where is your sense of humor... your integrity. you know temps have not gone up in a statistically discernable manner for 17 years... as a guilt ridden, carbon belching member of the rentier class (you seem to despise), that should make you happy.
Same Shit Different Day (time.) Don't know about that. Under slick willy, we faced his liberal gun-grabbing garbage, and typical democrat thug shit. Under Bush, we lost rights under the Patriot Act, DHS, TSA, etc., I'm NO fan of Bush, btw. He was WAY too big gubment liberal imo. Under Ocommunist, we've lost damned near all of our 1st, and 4th Amendment rights our Founding Fathers bled for so we could be free. And believe it or not, we're more "Serfs" now due to current taxation rates, than the Serfs of the 1700's who came here to get away from that kind of garbage. That coupled by the FACT that we're much more over-taxed now vs then, and being abused for our wanting to be free, traditional people will suffer until this administration/govt is replaced...
Actually, I'm not a rentier, I am not compensated merely because I own something. As for statistically significant (SS) warming, you may be right about that, but neither is there SS cooling. The MET revised the rate of increase down, not all increase.
SS warming? SS cooling? Of course the answer is yes to both. It just depends upon your time frame, dumbass. You never think about what you are saying and consider the implications, Rectum.
by your answer I suspect you admit to being part rentier. (by the way I would commend you for owning part of the business if you did... even if you would not admit to being happy about it yourself.) If we did not have a rentier class we would all be fighting over farm land and food. there has been no rate of increase. over the last 17 years the data shows no warming... not a decrease in the rate... zero warming (statistically discernable in the data.) we have discussed this before...why do you keep saying the rate of increase is down... there is no warming at all. You are even welcome to use the met data. Last year the MET data showed something like a .0something increase over the last 16 years... while the margin for error was like .1 and then at the end of the year... last year was a new cooler year... so the data may showing cooling inside the margin for error. Then when you realize they use very questionable averaging techniques and they remove persistently cool weather stations... you wonder. also note... this article says they declined... http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global...on-dioxide.html "Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined â matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said. "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline." The findings are based on in-depth statistical analyses of observed data from 1850 up to the present time, Professor Lu's cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) theory of ozone depletion and his previous research into Antarctic ozone depletion and global surface temperatures. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global...ioxide.html#jCp By proving the link between CFCs, ozone depletion and temperature changes in the Antarctic, Professor Lu was able to draw almost perfect correlation between rising global surface temperatures and CFCs in the atmosphere. "The climate in the Antarctic stratosphere has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact. The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs - a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97."
Higher prices are inevitable. Obamacare was written largely by industry lobbyists who designed it specifically to drive up prices and profits. The problem with Obamacare is that it dramatically increases the demand for healthcare without increasing the supply (or otherwise controlling costs). The result will be large increases in healthcare costs and insurance premiums. That cackling noise you hear is the sound of healthcare/insurance industry CEOs laughing all the way to the bank.
exactly... there was a pbs special on this. I think frontline. it showed the lobbyists telling the dems how the bill was going to work. Then they told obama how it was going to work. and the dems and obama sold out without getting single payer and without getting a single republican vote. It was the worst sellout of democrat and liberal ideal I ever saw. they went from liberal to totalitarian plus cronies in one giant step.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamasdeal/view/ watch this video and you will know how badly the country was screwed over by the dems in congress and the white house. It is truly disgusting... and this is how PBS framed it. Imagine what really happened. The lack of single payer was not the republicans fault (they did not need or get a single r vote. it was the choice of Obama Pelosi Reid and the companies who purchased them. The White House encouraged Baucus to quietly negotiate deals with the insurance lobby, drug companies and other special interest groups, despite promises to run a different kind of White House. "The president said that having people at the table is better than having them throw stuff at the table," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer tells FRONTLINE. But the deals were often controversial. FRONTLINE investigates how, near the start of the health care reform process, Baucus and the White House negotiated a secret $80 billion deal with Billy Tauzin, the former Louisiana congressman who had become the pharmaceutical industry's top lobbyist. "People who thought that the pharmaceutical industry was still reaping profits that were excessive were unhappy with that deal and were particularly unhappy that it got cut behind closed doors," says the co-chair of Obama's transition team, John Podesta.