Evidence of the Climate Hoax

[mu4]

It is actually...


Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable



Hans von Storch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He said that global warming exists:

* Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. [1]

He is also known for his article in Der Spiegel in which he warns against exaggerated reports by scientists which want to catch the attention of public. He states in this article that:

* "Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information." [2]

* "The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."[1]

It's stupid to say that there is no such thing as greenhouse effect or climate change, of course there's climate change and humans are a factor in it no doubt. How much, what policies and etc are what's important. In the creation of more efficient technology, new methodology and regulation against the excesses of industrialization, these are important contributions to the enviromental effort that's beyond the alarmists.

Most of the people who are really heavily into debunking climate change are actually in a real conspiracy to deregulate industry and these are the same people that hide toxic waste dumping amongst other reprehensible activities. Their motives are even more reprehensible then the alarmists.

Unfortunately there are many people like discojoe who are pretty much resentful losers who feel a great deal of envy towards the intellectuals and liberal middle class who are typically better looking, higher earning and more educated. These losers are basically manipulated by a very sophisticated and self-interested group of wealthy industrialists who wish to earn more money and pad their own pockets. See the listing for Rupert Murdoch. As a group these people are the same that protested integration in schools, flooded out of the cities after desegregation and a collection of fascist leaning degenerates.

Ok.. ok.. maybe that's a bit harsh, I have to give they are mostly just average people who are trying to live a decent life but their resentment and natural inclinations is very easily manipulated into movements like the Tea Party, etc.

[07490]

hmm... Imagine 50 years from now, We are all dead because of global warming, then we look back at this thread...

[ragnar]

50 years from now, We are all dead ..., then we look back at this thread...

[Park]

hmm... Imagine 50 years from now, We are all dead because of global warming, then we look back at this thread...

This sentence is totally worth the laughs.

[Rick]

Spend at least 50 hours researching the science of climate change, study all the claims and counter-claims, the accusations and refutations. Watch a few documentaries both supporting and debunking global warming, then get online and read commentaries on these documentaries. Which side do the facts ultimately seem to support?

Then, consider who stands to win and lose from each side of the debate. Find out who the 7 richest corporations in the world are (6 are oil and gas companies, the 7th is Walmart) and think which side they might be supporting and why.

Then, look at individual climate scientists' opinions on the subject of global warming: do they privately think it is more or less serious than the public is made to believe (answer: they actually downplay the risks for the public in order to not depress them)?

Look at the leaked e-mails. Read analysis from both sides. Look at the e-mails themselves: do the questionable e-mails demonstrate that the climate scientists involved do not believe in global warming, or anthropogenic global warming? or do they demonstrate unethical conduct?

Find out what the Australians' view of global warming is: is it happening or not? What do the Europeans think? What do the leaders of China and India think, whose countries are just getting on the fossil fuel track to success? Surely of all countries in the world China and India would be most interested in debunking the threat of anthropogenic global warming. What do the poorly educated African nations think?

Finally, just thinking logically, could the conversion of billions and billions of tons of extremely energy-dense fossil fuels into kinetic energy and ultimately heat over the course of many decades somehow affect the Earth in any tangible way?

Hmmm....

[Rick]

Some useful links:

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[UDP]

Spend at least 50 hours researching the science of climate change, study all the claims and counter-claims, the accusations and refutations. Watch a few documentaries both supporting and debunking global warming, then get online and read commentaries on these documentaries. Which side do the facts ultimately seem to support?

Then, consider who stands to win and lose from each side of the debate. Find out who the 7 richest corporations in the world are (6 are oil and gas companies, the 7th is Walmart) and think which side they might be supporting and why.

Then, look at individual climate scientists' opinions on the subject of global warming: do they privately think it is more or less serious than the public is made to believe (answer: they actually downplay the risks for the public in order to not depress them)?

Look at the leaked e-mails. Read analysis from both sides. Look at the e-mails themselves: do the questionable e-mails demonstrate that the climate scientists involved do not believe in global warming, or anthropogenic global warming? or do they demonstrate unethical conduct?

Find out what the Australians' view of global warming is: is it happening or not? What do the Europeans think? What do the leaders of China and India think, whose countries are just getting on the fossil fuel track to success? Surely of all countries in the world China and India would be most interested in debunking the threat of anthropogenic global warming. What do the poorly educated African nations think?

Finally, just thinking logically, could the conversion of billions and billions of tons of extremely energy-dense fossil fuels into kinetic energy and ultimately heat over the course of many decades somehow affect the Earth in any tangible way?

Hmmm....

Now who the hell is going to spend 50 hours, or 50 minutes, doing any of that?

Some useful links:

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

mhm...

[Rick]

Now who the hell is going to spend 50 hours, or 50 minutes, doing any of that?

Anyone who wants to have a basic command of climate change science and form an independent opinion on the issue of anthropogenic global warming. Anyone who claims to know more than the IPCC and yet has not done this is just full of hot air (pun intended).

[Socionics Is A Cult]

[Jimbean]

Spend at least 50 hours researching the science of climate change, study all the claims and counter-claims, the accusations and refutations. Watch a few documentaries both supporting and debunking global warming, then get online and read commentaries on these documentaries. Which side do the facts ultimately seem to support?

Then, consider who stands to win and lose from each side of the debate. Find out who the 7 richest corporations in the world are (6 are oil and gas companies, the 7th is Walmart) and think which side they might be supporting and why.

Then, look at individual climate scientists' opinions on the subject of global warming: do they privately think it is more or less serious than the public is made to believe (answer: they actually downplay the risks for the public in order to not depress them)?

Look at the leaked e-mails. Read analysis from both sides. Look at the e-mails themselves: do the questionable e-mails demonstrate that the climate scientists involved do not believe in global warming, or anthropogenic global warming? or do they demonstrate unethical conduct?

Find out what the Australians' view of global warming is: is it happening or not? What do the Europeans think? What do the leaders of China and India think, whose countries are just getting on the fossil fuel track to success? Surely of all countries in the world China and India would be most interested in debunking the threat of anthropogenic global warming. What do the poorly educated African nations think?

Finally, just thinking logically, could the conversion of billions and billions of tons of extremely energy-dense fossil fuels into kinetic energy and ultimately heat over the course of many decades somehow affect the Earth in any tangible way?

Hmmm....

I acknowledge your post, but I am in the process of finishing up a paper for a college course. I would like to check out the links and ideas in your post, but I am not going to respond until Wednesday.

For the start, no I have not spent 50 hours or more reading about man made climate change; I have spent something like a total of 20 to 30 hours. And I will explain why the IPCC would be dishonest.

[Rick]

What most people don't realize is that there is a whole suite of interrelated problems, of which anthropogenic global warming is just one. These include Peak Oil (we are there right now) and environmental degradation, which can be broken down into ten or so categories, each of which is potentially lethal to modern civilization, if allowed to continue unchecked.

For whatever reason, global warming has piqued media attention in recent years, rather than, say, deforestation, topsoil erosion, salinization of irrigated croplands, or loss of biodiversity. I think that is because it captures people's imagination better and can more easily be cinematized.

Even if anthropogenic global warming turned out to be false, or even if the warming trend (which is currently indisputable) abruptly ended, we'd still have to face all the other problems whose solutions are remarkably similar, sometimes identical, to the solutions for global warming.

Here's a good synopsis of how to adapt to the reality that likely awaits us when our fossil fuels begin to run out (i.e. now):
Definancialisation, deglobalisation, relocalisation | Energy Bulletin

[discojoe]

What most people don't realize is that there is a whole suite of interrelated problems, of which anthropogenic global warming is just one. These include Peak Oil (we are there right now) and environmental degradation, which can be broken down into ten or so categories, each of which is potentially lethal to modern civilization, if allowed to continue unchecked.

For whatever reason, global warming has piqued media attention in recent years, rather than, say, deforestation, topsoil erosion, salinization of irrigated croplands, or loss of biodiversity. I think that is because it captures people's imagination better and can more easily be cinematized.

Even if anthropogenic global warming turned out to be false, or even if the warming trend (which is currently indisputable) abruptly ended, we'd still have to face all the other problems whose solutions are remarkably similar, sometimes identical, to the solutions for global warming.

Here's a good synopsis of how to adapt to the reality that likely awaits us when our fossil fuels begin to run out (i.e. now):
Definancialisation, deglobalisation, relocalisation | Energy Bulletin

Market will take care of it.

[Jimbean]

Unfortunately there are many people like discojoe who are pretty much resentful losers who feel a great deal of envy towards the intellectuals and liberal middle class who are typically better looking, higher earning and more educated. These losers are basically manipulated by a very sophisticated and self-interested group of wealthy industrialists who wish to earn more money and pad their own pockets. See the listing for Rupert Murdoch. As a group these people are the same that protested integration in schools, flooded out of the cities after desegregation and a collection of fascist leaning degenerates.

Please explain this better.

[tcaudilllg]

He said that global warming exists:

* Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. [1]

He is also known for his article in Der Spiegel in which he warns against exaggerated reports by scientists which want to catch the attention of public. He states in this article that:

* "Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information." [2]

* "The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."[1]

It's stupid to say that there is no such thing as greenhouse effect or climate change, of course there's climate change and humans are a factor in it no doubt. How much, what policies and etc are what's important. In the creation of more efficient technology, new methodology and regulation against the excesses of industrialization, these are important contributions to the enviromental effort that's beyond the alarmists.

Most of the people who are really heavily into debunking climate change are actually in a real conspiracy to deregulate industry and these are the same people that hide toxic waste dumping amongst other reprehensible activities. Their motives are even more reprehensible then the alarmists.

Unfortunately there are many people like discojoe who are pretty much resentful losers who feel a great deal of envy towards the intellectuals and liberal middle class who are typically better looking, higher earning and more educated. These losers are basically manipulated by a very sophisticated and self-interested group of wealthy industrialists who wish to earn more money and pad their own pockets. See the listing for Rupert Murdoch. As a group these people are the same that protested integration in schools, flooded out of the cities after desegregation and a collection of fascist leaning degenerates.

^ this

Global warming is real. Mankind is a major cause of it. Airborn toxins aren't going anywhere, they've shown that in the lab, with chemistry.

I agree that the anti-global warming people should be frozen out of science journals. Same bunch which said we should deregulate the banks.

[DirectorAbbie]

My seventh grade textbook had a chart showing the weather patterns over the years. Nothing abnormal. My dad says there was a 'global freezing' scare back when he was a kid. Of course it's a conspiracy, though not necessarily on purpose. I wish global warming did exist; it's below 60 out, and it's cold.

[ragnar]

My dad says there was a 'global freezing' scare back when he was a kid.

A quick search on google gives links to the classic article in the April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek, where we were informed "scientists" had found out the world was about to perish from global cooling.

There has been all kinds of scares, ranging from global cyanide poisoning due to Earth's orbit crossing the tail of Comet Halley (early 1900s) to Martian invasion to an "ozone hole" caused by refrigerators to " Nuclear Winter" to ...

[electric sheep]

My seventh grade textbook had a chart showing the weather patterns over the years. Nothing abnormal. My dad says there was a 'global freezing' scare back when he was a kid. Of course it's a conspiracy, though not necessarily on purpose. I wish global warming did exist; it's below 60 out, and it's cold.

My 7th grade text book didn't know what Vitamin E was. In a chart with all the vitamins and what they did, under Vitamin E it said "unknown". No joke.

[ragnar]

My dad says there was a 'global freezing' scare back when he was a kid.

Well-written and documented overview of the various climate change scares over the last 100 years: BMI Special Report -- Fire and Ice

as Rick stated, it's the ecological shock of a quick increase in CO2 that causes problems.

I'm very sceptical to such claims, given the fact that plants and animals routinely deal with large and sudden changes already - changes much more sudden and much larger than the AGW movement assumes.

As an example, the air in an urban area may easily contain twice the co2 concentration of the air in the adjacent countryside. A breeze may replace within minutes said air with air deficient in co2. Without any harm either to vegetations or animals either there or downwind.

Also, a typical living room may easily have triple the co2 concentration outdoors, yet the indoor plants suffer no harm when the air is periodically replaced.

Also, in order to increase yields, people sometimes elevate co2 concentration in their greenhouses to levels 10 times higher than the outdoor concentration. With plants suffering no ill effects from the fluctuations.

Also, humans (and presumably most other species) do just fine with co2 levels many times larger than the present one or anything likely to ever come about.

Sorry I'm too lazy to dig up specific documentation, this could be a start: indoor co2 concentrations - Dogpile Web Search

[Rick]

Well-written and documented overview of the various climate change scares over the last 100 years: BMI Special Report -- Fire and Ice

First of all, note that the overview talks about nonscientific publications ("Times," "Newsweek," etc.) and the writings of journalists. Surely scientists do not have to answer for claims made by journalists looking for a catchy headline and a shocking story. This article is not an accurate overview of peer-reviewed research. Journalism and peer-reviewed scientific research need to be examined separately; when done so, you will find that while a great deal of "controversy" exists in the popular press and political circles (which feed on controversy, duh), remarkably little of it exists in the climate science community.

(Who, for instance, is Lowell Ponte, author of "The Cooling," prominently mentioned in the overview?? He's not even a scientist, and his book was blown off by scientists; see http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ponte.html)

Contrast the contents of the businessandmedia report with the Wikipedia article on Global Cooling: Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The remarkable thing as that even in the 1970s, when a multi-decade cooling trend had been in place, there were still over 3 times as many peer-reviewed (i.e. nonjournalistic) research articles predicting global warming than global cooling (see video posted above). This was because the role of greenhouse gases such as CO2 was already well understood, and during this time researchers realized that manmade aerosols caused a cooling effect, and this might account for the much of the recent cooling trend.

Many or most of the statements by scientists predicting cooling referred to some time thousands of years into the future when the Earth would settle into the next Ice Age, because the cyclical nature of recent ice ages was beginning to be well understood. However, many of these statements were taken out of context and made to appear that scientists were predicting cooling on a much closer timescale.

See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-cooling-myth/

Now, however, voices predicting imminent cooling among _scientists_ are basically nonexistent, as the mechanisms of warming and cooling are well understood, and the warming is well documented.

I'm very sceptical to such claims, given the fact that plants and animals routinely deal with large and sudden changes already - changes much more sudden and much larger than the AGW movement assumes.

As an example, the air in an urban area may easily contain twice the co2 concentration of the air in the adjacent countryside. A breeze may replace within minutes said air with air deficient in co2. Without any harm either to vegetations or animals either there or downwind.

Also, a typical living room may easily have triple the co2 concentration outdoors, yet the indoor plants suffer no harm when the air is periodically replaced.

Also, in order to increase yields, people sometimes elevate co2 concentration in their greenhouses to levels 10 times higher than the outdoor concentration. With plants suffering no ill effects from the fluctuations.

Also, humans (and presumably most other species) do just fine with co2 levels many times larger than the present one or anything likely to ever come about.

Sorry I'm too lazy to dig up specific documentation, this could be a start: indoor co2 concentrations - Dogpile Web Search

I personally have not read anything suggesting that rapid changes in CO2 concentration are a significant danger to plants directly, although the beneficial effects of CO2 for plants (so-called "plant fertilizer") supposedly begin to taper off after some level of atmospheric concentration higher than what we're at today (sorry, can't find link offhand). Rather, the dangers come from changes in temperatures and precipitation patterns that could make things harder for many different species all at the same time, and also from growing oceanic acidification, which is a result of rising atmospheric CO2.


2Tcaudilllg: Aha, I was making a point not that numbers were fudged (I am an AGW "believer"), but that if they were, that would not be a powerful enough force to induce countries to join together in a common cause such as climate change mitigation. The forces would have to be imminent, powerful, and undeniable.

[tcaudilllg]

@Rick: Sure thing, but my advice is to be more precise next time in your wording. I'm trying to follow that advice myself. Another thing: it pays to anticipate the arguments of your opponents, and to rebut them before they can speak. Kills the conversation, but makes you look competent and in command of the issues.

[mu4]

Please explain this better.

See the similarity...

[Jimbean]

See the similarity...

no

Same bunch which said we should deregulate the banks.

The Glass Steagall Act was repealed in 1999 with the help of bankers that were in Clinton's administration and now in Obama's, and Wall Street was the benefactor. There were good natured people who did not foresee the method of the central banking regime who helped in the deregulation, and Republicans in the House who were convinced or lobbied (since Republicans traditionally deregulate) that voted for it.

[mu4]

The Glass Steagall Act was repealed in 1999 with the help of bankers that were in Clinton's administration and now in Obama's, and Wall Street was the benefactor. There were good natured people who did not foresee the method of the central banking regime who helped in the deregulation, and Republicans in the House who were convinced or lobbied (since Republicans traditionally deregulate) that voted for it.

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority....

Wait so this was the fault of the Clinton administration?

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

Abraham (R-MI), Yea
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Ashcroft (R-MO), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bryan (D-NV), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Chafee, J. (R-RI), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Coverdell (R-GA), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Present
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Gorton (R-WA), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grams (R-MN), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Not Voting
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (R-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerrey (D-NE), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Mack (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Moynihan (D-NY), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Robb (D-VA), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Roth (R-DE), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Look at the senate voting record.... D.... Nay? R.... Yea?
There seems to be a lot of "good natured people" who voted party lines and a lot of other banking scoundrels that voted against measures which were part of their devious scheme to control banking. Bullshit, it was passed by a conservative congress with little hope of presidential veto, thus it became law. Republican agenda, Republican congress and aggravated by 8 years of total fiscal mismanagement by the Bush administration.

[Jimbean]

Wait so this was the fault of the Clinton administration?

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

(voting record of senators on the repeal of Glass Steagall Act)

Look at the senate voting record.... D.... Nay? R.... Yea?

The above expands on half of what I have already said.

There seems to be a lot of "good natured people" who voted party lines and a lot of other banking scoundrels that voted against measures which were part of their devious scheme to control banking. Bullshit, it was passed by a conservative congress with little hope of presidential veto, thus it became law. Republican agenda, Republican congress and aggravated by 8 years of total fiscal mismanagement by the Bush administration.

I think this statement is in part a misunderstanding of what I posted earlier and part Hkkmr's bias of political parties.

A Decade Without Glass-Steagall: Heckofa Job, Larry : Rolling Stone : National Affairs Daily

Today marks a decade since the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act, the Depression-era safeguard that prohibited the commingling of commercial and investment banks. The deregulation gave rise to all-in-one financial behemoths like Citi, ushered in the too-big-to-fail era, and nearly toppled the global financial system.
The hubris expressed during the signing ceremony at the Old Executive Office Building ten years ago today will make you throw up in your mouth a little.

Take it away, President Clinton:

"I think you should all be exceedingly proud of yourselves… today what we are doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down these antiquated laws and granting banks significant new authority. This will save consumers billions of dollars a year through enhanced competition."

Hit it Phil Gramm:

"In the 1930s, at the trough of the Depression, when Glass-Steagall became law, it was believed that government was the answer. It was believed that stability and growth came from government overriding the functioning of free markets. We are here today to repeal Glass-Steagall because we have learned that government is not the answer. We have learned that freedom and competition are the answers. We have learned that we promote economic growth, and we promote stability, by having competition and freedom. I am proud to be here because this is an important bill. It is a deregulatory bill. I believe that that is the wave of the future. And I am awfully proud to have been part of making it a reality." (Applause.)

It’s easy to lampoon the vile likes of the former Texas senator, who continues to profiteer from his deregulation as a Vice Chairman of UBS. But what’s more galling is how many of the key players in this debacle are still shaping policy today.
Start at the top with then Treasury secretary, now Obama economics czar Larry Summers, who boldly declared that the deregulation would “benefit American consumers, business, and the national economy for many years to come.”
Other men and women who also got shout outs that day include:
Gary Gensler, then a treasury undersecretary, today the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Gene Sperling, then head of Clinton’s National Economics Council, now a senior counselor to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.
and
Linda Robertson, another assistant Treasury secretary, (she’d briefly become an Enron lobbyist) who is now a senior adviser to the Federal Reserve trying to sell congress on Obama’s proposal to give the Fed massive new powers.

[Jimbean]

There is another piece of information that I am about to get that should make this debate interesting.

[mu4]

I think this statement is in part a misunderstanding of what I posted earlier and part Hkkmr's bias of political parties.

A Decade Without Glass-Steagall: Heckofa Job, Larry : Rolling Stone : National Affairs Daily

Lawmaking is congressional not presidential. I have no problem with the people mentioned being removed from government entirely and I believe they should be. I don't care about parties, I care about policy, and the Republicans and other even more right wing groups are at the forefront of deregulation propaganda and lobbying. The fact that they managed to con so many others into their schemes and continue to promote the same policies in the face of issues is the problem.

The fact remains the Democrat in the senate during that time rejected as a group these proposals, but the majority in Congress was enough to pass the bill, and the members of congress decided it was better to let this bill pass and get some other measures included.

How about we put the Glass-Steagall act back, I don't think it will be a collection of conservative ideologues who seek further deregulation who will do this. So when you talk about policy and who is more likely to promote and enact policy which I agree with, there lies my support.

As far as the blame, the onus goes to the promoters, lobbyists and lawmakers, as these were premeditated on their part. Neglect and lack of foresight can be attributed to the President, but the compromise that had occurred at this time ensured that a veto was impossible, who at this time was exiting office.

The people that are free from this particular event in history are those that voted against this bill. 16 republicans voted nay/abstain in the house, 69/abstain democrats and the lone Independent/Socialist(Home: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)) voted nay.

Out of the senate, 2 republicans voted nay/abstain and 6 Democrats voted nay/abstain on the compromise. The lone independent(ex-Republican) Jim Jeffords(friend of Bernie) voted nay..

Note the two independents are moderate to liberal voting and leaning members of Congress.

So if you want to pass the blame from conservatives to liberals within the context of repealing Glass-Steagall, that is just malarkey.

By the voting record on this event, we should all be democratic socialists..

[discojoe]

Please explain this better.

Don't bother. Attempts by liberals to logically defend their views almost inevitably end up as nothing more than straw men, name-calling, and character assassination.

Saying that my factually based global warming stance occupies the same moral altitude as the racial views of anti-integration southerners is a classic example of this kind of behavior.

No, I'm not a racist. Yes, global warming is false. No, I'm not uneducated.

Global warming proponents: In twenty years I will be LMAO @ U.

[mu4]

Don't bother. Attempts by liberals to logically defend their views almost inevitably end up as nothing more than straw men, name-calling, and character assassination.

Saying that my factually based global warming stance occupies the same moral altitude as the racial views of anti-integration southerners is a classic example of this kind of behavior.

No, I'm not a racist. Yes, global warming is false. No, I'm not uneducated.

Pay attention to the sign in the back. You sure that's not you? Wait damn, he's hiding...

It matters little whether "global warming" doomsday scenarios are true or false(doomsday scenarios of all sorts hopefully won't happen and we'll still be around in 20 years), since in 20 years people will still be studying climate change and there will still be people that will say the world will end in 50 and others who will say that that there is no need to regulate our industries. Never the less there is real effort on efficiency being done and if not in the good ole USA, somewhere where there is the political will to make such advancements despite rhetorical shenanigans on both sides.

At least much of American industry is smart enough to know that efficiency and conservation aren't bad for business even if the doomsday scenario are largely fantasy.