Logged in as: Anonymous Search | Active Topics |

3 Pages <123>
Global Warming is the Greatest Fraud of our Time Options
Pat Miketinac
#21 Posted : Sunday, November 08, 2009 4:11:14 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

I agree that Congress has the power to lay amd collect taxes, but I think the restriction already exists. As co-equals, Congress and the States should both agree on the terms of the taxes. Otherwise, the States become subservient. Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions seem to support this idea, but not all agreed with Jefferson. This is why our group is digging  into so many early records. Federalist 45 and 46 touch on this also, but we have a lot more research to do. We won't even get to Elliot's Debates this year.

Anyway, John, I value your input. This research is a window to a fascinating time in history when the Founding Fathers knew firsthand how controlling a government can become.

John Edward Mercier
#22 Posted : Sunday, November 08, 2009 11:09:39 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

The State and federal governments are not equals. The States (for the most part) are sovereign... with the federal government empowered only with those thing enumerated within the US Constitution.

But regardless of the media from the States, they are all willing to increase the taxes at the federal level. It allows them to scapegoat 'Washington Insiders', while in reality the taxes are being returned to the States in the form of federal grants and transfer payments.

So why does the US need higher taxes? And why the Healthcare and C&T bills? Studying the Constitution won't lead to the answer because its economic, not political. During the last audited period of the federal budget, it was determined that after the expenditures for SS, Medicare, and the Interest on National Debt... that the US had only roughly $180 billion for military and domestic expenditures. To balance the budget you would either need to make huge cuts in the military, and stop all domestic spending... or need further revenues. With the current recession holding on... federal revenues are even lower.

So the C&T is about raising revenues through a type of national excise (sales) tax, while the Healthcare bill is about slowing the inflation in the Medicare system. The problem being in that both work on projections... and no one can really determine what will happen over the next ten or twenty years for sure.

If your wondering... neither of these will work. Demographics and market forces just can't be manipulated in this manner. The population is already cutting back its energy use, and most likely will do more a money and technology allow. And no one in the Medicare system is willing to support rationing, that is a natural for those outside the system.

You can only rob Peter to pay Paul as long as Peter has something to steal.

 

Pat Miketinac
#23 Posted : Monday, November 09, 2009 3:59:57 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Yes, it is definitely an economic problem, as we discussed in the "Your Money is Now Worth Nothing " thread. That's why Ron Paul is trying to get a full audit of the Fed, especially of our money that continues to go to foreign countries. Politics may not solve the problem, but I see no economic recovery at all if the Fed is allowed to keep creating fiat money, which is another violation of Article 1 Section 8.

It now looks like those who control our politicians will prevent the audit, as HR 1207 has been gutted.

John Edward Mercier
#24 Posted : Monday, November 09, 2009 3:57:26 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors get their power through the Federal Reserve Act enacted by Congress. Congress gets its empowerment to do so in Article One Section Eight : To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof.

The FED wasn't empowered to control fiscal policy which remains under congressional control. Some reading so you know the system... http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm

I do like how Congressman Paul suggests that Congress decree (fiat) the Gold Standard, but fails to tell the public that the US Treasury only hold roughly $167 billion dollars of gold within the Bullion Depository at current market prices.

The US currency going to foreign countries are mostly when Americans purchase something. Those foreigners tend to exchange the digitized warehouse receipts for interest paying debt instruments issued by the Treasury; to borrow the money Congress expends beyond revenue. For a list of foreign holders of debt by country you can link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

The remainder of the debt is mostly held by the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds... workers in the US have been paying surplus into them since the early days of the Reagan Era, when Ron Paul first entered Congress.

But if you figure what expenses to cut or what taxes to raise to balance the budget... by all means I'm interested to listen.

Pat Miketinac
#25 Posted : Wednesday, November 11, 2009 2:55:02 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Thanks for the websites, I will spend some time there.

I think that the Fed should be abolished because their artificial interest rates caused the boom and bust. Let each independent bank compete on the free market instead of having a central banking system. No bank should be bailed out by taxpayers, then they will lend with care or go under. We can't bail all.

I don't think it matters how much gold the treasury has because the free market is adjusting the price as the dollar fails. People would prefer dollars over gold if dollars were rising or stable, so the gold would stay in the treasury. India knows that the Fed will inflate, they just bought 200 tons of gold.

Expenses to cut: We have 300,000 troops on 700 bases in 150 countries. Bring them home and return our country to a non-interventionist policy. We are making too many enemies and wasting trillions. Return social security to a single pension supplement only, no other entitlements from those funds, and adjust payouts to receipts to prevent a deficit. Phase out Medicare and Medicaid, let the people keep their money and buy services on the free market like they did before these unsustainable programs.

I guess we have strayed a bit from the climate theme, but it is ALL government spending that concerns me.

John Edward Mercier
#26 Posted : Wednesday, November 11, 2009 7:32:22 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

The bust was caused by fractional reserve banking outside the federal reserve system.

 

LaserBillA
#27 Posted : Saturday, November 14, 2009 11:59:14 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

 The climate WILL change at some point... Ice ages and hot times have existed in the past and will happen again unless we invest in some serious infrastructure.

Personally I think we need to push for a national 900KV Direct current power grid so that we can feed the extra renewable energy into huge C02 Capture and pumping stations that would pump the C02 into oil wells. This would not only allow us to recover a lot more oil, but also give us all the CO2 we need to prevent the next ice age.

I also worry that we are truly at a tipping point due to the methane hydrate. All it would take is a few more degrees to start releasing huge amounts of methane hydrate... and then we would be screwed. :O

PS: I cut the RFID chip out of my American express card since I got tired of wrapping it in tin foil. The new passports also now have tin foil in the covers so that you have to open them to read the RFID.

John Edward Mercier
#28 Posted : Sunday, November 15, 2009 9:56:14 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

The tin foil also helps to prevent setting of the retail shoplifting scanners at the mall. Those poor people deal with false alarms all the time.

I don't know if enough carbon could be placed in the atmosphere to offset reduce solar gain due to orbital forcing while still maintaining a breathable atmosphere for higher life species. It may be possible to limit glaciation, but so many technological means exist that something could be devised.

I think regardless of treaty/legislation that the problem will remain supply/demand, especially as China and India advance, with the politicians really looking toward a revenue stream. The UN and the US Congress are always looking for revenue streams that have popular support... well, that is until the population begins to realize that they are the revenue stream and not their neighbors.

 

MC
#29 Posted : Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:13:14 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Climate change happens.  So does panic.  Can y'all imagine how scared our Paleolithic ancestors were when the last Ice Age came to an end???

I'm human.  Climate change scares me.  I like my routine.  I like my familiar surroundings, patterns, foodstuffs, behaviors. 

What scares me even more is A) the idea that someone will find a way to reverse it in the absense of all the facts, only to find out that it was a natural process and we made the mother of all mistakes, and B) the thought, apparently painfully accurate, that we need the threat of a crisis of global proportions to get us to consider conservation and ecology. 

We shouldn't need sob stories about polar bears-- or the fear that we're next-- to make us care about our environment.  We shouldn't need lectures about the effects of 10,000 pounds of CO2 to inspire us to use the cleanest technologies available to us.  We shouldn't need code regulations-- or C&T, or $120-a-barrel oil, for that matter-- to motivate us to be efficient.

None of us-- none of us over the age of 3, anyway-- would pull down our pants and leave a pile in the middle of the kitchen floor.  It's the same thing as far as I'm concerned, man-made climate change or no. 

Neanderthals had better sense than to defecate in the spring.  Why don't we???? 

MC
#30 Posted : Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:14:22 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

I suspect it's because davisonh is right.  We're lazy, greedy, and spoiled.  We want to stay lazy, greedy, and spoiled.  And that makes us behave in a manner that is so stupid you might as well say we ARE stupid.

John Edward Mercier
#31 Posted : Friday, November 20, 2009 3:48:38 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Climate change isn't like weather... its doubtful that our ancestors even realized it was happening.

C&T isn't about efficiency (which is regulated in many ways), anymore than $120 oil was about Peak Oil. Most of it is about the federal fiscal situation. When the fiscal situation gets to where there are questions about the US being able to pay the interest on its debt... it affects the value of the dollar. Under past circumstances they would ask the FED to make interest rate adjustments to prop it up... but do to several factors, the FED no longer has the ability to move the interest rate anywhere. Its simply along for the ride.

How bad is the situtation? The federal government needs to figure a way to increase revenue, while not stagnating the economy with burdensome taxation. The secret is a type of price fixing...

MC
#32 Posted : Friday, November 20, 2009 5:16:22 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

OK-- I'm completely ignorant.  110% the "useful idiot" in that I want to do what is right but don't seem to have the reasoning skills to figure out what that is (much beyond my own yard, anyway).

Tried to read the Wikipedia article on the national debt; most of what I got was a spinning headache.  Other than that...

...the thought it leaves me with (and some of this has to be ascribed to an op-ed article I was reading a minute ago) (link at the bottom) is that we've got the tiger by the tail and we've got to let go.  That, to continue the metaphor, it's better to fight the tiger now than to hang on and ride to where it's going. 

If we "jest fuggin quiddit," as the little hillbilly in my head looks up from her washboard long enough to say, we'll have widespread poverty, hunger, a return to everyone having to fall back on the charity of their community and/or family when things get tough.  This is not some Little House on the Prairie idealism, where Good Ol' Jack won't let the wolves come in, and anyway Pa's got his gun and everything is going to be all right..  This is a very exacting, very difficult, and all too tenuous existence. 

But it seems like the better alternative to ending up a managed herd of corporate chattel, only to have the same thing happen anyway a few hundred years down the road. 

I'm probably an ignorant little lemming who just doesn't get it.  Very real possibility.  I feel very lemming-like.  Somebody please educate me.  Think I'll try to stay up tonight and read that stuff again...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/20/navarrette.move.for.jobs/index.html  ) 

MC
#33 Posted : Friday, November 20, 2009 5:31:32 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Oh-- I don't quite buy that they wouldn't have noticed it.  I notice it, and I'm nowhere near as intimately tied to my environment as they were.  It's not just weather-- though folks do notice that winters here are getting warmer, and I notice that summers back in WV are getting cooler and drier (in places where I used to be able to pick buckets of berries, it's now mostly brambles that bear little to no fruit; what used to be creeks are now runoff washes and what used to be washes are now just dry) and that winter comes later and stays later.  It's bugs whose ranges used to end 150 miles to the south-- or that come sooner and end later, or don't die out over the winter at all.  It's changes in the plant and animal life on the coast, and in the rivers.  Changes in animal's nesting and hibernation behaviors.  Changes in foliage-- 50 years ago, so the old men say (if they are to be believed), this was hardwood country and the cedars were a Louisiana thing.  This is cedar country now.  Things are moving, changing, adapting-- or they're dying back.

You're waaaay smarter (or at least better educated) than I am, but you can't get me to believe hunter-gatherers wouldn't have noticed that some of the things they hunted and gathered were diminishing or gone and that others weren't where they used to be.     

John Edward Mercier
#34 Posted : Saturday, November 21, 2009 9:10:30 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

When your nomadic and have a shorter average lifespan... those things aren't as noticed. The game keeps moving and you keep moving.

They would note the change in seasons... but less by temperature than by amount of daylight, which changes at a fairly constant rate.

MC
#35 Posted : Sunday, November 22, 2009 10:55:36 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

OK, I'll concede that.  It's a side-track anyway.  Interesting, on an academic level, but not really important.  Probably shouldn't have run as far with it as I did.  Back on subject...

LaserBillA
#36 Posted : Tuesday, November 24, 2009 4:46:51 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

We should focus on solutions and not worry about "they".

If all this "Global Warming" talk finaly creates the political will needed to create a nation wide UHV DC transmition lines then thats GOOD since a nation wide system would be more effecient and allow us to transition to renewable energy that will be payed for in about 20 years.

 

MC
#37 Posted : Tuesday, November 24, 2009 10:07:38 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

He's right.  Or mostly right, anyway.  Got a very valid point, he has.  Arguing about whether "they" are out to get "us" is, for some strange reason, engrossing and appealing.  But it doesn't get much done. 

cmate
#38 Posted : Wednesday, November 25, 2009 11:09:43 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

How ironic, a Whistle-Blower just released over 3000 emails from all the "biggest-names-in-climate-science" proving (again) that 'Climate Change' (aka Global Warming) not only is, but always has been, the biggest fraud perpetrated in recent history!

How ironic too, that ABC,CBS,& NBC are refusing to air the story & that the NY Times, who never hesitate to blast our Top Secret secrets all over their frontpage, are neglecting to run one of the biggest stories of the century (to date)!

(Thank God for Whistle Blowers!)

For those of you who may have missed the facts read on:

Global Warming With the Lid Off
The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about climate science.
'The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."

So apparently wrote Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) and one of the world's leading climate scientists, in a 2005 email to "Mike." Judging by the email thread, this refers to Michael Mann, director of the Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center. We found this nugget among the more than 3,000 emails and documents released last week after CRU's servers were hacked and messages among some of the world's most influential climatologists were published on the Internet.

The "two MMs" are almost certainly Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, two Canadians who have devoted years to seeking the raw data and codes used in climate graphs and models, then fact-checking the published conclusions—a painstaking task that strikes us as a public and scientific service. Mr. Jones did not return requests for comment and the university said it could not confirm that all the emails were authentic, though it acknowledged its servers were hacked.

Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a "unified" view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the "common cause"; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to "hide the decline" of temperature in certain inconvenient data.

Some of those mentioned in the emails have responded to our requests for comment by saying they must first chat with their lawyers. Others have offered legal threats and personal invective. Still others have said nothing at all. Those who have responded have insisted that the emails reveal nothing more than trivial data discrepancies and procedural debates.

Yet all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn't have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them.

Consider the following note that appears to have been sent by Mr. Jones to Mr. Mann in May 2008: "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. . . . Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?" AR4 is shorthand for the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, presented in 2007 as the consensus view on how bad man-made climate change has supposedly become.

In another email that seems to have been sent in September 2007 to Eugene Wahl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Paleoclimatology Program and to Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Climate and Global Dynamics Division, Mr. Jones writes: "[T]ry and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with."

When deleting, doctoring or withholding information didn't work, Mr. Jones suggested an alternative in an August 2008 email to Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, copied to Mr. Mann. "The FOI [Freedom of Information] line we're all using is this," he wrote. "IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we . . . possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part of our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on."

It also seems Mr. Mann and his friends weren't averse to blacklisting scientists who disputed some of their contentions, or journals that published their work. "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal," goes one email, apparently written by Mr. Mann to several recipients in March 2003. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

Mr. Mann's main beef was that the journal had published several articles challenging aspects of the anthropogenic theory of global warming.

For the record, when we've asked Mr. Mann in the past about the charge that he and his colleagues suppress opposing views, he has said he "won't dignify that question with a response." Regarding our most recent queries about the hacked emails, he says he "did not manipulate any data in any conceivable way," but he otherwise refuses to answer specific questions. For the record, too, our purpose isn't to gainsay the probity of Mr. Mann's work, much less his right to remain silent.

However, we do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. In the department of inconvenient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Congress and other investigative bodies.

John Edward Mercier
#39 Posted : Thursday, November 26, 2009 12:05:28 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

And this changes what?

Most of the e*mails questioned why a particular model did not mimic observed results. But that doesn't change the basis of the equation. The federal government still does not have enough income to cover expenses... and the price of energy during the deepest recession since the Great Depression is still very high; and will only go higher during a recovery.

So lets say the world is headed for a cooling period.... the federal government still needs to tax us more to pay the bills; and the price of energy will still go up as demand increases. Does it make you feel any better?

 

Anonymous
#40 Posted : Friday, January 08, 2010 2:31:10 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494
Users browsing this topic
Anonymous
3 Pages <123>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.





Subscribe Today - Pay Now & Save 66% Off the Cover Price

First Name: *
Last Name: *
Address: *
City: *
State/Province: *
Zip/Postal Code:*
Country:
Email:*
(* indicates a required item)
Canadian subs: 1 year, (includes postage & GST). Foreign subs: 1 year, . U.S. funds.
Canadian Subscribers - Click Here
Non US and Canadian Subscribers - Click Here

Lighten the Strain on the Earth and Your Budget

MOTHER EARTH NEWS is the guide to living — as one reader stated — “with little money and abundant happiness.” Every issue is an invaluable guide to leading a more sustainable life, covering ideas from fighting rising energy costs and protecting the environment to avoiding unnecessary spending on processed food. You’ll find tips for slashing heating bills; growing fresh, natural produce at home; and more. MOTHER EARTH NEWS helps you cut costs without sacrificing modern luxuries.

At MOTHER EARTH NEWS, we are dedicated to conserving our planet’s natural resources while helping you conserve your financial resources. That’s why we want you to save money and trees by subscribing through our earth-friendly automatic renewal savings plan. By paying with a credit card, you save an additional $5 and get 6 issues of MOTHER EARTH NEWS for only $12.00 (USA only).

You may also use the Bill Me option and pay $17.00 for 6 issues.