PDA

View Full Version : Deposit material for burning here:



LWW
09-01-2011, 02:59 AM
This thread is dedicated for the destruction of data which must not be allowed to become common knowledge.

LWW
09-01-2011, 03:03 AM
PROHIBITED (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/12-facts-that-will-blow-your-mind-federal-employees-and-members-of-congress-are-getting-rich-while-those-of-us-who-pay-their-salaries-suffer)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">#1 According to an article in the Hill, House Speaker <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Nancy Pelosi's net worth soared from $13.7 million in 2008 to $21.7 million in 2009</span>.

#2 <span style='font-size: 11pt'>In 2005, 7420 federal workers were making $150,000 or more per year. In 2010, a whopping 82,034 federal workers are making $150,000 or more per year.</span> That is more than a tenfold increase in just five years.

#3 <span style='font-size: 11pt'>More than half of the members of the U.S. Congress are millionaires.</span>

#4 The total compensation that the U.S. government workforce is going to take in this year is approximately 447 billion dollars.

#5 Today, all members of Congress earn at least $175,000. This is far, far more than the average American makes.

#6 60 percent of the federal government workforce is represented by labor unions.

#7 <span style='font-size: 11pt'>The median wealth of a U.S. Senator in 2009 was 2.38 million dollars.</span>

#8 <span style='font-size: 11pt'>In 2005, the U.S. Department of Defense had just nine civilians earning $170,000 or more. When Barack Obama took office, the U.S. Department of Defense had 214 civilians earning $170,000 or more. In June 2010, the U.S. Department of Defense had 994 civilians earning $170,000 or more.</span>

#9 <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Insider trading is perfectly legal for members of the U.S. Congress</span> - and they refuse to pass a law that would change that.

#10 According to a recent study conducted by the Heritage Foundation, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>federal workers earn 30 to 40 percent more money on average than their counterparts in the private sector.</span>

#11 When you factor in such things as retirement and health care benefits, the compensation gap between federal workers and private sector employees gets even larger. Just consider the following quote from the Heritage Foundation study mentioned above....

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"Including non-cash benefits adds to this disparity. The average private-sector employer pays $9,882 per employee in annual benefits, while the federal government pays an average of $32,115 per employee."</span>

#12 <span style='font-size: 11pt'>The personal wealth of members of the U.S. Congress collectively increased by more than 16 percent from 2008 to 2009.</span> </div></div>

LWW
09-01-2011, 03:40 AM
PROHIBITED (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/rich-get-richer-obama-white-house)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Remember how President Obama told Joe the Plumber that he just wanted to "spread the wealth around" during the 2008 presidential campaign? Apparently that wealth spreading doesn't extend to most of those working in the Obama White House.

In a classic Friday-afternoon-before-a-long-holiday news dump, the Obama administration made public the salaries paid the 469 White House staff members. As The Hill reported in a post that included a handy spreadsheet showing the names and salaries, the 469 are paid a total of nearly $39 million annually, with an average of $82,599.

But it's not the net that raises some eyebrows, it's the numbers behind the numbers, according to William Collier of The Freedomist:

"How is it that 168 people in the White House Staff make less than a third of what the top 109 people in the White House earn?

"So much for 'equality'- nearly 36% of the White House staff under Obama make 30% of the annual salary that the top 23% of the White Staff make.

"And of the overall budget of some $38 million per year, about 42% of the total budget is consumed by the upper 23% and less than 32% of the total budget is divided between the 52% or so of the staff at the bottom!"

By the way, the law requiring the White House to report such data to Congress was passed in 1995 as one of the reforms instituted by the GOP majority following its 1994 election victory. The spreadsheet was also posted on the White House blog here. </div></div>

Soflasnapper
09-01-2011, 04:18 PM
You should decide if higher salaries are bad, or are good, before posting up contradictory complaints like these.

Many WH positions pay at the top of the federal government paygrade, and that has (surprisingly, I'm sure) increased in the past 6 years. Just as have all the other GS-rated jobs' salaries. I know this is a stunning surprise to you, and/or the authors of these pieces.

LWW
09-02-2011, 01:31 AM
One of these days I will find the topic that you don't become rabid over in your defense of the current regime ... if such topic actually does exist.

I'm beginning to wonder?

Soflasnapper
09-03-2011, 01:16 PM
I now add 'rabid' to the list of words you appear to misunderstand and use wholly incorrectly.

My remarks could not have been milder.

LWW
09-03-2011, 01:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I now add 'rabid' to the list of words you appear to misunderstand and use wholly incorrectly.

My remarks could not have been milder. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">rab·id   [rab-id] Show IPA
adjective
1. <u><span style='font-size: 11pt'>irrationally extreme in opinion or practice: a rabid isolationist; a rabid baseball fan.</span></u>

2. furious or raging; violently intense: a rabid hunger.

3. affected with or pertaining to rabies; mad. </div></div>

Perhaps you might consider adding a good DICTIONARY (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rabid) to your favorites list?

Soflasnapper
09-03-2011, 02:43 PM
Right. And perhaps you could stop seeing yourself in the mirror and attributing your own visage and discussion demeanor to others?

Let's break it down, and see if I fit that description more aptly than you do. Starting with your Mr. 20,000 title, so avidly sought and advertised. Freak.

LWW
09-08-2011, 03:56 AM
PROHIBITED (http://www.gallup.com/poll/125066/State-States.aspx)

PROHIBITED (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-uninsured-have-increased-under-ob)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>The percentage of American adults who lack health insurance coverage has not only increased during the presidency of Barack Obama, but it has continued to increase since Obama signed his signature piece of legislation last year mandating that by 2014 every American carry health insurance, according to a Gallup survey released today.</span>

In 2008, when George W. Bush was president, according to Gallup, 14.9 percent of adult residents of the United States lacked health insurance coverage. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>That increased to 16.2 percent in 2009, the year that Obama was inaugurated, and to 16.4 percent in 2010</span>, the year that Obama signed his law requiring that all Americans have health insurance.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>In the first half of this year, according to data released by Gallup today, the percentage of adults in the United States lacking health insurance ticked up to 16.8 percent.</span>

That conclusion is based on Gallup's interviews with 177,237 American adults from January through June of this year. The interviews were part of the ongoing Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index survey. </div></div>

Soflasnapper
09-08-2011, 10:57 AM
I have no idea how Gallup surveys stack up to real life figures, as those taken with a sample size of everyone in the Census.

But census data revealed these numbers for these years for those without health care insurance:

2001 (recession year)...14.9%
2004...15.6%
2005...15.9%
Here. (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=628)

And then:

2008...15.4%
2009...16.7%

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The number of people without health insurance rose by 4.3 million in 2009, to a total of 50.7 million, while the percentage of people who are uninsured rose from 15.4 percent to 16.7 percent. These are the largest single-year increases on record in data going back to 1987. link (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3294) </div></div>

Gallup has it a little different.

2009...16.2%
2010...16.4%
2011...16.8%

Note, comparing these two sets of figures, by census numbers, using Gallup's last number for this partial year so far, 2011 not being over yet, the uninsured percentage only rose from 16.7% to 16.8% in these two very bad years.

That is far less than the 1.3% it rose in '09 alone, using the larger data base of the census.

Obviously, the methodologies are different, so the numbers are not strictly comparable. The lesson remains, however, that in bad economic times, the number of uninsured rises and their percentage of the whole population increases as well. This is not news. The lesson would also be that in mediocre economic times, as during the recovery period from the '01 recession in the following number of years, the rate was still rising in '04 to '05. Generally, the rate always rises, except in prolonged good economies.

Evidently, the question is why could that still be occurring if the ACA is in place? Because ACA addresses the situation of the uninsured only as of its full implementation in '13, this is not much of a question. It hasn't taken effect at this point with regard to handling uninsured persons.

LWW
09-08-2011, 03:58 PM
The answer is simple.

The link you propose as valid has been proven to be bogus countless times.

To arrive at their horrendous number they included illegals and people who chose not to pay for insurance through their employer.

As with all things left ... change a definition and make a ridiculous claim knowing that most will never check it out.

LWW
09-15-2011, 09:12 AM
PROHIBITED! (http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

Best regards,
Ivar Giaever
Nobel Laureate 1973
PS. I included a copy to a few people in case they feel like using the information.</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears.</span> ...

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Giaever was one of President Obama's key scientific supporters in 2008. Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorse Obama</span> in an October 29, 2008 open letter. In addition to Giaever ...

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Giaever was also one of more than 100 co-signers in a March 30, 2009 letter to President Obama that was critical of his stance on global warming.</span> ...

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Giaever is featured on page 89 of the 321 page of Climate Depot's more than 1000 dissenting scientist report (updated from U.S. Senate Report). Dr. Giaever was quoted declaring himself a man-made global warming dissenter. “I am a skeptic...Global warming has become a new religion,”</span> ...

Giaever explained. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>“Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,”</span> he concluded. ...

This is not the first climate induced headache for the American Physical Society. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>It's strict adherence to man-made global warming beliefs has created a stir in the scientific community and let to an open revolt of its scientific members.
On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group's climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.”</span> An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.

In October 2010, the APS suffered more scientific woes when another one of its prominent physicists resigned. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>The late Physicist Hal Lewis, who died in May of 2011, excoriated the APS leadership for its strict dogmatic like adherence to man-made global warming beliefs.</span> ...</div></div>

LWW
09-15-2011, 09:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">since President Obama did not want me to know that, I thought it best not to read the post which contained that. I support my President and his wishes!! </div></div>

Soflasnapper
09-15-2011, 11:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The answer is simple.

The link you propose as valid has been proven to be bogus countless times.

To arrive at their horrendous number they included illegals and people who chose not to pay for insurance through their employer.

As with all things left ... change a definition and make a ridiculous claim knowing that most will never check it out. </div></div>

I have never seen any evidence, let alone proof, that CBPP is an unreliable reporter on their economic data. Their data comes from the government.

Their numbers which you call 'horrendous' are only a couple of tenths of percentage points different from numbers you presumably back as accurate, which must also then be horrendous.

This is a better than average [non-]'rebuttal' from you because it has the form of an argument. But that just shows how bad the average one from you is. Because this is nothing but ad hominem ('the SITE is the problem, it is completely bogus!!!'), and unfounded claims about their methodology that you cannot back up.

BTW, what is GALLUP'S methodology on these questions? I looked over there, but they've left out one of the key parts of 'polling': the MARGIN OF ERROR.

It's common, and I generally expect to see margins of +/- 3% in polls. If the MOE is anything CLOSE to this in the Gallup polling you've cited, then it's not even possible to claim any difference as to the couple of tenths of percent difference in the reported figures, as that would be well within the margin of error.

Soflasnapper
09-15-2011, 11:38 AM
Re: Giaever's resignation

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Giaever added. "I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around.</div></div>

Yes, he is becoming an old man, and older now than that quote. He's 82 and thinks warming might not be all bad, considering he lives in Norway. He remembers old scary claims which didn't turn out so bad, but he evidently does not remember that a lot of money and effort went into curbing acid rain, and reducing CFCs and other aerosols. Acid rain was addressed by a cap and trade regime, ironically.

He had no evident problem with belonging to this organization until NOW, even though their position has been the same. The problem NOW? One word. 'Incontrovertible.'

Which probably does overstate the case.

But Arthur C. Clarke made this observation: when an older prestigious scientist says a new-fangled idea is bunk, it is often a mistaken judgment, and so they should not necessarily be believed. When an older prestigious scientist says a new-fangled idea has merit, they should be believed. Why? Because that is how things have turned out, over and over again.

LWW
09-15-2011, 04:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He's 82 and thinks warming might not be all bad</div></div>

What makes you think that it would be?

Soflasnapper
09-16-2011, 04:35 PM
It won't be all bad.

It will partially be good.

However, the bad will so far outweigh the good for those who aren't nicely warmed up close to the Arctic Circle that on a net basis, it will be bad, and quite bad at that.

So bad, that the Defense Dept. report on future problems says it will cause sufficient global results to be as bad a problem, or on the scale of, WW II and the Great Depression. You know, bad?

cushioncrawler
09-16-2011, 05:19 PM
STUPID. Remember that many scientists are stupid many are liars many beleev in God.

SKEPTIX. I like reading the scientifik arguements gainst GW and gainst the gainst. An important issue needs to be kept very honest. So in a way i might sort of agree with that silly old prick.


LOGIK OF ALARM. But i suspekt that sillyoldprick iz making an error of logik. If i told sillyoldprick that a 7' puertorican poofta woz kreeping up behind sillyoldprick in the dark i bet sillyoldprick would run -- why -- better safe than sorry -- a sore arse being more important than a dead earth it seems.
But praps sillyoldprick understands the logik of alarm, but nonetheless iz unhappy with the treatment of science skeptix, in which case i might agree (but i doubt it).
mac.

cushioncrawler
09-16-2011, 05:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It won't be all bad. It will partially be good. However, the bad will so far outweigh the good for those who aren't nicely warmed up close to the Arctic Circle that on a net basis, it will be bad, and quite bad at that. So bad, that the Defense Dept. report on future problems says it will cause sufficient global results to be as bad a problem, or on the scale of, WW II and the Great Depression. You know, bad?</div></div>I doubt that the Defense Dept cares much about defending the earth. And hencely they probly dont know much about defending the earth.
mac.

cushioncrawler
09-16-2011, 06:15 PM
".....In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period......"

The sillyoldprick beleevs that health and happyness hav definitely improoved. Sillyoldprick. What planet iz he on???

I doubt that h&h during the past 150yrs iz an arguement anyhow one way or the other. What iz at stake iz future h&h. In fakt future h&h of humans iz not (shood not) be the issue, mother nature shood be the issue. Sillyoldprick.

Oh, yes, he did say "definitely". Sillyoldprick.
Oxford.
Definitely = certainly = without doubt.
Incontrovertible = indubitable = without doubt.
mac.

cushioncrawler
09-16-2011, 06:32 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsaTElBljOE

cushioncrawler
09-17-2011, 07:17 AM
Over 70 Nobel Science Laureates Endorse Obama
Sam Gustin writes: It's no secret that, to many of his critics, George W. Bush hasn't exactly been the "science and technology president."

From stem-cell research to global warming to evolution, Bush and his allies have displayed a decidedly anti-science attitude, according to critics. Moreover, faced with the energy crisis, Bush and his allies have refused to make major investments in the technology needed to wean our country off fossil fuels and move to an economy powered by renewable energy sources.

For many in the tech world, Bush has been particularly disappointing, because scientific research has always been at the heart of America's technology leadership. From the advent of electricity to birth of the telegraph to the first microchips and microprocessors, and finally, to the internet, scientific research and development has powered the technological innovation that has made America the wealthiest, most advanced economy in the world.

Justifiably or not, many in science and technology circles believe that John McCain would not diverge from what they view as Bush's anti-science policies.

That may explain why over 70 Nobel Laureates in science have endorsed Barack Obama for president, including all three American Nobel Laureates in science for 2008: Martin Chalfie of Columbia University and Roger Tsien of the University of California at San Diego who shared the prize in Chemistry, and Yoichiro Nambu, of the University of Chicago, who won the prize in Physics.

"We have watched Senator Obama's approach to these issues with admiration," the group said is a statement released late Tuesday. "We especially applaud his emphasis during the campaign on the power of science and technology to enhance our nation's competitiveness. In particular, we support the measures he plans to take -- through new initiatives in education and training, expanded research funding, an unbiased process for obtaining scientific advice, and an appropriate balance of basic and applied research -- to meet the nation's and the world's most urgent needs."

The complete statement below:

FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC FROM 70 AMERICAN NOBEL LAUREATE SCIENTISTS

An Open Letter to the American People

This year's presidential election is among the most significant in our nation's history. The country urgently needs a visionary leader who can ensure the future of our traditional strengths in science and technology and who can harness those strengths to address many of our greatest problems: energy, disease, climate change, security, and economic competitiveness.

We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.

During the administration of George W. Bush, vital parts of our country's scientific enterprise have been damaged by stagnant or declining federal support. The government's scientific advisory process has been distorted by political considerations. As a result, our once dominant position in the scientific world has been shaken and our prosperity has been placed at risk. We have lost time critical for the development of new ways to provide energy, treat disease, reverse climate change, strengthen our security, and improve our economy.

We have watched Senator Obama's approach to these issues with admiration. We especially applaud his emphasis during the campaign on the power of science and technology to enhance our nation's competitiveness. In particular, we support the measures he plans to take -- through new initiatives in education and training, expanded research funding, an unbiased process for obtaining scientific advice, and an appropriate balance of basic and applied research -- to meet the nation's and the world's most urgent needs.

Senator Obama understands that Presidential leadership and federal investments in science and technology are crucial elements in successful governance of the world's leading country. We hope you will join us as we work together to ensure his election in November.

Signed,

Alexei Abrikosov, Physics, 2003 Leland H. Hartwell, Medicine, 2001

Peter Agre, Chemistry, 2003 Herbert Hauptman, Chemistry, 1985

Sidney Altman, Chemistry, 1989 Dudley Herschbach, Chemistry, 1986

Philip W. Anderson, Physics, 1977 Roald Hoffmann, Chemistry, 1981

Richard Axel, Medicine, 2004 H. Robert Horvitz, Medicine, 2002

David Baltimore, Medicine, 1975 Louis Ignarro, Medicine, 1998

Baruj Benacerraf, Medicine, 1980 Eric R. Kandel, Medicine, 2000

Paul Berg, Chemistry, 1980 Har Gobind Khorana, Medicine, 1968

Günter Blobel, Medicine, 1999 Walter Kohn, Chemistry, 1998

J. Michael Bishop, Medicine, 1989 Roger Kornberg, Chemistry, 2006

N. Bloembergen, Physics, 1981 Leon M. Lederman, Physics, 1988

Michael S. Brown, Medicine, 1985 Anthony Leggett, Physics, 2003

Linda B. Buck, Medicine, 2004 Roderick MacKinnon, Chemistry, 2003

Mario R. Capecchi, Medicine, 2007 Craig C. Mello, Medicine, 2006

Martin Chalfie, Chemistry, 2008 Kary Mullis, Chemistry, 1993

Stanley Cohen, Medicine, 1986 Yoichiro Nambu, Physics, 2008

Leon Cooper, Physics, 1972 Marshall Nirenberg, Medicine, 1968

James W. Cronin, Physics, 1980 Douglas D. Osheroff, Physics, 1996

Robert F. Curl, Chemistry, 1996 Martin Perl, Physics 1995

Johann Diesenhofer, Chemistry, 1988 Stanley B. Prusiner, Medicine, 1997

John B. Fenn, Chemistry, 2002 Norman F. Ramsey, Physics, 1989

Edmond H. Fischer, Medicine, 1992 Robert Richardson, Physics, 1996

Val Fitch, Physics, 1980 Burton Richter, Physics, 1976

Jerome I. Friedman, Physics, 1990 Irwin Rose, Medicine, 1968

Murray Gell-Mann, Physics, 1969 Sherwood Rowland, Chemistry, 1995

Riccardo Giacconi, Physics, 2002 Richard R Schrock Chemistry 2005

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Ivar Giaever </span>Physics 1973 Oliver Smithies, Medicine, 2007

Walter Gilbert, Chemistry, 1980 George Smoot Physics 2006

Alfred G. Gilman, Medicine, 1994 Joseph H. Taylor Jr., Physics, 1993

Donald A. Glaser, Physics, 1960 E. Donnall Thomas, Medicine, 1990

Sheldon L. Glashow, Physics, 1979 Charles H. Townes, Physics, 1964

Roy Glauber Physics 2005 Roger Tsien, Chemistry, 2008

Joseph Goldstein, Medicine, 1985 Daniel C.Tsui, Physics, 1998

Paul Greengard, Medicine, 2000 Harold Varmus, Medicine, 1989

David Gross, Physics, 2004 James D. Watson, Medicine, 1962

Robert H. Grubbs, Chemistry, 2005 Eric Wieschaus, Medicine, 1995

Roger Guillemin, Medicine, 1977 Frank Wilczek, Physics, 2004

John L. Hall, Physics, 2005 Robert W. Wilson, Physics, 1978

The views expressed in this letter represent those of the signers acting as individual citizens. They do not necessarily represent the views of the institutions with which they are affiliated. The Medicine award is for "Physiology or Medicine."


Read more: http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/the.../#ixzz1YDPExdzn (http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/the-tech-observer/2008/10/29/over-70-nobel-science-laureates-endorse-obama/#ixzz1YDPExdzn)

cushioncrawler
09-17-2011, 07:30 AM
National Policy
07.1 CLIMATE CHANGE(Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007)

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth's climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

cushioncrawler
09-17-2011, 07:31 AM
Climate Change Commentary
(adopted by Council on April 18, 2010)

There is a substantial body of peer reviewed scientific research to support the technical aspects of the 2007 APS statement. The purpose of the following commentary is to provide clarification and additional details.

The first sentence of the APS statement is broadly supported by observational data, physical principles, and global climate models. Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years). Historical records indicate that the Earth's climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the sun's radiative output, changes in Earth's orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects. While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century. Warming is observed in land-surface temperatures, sea-surface temperatures, and for the last 30 years, lower-atmosphere temperatures measured by satellite. The second sentence is a definition that should explicitly include water vapor. The third sentence notes various examples of human contributions to greenhouses gases. There are, of course, natural sources as well.

The evidence for global temperature rise over the last century is compelling. However, the word "incontrovertible" in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 2007 APS statement is rarely used in science because by its very nature science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century. (Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html)

The second sentence in the second paragraph states that without mitigating actions significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and health are likely. Such predicted disruptions are based on direct measurements (e.g., ocean acidification, rising sea levels, etc.), on the study of past climate change phenomena, and on climate models. Climate models calculate the effects of natural and anthropogenic changes on the ecosphere, such as doubling of the CO2-equivalent [1] concentration relative to its pre-industrial value by the year 2100. These models have uncertainties associated with radiative response functions, especially clouds and water vapor. However, the models show that water vapor has a net positive feedback effect (in addition to CO2 and other gases) on global temperatures. The impact of clouds is less certain because of their dual role as scatterers of incoming solar radiation and as greenhouse contributors. The uncertainty in the net effect of human activity on climate is reflected in the broad distribution of the predicted magnitude of the consequence of doubling of the CO2-equivalent concentration. The uncertainty in the estimates from various climate models for doubling CO2-equivalent concentration is in the range of 1 °C to 3 °C with the probability distributions having long tails out to much larger temperature changes.

The last sentence in the second paragraph articulates an immediate policy action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to deal with the possible catastrophic outcomes that could accompany large global temperature increases. Even with the uncertainties in the models, it is increasingly difficult to rule out that non-negligible increases in global temperature are a consequence of rising anthropogenic CO2. Thus given the significant risks associated with global climate change, prudent steps should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now while continuing to improve the observational data and the model predictions.

The third paragraph, first sentence, recommends an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on Earth's climate. This sentence should be interpreted broadly and more specifically: an enhanced effort is needed to understand both anthropogenic processes and the natural cycles that affect the Earth's climate. Improving the scientific understanding of all climate feedbacks is critical to reducing the uncertainty in modeling the consequences of doubling the CO2-equivalent concentration. In addition, more extensive and more accurate scientific measurements are needed to test the validity of climate models to increase confidence in their projections.

With regard to the last sentence of the APS statement, the role of physicists is not just "...to support policies and actions..." but also to participate actively in the research itself. Physicists can contribute in significant ways to understanding the physical processes underlying climate and to developing technological options for addressing and mitigating climate change.

cushioncrawler
09-17-2011, 07:38 AM
And then we hav the contribution of a sillyoldprick who haz no climate credentials and no peer reviewed climate science input.
mac.

........... Giaever explained. “Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,” he concluded...........

cushioncrawler
09-17-2011, 08:15 AM
“Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.”
— PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, NOVEMBER 19 , 2008


We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.


•Yun Akusofu, Ph.D University Of Alaska
•Arthur G. Anderson, Ph.D, Director Of Research, IBM (retired)
•Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D Anderson Materials Evaluation
•J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D, University Of Pennsylvania
•Robert Ashworth, Clearstack LLC
•Ismail Baht, Ph.D, University Of Kashmir
•Colin Barton Csiro (retired)
•David J. Bellamy, OBE, The British Natural Association
•John Blaylock, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired)
•Edward F. Blick, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma (emeritus)
•Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D, University Of Hull
•Bob Breck Ams, Broadcaster Of The Year 2008
•John Brignell, University Of Southampton (emeritus)
•Mark Campbell, Ph.D, U.S. Naval Academy
•Robert M. Carter, Ph.D, James Cook University
•Ian Clark, Ph.D, Professor, Earth Sciences University Of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
•Roger Cohen, Ph.D Fellow, American Physical Society
•Paul Copper, Ph.D, Laurentian University (emeritus)
•Piers Corbyn, MS, Weather Action
•Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
•Uberto Crescenti, Ph.D Past-President, Italian Geological Society
•Susan Crockford, Ph.D University Of Victoria
•Joseph S. D’aleo, Fellow, American Meteorological Society
•James Demeo, Ph.D, University Of Kansas (retired)
•David Deming, Ph.D, University Of Oklahoma
•Diane Douglas, Ph.D, Paleoclimatologist
•David Douglass, Ph.D, University Of Rochester
•Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Emeritus, Professor Of Energy Conversion The Ohio State University
•Christopher Essex, Ph.D, University Of Western Ontario
•John Ferguson, Ph.D, University Of Newcastle
•Upon Tyne (retired)
•Eduardo Ferreyra, Argentinian Foundation For A Scientific Ecology
•Michael Fox, Ph.D, American Nuclear Society
•Gordon Fulks, Ph.D, Gordon Fulks And Associates
•Lee Gerhard, Ph.D, State Geologist, Kansas (retired)
•Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D, Technische Universitat Braunschweig
•Ivar Giaever, Ph.D, Nobel Laureate, Physics
•Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D, Scientific Director, Inttas (Paraguay)
•Wayne Goodfellow, Ph.D, University Of Ottawa
•James Goodridge, California State Climatologist (retired)
•Laurence Gould, Ph.D, University Of Hartford
•Vincent Gray, Ph.D, New Zealand Climate Coalition
•William M. Gray, Ph.D, Colorado State University
•Kenneth E. Green, D.Env., American Enterprise Institute
•Kesten Green, Ph.D, Monash University
•Will Happer, Ph.D, Princeton University
•Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D, University Of Connecticut (emeritus)
•Ben Herman, Ph.D, University Of Arizona (emeritus)
•Martin Hertzberg, Ph.D, U.S. Navy (retired)
•Doug Hoffman, Ph.D, Author, The Resilient Earth
•Bernd Huettner, Ph.D
•Ole Humlum, Ph.D, University Of Oslo
•A. Neil Hutton, Past President, Canadian Society Of Petroleum Geologists
•Craig D. Idso, Ph.D, Center For The Study Of Carbon Dioxide And Global Change
•Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Agriculture (retired)
•Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D, Yokohama National University
•Steve Japar, Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
•Sten Kaijser, Ph.D, Uppsala University (emeritus)
•Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D, University Of Stockholm (emeritus)
•Joel Kauffman, Ph.D, University Of The Sciences, Philadelphia (emeritus)
•David Kear, Ph.D, Former Director-General, Nz Dept. Scientific And Industrial Research
•Richard Keen, Ph.D, University Of Colorado
•Dr. Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D, Lifetime Achievers Award, National Science And Technology Forum, South Africa
•Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D, Former Editor, Climate Research
•Robert S. Knox, Ph.D, University Of Rochester (emeritus)
•James P. Koermer, Ph.D, Plymouth State University
•Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D, University Of Alaska Fairbanks
•Wayne Kraus, Ph.D, Kraus Consulting
•Olav M. Kvalheim, Ph.D, Univ. Of Bergen
•Roar Larson, Ph.D, Norwegian University Of Science And Technology
•James F. Lea, Ph.D
•Douglas Leahy, Ph.D, Meteorologist
•Peter R. Leavitt, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
•David R. Legates, Ph.D, University of Delaware
•Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology
•Harry F. Lins, Ph.D. Co-Chair, IPCC Hydrology and Water Resources Working Group
•Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D, University Of Missouri
•Howard Maccabee, Ph.D, MD Clinical Faculty, Stanford Medical School
•Horst Malberg, Ph.D, Free University of Berlin
•Bjorn Malmgren, Ph.D, Goteburg University (emeritus)
•Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D, Australian Environment Foundation
•James A Marusek, U.S. Navy (retired)
•Ross Mckitrick, Ph.D, University Of Guelph
•Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D, University Of Virginia
•Timmothy R. Minnich, MS, Minnich And Scotto, Inc.
•Asmunn Moene, Ph.D, Former Head, Forecasting Center, Meteorological Institute, Norway
•Michael Monce, Ph.D, Connecticut College
•Dick Morgan, Ph.D, Exeter University (emeritus)
•Nils-axel Morner, Ph.D, Stockholm University (emeritus)
•David Nowell, D.I.C., Former Chairman, Nato Meteorology Canada
•Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., University Of Western Australia
•Garth W. Paltridge, Ph.D, University Of Tasmania
•Alfred Peckarek, Ph.D, St. Cloud State University
•Dr. Robert A. Perkins, P.E. University Of Alaska
•Ian Pilmer, Ph.D, University Of Melbourne (emeritus)
•Brian R. Pratt, Ph.D, University Of Saskatchewan
•John Reinhard, Ph.D, Ore Pharmaceuticals
•Peter Ridd, Ph.D, James Cook University
•Curt Rose, Ph.D, Bishop’s University (emeritus)
•Peter Salonius, M.Sc., Canadian Forest Service
•Gary Sharp, Ph.D, Center For Climate/Ocean Resources Study
•Thomas P. Sheahan, Ph.D, Western Technologies, Inc.
•Alan Simmons, Author, The Resilient Earth
•Roy N. Spencer, Ph.D, University Of Alabama-Huntsville
•Arlin Super, Ph.D, Retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Dept. Of Reclamation
•George H. Taylor,MS, Applied Climate Services
•Eduardo P. Tonni, Ph.D, Museo De La Plata (Argentina)
•Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D
•Dr. Anton Uriarte,Ph.D, Universidad Del Pais Vasco
•Brian Valentine, Ph.D, U.S. Department Of Energy
•Gosta Walin, Ph.D, University Of Gothenburg (emeritus)
•Gerd-Rainer Weber,Ph.D, Reviewer, Intergovernmenal Panel On Climate Change
•Forese-Carlo Wezel, Ph.D, Urbino University
•Edward T. Wimberley, Ph.D, Florida Gulf Coast University
•Miklos Zagoni,Ph.D Reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
•Antonio Zichichi,Ph.D President, World Federation Of Scientists

Soflasnapper
09-20-2011, 02:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It won't be all bad. It will partially be good. However, the bad will so far outweigh the good for those who aren't nicely warmed up close to the Arctic Circle that on a net basis, it will be bad, and quite bad at that. So bad, that the Defense Dept. report on future problems says it will cause sufficient global results to be as bad a problem, or on the scale of, WW II and the Great Depression. You know, bad?</div></div>I doubt that the Defense Dept cares much about defending the earth. And hencely they probly dont know much about defending the earth.
mac. </div></div>

True. Their concern is regarding the international upheavals, as huge areas of the globe suffer food and water shortages, and various weather disasters, that will threaten geopolitical stability.

LWW
09-20-2011, 04:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">True. Their concern is regarding the international upheavals, as huge areas of the globe suffer food and water shortages, and various weather disasters, that will threaten geopolitical stability. </div></div>

And on what do you base this?

Soflasnapper
09-20-2011, 06:32 PM
Reading a summary gloss of the Pentagon's report. It was in the news at the time, or thereafter, in '04.

Results page for 'pentagon global warming' (http://www.google.com/search?q=pentagon+global+warming&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)