Man Based Global Warming....

First, you should state where you are getting your figures from - it is a bit difficult to have a debate when you are vague and don't source anything. I had understood you were speaking of income tax but in any case, am not clear on what you mean by they only contribute 50% of the tax burden. What taxes are you including? Where do you get this # from?

Anyway, of course some taxes are regressive, no doubt. But then again, others are much more likely to affect those with high incomes and wealth (property tax, dividend and interest tax, inheritance tax, etc).

So I'm not really sure what you are arguing here. If you are trying to suggest the poor are somehow "supporting the wealthy", I'm not really sure you are making your case (you certainly aren't providing any hard data).

Please provide some data / statistics to support your "only contribute 50% of the tax burden" statement.

 

Here is something you should look at, Fibb222. It may come as a surprise to you and the crackerjack scientists of climate change that ice melts and re-freezes every year due to 'climate change'. Here is a graphic depiction, based on satellite data (above the earth since 1978 or so), that shows exactly that.

How easy is it for Al Gore, one of his minions, or the mainstream media to show us a photograph made in the winter of 1979 and compare it with the summer of 1998? So easy that it fools you and millions of other unaware and gullible folks.

Watch it all - if you have the guts. It is really horrible and portends the end of life as we know it.

YouTube - Arctic Sea Ice timelapse from 1978 to 2009

By the way, on the whole, there's more ice up north than there was a couple of years ago. Why do the politicians at the U.N. continue to LIE about this and more importantly for me (because I hope for your return to reality), why do you fall for it?

Unprecedented Incoherence In The Ice Message Watts Up With That?

 

OH Puleeze! Let's just let this thread die,, and have the couple of head in the sand nay sayers who keep it alive, quietly fade away,, like so much arctic ice?

Icarus

 

I'm responding to you rather than the others because I don't want to hear the screams of horror from those who will assume the Cato Institute must be biased and therefore dishonest.

Confusing Wealth and Income | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary

...Many politicians and media people confuse taxable income with disposable and in-kind income. Because of the highly progressive income tax system, (97 percent of income taxes are paid by the top 50 percent of income earners and the top 1 percent pays 40 percent of the tax, despite having only 20 percent of the income), the difference in high-income and low-income families in after-tax income is far less than pre-tax income. In addition, there are many government welfare and subsidy programs for low-income people that are not included in many of the standard definitions of income...

Here are the accurate figures for who pays what in income tax:

Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What

 

Did you watch the video? What does it say to you? Did you look at the graphs showing more sea ice now than in 2007? What does that say to you? Did you read the complete LIE told by U.N. Secretary General? What does that say to you?

If you can see and read and understand, then where is your argument? I'm beginning to suspect your head is no larger than a grain of sand.

 

You want even MORE of a tax burden on the poor? Just wait until Obama and his crowd of Marxist thugs impose a federal Value Added Tax on us. The VAT will hit them hardest, and it's coming. There will be a tax on every transaction in addition to the already existing taxes. This WILL impact the poorer segments of our society.

The bogus cap and trade disaster that Obama and his crowd of thugs seeks to impose will hurt the poor more than the wealthy as well. Their hero is leading them further into poverty. It's a shame, but it's true.

Here is a richly ironic piece from what used to be the reliable voice of Soviet Communism, Pravda:

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/

"...The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.
These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them? "

 

Kind of funny - no sad really - coming from a guy who is full of opinions and yet very few facts...anyway, still waiting for some evidence from you that supports your contention that the poor are supporting the wealthy in this country.

So who is it that has their head in the sand, Icarus?

 

In answer to those who would mislead mankind through unsubstantiated claims and from climate scientists who are not under the thumb of politicians:

About Climate Change Reconsidered

The NONgovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

880 pages that presents a 'second opinion' on the climate change question.

YOU can download it in pdf. It presents a realistic picture rather than one colored by politicians.

Seeing science clearly misused to shape public policies that have the potential to inflict severe economic harm, particularly on low-income groups, NIPCC’s team of scientists chose to speak up for science at a time when too few people outside the scientific community know what is happening, and too few scientists who know the truth have the will or the platforms to speak out against the IPCC.

(The above link is NOT the pdf.)

Those of you with your head in the sand will, of course, not avail yourselves of the latest information, but perhaps those with open minds will.

 

Wow,,

2 "scientists" funded by a right wing think tank,, fighting fearlessly against vast conspiracy of those that are trying to take over the world by making it cleaner! I'm convinced!

One "scientist" whose last job was with the Bush administration in the Department of Transportation. The other whose degree from that great fall back school ASU,, with a degree in,,,(not climate science,,,) geography, and who's bio includes his "publication history" as the Nevada Arizona Journal of science,,, surely a world leader in peer reviewed journals,, who is also by the way, "available for interview on radio and tv" (for a fee I'm sure.

Get a grip!

 

I've got a grip - science is science. If scientific information is presented, after a going over by politicians, as undeniably true, then it should be able to withstand scrutiny from SCIENTISTS following recognized scientific procedures regardless of who publishes the information or funds the research. It doesn’t – regardless of how many uncritical, unthinking adherents this new religion recruits. Making the world cleaner is an admirable goal; but suggesting that CO2, a gas you breathe out with every breath, is a pollutant that will cause disaster is junk science.

Who do you think funded the research (repeatedly found wanting by other scientists - from the hockey stick fraud to the present day climate models that can't reproduce observed data) for the IPCC? The U.N. - that renowned scientific body which set out, as stated at its inception, to study only ONE aspect of climate change – human contribution. This is not science, it is politics and propaganda. Yet, the uncritical media continue to reinforce this view regardless of all questions. Each pronouncement from the IPCC is more shrill and desperate. My God, sheeple, the world hangs in the balance. You MUST hand over control of the world’s economies to us – we are your ONLY HOPE.

This report contains enough peer reviewed science to put to rest any idea of a consensus.

“It lists 35 contributors and reviewers from 14 countries and presents in an appendix the names of 31,478 American scientists who have signed a petition saying “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.â€

But, of course, you, in your omniscience and condescension, know more than these real scientists with real questions, real studies and real conclusions.

The scientist you deride with sarcastic quotes:

S. FRED SINGER, Ph.D.​

Professional Background​

POSITIONS HELD:
1989-
Director and President, The Science and Environmental Policy Project. Foundation-funded, independent research group, incorporated in 1992, to advance environment and health policies through sound science. SEPP is a non-profit, education organization.
1994-2000
Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
1989-1994
Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Space Science and Technology, Gainesville, FL. Principal investigator, Cosmic Dust/Orbital Debris Project.
1987-1989
Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation. Also: Deputy Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration; Chairman, Navigation Council (GPS applications). Technical advisor on Air Traffic Control System procurement.
1971-1994
Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. Planetary science; global environmental issues (acid rain, greenhouse warming, ozone depletion); cost-benefit analysis; oil and energy(economics and public policy); economic and environmental impacts of population growth.
1970-1971
Deputy Assistant Administrator (Policy), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Also, chaired Interagency Work Group on Environmental Impacts of the Supersonic Transport.
1967-1970
Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior. Also, integrated atmospheric/oceanographic activities within the Department.
1964-1967
(First) Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL. Expanded the oceanographic institute and added departments of atmospheric sciences and geophysics.
1962-1964
(First) Director, National Weather Satellite Center (now part of NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce. Established operational systems for remote sensing and for management of atmosphere, ocean, and land surface data.
1953-1962
Director, Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and Professor of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. Experiments, theory, and publications on rocket and satellite technology, remote sensing, cosmic rays, radiation belts, magnetosphere, the Moon, meteorites, general relativity.
1950-1953
Scientific Liaison Officer, U.S. Office of Naval Research, London. Reported on research in nuclear physics, astrophysics, and geophysics in European universities and laboratories.
1946-1950
Research Physicist, Upper Atmosphere Rocket Program, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD. Cosmic ray, ozone, and ionosphere research with instrumented V-2 and Aerobee rockets, launched from White Sands, NM and shipboard.


VISITING POSITIONS:
1997
Research Fellow, Independent Institute, Oakland, CA. Global climate change research.
1992-1993
Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford, CA. Environmental policy and economic impacts.
1991
Guest Scholar, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, at the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. U.S. space policy.
1991
Guest Scholar, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Early history of rocket and space science.
1984-1987
Visiting Eminent Scholar, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA. Public policy analysis on natural resources, environment, climate effects, strategic defense, space travel.
1982-1983
Senior Fellow, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C. Natural resources policy; oil price forecasts.
1978
(First) Sid Richardson Professor, Lyndon Baines Johnson School for Public Affairs, University of Texas, Austin, TX. Studies of manned exploration of Mars and Martian moons.
1972
U.S. National Academy of Sciences Exchange Scholar, Soviet Academy of Sciences Institute for Physics of the Earth, Moscow, USSR.
1971
Federal Executive Fellow, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. Cost-benefit analysis of environmental regulation.
1961-1962
Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Cal Tech, Pasadena, CA. Research and publications on planetary atmospheres.



HONORS: (Partial List)
Selected as one of "Ten Outstanding Young Men of the Nation," by the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce, 1959.
White House Commendation (President Eisenhower) for early design of space satellites; for drafting in 1954 the resolutions on satellites for IUGG, URSI, and the International Geophysical Year.
Elected to the International Academy of Astronautics (Paris).
Member, European Academy for Environmental Affairs
U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for the development and management of weather satellites.
(First)Science Medal from the British Interplanetary Society.
Commendation (1997), National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for research on particle clouds.
Honorary Doctorate of Science, Ohio State University, 1970.
Elected Fellow: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), American Geophysical Union, American Physical Society, American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics. Elected to the AAAS Council: Committee on Council Affairs, and Section Secretary.
Phi Beta Kappa National Lectureship
Membership in honorary societies, including Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu, Sigma Xi.
Listed in Who's Who in America, American Men of Science, etc.

MAJOR SCIENTIFIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
First measurements, with V-2 and Aerobee rockets, of primary cosmic radiation in space (with James A. Van Allen, 1947-1950) and upper-atmospheric ozone (with J.J.Hopfield and H. Clearman, 1948).
Discovery, with rocket-borne magnetometer, of equatorial electrojet current in the ionosphere (1949).
Calculation of cosmic ray effects on meteorites, followed by first measurements of their ages (1952).
Design of Minimum Orbital Unmanned Satellite (MOUSE), (1952-1954).
Design of sensing instruments for MOUSE, including the first instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone (1956), now used in satellites.
First publications predicting the existence of trapped radiation in the earth's magnetic field (radiation belts, later discovered by Van Allen) to explain the magnetic-storm ring current (1956).
Design of the high-altitude FARSIDE rocket, to search for geomagnetically trapped radiation (1956).
Capture theory for the origin of the Moon and of the Martian satellites, Phobos and Deimos (1966).
Design study of Martian exploration by way of a manned base on Phobos/Deimos (Ph-D Project) (1977-78)
First calculation of methane increase due to population growth, and its effects on the stratosphere (1971). The theory serves as a paradigm for CFC-stratosphere effects. While developed in connection with the SST controversy, it is now of importance for both greenhouse warming and ozone depletion theories.
Theory for the behavior of world oil prices, and prediction in 1980 of the price collapse of 1983.
Discovery of orbiting debris clouds, using instruments on the LDEF satellite (1990).

PUBLICATIONS:
Books and Monographs(Partial List)

Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (Reidel, 1970)
​

Manned Laboratories in Space (Reidel, 1970)
Is There an Optimum Level of Population? (McGraw-Hill, 1971)
The Changing Global Environment (Reidel, 1975)
Arid Zone Development (Ballinger, 1977)
Economic Effects of Demographic Changes (Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress, 1977)
Cost-Benefit Analysis in Environmental Decisionmaking (Mitre Corp, 1979)
Energy (W.H. Freeman, 1979)
The Price of World Oil (Annual Reviews of Energy, Vol. 8, 1983)
Free Market Energy (Universe Books, 1984)
Oil Policy in a Changing Market (Annual Reviews of Energy, Vol. 12, 1987)
The Ocean in Human Affairs (Paragon House, 1989)
The Universe and Its Origin: From Ancient Myths to Present Reality and Future Fantasy (Paragon House, 1990)
Global Climate Change: Human and Natural Influences (Paragon House, 1989)
The Greenhouse Debate Continued (ICS Press, 1992)
The Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Treaty (SEPP, 1997)
Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate, (The Independent Institute, 1997)
​

Articles

More than 400 technical publications in scientific, economics, and public policy journals.
​

More than 200 articles and editorials in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, Chicago Tribune, Newsday, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Newsweek, New Republic, National Review,, Readers' Digest, and other publications.
​

News Media

Major features in Time, Life, U.S. News & World Report (cover stories on space research).
​

Numerous radio and television appearances in the United States and abroad: ABC News Nightline, NBC TODAY Show, PBS MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour, CBS Nightwatch, BBC, CNN, C-SPAN, National Public Radio, among others.
​

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES (Partial List):

National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres--Vice Chairman and member, 1981-1986.
​

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy--Acid Rain Panel and consultant, 1982-1987.
U.S. Dept. of State Science Advisory Board (Oceans, Environment, Science), 1982-1987.
White House Panel on U.S.-Brazil Science and Technology Exchange, 1987.
U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Panel, 1984.
NASA Space Applications Advisory Committee, 1983-1985.
Governor of Virginia Task Force on Transportation, 1975.
​

Consultant:

Federal government--House Select Committee on Space, GAO, OTA, NSF, DOE, NASA, AEC, Treasury (Secy. William Simon), DOD (Strategic Defense Initiative)
​

State governments--Alaska, Pennsylvania, Virginia
Corporations, Mitre Corp., Institute for Defense Analysis, GE, Ford, GM;
on oil pricing (late 1970s)--EXXON, Shell, Unocal, Sun Oil, ARCO;
on space research--Lockheed, Martin-Marietta, McDonnell-Douglas, ANSER, IBM.
​

Advisory Editor:

Regulation (CATO Institute), Environmental Conservation (Elsevier), Environmental Geology (Springer)
​

MILITARY SERVICE:

U.S. Navy--Mine warfare and countermeasures, design of electronic computer. 1944-1946.
​

U.S. Air Force Reserve, 1950-1953.
​

EDUCATION:

B.E.E. (Electrical Engineering), Ohio State University
​

A.M. and Ph.D.(Physics), Princeton University.
​

Obviusly, Icarus, you are more qualified than he is to have opinions on climate science. Now, don't fly too close to the sun, okay?

 

This is a blog intro from realclimate.org on the first page towards the end ...
As I have said before, there are at least 5 scientists with bona fide credentials who remain AGW skeptics. When I try to parse the arguments, I usually find the skeptics are relying on old data they collected in their youth.

[IMGLINK]http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/singer.jpg[/IMGLINK]

 

This is a response? One relatively unknown commenter at realclimate (Rasmus) who hasn't read the report recounts an untinteresting anecdote.

 

The blog author is Rasmus Benestad 'Rasmus'. His peer reviewed scientific publications related to climate change number about 30 over the past 10 years, and he is the author of three books, the most germane to the skeptic Singer, on GCR published in 2002 and a peer reviewed article on GCR in 2005. Physicist by training, with a PhD from Oxford. His Publication List. Hardly an informed critic Face it ufourya: until GOD bashes you over the head you will reman in denial.

As for your leading light F. Singer, this 85 year old has indeed garnered distinction, of a sort I cringe at, summarized nicely for your enjoyment,

I think you are better off trumpeting W's opinions.

 

So Singer has a habit of not just being wrong, but VERY wrong.

 

Hi is certainly a man of convictions. I wonder if ufourya can identify which of the organizations mentioned in the wiki snippet as Singer collaborators are financed by Reverend Moon's empire ?

 

"Face it ufourya: until GOD bashes you over the head you will reman in denial."

Don't blame God for either for global warming,, or even his lack of understanding,,,, it is only ignorance!

Icarus

 

Science is science. Read Singer's report and point out where he errs in regard to the IPCC's pronouncements and his responses.

If "real" climate scientists rely on scientific data and the scientific method, why do they deny that data to others to review?

Here is how the "real" scientists (the ones you believe have God's own TRUTH) respond when asked for the raw data they use to formulate their theories and construct their models:

UK Met Office: Refuse and Delete

by Steve McIntyre on June 4th, 2009

A couple of week ago, I noticed that the UK Met Office website contained the following statement

Q. Where can I get the raw observations?
A. The raw sea-surface temperature observations used to create HadSST2 are taken from ICOADS (International Comprehensive Ocean Atmosphere Data Set). These can be found at icoads.noaa.gov/. To obtain the archive of raw land surface temperature observations used to create CRUTEM3, you will need to contact Phil Jones at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Recently archived station reports used to update CRUTEM3 and HadCRUT3 are available from the CRUTEM3 data download page.
​

I sent an inquiry to John Kennedy maintainer of this webpage asking him to "provide me the archive of raw land surface temperature observations as you hold them at the Hadley Center."
Kennedy replied:

Most of the station data was given to us by Phil Jones under conditions that don't allow us to redistribute it. If you want the full archive, you will have to contact him.
​

I sent the following FOI request to the UK Met Office:

I request the "archive of raw land surface temperature observations used to create CRUTEM3" as held by the Hadley Center (referred to on your webpage hadobs.metoffice.com/indicators/index.html ) under the FOI Act or other applicable legislation.
​

In my request, I did not include any of the flowery salutations that some readers have recommended. I did not, for example, say "Thank you, John" or "thanking you in advance, Mr Hadley".
I received the following response today:

Re: Environmental Information Regulations request
Your email dated 11 May 2009 has been considered to be a request for information in
accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations Act 2004.
You requested the archive of raw land surface temperature observations used to create
CRUTEM3, as held by the Hadley Centre (referred to on webpage
hadobs.metoffice.com/indcators/index.html
The Met Office does not hold this information. The information we hold is the value added
data, which is data that has been quality controlled and where deemed appropriate, adjusted
to account for apparent non-climatic influences.
I hope this answers your enquiry.
​

Kennedy had previously said that "most of the station data was given to us by Phil Jones under conditions that don't allow us to redistribute it" indicating that they held it. The two answers seem a bit inconsistent, though I guess there are ways to split this hair. However, I'm puzzled as to exactly how they split this hair. They admit to holding some information and seem to have left an opening for a further FOI request, which I'll pursue.
Oh, BTW, don't think that my request had no impact whatever. If you go to the Hadley Center webpage linked in my previous request - the one where they supposedly answer the question:

Q. Where can I get the raw observations?

- that part of the webpage has been deleted.


This is only one of many examples available on the Climate Audit site where "real" climate scientists refuse to share data upon which the world hangs in the balance for other scientists to review.

When the data are FINALLY released (if they ever are), many errors made by the "real" scientists are uncovered . No wonder they obfuscate, delay and fight rear guard actions against those who question their conclusions.

By the way, in reading the NIPCC's report and from other sources, you will discover that the "real" climate scientists peer review each others' work without double checking the raw data. They belong to the same "real climate scientist" clique, often having co-published papers or had student/mentor relationships.

If scientists are making earth-shattering discoveries of catastrophic possibilities is it not incumbent on them to share data and methodologies? If they don't, what are they hiding? Hmmm?

One of the founders of realclimate.com (the go-to site for AGW proponents), for example, is Michael Mann, the lead author of the famous "hockey stick" paper (Mann, et. al. 1998) that propounds the notion that the Medieval Warm Period never happened, that only in the latter portion of this century have temperatures risen to levels not seen in 1,300 years. It presented a visually stunning graph that is STILL USED AND DEFENDED by AGW proponents. A study by McIntyre and McKitrick proved this notion false and the graph a grossly misleading and false representation of past temperatures. Yet, the "real' climate scientist, Mann, is still the darling of the AGW crowd and is paraded around for being the author of umpteen "peer reviewed" papers dealing with climate science. In these circles it is politically incorrect to call someone a fraud, but it's okay to attack someone with a different view supported by non-fraudulent science because he has been associated with a conservative think tank. This is what passes for thoughtful debate of serious issues.




​

 

"Science is Science!,, Yep,, that's why I am a charter subscriber to "The Journal of Irreproducable Results" as well as "The evolution of Creation Science"!

Icarus

 

See? If this man questioned the environmentalist hysteria about passive smoke, cfcs, or is a conservative, he must be, ipso facto, wrong.


More than YOU ever wanted to know about passive smoke and the statistically insignificant relation to lung cancer, heart disease, asthma, etc.:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

We must continue the ban of cfcs at all costs, even human life:
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/7135.html

Why don't you take up the challenge of finding one or two instances in the NIPCC's report falsely presented?

 

Let me know when you graduate from high school.