and clearly without regulations of any sort I would be dropped as soon as I was a poor enough risk. Very soon in this scenario my insurance premium would exceed my school pension. Of course in what I think your perfect world is there would also be no Social Security.
One note - I have always been very conservative in the way I spend money and have lived within my means. We have been debt free for 25 years but have very modest savings. The only way we would not be broke and on the street in the above scenario is if we went without insurance and both died quickly without much time in a hospital.

The good news is that in that world the top 50 oil and healthcare CEOs could make 2 or 3 billion between them instead of the mere 1 billion they made last year. (sources post a couple days back)

Loren

Paragragh 1.
I think that your own statement "In my opinion" says it all. Not to get snotty, but I think I will trust Washington, Jefferson, Adams "opinion" over yours. As I told you in a earlier post, The constitution was set up with a series of checks and balances, I think what you and a number of other posters are suggesting is that we should modify/change to Constitution to fit a particular set of circumstances. I would not.
I would be particularly wary of anybody offering me anything for "free". It usually turns out to be the most expensive of all.
2. That you were a teacher does not surprise me.
3. I understand that to be older(actually I am older than you) is sometimes rough. But are you willing to throw out your freedoms for some "free" government cheese/health care. You may not think that will be losing anything by gaining some access to health insurance, but I gurantee that you will.
4. As you have the ability to do research, I would suggest that you go to some British websites and get a glimpse of what will happen here if we adopt a single payer system(Please don't tell me that after 10-20 years the government will not take over, history proves other wise.)
5. My HMO was much more expensive than yours.
Again if the government would allow more competition into the field, I will also guarantee that costs will drop.
Simple example . Remember gas was $4.25 here in California about a year ago, the press was going nuts, We were looking at $5 a gal gas for sure, but something happened.
People started using less, and the price dropped,the market works. But to look at it further and possibly bring it back to AGW if the gov continues to subsidized ethanol it will continue to distort the market. Also the law of unintended consequences, Food stuff prices rose sharply in price because we were mandating an outcome and not letting the market work.

 

[SpringHollow]

One clear difference on ethanol versus these other topics: most scientists and economists said ethanol was not a smart way for us to go. It was done in response to lobbying pressure from special interest groups. I had a lot of respect for the politicians who ran for office and said they would not support it in spite of the loss of those campaign dollars and votes. That happens all too rarely.

Ken

 

[czechsonofagun]

Plenty of global warming outside my window right now - Virginia is white again.

 

[turbo36]

Paragragh 1.

2. That you were a teacher does not surprise me.

Wow! This is the most prejudiced statement I have ever seen on this board!

Just one one question for you. Do you have private health insurance or Medicare?

 

[keegs]

China Is Leading the Race to Make Renewable Energy - NYTimes.com

Components of wind turbines at a factory in Tianjin, China. Shifting to sustainable energy could leave the West dependent on China, much as the developed world now depends on the Mideast

 

[Ken]

Mike PA The more I read your posts the more I agree with you. Keep it up.
Grew up watching familys that needed subsistance always had more than others just needed help. Then watched there kids live the same way. Now looking at the grand kids still living in same conditions with hands out. 5 years ago a large Dairy was built and advertised for employees paid above adverage salary. No one of this group applied. Didn't want to lose there benefits. The dairy folded not enough employees to do the needed work. then feed prices put it down.
Today a empty building. Guess who paying for the spent money. Goverment loans=your pocket book.
Seems there a bunch of people that have there shorts pulled to high maybe this post should be divided to the wanta be's with the gov. paying the bills and people who are willing to work for them selves.
ken

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Wow! This is the most prejudiced statement I have ever seen on this board!

Just one one question for you. Do you have private health insurance or Medicare?

1. Why is it a prejudiced statement? I have read Loren 49's statements and opinions and have formed an opinion
Definition: Prejudicereconceived judgement or opinion.
I would think that my statement is well founded.
2. In answer to your question: Neither.

 

[Pilot]

Gee, I guess I heard wrong. I thought it was called "Error America".

 

[keegs]

Paragragh 1.
I think that your own statement "In my opinion" says it all. Not to get snotty, but I think I will trust Washington, Jefferson, Adams "opinion" over yours. As I told you in a earlier post, The constitution was set up with a series of checks and balances, I think what you and a number of other posters are suggesting is that we should modify/change to Constitution to fit a particular set of circumstances. I would not.
I would be particularly wary of anybody offering me anything for "free". It usually turns out to be the most expensive of all.
.

FF...the senate's filibuster rule is in the constitution?

 

[Loren49]

FallbrockFarmer- I take it as a compliment that you were not surprised I am a teacher but 25 years ago when I was a dairy farmer with a small farm and a high school diploma I would have done the same research. I try to do some research in order to make a post based on something other than what talk show hosts are saying. Just because the same few errors in conclusions or questionable statements are repeated many, many times does make them more valid. Maybe in the same light I should let you know that I am very concerned that you were not bothered by the Glen Beck comparison. I have a good idea of what Glen Beck does and is and he is not helping us to work on problems. He's laughing all the way to the bank.
I believe that you have no clue concerning the work I did as a teacher to try to help students. I retired when I did (at 59) because I couldn't take the frustration of unhelpful parents and the government involvement for political gain. (there are many good parents and students)

Concerning your faith in the framers of the Constitution: I'm sure you're aware that it went into effect in 1788 when New Hampshire ratified it. (the 9th state to do so. From 1791 (Bill of Rights) through 1992 there were 27 amendments to the Constitution. Seems that some wise men had the wisdom and desire to adjust what you seem to think was written in stone to cover all possibilities forever. As the times changed this framework needed adjustments. Let we see - the framers allowed ownership of humans and women couldn't vote. Actually the greatest early use of the filibuster was by some southern democrats to try to prevent votes on race issues.

My healthcare costs have gone up 8 to 9% per year over the past 2 years. At that rate the amount doubles every 8 to 9 years (rule of 72). If I would reach age 78 the cost of my coverage would be $48000. Actually if medicare was not there to cover the most expensive years the premiums would clearly be much more expensive. Our current system is unsustainable. Note that the current obstructionists who want to start of, did nothing significant over the past 8 years when they had the power. I assume you will use Social Security and Medicare when you see fit (if you don't it tells me how wealthy you are) I'm not asking for an answer.


Loren