|
|
On October 15 2012 05:10 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 05:04 xDaunt wrote:
If anyone deserves blame for the housing bubble, it is all of the democrats who pushed the subprime market by encouraging mortgagors to give loans to unqualified homeowners. So if I encouraged you to jump off a bridge would I be blamed for your death? Same logic right? The only people to blame for the mortage crisis are the companies and banks giving the loans. No one held a gun to their head and they are responsible for their own decisions.
You may want to read about what congress did with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
|
On October 15 2012 01:58 DoubleReed wrote:I have no idea what you're talking about with the White House distancing itself from the Cairo embassy's apologies. Are you talking about this? Because that's a lie.
lol. from your own source:
The White House was also distancing itself from the Cairo statement, first according to POLITICO on the night of Sept. 11 and then reiterating it the next morning. "An administration official tells ABC News that ‘no one in Washington approved that statement before it was released and it doesn’t reflect the views of the U.S. government,’" ABC News reported.
so Ryan is the liar... huh?
I'll give you the Iran 2009 thing, fine. Although Obama toughened the talk when it became more clear how severe the human rights violations were.
toughened the talk huh? well, I'm so glad that he decided to toughen his talk. we all know that tough talk does so much to help people who are being shot.
Hillary Clinton said that members of both parties in Congress said that Syria's dictator was a 'reformer'. The Obama Administration didn't say that at all. That's a lie.
the State Dept. is part of the administration... http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-fact-check-syria-debate-20121011,0,7974752.story
The Obama Administration is not projecting weakness. I have no idea what you're talking about. Making "cuts" to the military that the military itself asked for is not weakness.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/14/dempsey-worried-about-potential-half-trillion-in-cuts-to-defense-budget/
Imposing the toughest sanctions on Iran (I heard the rial is doing pretty good nowadays) is not projecting weakness. Gathering your allies back from the idiotic Bush Administration is not weakness.
"toughest" sanctions... that aren't working. http://www.cnbc.com/id/48048870/Are_US_Sanctions_Against_Iran_Working
which allies have been "gathered back"?
That is also a lie.
what's funny is that you've yet to tell the truth.
What lies about funding the Iraq/Afghan wars?
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/12/live_fact_check_vp_debate/
10:05 — Biden forgets he voted for Iraq war: Biden hits Ryan on spending by saying the congressman voted ”to put two wars on a credit card.” But Biden also vote to authorize the war in Iraq, and voted to give Bush “all necessary and appropriate force” to respond to the terror attacks, which led to war in Afghanistan.
|
If you think Mitt "Russia is America's number one geopolitical foe" Romney will be good for American foreign policy you have another thing coming (and that thing is probably yet another war).
|
On October 15 2012 05:31 Infundibulum wrote:
If you think Mitt "Russia is America's number one geopolitical foe" Romney will be good for American foreign policy you have another thing coming (and that thing is probably yet another war).
So who is our number one geopolitical foe? It isn't China (yet). You can't count Al Qaeda or terrorists because they're not a nation. That doesn't leave much left.
|
On October 15 2012 05:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 05:10 Zooper31 wrote:On October 15 2012 05:04 xDaunt wrote:
If anyone deserves blame for the housing bubble, it is all of the democrats who pushed the subprime market by encouraging mortgagors to give loans to unqualified homeowners. So if I encouraged you to jump off a bridge would I be blamed for your death? Same logic right? The only people to blame for the mortage crisis are the companies and banks giving the loans. No one held a gun to their head and they are responsible for their own decisions. You may want to read about what congress did with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
And Bush had pushed for reforming those two throughout his entire presidency.
And Barney Frank kept saying that there was no problem with Fannie / Freddie... then later co-authored the boondoggle that is Dodd-Frank.
|
On October 15 2012 05:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 05:17 xDaunt wrote:On October 15 2012 05:10 Zooper31 wrote:On October 15 2012 05:04 xDaunt wrote:
If anyone deserves blame for the housing bubble, it is all of the democrats who pushed the subprime market by encouraging mortgagors to give loans to unqualified homeowners. So if I encouraged you to jump off a bridge would I be blamed for your death? Same logic right? The only people to blame for the mortage crisis are the companies and banks giving the loans. No one held a gun to their head and they are responsible for their own decisions. You may want to read about what congress did with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And Bush had pushed for reforming those two throughout his entire presidency. And Barney Frank kept saying that there was no problem with Fannie / Freddie... then later co-authored the boondoggle that is Dodd-Frank.
Haha, yeah. Hailing Barney Frank and Chris Dodd as the great reformers of Wall Street is such a farce. They are the two most instrumental figures in fucking everything up in the first place.
|
Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today:
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit.
Source.
Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years.
|
On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: Show nested quote +The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years.
I guess the pH of the ocean isn't changing after all.
|
On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: Show nested quote +The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years.
For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first.
|
On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: Show nested quote +The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years.
Need I remind you of the endnote?
So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.
That conclusion is as uncontroversial as can be. If you get into the science, the models are far too bad at predicting the temperature exactly and mostly the far too dramatic sell news-papers journalists are running away with the worst numbers in the ranges when calculations are made. This journalist is a bit biased in his way of presenting the views, but given his conclusion I am willing to cut him some slack!
|
On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first.
True, but the reason why this study is important is because it comes from some of the biggest proponents (if not the biggest) of manmade global warming theories.
|
On October 15 2012 05:08 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 04:06 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 00:27 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 00:20 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 00:07 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 23:32 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 22:51 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 21:22 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 19:57 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 16:49 paralleluniverse wrote:[quote] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/11/fact-checking-vice-presidential-debate-between-joe/http://factcheck.org/2012/10/veep-debate-violations/When we were accusing Romney and Ryan of lying in the debates, you guys didn't seem to want to talk about the truth back then, only the optics. Oh, so you suddenly want to talk about the truth now? Before the debates, I haven't seen team Republican in this thread arguing that Romney won't give tax cuts to rich people or that Romney is going to cover preexisting conditions. Since then, I've seen some of you guys parroting these new campaign lies as if they always were. For example, the latter is disgraceful. Romney's plan doesn't cover preexisting conditions. It's only if you have continuous coverage, which is the same as the law before Obamacare, it's not what is meant and understood by "covering preexisting conditions", the way Obamacare does. So people could die and be denied medical treatment, if they voted for Romney believing his plan covers preexisting conditions. People could die because of this Romney lie. That's how shameful and shocking this lie is. Do you honestly and seriously believe that Biden is laughing at the issues as that ad alleges? Also, there's no evidence that requests for extra security at the Libyan embassy made it to Biden's or Obama's desk. Is it even standard protocol that the president needs to approve requests for extra embassy security? There doesn't need to be evidence that the extra security at the Libyan embassy made it to Biden's or Obama's desk. If it isn't standard protocol for the president needing to approve those requests, why would he even say "we never knew about that"? That sounds like a pretty irrelevant thing to say if it isn't standard protocol. "We didn't know about those things that don't come to the execute desk." No fucking shit? Your administration still knows asshole. "It's possible that Biden and Obama were unaware of that request. Still, it was made in the State Department, which is part of the Obama administration. Even if it didn't make its way up through the bureaucracy, a request was made." Biden said: "We weren't told they wanted more security there." The state department was told, as documented in the recent hearing. But there's nothing to suggest Biden and Obama were told, or that it is normal procedure that they should be told. Why didn't he say "Our State Department officials were told, but it never reached us"? Why didn't he say "that kind of information doesn't reach the President or myself normally"? Simply saying "we didn't know" is the most dishonest and disgusting answer for a failed foreign policy. First of all, you don't even know if requests were made specifically about the Bengazi facility (it's very possible, but nobody so far in this thread seems to have posted evidence that this was the case). From the politifact article: "the number of guards at the Benghazi consulate when the attack occurred was at or near the number Nordstrom said were needed for that site". Second, Republicans are directly blaming Obama and Biden for decisions made by low-level Department of State employees who probably would be doing the exact same job if McCain and Sarah Palin were in office. I therefore find it perfectly normal for Biden to reply in the name of the White House, which the Republicans are blaming for the requests being denied. Finally, regarding what you call "a failed foreign policy", you have simply no idea what you're talking about. I call a foreign policy that involves covering up terrorist attacks by blaming it on an anti-islamic video a failed one Except that's not what we were talking about, since we were talking about Biden saying "we didn't know" with regards to the security requests. Also, in case you didn't follow the news, that terrorists are responsible for the death of the ambassador doesn't change the fact that there were plenty of protests (and violence during those protests) at the same time and in the days that followed against the US in several Arab countries, notably because of the video. And you still don't understand what "foreign policy" means. Actually what we are talking about is Joe Biden lying as a rebuttal to all the people crying "Lyin Ryan" as if the Obama administration is somehow about pure truth telling and "facts". I explained to you why he wasn't lying in the case we were discussing. You didn't explain anything, you are just ignoring the facts.
I don't know if that's supposed to be a joke, but you're the one who repeatedly ignored the facts I was presenting you with in this discussion. Here are the facts again:
1. No-one in this thread has presented evidence that there were requests about the Benghazi facility. There very well may have been, but this has not been established here yet.
2. To quote the politifact article, ""the number of guards at the Benghazi consulate when the attack occurred was at or near the number Nordstrom said were needed for that site".
3. The security requests were addressed by the State Department (not by its highest members). They apparently did not reach the White House.
4. If Biden meant Obama, himself and the White House by "we", his statement was therefore perfectly accurate.
5. Republicans, including Ryan, have been pointing fingers at Obama and the White House for the negative response given to the security requests.
I therefore find it perfectly normal that Biden would be using "we" as in "Obama, myself and the White House" in response to the criticism by Republicans, who are certainly not targeting the actual people who took the decision, namely the State Department officials.
|
On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first.
Are you serious?
You know what will turn out to be expensive in the future? The effects of global warming and other environmental hazards. But let's act like it's unimportant to give a non-noticable sum of money to the research in to what the effects will be and how to best prevent or counter them.
|
On October 15 2012 05:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 01:58 DoubleReed wrote:I have no idea what you're talking about with the White House distancing itself from the Cairo embassy's apologies. Are you talking about this? Because that's a lie. lol. from your own source: Show nested quote +The White House was also distancing itself from the Cairo statement, first according to POLITICO on the night of Sept. 11 and then reiterating it the next morning. "An administration official tells ABC News that ‘no one in Washington approved that statement before it was released and it doesn’t reflect the views of the U.S. government,’" ABC News reported. so Ryan is the liar... huh? Show nested quote +I'll give you the Iran 2009 thing, fine. Although Obama toughened the talk when it became more clear how severe the human rights violations were. toughened the talk huh? well, I'm so glad that he decided to toughen his talk. we all know that tough talk does so much to help people who are being shot. Show nested quote +
Hillary Clinton said that members of both parties in Congress said that Syria's dictator was a 'reformer'. The Obama Administration didn't say that at all. That's a lie.
the State Dept. is part of the administration... http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-fact-check-syria-debate-20121011,0,7974752.storyShow nested quote +
The Obama Administration is not projecting weakness. I have no idea what you're talking about. Making "cuts" to the military that the military itself asked for is not weakness.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/14/dempsey-worried-about-potential-half-trillion-in-cuts-to-defense-budget/Show nested quote +Imposing the toughest sanctions on Iran (I heard the rial is doing pretty good nowadays) is not projecting weakness. Gathering your allies back from the idiotic Bush Administration is not weakness. "toughest" sanctions... that aren't working. http://www.cnbc.com/id/48048870/Are_US_Sanctions_Against_Iran_Workingwhich allies have been "gathered back"? what's funny is that you've yet to tell the truth. http://www.salon.com/2012/10/12/live_fact_check_vp_debate/Show nested quote +10:05 — Biden forgets he voted for Iraq war: Biden hits Ryan on spending by saying the congressman voted ”to put two wars on a credit card.” But Biden also vote to authorize the war in Iraq, and voted to give Bush “all necessary and appropriate force” to respond to the terror attacks, which led to war in Afghanistan.
Huh. So I'm like totally wrong about the Cairo thing. Fair enough.
Let's be clear. The sanctions being super-tough has nothing to do with them being effective. This begs the question: what would you do differently? And that's what Biden asked Ryan, and he never answered. What more do you want to do?
Do you have anything better than that Dempsey article? It wasn't exactly very comprehensive.
I still don't see the problem with the Iraq/Afghan thing. I thought Biden's whole point was the hypocrisy of the republican side. They care so much about cutting costs but they agreed to fund two massive wars without revenue to balance it out. Biden's not on the side of cutting costs massively, so it just doesn't count as hypocrisy. I don't know. That's what I got from it. I didn't get the impression that Biden was saying he didn't vote for the war. Shrug.
|
On October 15 2012 06:23 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. Are you serious? You know what will turn out to be expensive in the future? The effects of global warming and other environmental hazards. But let's act like it's unimportant to give a non-noticable sum of money to the research in to what the effects will be and how to best prevent or counter them.
Studying a poorly understood phenomenon is fine. Advocating policies that will cause serious global economic harm to combat a poorly understood phenomenon is not fine.
|
On October 15 2012 06:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 06:23 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. Are you serious? You know what will turn out to be expensive in the future? The effects of global warming and other environmental hazards. But let's act like it's unimportant to give a non-noticable sum of money to the research in to what the effects will be and how to best prevent or counter them. Studying a poorly understood phenomenon is fine. Advocating policies that will cause serious global economic harm to combat a poorly understood phenomenon is not fine.
The phenomenon is sufficiently well understood to warrant doing much more than we currently are to fight global warming.
|
On October 15 2012 06:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 06:23 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. Are you serious? You know what will turn out to be expensive in the future? The effects of global warming and other environmental hazards. But let's act like it's unimportant to give a non-noticable sum of money to the research in to what the effects will be and how to best prevent or counter them. Studying a poorly understood phenomenon is fine. Advocating policies that will cause serious global economic harm to combat a poorly understood phenomenon is not fine.
Either way there's serious global economic harm.
And I'm not sure what you mean by it's 'poorly understood'? We know how it works and the causes and effects and such...?
|
On October 15 2012 06:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 06:23 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. Are you serious? You know what will turn out to be expensive in the future? The effects of global warming and other environmental hazards. But let's act like it's unimportant to give a non-noticable sum of money to the research in to what the effects will be and how to best prevent or counter them. Studying a poorly understood phenomenon is fine. Advocating policies that will cause serious global economic harm to combat a poorly understood phenomenon is not fine.
Global warming is mechanistically very well understood, it's merely difficult to model and predict based on the myriad of factors involved.
|
On October 15 2012 06:22 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 05:08 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 04:06 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 00:27 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 00:20 kwizach wrote:On October 15 2012 00:07 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 23:32 kwizach wrote:On October 14 2012 22:51 kmillz wrote:On October 14 2012 21:22 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 14 2012 19:57 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
There doesn't need to be evidence that the extra security at the Libyan embassy made it to Biden's or Obama's desk. If it isn't standard protocol for the president needing to approve those requests, why would he even say "we never knew about that"? That sounds like a pretty irrelevant thing to say if it isn't standard protocol. "We didn't know about those things that don't come to the execute desk." No fucking shit? Your administration still knows asshole.
"It's possible that Biden and Obama were unaware of that request. Still, it was made in the State Department, which is part of the Obama administration. Even if it didn't make its way up through the bureaucracy, a request was made."
Biden said: "We weren't told they wanted more security there." The state department was told, as documented in the recent hearing. But there's nothing to suggest Biden and Obama were told, or that it is normal procedure that they should be told. Why didn't he say "Our State Department officials were told, but it never reached us"? Why didn't he say "that kind of information doesn't reach the President or myself normally"? Simply saying "we didn't know" is the most dishonest and disgusting answer for a failed foreign policy. First of all, you don't even know if requests were made specifically about the Bengazi facility (it's very possible, but nobody so far in this thread seems to have posted evidence that this was the case). From the politifact article: "the number of guards at the Benghazi consulate when the attack occurred was at or near the number Nordstrom said were needed for that site". Second, Republicans are directly blaming Obama and Biden for decisions made by low-level Department of State employees who probably would be doing the exact same job if McCain and Sarah Palin were in office. I therefore find it perfectly normal for Biden to reply in the name of the White House, which the Republicans are blaming for the requests being denied. Finally, regarding what you call "a failed foreign policy", you have simply no idea what you're talking about. I call a foreign policy that involves covering up terrorist attacks by blaming it on an anti-islamic video a failed one Except that's not what we were talking about, since we were talking about Biden saying "we didn't know" with regards to the security requests. Also, in case you didn't follow the news, that terrorists are responsible for the death of the ambassador doesn't change the fact that there were plenty of protests (and violence during those protests) at the same time and in the days that followed against the US in several Arab countries, notably because of the video. And you still don't understand what "foreign policy" means. Actually what we are talking about is Joe Biden lying as a rebuttal to all the people crying "Lyin Ryan" as if the Obama administration is somehow about pure truth telling and "facts". I explained to you why he wasn't lying in the case we were discussing. You didn't explain anything, you are just ignoring the facts. I don't know if that's supposed to be a joke, but you're the one who repeatedly ignored the facts I was presenting you with in this discussion. Here are the facts again: 1. No-one in this thread has presented evidence that there were requests about the Benghazi facility. There very well may have been, but this has not been established here yet. 2. To quote the politifact article, ""the number of guards at the Benghazi consulate when the attack occurred was at or near the number Nordstrom said were needed for that site". 3. The security requests were addressed by the State Department (not by its highest members). They apparently did not reach the White House. 4. If Biden meant Obama, himself and the White House by "we", his statement was therefore perfectly accurate. 5. Republicans, including Ryan, have been pointing fingers at Obama and the White House for the negative response given to the security requests. I therefore find it perfectly normal that Biden would be using "we" as in "Obama, myself and the White House" in response to the criticism by Republicans, who are certainly not targeting the actual people who took the decision, namely the State Department officials.
1. Wrong. You actually contradict this in number 3
2. Nordstrom stated that he sent two cables to State Department headquarters in March and July 2012 requesting additional Diplomatic Security Agents for Benghazi, but that he received no responses.
3. The State department is part of the Obama administration
4. Irrelevant, the State department knew
5. As they should.
If you are a manager and one of your employees fuck up, you still have to take responsibility for their actions. This applies here as well.
|
On October 15 2012 06:33 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On October 15 2012 06:23 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 15 2012 06:12 kmillz wrote:On October 15 2012 06:00 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and before I forget and because this has come up so often in this thread, I saw this little gem today: The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit. Source. Needless to say, there wasn't much fanfare with this release, which is really a shame. They should be popping champagne because the world isn't fucked like they have been predicting for years. For every study that shows that global warming exists there is another one that says it doesn't exist :\ I don't think it is worth wasting money to try and solve the theory of global warming (notice: not U.S. warming...GLOBAL warming) unless every country in the world agrees to foot something towards the bill. We are over 16 trillion in debt, let's worry about that first. Are you serious? You know what will turn out to be expensive in the future? The effects of global warming and other environmental hazards. But let's act like it's unimportant to give a non-noticable sum of money to the research in to what the effects will be and how to best prevent or counter them. Studying a poorly understood phenomenon is fine. Advocating policies that will cause serious global economic harm to combat a poorly understood phenomenon is not fine. Either way there's serious global economic harm. And I'm not sure what you mean by it's 'poorly understood'? We know how it works and the causes and effects and such...?
Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy
but hey, let's invade Iran
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
