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