Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

CB can see both sides wrote:

<quoted text>But the earth temperatures have been rising every year for the last 10 or so. Does it not seem strange hundreds if not thousands of temperature records have been broken in the last few years?
"Push wind and solar", you may not realize at the turn of the last century people actually attemted to "outlaw" motorized vehicles. Some are scared, or have agendas towards any change or anything new.
Thank goodness some believe in progress.{Or we would still be using true horse power for our lives}
Reliable sourse of energies through research and development, YYYYEEEESSSSS!
There are studies that are now showing the temperatures are rising at a steady long lasting term, which may in 30 years create midwest summer temperature will be 140 degrees and winter around 60 degrees.

Does it seem strange that record temps are being recorded? Yes it does. Why?

Well you need to look at what has happened to the temp records. The temp records are constantly being 'updated'. All the 'updates' result in temps prior to 1950 going down and temps after 1950 going up. If the updates are used then we do see more current temps being records.

One example, there are many others.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhisto...

I regularly post from the NASA/GISS web site. That data base was adjusted again in November 2011 and yes the adjustments went down for periods before 1950 and up for periods after 1950. Mostly this is to accomodate a new methodology called homogenizing. Taking a gridded area and averaging all the temps within that area to produce one value.

It doesn't work. My area is 40 miles from a large city. As a result our temps are not reported, the warmer temps of the large city are reported for my area. So my area shows May to be above average, but acutally the average for May in my area is 87*F and the actual for 2012 was 84.9*F. But we are shown as above average.

Does it seem strange that my area was below average but reported as above, yes it does.

kristy wrote:

<quoted text>So how about instead of attacking me or deflecting from your statement, you give us the details of how easy it is to pay off our debt.

Let's see if the third time is charmed.

You'll recall that the issue was our ability to handle the cost of climate solutions, which the McKinsey study estimates to be just 1% of GDP--a small fraction of what we just spent to rescue banks and insurers. Fishaholic complained that we cannot pay the debt we have, so even a small additional expense is impossible.

This uses one canard to manufacture another. The right wing echo chamber's assertion that we cannot pay the present debt is based on the assumption that we cannot raise taxes on corporations and the rich back to the levels of 1960, which is patently untrue. If we did that, we could retire most US government debt in short order.

This is relevant to the climate discussion only in that it shows the ease of meeting the financial needs of the solution, which are minor indeed. The only real obstacle is the oil and coal industry's selfish desire to delay carbon taxes, which would force them to write down the vast value of their buried reserves.

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's see if the third time is charmed.
You'll recall that the issue was our ability to handle the cost of climate solutions, which the McKinsey study estimates to be just 1% of GDP--a small fraction of what we just spent to rescue banks and insurers. Fishaholic complained that we cannot pay the debt we have, so even a small additional expense is impossible.
This uses one canard to manufacture another. The right wing echo chamber's assertion that we cannot pay the present debt is based on the assumption that we cannot raise taxes on corporations and the rich back to the levels of 1960, which is patently untrue. If we did that, we could retire most US government debt in short order.
This is relevant to the climate discussion only in that it shows the ease of meeting the financial needs of the solution, which are minor indeed. The only real obstacle is the oil and coal industry's selfish desire to delay carbon taxes, which would force them to write down the vast value of their buried reserves.

Northie, you are going to have to find stats to support that statement. We couldn't even balance the annual budget if we imposed the tax rates you are speaking of.

The US debt is now 101.5% of GDP.

Fun Facts wrote:

The US debt is now 101.5% of GDP.

So what! When someone buys a new home, they often incur a debt that is 300% to 500% or more of their annual income.

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>Second childhood of fifth?

Go change your Depends, pops.

Fun Facts wrote:

The US debt is now 101.5% of GDP.

You guys are in a hell of a lot of trouble arent ye? Is there a way out?

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course what we are talking about is equine gas which is natural. As for the CO2 levels in the past, that is still a matter of debate amoungst the experts. As for the acidfying the oceans, they were making the exact same claim back in the seventies when they were talking about a global ice age. I even remeber one claim that as more water was locked up in the ice that the acidifying process would increase.
As for life adapting, you must not of studied the history of earth. Life has adapted quickly in some cases and has adapted radically in others.

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/07/02/busines...

Fun Facts wrote:

The US debt is now 101.5% of GDP.

And Japanese governmental debt is double that. Most of the major European nations are in our ballpark. However, unlike those nations, we have extremely low levels of taxation on corporations and the rich--far lower than we did just a few decades ago--which gives us the latitude to pay off our Federal debt if we so choose. However, the political right is making it an article of faith to believe that it cannot be done, very much like the crazy argument that we cannot afford to protect the climate.

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
And Japanese governmental debt is double that. Most of the major European nations are in our ballpark. However, unlike those nations, we have extremely low levels of taxation on corporations and the rich--far lower than we did just a few decades ago--which gives us the latitude to pay off our Federal debt if we so choose. However, the political right is making it an article of faith to believe that it cannot be done, very much like the crazy argument that we cannot afford to protect the climate.

Northie, we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
So what! When someone buys a new home, they often incur a debt that is 300% to 500% or more of their annual income.

The difference, it's a choice and it's their income, they earned it.

The government isn't earning any money. They must take it from you and I before they can spend it.

And, even though they spent it, you and I will pay the bill.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
The difference, it's a choice and it's their income, they earned it.
The government isn't earning any money. They must take it from you and I before they can spend it.
And, even though they spent it, you and I will pay the bill.

The government provides infrastructure, rule of law, military, services and other benefits. Your taxes help to provide these things that make it possible for all of us to participate and benefit from these provisions. Do you really think that you should not have to pay your share? How selfish.

Due to the lack of discipline in the private sector, we were very close to another great depression. A depression that the government averted. I am thankful for our government.

I do want responsible use of taxes, but do not whine about paying my fair share. Rich people should pay more because the system allowed them a greater benefit. Since they profited more, they should support it more. The loopholes and tax advantages should not benefit that class over the rest of us.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Northie, we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

Another misconception popular among Murdoch's faithful. Although the United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, at 35 percent, the actual amount in corporate taxes that the government collects (“the effective tax rate”) is lower than those of Germany, Canada, Japan and China, among others.

http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-tax-...

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
The government isn't earning any money.

Yes, it is. An example is:

GlaxoSmithKline to pay $3B fine for health fraud

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaki...

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
The government provides infrastructure, rule of law, military, services and other benefits. Your taxes help to provide these things that make it possible for all of us to participate and benefit from these provisions. Do you really think that you should not have to pay your share? How selfish.
Due to the lack of discipline in the private sector, we were very close to another great depression. A depression that the government averted. I am thankful for our government.
I do want responsible use of taxes, but do not whine about paying my fair share. Rich people should pay more because the system allowed them a greater benefit. Since they profited more, they should support it more. The loopholes and tax advantages should not benefit that class over the rest of us.

If our government limited its spending to public works or other such projects that benefited all of us, we would not be 15.8 trillion dollars in debt.

No this is spending money on 'why college freshmen gain 15 pounds'. Or one of my favorites the drinking habits of chinese prostitutes. This was spent on bailouts for GM and Chrysler. Loans for Solyndra and the many others. This is the money spent on GSA parites and you can bet your bottom dollar that the GSA is not the only agency throwing parties. The Obama administration is not the only one to do it, regardless, whoever has done it, it's wrong.

And no, I do not want my money spent on the drinking habits of chinese prostitutes or GSA parties.

And I do not consider that to be selfish.

We are 15.8 trillion dollars in debt. Unfunded liabilities in social security and medicare are estimated to be 30 to 50 trillion dollars.

There is no money, I know it's scary to wrap your head around the fact there is no money. It's always easier to pretend it's not that bad, it is. It's that bad.

Even CNN had one of their financial analysts on today talking about the coming economic crisis, predicting a significant recession. Growth is in the tank. The only way for government to get money is to tax, if there's no growth, there no increases in revenue. Raise tax rates on less income and you still get less revenue.

Where do you think that money will come from? The government can't pay it, it's 15.8 trillion dollars in debt. The government can't pay social security and medicare without taking that money from 20 years olds. And every dollar they take from a 20 year old to put into a social security check, increases the unfunded liabilities.

You want the government to spend more on your pet projects?

And you think I'm selfish.

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Another misconception popular among Murdoch's faithful. Although the United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, at 35 percent, the actual amount in corporate taxes that the government collects (“the effective tax rate”) is lower than those of Germany, Canada, Japan and China, among others.
http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-tax-...

Three paragraphs, no data. Try again.

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Yes, it is. An example is:
GlaxoSmithKline to pay $3B fine for health fraud
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaki...

I'm sorry, but that statement is just plain stupid.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
If our government limited its spending to public works or other such projects that benefited all of us, we would not be 15.8 trillion dollars in debt...

Whenever I talk to someone who's still working I thank them for their FICA tax contribution and I tell them it's going right into my pocket.

Yes something will give, it will be the dollar, it won't be worth much in the future, that's why I'm spending them now.

Steve Case wrote:

<quoted text>
Whenever I talk to someone who's still working I thank them for their FICA tax contribution and I tell them it's going right into my pocket.
Yes something will give, it will be the dollar, it won't be worth much in the future, that's why I'm spending them now.

You're welcome and you're right.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Good, at least you are beginning to understand the natural carbon cycle.
If the oceans did get cooler, it would absorb more CO2, increasing the acidity. Also when water freezes, it purifies to some extent. However, the oceans are in fact acidifying today as they absorb more CO2 due to the increased partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Yes, unless the Earth turns into another Venus there will be life. Unfortunately if conditions change dramatically, many species will become extinct. It is possible that man will be one.

Would it, or would it asorb less. Your own post contradicts itself. You first claims that a cooling ocean would hold more then talk about how as water freezes it is purified to some extent. You are right about how freezing water purfies it to some extent because it reduces the amount of particles in suspension. Which is an old trick used up north for concentrating many things from hard cider to getting water out of gasoline.

Also for earth to turn into another venus you would have to either increase the power of the sun or move earth into venus's orbit. In the future there will be a day when earth will be as warm if not warmer than venus. But that will be in the last stages of the sun's life before it goes Supernova. But we have several thousands of years to go before that even comes close to happening. By that time we should of figured out how to move most of the population to safety. Of course there will be a few that will not go no matter what.

You might want to read up on it. Stephen Hawking had a bestseller that covered the subject call "A Brief History of Time."