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

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
I think it's a more tangled web, but right-leaning voters I know seem to think the primary roles of government are to 1) smack down all those perfidious foreigners, minorities and "illegals", 2) allow the Church to take over the schools, and 3) hand tax breaks to the rich because someday we will all be wealthy as Kochs and can finally buy our own rocket artillery.

When was the last time you heard of a shooting in a church school or problems with gang activity in a church run school. In fact take a look at the drop out rate in church schools and how many of those children go on to places of higher education.

As to handing out tax breaks to the rich no one needs to since they bribe both republicans and democrats for that. More democrats than republicans since it is cheaper to bribe the democrats.

And it is in the Constitution the right to keep and bear arms. Not to mention one of the uses for your rocket attillery has been to launch satellites into orbit. Personally I like to skip the rocket artillery for a KA-52. Make the communite so much easier not to mention parking. Plus it would take care of those pesky police and news helicopters as well.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
When was the last time you heard of a shooting in a church school or problems with gang activity in a church run school. In fact take a look at the drop out rate in church schools and how many of those children go on to places of higher education.
As to handing out tax breaks to the rich no one needs to since they bribe both republicans and democrats for that. More democrats than republicans since it is cheaper to bribe the democrats.
And it is in the Constitution the right to keep and bear arms. Not to mention one of the uses for your rocket attillery has been to launch satellites into orbit. Personally I like to skip the rocket artillery for a KA-52. Make the communite so much easier not to mention parking. Plus it would take care of those pesky police and news helicopters as well.

"As to handing out tax breaks to the rich no one needs to since they bribe both republicans and democrats for that. More democrats than republicans since it is cheaper to bribe the democrats."
what big corporations and wealthy businessmen give to republicans dwarf what they give to democrats. they only give to democrats to hedge their bets. they want republicans in because they are way more likely to give them what they want. it's always amazed me how so many blue collar workers fanatically support repubs and conservatives even though if you look at votes on issues that affect them republicans vote in huge numbers against bills and policies that would help them. it's because conservatives play on their social issues and stir up and direct hate about them. they play you guys like sheep and laugh on the way to the bank and their social clubs. k street?

deferstoexperts wrote:

<quoted text>
"As to handing out tax breaks to the rich no one needs to since they bribe both republicans and democrats for that. More democrats than republicans since it is cheaper to bribe the democrats."
what big corporations and wealthy businessmen give to republicans dwarf what they give to democrats. they only give to democrats to hedge their bets. they want republicans in because they are way more likely to give them what they want. it's always amazed me how so many blue collar workers fanatically support repubs and conservatives even though if you look at votes on issues that affect them republicans vote in huge numbers against bills and policies that would help them. it's because conservatives play on their social issues and stir up and direct hate about them. they play you guys like sheep and laugh on the way to the bank and their social clubs. k street?

What makes you think that those bills would of helped the blue collar? Because the liberals and the democrats said so. Prove that they are not lying.

Also you want to know why they are laughing. It is because those like you can be relied on to be the perfert foil. Claiming that the democrats are great and the GOP is bad even in the democrats in question voted the same as the GOP. That it was obvious to anyone who took the time to read the bill that it was a bad idea.

Sorry, but good intentions are nothing more than the paving stones on the road to hell. The road to hell is not in need of widening. Take the time to actually research what you are supporting then ask yourself what makes it so good? Not because someone you like says it is. That makes you just as guilty as those who agree with Rush Limbaugh because he said it.

Do the actual research and take the time to examine where it was used in the past and the results. Notice how the results were uniformly bad each and every time.

Deniers;
-The science has spoken and the science is settled.
-All of science agrees that climate change is real and climate change is happening and if we don’t take action now to stop it, the consequences for our children are unthinkable.....Ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
What makes you think that those bills would of helped the blue collar? Because the liberals and the democrats said so. Prove that they are not lying.
Also you want to know why they are laughing. It is because those like you can be relied on to be the perfert foil. Claiming that the democrats are great and the GOP is bad even in the democrats in question voted the same as the GOP. That it was obvious to anyone who took the time to read the bill that it was a bad idea.
Sorry, but good intentions are nothing more than the paving stones on the road to hell. The road to hell is not in need of widening. Take the time to actually research what you are supporting then ask yourself what makes it so good? Not because someone you like says it is. That makes you just as guilty as those who agree with Rush Limbaugh because he said it.
Do the actual research and take the time to examine where it was used in the past and the results. Notice how the results were uniformly bad each and every time.

"Do the actual research and take the time to examine where it was used in the past and the results"

ok, post your "research"
you make claims and don't back it up.
whan i back mine up you say, "no it doesn't" but never post contrary links, surveys, studies. an article saying a study doesn't prove anything is toothless unless it shows one to the contrary. you can't assume non respondents disagree, you can't deny a quantitative count unless you do one of your own.

Earthling-1 wrote:

<quoted text>What's the meaning of life?
I'm sure that having attended "the best Institute on the planet," you must have been taught everything.

Not at all. It's an Institute of Technology, amigo.

Thus my academic qualifications are limited accordingly. I know a lot about very little - but that little does include physics, thermodynamics, and fluid dynamics.

Only liberal arts graduates of a University can claim to have been "taught everything."

So do you have anything useful and knowledgeable to contribute to the topic, or were you just exercising your snark organ?

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Are those teabags dangling from your tricornered hat preventing you from reading? Look up the Federal Reserve's dual mandate and the Constitution's Welfare Clause.

No discernable point. Do you have a serious point or problem with what I posted? If yes, please state it.

Or were you just fapping off to your own droll wit?

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
It is really a matter of perspective on the role of government. Left leaning voters think that government is there to regulate trade and prevent abuses. In other words, to serve the PUBLIC good.
Right leaning voters think that any role of government should be to fill THEIR pockets at the expense of everyone else.

Troll.

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
When was the last time you heard of a shooting in a church school or problems with gang activity in a church run school. In fact take a look at the drop out rate in church schools and how many of those children go on to places of higher education.
As to handing out tax breaks to the rich no one needs to since they bribe both republicans and democrats for that. More democrats than republicans since it is cheaper to bribe the democrats.
And it is in the Constitution the right to keep and bear arms. Not to mention one of the uses for your rocket attillery has been to launch satellites into orbit. Personally I like to skip the rocket artillery for a KA-52. Make the communite so much easier not to mention parking. Plus it would take care of those pesky police and news helicopters as well.

I love it.

GOP Campaign Ad, New York World, 30 October 1928:
"a chicken in every pot. And a car in every backyard, to boot."

Updated for 2012:
"a chicken in every pot. And an attack helo in every garage, to boot!"

I'm in!

Teddy R wrote:

Not at all. It's an Institute of Technology, amigo.
Thus my academic qualifications are limited accordingly. I know a lot about very little - but that little does include physics, thermodynamics, and fluid dynamics.
Only liberal arts graduates of a University can claim to have been "taught everything."
So do you have anything useful and knowledgeable to contribute to the topic, or were you just exercising your snark organ?

Keep up the good work, amigo.

deferstoexperts wrote:

<quoted text>
what big corporations and wealthy businessmen give to republicans dwarf what they give to democrats.

I'm afraid the facts and data on corporate and wealthy individual political contributions to Democrats and the Democratic Party do not support your statement here.

Teddy R wrote:

I love it.
GOP Campaign Ad, New York World, 30 October 1928:
"a chicken in every pot. And a car in every backyard, to boot."
Updated for 2012:
"a chicken in every pot. And an attack helo in every garage, to boot!"
I'm in!

In the 1950s, when Maggie Thatcher was running for local MP, she went round telling people that with Consevatives in power, they'd have a bar of soap for each bathroom.
There was only one problem with her idea, hardly anyone had a bathroom in those days.

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, Gord - respectfully, I'm not buying it.
I don't require instruction in the laws of thermo, Stefan-Bolzman, etc., as I learned this stuff at the best Institute on the planet, thanks.
Nor do I require experimental results to confirm the results of a gedanken experiment based upon application of well-established scientific laws and principles.
Perhaps you could tone down your haughty and insulting manner just long enought to provide us with your scientific argument why Dr. Spencer's gendaken experiment and very clear explanation here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virgi...
... is flawed or incorrect. Sans histrionics, pls.

If you really "learned this stuff at the best Institute on the planet" then you should know better.

Hell, you do not even know what Emissivity is.

I noticed that you did not respond to my post about Emissivity and the Physics Link I provided.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...
----------
Re: Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
July 23rd, 2010 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virgi...

You can read my posts on Dr. Spencers website starting on July 27, 2010 at 10:04 PM where I calculated the temperatures of the Plates (the same as a standard Heat Sink calculation used to Cool the microprocessor in your computer by increasing the radiating surface area of the microprocessor.) and proved that Dr.Spencer CREATED Energy.
----------
Update:

I received an email in 2012 alerting me to this post by a former NASA Scientist, Pierre R Latour, PE, PhD, who also listed my posts on Dr.Spencers website as being correct.

The order of the poster names are in the same order as they appear on Dr. Spencers website.

No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still (Updated)
Written by Pierre R Latour, PE, PhD, guest post | 06 November 2011

"I am left to assume Spencer devised this provocative plate experiment claim to test how many student bloggers can rebut it correctly. I think Vangel, Dusty, Eilert, Anonymous (25Jul10, 1:51am, 6:17am), Tom Rowan, jae, Brian Strong, Andrew S, Eilert (25Jul10, 3:29am), Joletaxi, Colin Henderson, old construction worker, Spencer (27Jul10, 9:58 am), william, KuhnKat, Gord, robjMitchell, Irwin Hasenwinkle (30Jul10, 6:38 am), John Onsager, Gerlich and Tscheuchner, and Rudolf Clausius would. I hope his daughter would too. I would not want to deliberately mislead Virginia either."
http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/185-no...

An exchange of emails between Dr. Spencer and Dr. Latour is also included in the above link.
----------
Further, Dr. Spencer did an ACTUAL experiment where he constructed a "Cavity" and assumed that the Cavity would HEAT-UP from the Colder Atmosphere Back Radiation.

Result:

The actual MEASUREMENTS done by Dr. Spencer showed that the "Cavity" COOLED exactly as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states.

Poor Dr. Spencer would not accept the results of his OWN MEASUREMENTS and what the 2nd Law clearly states.

What a HOOT.

Continued...

Continuation...
----------
I also posted on Dr. Spencer's website about his Cavity experiment and provided a link to the Dept of Physics at Brigham Young University where they conducted experiments with Solar Ovens used to COOL and even FREEZE water when the Solar Ovens were pointed at the COLD ATMOSPHERE.

The Dept of Physics at Brigham Young University, unlike Dr. Spenser, knew that The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was an actual LAW OF SCIENCE and predicted the COOLING that they MEASURED.

Even when IR Back Radiation is CONCENTRATED at the Solar Oven focal point, the water COOLED or even FROZE, actual MEASUREMENT PROOF that the fantasy "Greenhouse Effect" is a pure FRAUD.
----------
Any Idiot can re-write established Laws of Science but they cannot provide the MEASUREMENTS to back up their delusional claims....because THEY DO NOT EXIST.

Perhaps Teddy R should take note of the lack of ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS instead of "gendaken" (thought experiments) before he posts and claims that "I learned this stuff at the best Institute on the planet, thanks."

What Institute is that, Teddy R?

deferstoexperts wrote:

<quoted text>
"Do the actual research and take the time to examine where it was used in the past and the results"
ok, post your "research"
you make claims and don't back it up.
whan i back mine up you say, "no it doesn't" but never post contrary links, surveys, studies. an article saying a study doesn't prove anything is toothless unless it shows one to the contrary. you can't assume non respondents disagree, you can't deny a quantitative count unless you do one of your own.

Yes, I am a big believer in that the past can help you predict the future. Hence the reason why I did not fall for the manmade global warming scam. First it ignored past climate change for a long period of time and then only acknowledged it when it became obvious that skeptics were using it to batter down the theory.

Also, with the rest of your post. Calm down and take a minute. It was disjointed and hard to understand.

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm afraid the facts and data on corporate and wealthy individual political contributions to Democrats and the Democratic Party do not support your statement here.

really?
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontri... #

click "toggle liberal/conservative percentages to get a better overall picture on above link

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
I love it.
GOP Campaign Ad, New York World, 30 October 1928:
"a chicken in every pot. And a car in every backyard, to boot."
Updated for 2012:
"a chicken in every pot. And an attack helo in every garage, to boot!"
I'm in!

If it has a aircraft it is a hanger not a garage. Besides I rather have something like the KA 52 if the visibility is bad. It has Lidar.

http://warfare.ru/...

http://www.deagel.com/Combat-Helicopters/Ka-5...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50

http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/index.php

and remember just a few years ago the talk was about how the GOP's traditionally big lead in fund raiding had shrunk and in some categories disappeared?

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, I am a big believer in that the past can help you predict the future. Hence the reason why I did not fall for the manmade global warming scam. First it ignored past climate change for a long period of time and then only acknowledged it when it became obvious that skeptics were using it to batter down the theory.
Also, with the rest of your post. Calm down and take a minute. It was disjointed and hard to understand.

"First it ignored past climate change for a long period of time"
no, sugar, it never ignored it...jiminy cricket! they are scientists. they knew about that before the rest of us did. and how prophetic of me to call you out on using that strawman posts ago.