Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

See funds used wisely

June 25, 2013

Would you donate to a charity that supports people’s outings to strip clubs and casinos? How about a charity that pays for people’s tobacco and alcohol purchases? Those types of expenses currently......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(39)

drugsrus

Jun-26-13 3:11 PM

Hill, this may come as a shock to you so prepare yourself.

There is nothing that humans can do, short of a nuclear holocaust, that will affect mother Earth. And your buddy Barry says he will work with anybody who agrees with him to get climate legislation passed. REALLY???? Then who do we blame for hurricane and tornado destruction ??? Somebody should be held accountable when it rains on my parade.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Jun-26-13 3:09 PM

Please note, that looking at 150 years of the life of the earth is comparable to looking at 1 second of the average humans life. The average Human lives 75 years or 2,365,200,000 seconds; the earth is 4,500,000,000 years old. This is what the Alarmist are doing. They need to broaden their view and look big picture. Imagine trying to determine ones health in 1 second. To determine the health of the earth you need 2,000 years of data.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Jun-26-13 2:37 PM

"Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year."

Yet, temperatures have not risen in concert with CO2 increases. In fact, CO2 increases lag Temperature increases by about 800 years.

Also, if one looks at the Vostok ice core data and overlays temp and CO2 you will see large periods of time where they are going in opposite directions. There are hundreds of inputs that affect global climate - CO2 is but one tiny part. In fact, CO2 is responsible for about 3% of the Greenhouse effect.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Jun-26-13 2:06 PM

There are a couple of things here, one is that any data can be skewed to make your point, no matter what side you are on. No one can say with certainty what our weather will be in 20 minutes, how can they even dream of predicting it years down the road. I have read a lot of the information on global "change" there is plenty of information on BOTH sides to make an argument... I however do not believe that humans control anything in the entire universe. NOTHING! And it helps to have a calming voice telling us " "We don't have time for a meeting of the flat-Earth society," Obama said. "Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it's not going to protect you from the coming storm."

I'd like to something to protect us from HIM!

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hilltopper

Jun-26-13 1:02 PM

"Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year." A hoax?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hilltopper

Jun-26-13 12:55 PM

"Also, understand it is in the best interest of the DOE to perpetuate the hoax." Being one always looking for a conspiracy theory, you could say the same thing about the fossil fuel interests.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Jun-26-13 12:40 PM

Also, we can correlate that CO2 and Temperature rise and fall together. This does not show causality. Think about this. The magnetic poles are currently moving at about 40 miles per year. So in 1,000 years they will have moved about 4,000 miles. That will move the magnetic poles almost to the equator. This will affect the cosmic rays that hit the earth and will have a dramatic affect on climate. What if it is the location of the magnetic poles that really drives climate?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Jun-26-13 12:34 PM

Well Hill, let us go back a little farther. About 65 million years ago (at the time of the Toba super Volcano Eruption) CO2 levels were around 1,000 ppm. And if we go back 550 million years (of the 4.5 billion of earth's existence) we see levels of 7,000 ppm.

Climate scientist cannot explain these natural variations.

Also, understand that Vostok data from 450,000 years ago is cut into 3 inch slices for analysis and covers a period of about 500 years. Average the values for the last 500 years and we will be done around 290ppm.

Also, understand it is in the best interest of the DOE to perpetuate the hoax.

hxxp://www[dot]abovetopsecret[dot]com/forum/thread655148/pg1

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hilltopper

Jun-26-13 11:53 AM

DOE - Oak Ridge National Laboratory "Over the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels as indicated by the ice-core data have fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponding with conditions of glacial and interglacial periods. The Vostok core indicates very similar trends. Prior to about 450,000 years before present time (BP) atmospheric CO2 levels were always at or below 260 ppmv and reached lowest values, approaching 170 ppmv, between 660,000 and 670,000 years ago. The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year."

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Jun-26-13 11:00 AM

...and who do you think subsidizes the farmers in those rural areas?

The same people who dictate price controls, working conditions, and wages/benefits.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Jun-26-13 10:58 AM

Once again, we have a very complex system that is simplified to one variable by the leftist in an effort to support a cause. They do they while ignoring science that is inconvenient to their cause and supports the truth.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Jun-26-13 10:57 AM

Ahh yes, the fictitious acid rain. I actually tested the rain water and water in the lakes and streams about 20 years ago. What I found was the ph level was a perfect 7.0 - NO ACID.

To understand the acid problem one has to understand the many sources of the acid. In a closed system like an aquarium fish produce ammonia, this is converted to Nitrite (toxic acid), then Nitrate (non-toxic) by bacteria. The Nitrate is absorbed by plant life. This same thing occurs in nature. Lacking enough water flow or having an imbalance in the water will allow acid levels to rise. Another contributing factor is decaying debris on the forest floor and the amount of nutrients absorbed by the forest growth. Mature forest use less nutrients than young forests. Hence the nutrient runoff into the lakes around mature forests will cause acid levels to rise.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hilltopper

Jun-26-13 10:39 AM

It "was" a REAL problem with fossil fuel burning plants in the past, or it still "is" a problem with fossil fuel burning plants?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Jun-26-13 10:22 AM

Can I jump in?.... The answer, I think Hill, was fossil fuel burning power plants in the mid-west. But that was a REAL problem with a REAL solution and measurable results like Silver Lake. Since eliminating carbon dioxide would also require deforestation of the entire planet and killing all oxygen breathers, eliminating man-made co2 would require humans STOP BREATHING. So all of you who really believe humans are the problem, stop breathing in 3...2...1. The rest of us will clean up the mess.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hilltopper

Jun-26-13 9:52 AM

Scarecrow: What caused many lakes in the Adirondaks to go "dead", such as Silver Lake which produced a state record brookie? The LH said it was void of aquatic life until re-stocked? Acid rain is a farce made up by Liberal-Democrats? Why has the DEC issued warnings on the consumption of fish from most lakes up north?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Jun-26-13 8:22 AM

continued - that is a greenhouse gas. How ironic the left said we had to increase levels of a greenhouse gas. Now according to the Oak Ridge National Labs mankind produces about 5.7 GT of CO2 from burning fossil fuels. The earth generates between 190 GT and 230 GT. So mankind produces roughly 2.5% of all CO2 and 0.0025% of all Greenhouse gases. Please explain ow such a minuscule amount will have this great influence.

Bottom line, we don't know enough about climate. What BO is proposing is fighting a fire without the knowledge to do so. How do we know we aren't throwing water on a grease fire?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Jun-26-13 8:18 AM

Sorry Hilltopper - Yo got me going on something I really understand - Alarmist make the claim that CO2 levels are rising faster than ever before. However, they cannot accurately make that claim. To be accurate you would have to compare this inter glacial to the previous ones. The only data we have to do that is once again the ice core data. If you examine the data from previous inter-glacials you will see the time slices are 200 to 500 ears in length. The time slices get longer the deeper they go because of the compaction of the ice. What that means is you need to look at the last 500 years and put that into a single value.

Next consider this. Water Vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas making up 95% of all greenhouse gases. Not only is there more water, but it is also better at reflecting Infra red radiation. It covers a larger part of the IR spectrum and at higher intensities. CO2 makes up just 4% of the green house gases. And remember Ozone, the stuff we had to save,

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Jun-26-13 8:12 AM

Now on to the fallacy of Anthropegenic (man made) climate change. Let me start with I have a degree in electrical engineering, so I know a little about science and data analysis. We are told that increased levels of CO2 cause the climate to warm, as a skeptic I say it isn't that simple there is far more to it. Which brings me to the irony part. CO2 levels have risen for the last 15 years, yet global temperatures have remained constant or may have even dropped a little. When this is pointed out the alarmist state "Climate is more complex than that" We simply do not know enough about the climate to say carbon emissions are the cause.

More facts.

According to the Vostok Ice Core data there is a very distinct 125,000 year cycle between glacial and inter-glacial periods. Not one person can explain what causes this oscillation. There is also no reason not to believe that the next ice age is imminent - next 5,000 years or so.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scarecrow57

Jun-26-13 8:00 AM

Oh Hill - off topic, but you asked for it. The voting change obstruction act was just a way for the feds to exercise undue influence over the states. Why should NYS be able to change voting districts and voting procedures without federal approval but not other states. We call this fairness and equal treatment.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Jun-25-13 10:12 PM

As the Washington Examiner's Philip Klein recently reported: "Under Obamacare, businesses with over 50 workers that employ American citizens without offering them qualifying health insurance could be subject to fines of up to $3,000 per worker. But because newly legalized immigrants wouldn’t be eligible for subsidies on the Obamacare exchanges until after they become citizens – at least 13 years under the Senate bill – businesses could avoid such fines by hiring the new immigrants instead."

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Jun-25-13 10:01 PM

Last thing that I knew Hill, this was a republic, not a dictatorship. Obama is continuing to overwhelm us with his lack of brilliance leading us on to yet another huge mistake! The O has to go!

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Jun-25-13 7:19 PM

Regarding the SC Voting Rights decision, at least now States can purge the voter rolls of the deceased voters who regularly vote the Democrat ticket every time there's an election. Bad for progressives, good for America.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Jun-25-13 6:58 PM

Actually, the premise of this article bothers me so I'll throw out a non sequitur. Basically, would you be offended or upset if your DONATIONS were squandered? You bet. However, this crap is not a donation...its CONFISCATION pure and simple; you don't go to jail for not donating but you sure as H@ll will for not letting your money be confiscated.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Jun-25-13 6:45 PM

Rs, of course I'm too extreme for you. It delights me to no end to have you admit that. On the other hand, most people are not phoneys and/or rabidly extreme progressives either. So, there you are.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Hilltopper

Jun-25-13 6:32 PM

In the next few days we’ll see an editorial applauding the Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and an editorial from the woodchucks in WV highly critical of O's decision on new regulations to control carbon emissions from the coal burning plants.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 39 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web