Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on July 15, 2009, 05:51:46 PM
-
haven't seen anyone this polarizing since hilary...
A fundraising email that MoveOn blasted out yesterday afternoon calling for cash to counter Palin’s “lies” on climate change has brought in more than $100,000 in 24 hours, a MoveOn spokesman confirms to me.
MoveOn blasted out the call for cash in response to Palin’s Op ed in the Washington Post attacking Obama’s cap and trade plan as an “enormous threat to our economy.”
“This is the same Sarah Palin who doesn’t believe climate change is caused by humans,” MoveOn’s fundraising email read. “Now she’s positioning herself as the face of the conservative attack against clean energy.Sarah Palin’s lies could sink our hopes for a clean energy economy,” the email continued, calling on members to chip in money to “fight back against Palin’s false claims.”
Palin’s political action committee raised some $200,000 for her in the ten days after she resigned as governor of Alaska. MoveOn’s claim of $100,000 in one day means her attacks on Obama’s cap and trade bill raised half that amount — for her opponents — in one day.
Says MoveOn’s spokesman: “It is still pouring in — at a good rate.”
Update: I should have noted that while Palin’s supporters are unquestionably passionate, MoveOn’s haul demonstrates yet again how polarizing a figure Palin has become. It’s kind of amazing how motivated and energized her detractors are, particularly when it comes to pushing back against her high-profile claims on high-stakes questions like, you know, what to do to save the earth.
-
George Soros looses that much in his couch.
-
Cap and trade has NOTHING to do with saving the earth.Cap and trade is designed to destroy the American economy and give more power to the government.Global warming is a lie designed to make Al Gore and his ilk rich,nothing more nothing less.Cap and trade will die in the senate as it should and that little sawed off puke Waxman will have to find another way to wreck America.
Palin could hold a dinner and draw three times that much from doners.
-
Cap and trade has NOTHING to do with saving the earth.Cap and trade is designed to destroy the American economy and give more power to the government.Global warming is a lie designed to make Al Gore and his ilk rich,nothing more nothing less.Cap and trade will die in the senate as it should and that little sawed off puke Waxman will have to find another way to wreck America.
Palin could hold a dinner and draw three times that much from doners.
Do you wish to have a Scientific Debate on the issue?
-
Do you wish to have a Scientific Debate on the issue?
Nothing can compete with your copy and paste skills, nothing. Skills like those come around once in 10 years.
-
Do you wish to have a Scientific Debate on the issue?
Do you have any scientific knowledge to debate him with? NOPE, because you're a lying loser who lost his degree because of 200$ ticket...yet you drive a pimped out Bentley ::)
-
Do you have any scientific knowledge to debate him with? NOPE, because you're a lying loser who lost his degree because of 200$ ticket...yet you drive a pimped out Bentley ::)
He was given that Ferrari, he did not earn it.
-
He was given that Ferrari, he did not earn it.
I heard that he bought a private jet and after he took it for the first spin he never flew in it again...he said that jet fuel is too expensive and he fights for his principle thus he let the plane sit...true story!
It's as true as his degree minus a ticket :P ::)
-
Do you wish to have a Scientific Debate on the issue?
Well,I will say the left is 100% correct if you can show me how having a government employee come into your home that your attempting to sell, and then give you guidelines on how you must retrofit it to make it "green" BEFORE your allowed to sell it,helps ANYTHING.We already cant sell houses,we cant make ANY money on the sale,please show me how this isnt designed to destroy the economy.So,if the government idiot says "you need to get new windows BEFORE you can sell"[where is that in the constitution] and the windows cost you 10,000 dollars,and your profit on the house is 10,000dollars,please tell me how this helps the environment,carbon emmisions,the housing market,the individual,the economy.
Like I said,if you can defend that,I will come on here and admit I was wrong about global warming.
-
The funny thing is Palin was campaigning for a cap and trade system during the presidential elections.
http://www.seethroughthepodium.org/issues/climate/environment_mccain.pdf (http://www.seethroughthepodium.org/issues/climate/environment_mccain.pdf)
-
Well,I will say the left is 100% correct if you can show me how having a government employee come into your home that your attempting to sell, and then give you guidelines on how you must retrofit it to make it "green" BEFORE your allowed to sell it,helps ANYTHING.We already cant sell houses,we cant make ANY money on the sale,please show me how this isnt designed to destroy the economy.So,if the government idiot says "you need to get new windows BEFORE you can sell"[where is that in the constitution] and the windows cost you 10,000 dollars,and your profit on the house is 10,000dollars,please tell me how this helps the environment,carbon emmisions,the housing market,the individual,the economy.
Like I said,if you can defend that,I will come on here and admit I was wrong about global warming.
I am failing to see how your above scenario (totally unfounded I might add), invalidates any Scientific Evidence.
-
So when you guys said Palin was quitting her job to go into fundraising bet you didn't think she would be causing fundraising for the other side.
-
The funny thing is Palin was campaigning for a cap and trade system during the presidential elections.
http://www.seethroughthepodium.org/issues/climate/environment_mccain.pdf (http://www.seethroughthepodium.org/issues/climate/environment_mccain.pdf)
Palin supported Cap and Trade, yes. I didn't know this was news to anyone?
I'm personally against it, but I can understand why politicians like Obama and Palin support it.
-
Palin supported Cap and Trade, yes. I didn't know this was news to anyone?
I'm personally against it, but I can understand why politicians like Obama and Palin support it.
More garbage spin fron 240. The VP does not set agenda.
-
More garbage spin fron 240. The VP does not set agenda.
When her Prez is 72 with 4 bouts of cancer, senior moments, about to enter the most stressful job on the planet, then yes, I think her views on agenda DO matter.
-
I am failing to see how your above scenario (totally unfounded I might add), invalidates any Scientific Evidence.
Umm,sorry,THATS IN THE BILL.So,as usual,you guys on the left can try to twist it,but that little diddy is in the bill.Its also in the bill that ALL builders will have to build using bankrupt Californias green standards.So,my advise to you is ,READ THE BILL or get some info on the bill that doesnt come from those GOOFS at MSNBC.
-
More garbage spin fron 240. The VP does not set agenda.
besides - you are the one worshipping her for 2012.
A President Newt or RP or Romney would get in there in 2012 and revese cap/trade asap.
Would a president palin? Ah, no. She supports it.
-
Palin supported Cap and Trade, yes. I didn't know this was news to anyone?
I'm personally against it, but I can understand why politicians like Obama and Palin support it.
The cap and trade that McCAIN proposed was FAR different then the one the lib congress passed.Its not even worth trying to compare the two because its like night and day.Its like trying to compare Obamas pitch to Bushs' pitch.Both were throws but had NOTHING in common.
-
Do you wish to have a Scientific Debate on the issue?
You want a Scientific debate on Global Warming.
On what part.
That the earth is warming up, or that man is causing it, or that it is caused by large emissions of CO2 and that we can stop it with a cap and trade system that excluded the Worlds 1st and 4th largest polluter.
Because there is no conclusive proof that the earth is heating up past its highest point in history. This is based on the fact that most of the recorded world temperatures that are used in the NASA models are from after 1934 the warmest year in America. Canada didn't start measuring national temperatures until 1948 and now many of those same weatherstations are out of service.
http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/national_e.cfm
The national average temperature for the spring of 2009 was 0.4°C below normal, based on preliminary data, ranking it as the eighteenth coolest since nationwide records began in 1948.
There is no conclusive proof that a small raise in CO2 will affect global temperatures.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5804831/Climate-change-The-sun-and-the-oceans-do-not-lie.html
It will be impossible to cut CO2 emissions world wide if the developing nations are not involved.
-
besides - you are the one worshipping her for 2012.
A President Newt or RP or Romney would get in there in 2012 and revese cap/trade asap.
Would a president palin? Ah, no. She supports it.
Exactly he is crying about it but yet indirectly supporting it through his cheerleading for the candidate of his choice.
-
besides - you are the one worshipping her for 2012.
A President Newt or RP or Romney would get in there in 2012 and revese cap/trade asap.
Would a president palin? Ah, no. She supports it.
I would vote for Newt in a heartbeat and if he is the selction, I will sign up and volunteer right now.
-
You want a Scientific debate on Global Warming.
On what part.
That the earth is warming up, or that man is causing it, or that it is caused by large emissions of CO2 and that we can stop it with a cap and trade system that excluded the Worlds 1st and 4th largest polluter.
Because there is no conclusive proof that the earth is heating up past its highest point in history. This is based on the fact that most of the recorded world temperatures that are used in the NASA models are from after 1934 the warmest year in America. Canada didn't start measuring national temperatures until 1948 and now many of those same weatherstations are out of service.
http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/national_e.cfm
The national average temperature for the spring of 2009 was 0.4°C below normal, based on preliminary data, ranking it as the eighteenth coolest since nationwide records began in 1948.
There is no conclusive proof that a small raise in CO2 will affect global temperatures.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5804831/Climate-change-The-sun-and-the-oceans-do-not-lie.html
It will be impossible to cut CO2 emissions world wide if the developing nations are not involved.
1. One year plucked does not constitute a trend. You can`t just measure one year and proclaim there is no trend. It does not make any sense whatsoever.
This argument represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between weather and climate. Climate is generally defined as the weather conditions averaged over a long period, usually around 30 years. One can not discern a trend in climate change by looking at small numbers of years, much less a single one. On top of that, this fallacious objection is using global temperatures in a single month, not even an entire year! An even cursory look at the graph above reveals the very noisy nature of monthly temperatures, even when averaged over the entire globe. The particular Jan07 to Jan08 drop used for this argument is indeed large, but it is by no means the only place you could pick to draw a steep line, either up or down. Look at the huge leap up from month 219 to month 231 or the sudden drop from month 152 to month 164 (I am only using intervals of 12 months to avoid seasonal bias). This is very noisy data and those dramatic flucuations turned out to be just that: noise.
Discerning a trend from noisy data is one of the most basic processes in scientifc research, so even though this argument has a naive appeal to the majority of us with no statistical training, you can be sure that any scientifically trained individual trying to make a case for cooling out of this graph is not being intellectually honest. Please consider any source of this argument as very unreliable, either by being very uninformed about basic scientific processes, or very dishonest, hoping to tke advantage of less informed people.
So what do we see when we step back and look at the whole picture?
(http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/hadcrut-1850-2007.png)
(image taken from this page)
Clearly the last few years, far from erasing the entire warming of the 20th century, have remained far above the global baseline (1951-1990 average). We can also see that even in globally and seasonally averaged and smoothed data, there are still numerous peaks and troughs that are irrelevant to the long term trends. On this graph, the last 4 or 5 years do look as though the trend has paused and even reversed but this is actually a misleading artifact of how the graph was produced. If you look at the page on the Hadley site that describes the smoothing method used, you will see that it is actually too soon to know what the real 2007 trend direction is. The smoothing they use requires 10 years of data on either side of the year in question. So though the trend today may in fact be down, we will not know this for sure until ten years from now. Hadley centre made the decision to continue the line until 2007 to avoid the appearance of incomplete data despite the fact that the last 10 years are less and less meaningful.
There is no convincing reason to think that the well established and attributed long term trend has reversed nor that it is likely to for many years to come, even if effective global actions were taken today to stop emissions of greenhouse enhancing gases like CO2 and CH4 (methane). Short term influences like La Nina and volcanic interruptions may cause dips and slow downs but the elevated levels of greenhouse gases already in the air will eventually overwelm the long term.
And before you let anyone argue that the uncertainty about today I just described just means we need to wait ten more years, please recall that we have done that and more already. 20 years ago James Hansen was telling the US senate that warming was real, significant and anthropogenic (human caused) and the projections he provided have been largely borne out by what has been observed. The skeptics have already made us wait, and the three IPCC assessments that came out in the meantime have been more and more emphatic in their conclusions. The wait is over, the trend is clear and the casue is well understood.
It is a telling and egregious double standard for those voices that for the past twenty years have told us to wait and see are now claiming the trend is over based on such a small blip in the mountain of data.
-
You missed the point.
No one is comparing apples because there wasn't inconsistent weather data until after world war 2.
To say that 1998 or 2005 was the warmest on record misses the fact that in most regions of the world where there was recording the 30's were hotter then the 90's.
For example the 30's in Western Canada were the hottest and driest on record.(regionally) However in Canada and across the world there wasn't any means of recording a national average, because there were no weather stations in the North or throughout Russia and China. Therefore these years were omitted.
In the last 10 years we are starting to see a lot inaccuracy again because many weather stations around the world are closing so there is less regional coverage of temperatures. Which means an increase to your noise theory, which would make many of these findings.
Seeing that you have to cut and paste with no thought of your own. Shows that you don't understand the topic.
-
The cap and trade that McCAIN proposed was FAR different then the one the lib congress passed.Its not even worth trying to compare the two because its like night and day.Its like trying to compare Obamas pitch to Bushs' pitch.Both were throws but had NOTHING in common.
So... some flavors of cap/trade are okay?
-
Wow were did TA go...scampering to find data that says that data before ww2 is accurate because Joker..u nalied him pretty good.
-
So... some flavors of cap/trade are okay?
Its not ok. McCain sucked!
However, he would have at least been somewhat of a check on the insanity of Pelosi/Reid.
-
So... some flavors of cap/trade are okay?
Don't even bother. They are defending someone who has openly campaigned for a cap and trade system with the most retarded reasons. If palin was so opposed to cap and trade she would have said so and not ran for VP for policies that she doesn't believe in. We all know she's a quitter so it would be right in line for her. Fact is she either supports it or she sold her beliefs for a shot at power.
-
Does it matter...cap and trade is a disaster whoever offers it. The plan we have now is from Barry and it sucks.
-
Does it matter...cap and trade is a disaster whoever offers it. The plan we have now is from Barry and it sucks.
It doesn't effect you though military socialist you'll still draw a govt cheque.
-
Yeah...welll first off I pay taxes and it turns out I use water, gas and electricity. I don't want to pay for ur electricity...
-
Yeah...welll first off I pay taxes and it turns out I use water, gas and electricity. I don't want to pay for ur electricity...
Why do you even bother, "protecting" us, if you just as well would rather see someone without medical care, food or electricity.
This speaks a lot about your true motives as to why you joined the military, obviously not because you care about the citizens of the United States.
-
Why do you even bother, "protecting" us, if you just as well would rather see someone without medical care, food or electricity.
This speaks a lot about your true motives for having joined the military.
People in this country have choices, to succeed or fail. I dont feel any obligation to finance laziness. If we want to take care of people unable to take care of themselvess, that's one thing.
Since not everyone can have a trust fund TA, it seems to me that the best message to tell people is to STFU and get to work and stop expecting other people to finance their lifestyles.
Laziness and socialism just breed more of it.
-
Don't ever mistake my service as some kind of humanitarian aid mission to save people like u. I don't want to or need to protect people who are unwilling to do what they need to do, to take care of themselves. The US is not about handouts and socialism. I'm not protecting that country. I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. There is nothing in there about the right to healthcare, food or electricity. U need to work for that. I make it possible for idiots like u to do whatever u need to, to achieve that. I do my job and set the stage, but u have to take advantage of the peace and security to improve yourself. If u choose not to, thats ur fault. If u are incapable then there are programs to help u. However the vast majority of Americans can provide for themselves without the need for Uncle Sam. We were founded on those principles. I do my job as does the rest of the Military. Police do their job to protect people, what u do with that security is up to u.
-
Don't ever mistake my service as some kind of humanitarian aid mission to save people like u. I don't want to or need to protect people who are unwilling to do what they need to do, to take care of themselves. The US is not about handouts and socialism. I'm not protecting that country. I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. There is nothing in there about the right to healthcare, food or electricity. U need to work for that. I make it possible for idiots like u to do whatever u need to, to achieve that. I do my job and set the stage, but u have to take advantage of the peace and security to improve yourself. If u choose not to, thats ur fault. If u are incapable then there are programs to help u. However the vast majority of Americans can provide for themselves without the need for Uncle Sam. We were founded on those principles. I do my job as does the rest of the Military. Police do their job to protect people, what u do with that security is up to u.
You do your job a little too well HH. An overdeveloped sence of security is what is leading to alot of this liberal bullshit we are seeing these days.