Socialism

[jiggin_pimpin]

Hey guys,

Been reading a lot of what you guys have to say in regards to politics here. I just have one question for all the political parties.

What is so darn wrong with the US moving towards socialism?

Let's chat it up.

[Bob Simard]

Do you believe the government can deliver goods and services better than the private sector?

Take healthcare for as an example:

Would you prefer services delivered via Medi-Cal / Medicare or Kaiser Permanente?

Or even simpler -

do you believe first in yourself (and your own ability) to take care of your family?

OR

first in the community to provide care for you and your family?

[Marty]

Hey guys,
Been reading a lot of what you guys have to say in regards to politics here. I just have one question for all the political parties.
What is so darn wrong with the US moving towards socialism?
Let's chat it up.

You have to be very young to ask a question like that but let me do my best because our schools have failed you in your education of history. To fully understand you have to look at countries like Cuba, the Old USSR, North Korea, and China and compare them with the good old USA.

I not talking about how poor they are but how did they get so poor – when everyone is working for the same thing (3 hots and cot) and you are going to get it anyway no matter what your out put is. Even if you work slow or fast you get the same. So which one will you work?

Our nation has it better (standard of living) then any other develop nation and with Obamanation Socialist Marxist ideological we are going to lose it. BHO redistribution of wealth concept does not just want to help the poor but to make everyone the same - poor. The first thing Socialists try to control is Labor. What bill is being pushed through now – open voting for Unions.

[jiggin_pimpin]

Do you believe the government can deliver goods and services better than the private sector?

Take healthcare for as an example:

Would you prefer services delivered via Medi-Cal / Medicare or Kaiser Permanente?

Or even simpler -

do you believe first in yourself (and your own ability) to take care of your family?

OR

first in the community to provide care for you and your family?

I like to take a pragmatic approach to this. There are ways that gov't can be a better solution than privatization.

In a socialistic society, the people are suppossed to be equal. But here in the US, if I make over $150K a year and get sick, I have access to better hospitals and better doctors then my chances for survival is higher than that of someone who is impoverished and has to go to a clinic that is using antiquated practices. Is that fair?

Socialism cuts between the social stratosphere and makes things equal for all, which I do believe is the root of our Constitution.

[jiggin_pimpin]

You have to be very young to ask a question like that but let me do my best because our schools have failed you in your education of history. To fully understand you have to look at countries like Cuba, the Old USSR, North Korea, and China and compare them with the good old USA.

I not talking about how poor they are but how did they get so poor – when everyone is working for the same thing (3 hots and cot) and you are going to get it anyway no matter what your out put is. Even if you work slow or fast you get the same. So which one will you work?

Our nation has it better (standard of living) then any other develop nation and with Obamanation Socialist Marxist ideological we are going to lose it. BHO redistribution of wealth concept does not just want to help the poor but to make everyone the same - poor. The first thing Socialists try to control is Labor. What bill is being pushed through now – open voting for Unions. [/quote]

Marty,

Thanks for thinking that I'm young. I'm in my early 30's and I have a degree in econ, work in finance and am going back to get my JD/MBA, so I do know a thing or two about econ and our history. The schools I went to did not fail me. I will agree that there has been a mass deterioration of our education system but I digress.

The countries that you listed are at its core, communist countries. That kind of makes your argument moot because socialism is not communism. There is a subtle difference between the two.

You say socialists try to control labor, how is that? Socialists founded the concept of labor unions because there was a disparity of wealth between the laborers and owners.

I just don't think that we should cast aside the notion of incorporating some socialistic approaches to assist in getting us out of this mess that we're in which, I might add, was created by capitalism. I feel that if this current administration can integrate some key aspects of socialism into capitalism, we might have something positive to look forward to. Is that too much to hope for?

I highly doubt that your extreme thought on Obamanation Socialist Marxist ideologies is going to make all of us poor. What Obama is planning is a sense of parity between the social classes. Socialism can work if you nationalize key industries and allow other industries to be dictated in the open market. It would be the best of both worlds and should not be entirely dismissed.

T

[Bob Simard]

It's all about equality of opportunity my friend. NOT Equality of outcome.

The role of the government is to provide an environment in which everyone can succeed, to the level their abilities can take them and as far as their desire and drive will push them. Success however is not gauranteed.

Your premise is incorrect. Everyone simply doesn't have the same ability. I see in the other post you're educated in economics. I'll take your word for it and assume that in your studies, you took a statistics class or two.... and in those courses, you studied the bell curve and it's application around populations.

I'd recommend Charles Murray's book, The Bell Curve.

Medical care? Equal for everyone? Explain how that works in a world driven by supply and demand.... rich Canadians, Germans don't wait 6 - 8 months for critical surgery to be delivered in their socialist home countries. They travel to the US to cut cut on at Johns Hopkins.

Tell you what though - you tell me a socialist society that compares to ours. I'm not saying we don't have our societal warts. I am saying though there are not many countries in the world that people flock to. The US is at the top of the list.

I would much prefer to live in a country where I can be born poor, and die rich, than one where regardless of performance, I'm getting 'my faire share.'

[getalife]

Very well said Bob.

I heard an interesting story on my morning radio show (Armstrong and Getty). It was about a school where every year they put on a lobster dinner to raise money for the 7th grade trip to science camp. Each student sold tickets, and a portion of each ticket sold was applied to that students trip cost. A student that busted his/her a$$ and sold alot of tickets could almost pay for their own science camp tuition. This was the most successful fundraiser of the year for many years until this year. This year they announced that all of the money raised would be combined and divided up by the total number of students, regardless of how many tickets he/she sold, so that all of the students could get their "fair share". The end result was that too few tickets were sold and they had to cancel the entire event.

You cannot take away the prize at the end, we all need something to work for. Increasing taxes on the "rich" (the ones who worked hard, got educated, took risks, and made it happen) and redistributing it to the "poor" (the ones who just dont have the competitive drive or the mental capacity to rise to the top) takes away the incentives and punishes success. Bob is exactly right on this one... all of us have equal opportunity, but no one is promised equal success.

[Marty]

Marty,

Thanks for thinking that I'm young. I'm in my early 30's and I have a degree in econ, work in finance and am going back to get my JD/MBA, so I do know a thing or two about econ and our history. The schools I went to did not fail me. I will agree that there has been a mass deterioration of our education system but I digress.

The countries that you listed are at its core, communist countries. That kind of makes your argument moot because socialism is not communism. There is a subtle difference between the two.

You say socialists try to control labor, how is that? Socialists founded the concept of labor unions because there was a disparity of wealth between the laborers and owners.

I just don't think that we should cast aside the notion of incorporating some socialistic approaches to assist in getting us out of this mess that we're in which, I might add, was created by capitalism. I feel that if this current administration can integrate some key aspects of socialism into capitalism, we might have something positive to look forward to. Is that too much to hope for?

I highly doubt that your extreme thought on Obamanation Socialist Marxist ideologies is going to make all of us poor. What Obama is planning is a sense of parity between the social classes. Socialism can work if you nationalize key industries and allow other industries to be dictated in the open market. It would be the best of both worlds and should not be entirely dismissed.

T

jiggin_pimpin

You are young – most young people have to tell what they are and how much schooling they have for they can get respect. The old tell stories of what happen when they screwed the pooch – the school of hard nocks (be they have schooling or not).

Can you tell me the difference between Communist, Marxist, and Socialism? It would be like I asked you the question want is the difference between Capitalism, Democracy, and Republic? No my argument is not moot.

What we have here is a discussion of Socialists (Government own) Vs Free Market (privately own) and I take it you think they can work together. The very first thing is you believe in social classes which I don’t. The only social class is the one you put yourself in. See you are already starting to think like a Marxist! What type of school did you go to? Don’t feel bad, I have a few of your type working for me! Smart as hell and - let just leave it at that.

I just going to narrow in on few phase you made “was created by capitalismâ€

[Vince E]

What is so darn wrong with the US moving towards socialism?

The camel's nose finding its way into the tent of personal liberty.
Once it gets in a little it wont quit until its all in. Unfortunately its too late.

How are you for having me tell you what days you can fish, what boat you can buy and what tackle you can use? Wait the F&G does that.
And how about my setting the value of your education and efforts equal to someone who partied all through school and only got hired because he knows my niece? Wait, that happens too.

How about me telling you who you can be friends with or marry? What you write or post on this forum. Wait sTony does that

[Jeff C.]

Conservative politicians and pundits just love coming up with labels for the other side. They resort to namecalling with terms like "leftist" and "marxist" and "socialist" because they know it will serve as red meat for their largely unthinking and uneducated followers. They can't stand on the issues so they try to change the subject by name calling.

The healthcare issue is a perfect example. People who work for cheap employers or who lose their job or come down with a serious illness are finding themselves in a situation where they have no insurance. The rational response is to come up with a way for the government to subsidize insurance for people who are uninsurable through the private sector. But Republicans won't stand for that. They COULD just tell the truth, that they don't think poor people have the right to the same quality of health care as wealthier people, but of course they can't say that, instead they simply label the plan as "socialist" without any further debate.

The funny thing is that while this common strategy by conservatives does a decent job of energizing their followers (take Marty for example), it only turns off anyone open minded enough to actually analyze the argument. My favorite of this last election was when McCain labeled Obama as a "celebrity". Hah! How'd that work out for you Marty?

[Bob Simard]

"that they don't think poor people have the right to the same quality of health care as wealthier people"

Please explain to me a system of healthcare - delivery in which

"Bill-lost-his-job-and-now-has-cancer"

gets the equivlilant healthcare as

Bill Gates?

It's not a matter of what I "think." It's a matter of limited and non-equal resources in a market economy coupled with the fact that doctors, like people, are NOT ALL equal and are incentivised based on their abilities and business skills.

One of the major differences between people like you and people like me is that you believe the government OWES everyone their 'fare share,' versus my belief that says it's the responsibility of the government is to PROVIDE AN ENVIRONMENT in which its citizens can go out and get their own piece of the pie, based on their individual desires and abilities.

i.e. Equality of Opportunity Versus Equality of Outcome.

Labels? Name-calling? Who you kidding pal? Going through college at 26 I was branded a racist by more than one professor because I didn't agree with their views that entry to college and financial assistence should be soley based on merit, versus skin color. the left uses this tactic just as much as the right.

And PuuuuhhhLEASE! "it will serve as red meat for their largely unthinking and uneducated followers."...........

Hello "Global Warming"...... how many trillion$ have gone after that Eco-argument which is more faith-based than factual? Al Gore wins a Nobel Prize based on editorial opinion and we now see billions in subsidies going to the "go green" movement.

Stupidity and ignorance are not unique in any ideology. I am thankful that at least on my side, the masses want the government to "do nothing and leave them alone," versus the left who believe in an interventionist government and feel that the government must "DO SOMETHING!" about every social problem - real or perceived. (which means taking more of the money I earned and giving it to those who did not - and using a grossly inefficient system in which to do it.)

[Ringer]

Why do you think the average person in America is suffering right now? Could it be something called a world banking system and a global economy. Could it be that we allowed people who earned $2000 per month to buy a home that had a $2200 per month payment? It doesn't take a very bright person to understand that in order for a global economy to succeed where third world countries with cheap labor raise their standard of living that the counter is that the wealthy country's standard of living has to decline. The pie is only so big. I have employees who escaped from Romania under Chechescu. They are among the greatest of Americans because they have seen the government take wealth from one class and send them to the wastelands to survive or die. I was born as a free man in America and I will die the same. You are naive to believe that removing the incentive from our society will work to the betterment of the majority. Rich people hire poorer people to do a thing called jobs.

[Jeff C.]

"

And PuuuuhhhLEASE! "it will serve as red meat for their largely unthinking and uneducated followers."...........

Hello "Global Warming"...... how many trillion$ have gone after that Eco-argument which is more faith-based than factual? Al Gore wins a Nobel Prize based on editorial opinion and we now see billions in subsidies going to the "go green" movement.

Thanks for making my point Bob. Global warming is a great example. Conservatives have duped you into believing that global warming is a creation of the left and that it's still being debated among scientific circles. The reality is that among the people who would know - the climate and atmospheric scientists - there is widespread agreement that man made global warming is a reality.

However, conservative politicians rely on the fact that you don't have the know how or motivation to look it up yourself, and so they continue to lie to you and you just eat it up.

[Jeff C.]

Why do you think the average person in America is suffering right now? Could it be something called a world banking system and a global economy. Could it be that we allowed people who earned $2000 per month to buy a home that had a $2200 per month payment? It doesn't take a very bright person to understand that in order for a global economy to succeed where third world countries with cheap labor raise their standard of living that the counter is that the wealthy country's standard of living has to decline. The pie is only so big. I have employees who escaped from Romania under Chechescu. They are among the greatest of Americans because they have seen the government take wealth from one class and send them to the wastelands to survive or die. I was born as a free man in America and I will die the same. You are naive to believe that removing the incentive from our society will work to the betterment of the majority. Rich people hire poorer people to do a thing called jobs.

Kind of off the topic but I'll bite. A major reason why the average person in America is suffering is because of a lack of governmental control of the banking industry. You see, a major tenet of conservative thought (adopted from the libertarian view) is that regulation is bad, and over the years conservative politicians have managed to reduce governmental regulation over the industry. With less regulation, banks based their decisions on profit motive alone, which meant that they made a lot of money by lending to people who couldn't afford their mortgages. Once the housing bubble crashed (largely because people who couldn't afford their mortgages began to default) the defaults began to snowball because people who could afford their mortgage wondered why they should continue to pay for a house that is worth less than they owe.

So in a nutshell, a major cause of the current crisis is lack of government regulation. Conservatives would have you believe that everthing about government is bad, that government is nothing but an intrusion in our lives. Well the current crisis is a great example why government regulation is important in some instances.

[Ringer]

I am sorry. I was confused and thought that I read ample facts that the mortgage problem began under Carter and then was kicked in to high gear when Clinton's admin pushed the banks to adopt the "stated income" rule. I guess those reports about the republicans going before congress 3 years ago to whine about that problem were false. I am sure that Obama's first real paying job was as an attorney for ACORN suing Citibank to force them to lend to low income people was just as false. I will gladly accept blame for the oil speculation resulting from the Graham/Enron loophole but you are way off base blaming the mortgage deregulation on republicans. You commies(community activists) own that one.

[Bob Simard]

Okay - forget about Healthcare as you've obviously got no answer to the question:

Please explain to me a system of healthcare - delivery in which

"Bill-lost-his-job-and-now-has-cancer"

gets the equivlilant healthcare as

Bill Gates?

typical.....

Okay -

"The globe is warming, it's our fault and the consequences are going to be terrible."

Fact is there is NOT concensus among the scientific community that this is occuring OR that it's Man's fault.

That debate sir is FAR from over. There's just not a lot of money in disagreeing - and those climatologits and scientists that do so are branded as 'corporate mouthpieces' by the compassionate left.

What is known is that there's a lot of grant dollars to be had in supporting catastrophic predictions.

In his movie, Gore says that if "we allow" the globe to warm, "sea levels worldwide would go up 20 feet." Then he shows his audience terrifying maps of Florida and San Francisco submerged under rising sea levels. But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the Nobel Prize with Gore, said that would probably take thousands of years to happen. Over the next 100 years, sea levels are expected to rise seven to 24 inches, not 20 feet."

Everyone conveniently forgets the equivilant catasprophic predictions by scientists about "Global Cooling" in the 70s.... "OMG We must DO SOMETHING!"

Scientific consensus on global warming AND the cause-and-effect relationship simply does not exist.

[Jeff C.]

Fact is there is NOT concensus among the scientific community that this is occuring OR that it's Man's fault.

You don't actually believe that, do you? If so, once again you are helping me make my point. What source of information are you using to make that statement? Are you using the views of the actual climatologists or are you simply parroting what you heard from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savage?

You see, while conservatives use people like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage as sources on issues related to science. I am using the people who actually know about the issue, people who have Ph. D.s in climate science. Among the scientists who actually study the earth's climate there is no legitimate debate as to whether man made global warming is occuring- it's accepted reality.

If you truly believe that there is still disagreement on the issue among the scientists of the world, then you should put your money where your mouth is. Here's a web site that you can use to search for legitimate peer reviewed scientific journal articles: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez. This web site indexes most of the peer reviewed journals used by the scientific community to publish research findings. It works like any other search engine, all you have to do is put in a phrase like "global warming" and it will return abstracts to recently published scientific journal articles containing that phrase. This is the same search engine that the scientists themselves use to get up to date on a research topic. Because this search engine only indexes peer-reviewed scientific journals, it cuts through a lot of the misinformation present on the web.

Now, back to my challenge to you. I'll wager you $100 that for every recent peer reviewed scientific journal article you can find that disputes man made global warming I can find 10 recent peer reviewed scientific journal articles supporting its existence. Surely if as you say "Scientific consensus on global warming AND the cause-and-effect relationship simply does not exist" then you can find plenty of scientific journal articles that support your view.

Easy money, right?

[Ringer]

Jeff-if you want to be a socialist then that is fine by me. For now it is a free country. Maybe if you could talk to just a few people who emigrated here from socialist countries you could at least get an understanding of where socialism leads. Unfortunately people in power in those countries always use the "good of the worker" to screw the workers. Theoretically you may be correct that some socialistic programs would benefit the majority but we have survived for over 200 years by resisting those temptations. I read that over 40% of our population lives off the government through government jobs, social security or welfare. The very programs you are supporting will push that to a full majority soon and then we will find out how our lives are better under socialism.

[Jeff C.]

Jeff-if you want to be a socialist then that is fine by me. For now it is a free country. Maybe if you could talk to just a few people who emigrated here from socialist countries you could at least get an understanding of where socialism leads. Unfortunately people in power in those countries always use the "good of the worker" to screw the workers. Theoretically you may be correct that some socialistic programs would benefit the majority but we have survived for over 200 years by resisting those temptations. I read that over 40% of our population lives off the government through government jobs, social security or welfare. The very programs you are supporting will push that to a full majority soon and then we will find out how our lives are better under socialism.

Actually, I've worked closely with people who have immigrated from Canada, the UK, the Netherlands, countries which have many more of those "socialistic programs" that you warn of. I guess it will surprise you to hear that these colleagues talk of both advantages and disadvantages of our system relative to their native countries. The fact that you can dismiss something like universal health access as "socialist" is proof that you aren't being open minded, that you are simply falling in line with your conservative brethren without actually considering the merits of the proposal.

[Bob Simard]

Soon as you answer the question.... let's see, put out there twice now???

Please explain to me a system of healthcare - delivery in which

"Bill-lost-his-job-and-now-has-cancer"

gets the equivlilant healthcare as

Bill Gates?

How many of your rich Canadian buddies wait 6 - 9 months for surgery (versus flying to the US and having it done immediately?)

BTW - While I have met Rush several times in the 80s, I don't listen to talk radio.

And talk about spouting a party montra - look in the freakin mirror.

[Jeff C.]

Soon as you answer the question.... let's see, put out there twice now???

Please explain to me a system of healthcare - delivery in which

"Bill-lost-his-job-and-now-has-cancer"

gets the equivlilant healthcare as

Bill Gates?

Seriously, I don't know what you're asking for here. I made the statement that poor people deserve access to decent healthcare the same as wealthier people. Don't you believe that? I guess that's a difference between conservatives and liberals. Liberals like me believe that there are certain things provided by society that shouldn't matter whether you're rich or poor. Things like a fair trial in court and decent health care. Now obviously that is the ideal and the ideal can never be completely accomplished, but that doesn't mean we should quit trying just because some conservative pundit labels the idea as "socialist".

And sorry, I don't have any rich Canadian buddies so I wouldn't have anyone to ask about flying to the US for surgery.

So I guess you're not going to take me up on my challenge to demonstrate that global warming is an undecided issue? Don't feel bad, I've made the challenge to several other conservatives on this board and they couldn't come up with enough legitimate scientific journal articles supporting their claim either. That's not surprising, because those studies don't exist, at least not in enough numbers to compete with the overwhelming number of studies providing support for the existence of global warming.

[Thunnus Salmoides]

Jeff C, when hasn't the climate changed? Are there any other factors to consider besides your SUV, that may cause the temperatures to rise, like the SUN perhaps? Or underwater volcanos that heat up the oceans? If you believe that carbon dioxide is heating up the planet then have you sold your vehicles? Or better yet junked it because selling it would just keep the vehicle on the road. Have you tried pulling a bass boat with a prius? Let me know how that works out for you. You are still using your computer so you are still contributing to this so called "Global Warming". I know, you can't do it all by yourself. You're going to serve us a big $hit sandwich and we all have to take a bite.

[Bob Simard]

"that they don't think poor people have the right to the same quality of health care as wealthier people"

That's the statement you made dude.

I'd like to know how you see that playing out. Their is a finite amount of resources, medical care, and it is not all equal. "The wealthy" pay more for better care. You want to see the best heart surgeon at Johns Hopkins? It's going to cost you.

If you think the government subsidizing Kaiser, Healthnet, Bluecross will provide equivilant health care to all - you're dreaming, or more than likely naive.

You are correct though - I do not believe it's the federal government's responsibility to provide health care to all any more than I believe it's responsible to provide housing or food or automobiles, or anything. It's simply not empowered to do so.

Global warming dissension?

Title:
Satellite and Model Evidence Against Substantial Manmade Climate Chang
December 27, 2008 - by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

(John Christy and Roy Spencer won NASA's Medal for Exceptional Achievement for figuring out how to get temperature data from satellites.)

"Climate changes, they say, always occured has, with or without man. Early last century, even without today's huge output of carbon dioxide, the Arctic went through a warming period.

Greenland's temperatures rose 50 percent faster in the 1920s and reached higher average temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s than today's temperatures."


Title:
Greenland warming of 1920-1930 and 1995-2005
Authors:
Chylek, Petr; Dubey, M. K.; Lesins, G.

Abstract

We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995-2005) warming period with the previous (1920-1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005.

Title:
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Sure - I could go on and name many more as could you countering I'm sure. THAT sir is my point. There isn't consensus. In fact there are enough inconsistencies in the modeling and theory itself there's doubt. It just isn't 'newsworthy.'

Let's boil it down to this:

I believe it's the Government's responsibility to provide an environment in which all it's citizens can achieve individual success, based on their individual ability and desire to succeed. Period.

In short "give me a stable society in which I can build a Hammock under a tree and relax."

You believe that in addition to what I believe, that the government should also ensure that success.

You believe that the government should provide the hammock.

[Greg_Cornish]

Would you prefer services delivered via Medi-Cal - Medicare or Kaiser Permanente?

Medicare. KP has killed to many friends through botched operations and wrong medicines. With Medicare I can live anywhere.

[Greg_Cornish]

Or even simpler -

do you believe first in yourself (and your own ability) to take care of your family?

I don't know, I was only in my early 20s when I was permanently and totally disabled.

My father was a share cropper who had a 8th grade education and was educated as well as the majority in his area and time. He raised 9 kids on $4000 a year. He took care of his family just fine, but health care wasn't run by money then. Hospitals were non profits. An acquaintance of my started one of the first HMOs in New York and is a Millionaire several times over. He got rich from people who paid into a system that never gave them benefits.

[Greg_Cornish]

It's all about equality of opportunity my friend. NOT Equality of outcome.

Medical care should not be driven by supply and demand and should be based on equality of outcome not equality of opportunity. Rich or Poor if they both have cancer should one be given preference because he has more money? That's not a world I look forward to and it's very unchristian, and unspiritual.

[Marty]

Just got off work but I have your back Jeff C.

CO2 is a byproduct of progress. The cars and trucks we us to drive to work, take our boat to the river or lakes, drive to worship on Sundays and to take our kids to sporting events run on gasoline. Gasoline is derived from petroleum! Our homes are heated, cooled, and lighted more often than not with natural gas or coal. The carbon dioxide (CO2) produced from these forms of energy has increased in our atmosphere over the past 150 years by approximately 35%. That is outrages!

To understand we need to know the components of Earth’s atmosphere. To get a visual to assist us in wrapping our minds around the components let us likens the atmosphere to a football field. The goal line to the 78 yard-line contains nothing but nitrogen. Oxygen fills the next 21 yards to the 99 yard-line. The final yard, except for four inches, is argon, a wonderfully mysterious inert gas useful for putting out electronic fires. Three of the remaining four inches is crammed with a variety of minor, but essential, gases like neon, helium, hydrogen and methane. And the last inch? Carbon dioxide. One inch out of a hundred-yard field! At this point I like to add, if you were in the stands looking down on the action, you would need binoculars to see the width of that line. Now the most important point-how much of that last inch is contributed by man-made activities? Envision a line about as thin as a dime standing on edge.

Carbon dioxide accounts for only slightly more than 3/100ths of our planet’s atmosphere. And what percentage of the miniscule amount of gas is produced by the activities of man, including the utilization of fossil fuels? According to a thorough analysis by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, a research wing of the U.S. Department of Energy, only 3.207%.

This man made CO2 is identical to the gas that is gently being emitted from your lungs as you read right now. You are not expelling pollution: you are contributing to our planet’s carbon cycle. Historically, CO2 has been significantly higher than today. In data primarily gathered from ice cores, we see carbon dioxide levels were 500 times higher during the Cretaceous period, some 160 million years ago. Many theorize that the dinosaurs were able to grow to such sizes because of the indescribable abundance of carbon fed foliage and overall atmospheric conditions present during that era. Certainly the SUV could not be blamed for those high levels of CO2. Dinosaur flatulence, perhaps? But don’t worry because Earth has a variety of built in mechanisms to recycle your CO2.

Despite the cries of Congress, the Earth does not have a fever and carbon dioxide is no more dangerous than the breath of life. Are you still worried about the dangers of CO2?

Me, neither.

PS Jeff the visual and information was provide by PH. D
PSS - Why did you Greener change Global Warming to Climate Change?

[Jeff C.]

Global warming dissension?

Title:
Satellite and Model Evidence Against Substantial Manmade Climate Chang
December 27, 2008 - by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

(John Christy and Roy Spencer won NASA's Medal for Exceptional Achievement for figuring out how to get temperature data from satellites.)

"Climate changes, they say, always occured has, with or without man. Early last century, even without today's huge output of carbon dioxide, the Arctic went through a warming period.

Greenland's temperatures rose 50 percent faster in the 1920s and reached higher average temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s than today's temperatures."


Title:
Greenland warming of 1920-1930 and 1995-2005
Authors:
Chylek, Petr; Dubey, M. K.; Lesins, G.

Abstract

We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995-2005) warming period with the previous (1920-1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005.

Title:
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Sure - I could go on and name many more as could you countering I'm sure. THAT sir is my point. There isn't consensus. In fact there are enough inconsistencies in the modeling and theory itself there's doubt. It just isn't 'newsworthy.'

I'm sorry Bob but those "articles" don't fit the criteria of true scientific journal articles because they aren't published in legitimate peer reviewed scientific journals. You see, in order for a scientist to publish his findings he submits his study to a peer reviewed journal, in which other scientists closely scrutinize the methods, findings and conclusions to make sure that the work is scientifically sound. It is through this process of peer review that only quality work reaches the level of mainstream scientific knowledge. Think about it, without this process of peer review, what's to stop any Joe on the street from making up and "publishing" his "scientific" study on the internet. In fact there are several of these fake "scientific articles" being circulated on the internet in exactly this way.

So how might one discriminate between true scientific findings and garbage published on the internet? A legitimate scientific database like pub med (the link I gave above) is a good place to start. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there are no peer reviewed scientific articles that have data incompatible with global warming. What I'm saying is that those articles (if they exist) are likely outnumbered by at least 100 to 1 by the studies providing evidence for global warming. From what I understand that's about as strong a consensus as possible in any fairly new emerging scientific field.

[Marty]

Medical care should not be driven by supply and demand and should be based on equality of outcome not equality of opportunity. Rich or Poor if they both have cancer should one be given preference because he has more money? That's not a world I look forward to and it's very unchristian, and unspiritual.

Greg those are some pretty words (equality of outcome not equality of opportunity). Do you really believe the “Wealthyâ€

[StockOption]

What I'm saying is that those articles (if they exist) are likely outnumbered by at least 100 to 1 by the studies providing evidence for global warming. From what I understand that's about as strong a consensus as possible in any fairly new emerging scientific field.

Right and one would argue that in a fairly new emerging scientific field, sheer numbers of studies on one side or the other are not enough to consider the issue(s) fully decided. If there are dissenting opinions of any magnitude one can logically and safely say the issue(s) are undecided. Science must be exact (at least it strives to be) and consensus alone is not enough to fully decide an issue. In this case wholly valid dissent exists therefore it is premature to consider this issue decided. Your argument that more makes it decided is seriously flawed, especially when applied to a fairly new emerging scientific field.

[StockOption]

So in a nutshell, a major cause of the current crisis is lack of government regulation. Conservatives would have you believe that everthing about government is bad, that government is nothing but an intrusion in our lives. Well the current crisis is a great example why government regulation is important in some instances.

Wrong.

The market will ALWAYS correct itself.

The ecomomic problems we are encountering now are mainly due to too much government regulation. Left to its own devices the market will ALWAYS correct itself.

Now we find many people who are stupid enough to believe that the same entities that helped bring us to this point are now going to fix it. Hell they can't even read the damn bills they are passing. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

The market will ALWAYS correct itself.

Too bad we've already started down this slippery slope of bailouts and other such nonsense. Again the government is interefering with the free market. The government won't correct this only an unfettered free market can.

And of course there are those in the government who know that one way for the government to correct this is to move away from capitalism to ideologies that allow them to exert complete and utter control over the free market. And make no mistake, our existing leadership is hastily taking all of us too that kind of America.

[Jeff C.]

Right and one would argue that in a fairly new emerging scientific field, sheer numbers of studies on one side or the other are not enough to consider the issue(s) fully decided. If there are dissenting opinions of any magnitude one can logically and safely say the issue(s) are undecided. Science must be exact (at least it strives to be) and consensus alone is not enough to fully decide an issue. In this case wholly valid dissent exists therefore it is premature to consider this issue decided. Your argument that more makes it decided is seriously flawed, especially when applied to a fairly new emerging scientific field.

I'll agree and disagree with you at the same time. If I ever said that the issue was "decided" then I used a poor choice of words, because of course, very little is truly "decided" so quickly in a new emerging science. However it is possible (and in fact common) for scientists working in a field to reach a "consensus" when the vast majority of them reach the same conclusion given the available evidence. That's not to say that there can't eventually be evidence uncovered that once again breaks apart this consensus, but that's how science progresses.

Look, the original point was that when global warming deniers claim that the scientific community is "divided" or that there are two equally competing camps on the issue, they are either 1) lying or 2) uninformed, because there is in fact a consensus among the scientists who study these things and the best evidence for this is the absence of legitimate scientific studies being published supporting the views of the global warming skeptics.

[Jeff C.]

[quote="Marty"]

Where do you think the “Wealthyâ€

[Bob Simard]

Right -

that's my point. Many of these same "scientific experts" now spouting global warming and the cause and effect corallary to carbon emmissions were a few decades ago equally certain the globe was cooling!

When Greenland's warming is brought u in the early 1900's for example - and that study is not 'internet garbage' - it's quickly dismissed because it 'doesn't fit' into current thought - not a lot of cars cruisning around in 1910.

100 to 1.... I do not buy that.

Yes on consensus that the Earth is in a 'warming trend.' No in that there's scientific consensus on it's cause.

My REAL problem is the idiots in Washington make all kinds of radical regs based on this that ends up hurting US business (and those it employes) and pushes business offshore where there's no regulations, in addition to the state and local municipalities that create draconian measures based on this.

If things are truely dire, you would have no problem if the state of California banned all diesel and gasoline engines under this montra? Everyone only allowed to drive hybrids. No more boats on our waterways?

[Marty]

Jeff, there you go again (Reagan said it so much better). I’m going to skimp lunch to just answer your post. You need to read what I wrote. Beside this was for Greg but if you want to jump into the discussion I’m fine with that!

First – On your statement “OUR great Presidentâ€

[Marty]

_________________
***************************
Bark Less - Bite More

Bob - I like that one!

[FishaHallic]

Right -

that's my point. Many of these same "scientific experts" now spouting global warming and the cause and effect corallary to carbon emmissions were a few decades ago equally certain the globe was cooling!

When Greenland's warming is brought u in the early 1900's for example - and that study is not 'internet garbage' - it's quickly dismissed because it 'doesn't fit' into current thought - not a lot of cars cruisning around in 1910.

100 to 1.... I do not buy that.

Yes on consensus that the Earth is in a 'warming trend.' No in that there's scientific consensus on it's cause.

My REAL problem is the idiots in Washington make all kinds of radical regs based on this that ends up hurting US business (and those it employes) and pushes business offshore where there's no regulations, in addition to the state and local municipalities that create draconian measures based on this.

If things are truely dire, you would have no problem if the state of California banned all diesel and gasoline engines under this montra? Everyone only allowed to drive hybrids. No more boats on our waterways?

So we can agree the earth is warming right? If so, what we don't know is why, by either natural cycles or man made. I'll buy this, how about you?

Now, about your point on the state of California banning all diesel and gasoline engines. Don't you think it would be best to start trying to cut earth warming gases now before it's too late and then they have to take drastic measures like you mentioned. Cutting back on greenhouse gases will not happen over night but it has to start somewhere.

If we all pay a little now and doing what we can to conserve it may hold off a global catastrophe and keep us from taking drastic measures later and if we find out later that it is just a natural cycle that is causing the warming what have we lost? Our air will still be cleaner, we may have found a alternative energy source, we will be using more solar and wind power that causes no pollution. None of these things can hurt and we are going to go in that direction in the future anyway so why not now?

[Greg_Cornish]

Medical care should not be driven by supply and demand and should be based on equality of outcome not equality of opportunity. Rich or Poor if they both have cancer should one be given preference because he has more money? That's not a world I look forward to and it's very unchristian, and unspiritual.

Where do you think the “Wealthyâ€

[Vince E]

The vikings had farming colonies on Greenland 1000 years ago until the advancing ice pushed them off of the continent. Too much fossil fuel usage maybe?

The Earth has and always will go through cycles of all kinds and man isn't about to stop it by anything he might try.
It's true that we might exasperate the condition but if it is a natural cycle heading that way anyway all of the conservation in the world isn't going to stop it.


Now, this thread was about socialism was it not? So.......

If we all pay a little now and doing what we can to conserve it may hold off a global catastrophe and keep us from taking drastic measures later and if we find out later that it is just a natural cycle that is causing the warming what have we lost?

Freedom.


A sense of emergency conservation at all costs (sound familiar?) will on the other hand provide a perfect excuse for limiting the energy available to the average person, and a convenient means of applying heavy loads of guilt to those persons.

We are the energy we use, from the energy that powers the thoughts in our brains and the expressions of will that become our life's work to the energy we consume to support our way of life. Controlling people is and has always been about controlling the energy of those people.
As for directing the energy the people's life's work, guilt is the best means of softening up a free will on a mass scale that man has contrived to date.

But I am all for not sending our money to the middle east to support religious fanatics who are intolerant of any point of view but their own.

On a side note the sun will swallow the Earth and collapse into a white dwarf someday. The Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy will collide someday. Try conserving your way out of that. The Earth is a lost cause but if the sustainability of man matters to any of the conservation crowd they should know that we need more power, not less, if we are ever going to get off of this doomed planet. On a more currently applicable scale, we have Earth crossing asteroids coming at us with increasing frequency, or so it would seem by what actually gets reported to us. What chance do we have of doing anything at all about that threat without lots and lots of power, standing at the ready? The kooks around here keep writing into our local paper complaining about the waste and the carbon footprint of our shuttle launches. They consider themselves to have a superior education. Truly laughable if it weren't so dangerous to have so many people be so stupid.

[FishaHallic]

But I am all for not sending our money to the middle east to support religious fanatics who are intolerant of any point of view but their own.

Hmm, religious fanatics who are intolerant of any point of view but their own.....................................that sounds like............wait a minute I think it's coming to me.......OH Yea, that sounds like a right wing republican.

[Bob Simard]

There is agreement that at present, the earth is in a warming trend - as it has in the past. It's also gone through cooling periods.

There is no direct, proven, tie to man-made carbon emissions - CO2. Labeled 'Greenhouse Gases.'

We went through a cooling trend in the 40s through the 70s. There was wide-spread scientific consensus at the time that climate cooling was a direct threat to mankind - lots of dire predictions and calls to 'do something.' Information distribution wasn't was it is today, thus there was no large motivation for our political leaders to grab hold and create agendas (regulations, etc.) - as they are today. And note - BOTH parties do this. Ds and Rs alike.

When the dire predictions of the 70s were not realized and the earth began to warm again, 'the horror of the cooling' was simply forgotten and replaced by new dire predictions of warming.

So no - I do not agree that we need to 'do something' to counter what we don't control.

[Greg_Cornish]

We can tell from polar ice samples that there has been a history of raising and lowering of carbon dioxide levels on the planet and we have a chronological history of it. Many of these raising and lowering and changes in temps can be attributed to events of the time, such as comet strikes, volcanic activity and even once, a change in the earth's orbit around the sun.

However, barring comet strikes, these changes took place over a ten to twenty thousand year period. Nothing has ever changed the worlds temperatures as fast as man's industrialization of the planet and the pollution it caused in the atmosphere.

There are a few "head in the sand" PHd s out there who will tell you otherwise, but most scientists are in agreement the current global warming is man made.

[Bob Simard]

And when the Earth hits another cooling cycle as it has historically, what then?

I love it too that scientists who disagree are labled as 'flat earthers' or 'they have their heads in the sand.' I thought it was only us right wing whackos who labeled those who don't agree with our viewpoints....

Meanwhile, industry and industry is pushed offshore in part due to over regulation by environmentalism - the next big religious movement.

[Greg_Cornish]

Meanwhile, industry and industry is pushed offshore in part due to over regulation by environmentalism - the next big religious movement.

That doesn't need to happen if someone had the Cahoonas to get nuclear power going. We could use about 100 of them.

[Marty]

Meanwhile, industry and industry is pushed offshore in part due to over regulation by environmentalism - the next big religious movement.

That doesn't need to happen if someone hadthe Cahoonas to get nuclear power going. We could use about 100 of them.

No one has answer my question - Why did you Greeners change Global Warming to Climate Change?

Greg, the reason we don’t have nuclear power is because of the environmentalism you support in their believing the fabrication of Green house gases.

[Bob Simard]

We are in agreement there. Unfortunately though, it will not happen.

Cahoona? What politician could face the full financial and political brunt of the varius environmental groups that would line up in droves to bring them down....

That said - The Dems have the all power at the Federal level to get it done. Would the Republicans stand in the way? They didn't have the stones to do it when they held the cards.....

Honestly though, I think President O could pull it off if he so chose to. He'd alienate a portion of his base - but it's the right thing to do, and isn't that what it's all about?

[Marty]

Bob, I’m tired of Barking I want to start Biting!

[Bob Simard]

LoL - the Dems have all the teeth at the moment Marty!

Honestly though - until the Republican Party comes up with some head bangin new blood from the States like we did the last time it turned over, I'm not sending the RNC any more dollars.....

It's going to be a long cold winter for the R's.

Meantime - the Dems can make things like Nuclear power happen if they so choose. It's fun to point tha out....

[Greg_Cornish]

Cahoona? What politician could face the full financial and political brunt of the varius environmental groups that would line up in droves to bring them down....

That's why they are called Cahoonas. Being fearful of anti nukers? 80% of Americans want it.

But of course they would bring up the 25 year old photos of Chernobyl on TV every night. It would be a struggle but someone has to start. Its amazing to sit with a reasonably intelligent person, one very well informed about the environment and listen to them speak anti nuclear prattle of 20 years ago and no mention Coal burning plants that are pumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide and radiation into the air every day.

[Marty]

That's why they are called Cahoonas. Being fearful of anti nukers? 80% of Americans want it.

But of course they would bring up the 25 year old photos of Chernobyl on TV every night. It would be a struggle but someone has to start. Its amazing to sit with a reasonably intelligent person, one very well informed about the environment and listen to them speak anti nuclear prattle of 20 years ago and no mention Coal burning plants that are pumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide and radiation into the air every day.

Greg are you saying environmentalism is wrong on nuclear power?