Posted on 06/03/2002 10:54:03 PM PDT by Pokey78
What is "ANWR"?
Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve.
And by the way, you'll notice that it was me who said that our chance of drilling at ANWR are gone. It is on the backburner due to Daschle, for now.
I'm not sure I heard it correctly, but I thought I heard Rush ackowledge today that he had spoken with the Whitehouse this morning.
The NOAA site factors in tree ring data as part of their compiled data. What differences would be seen in the graphs showing global warming trends if the tree ring data is removed? Would the trends be the same, or has tree ring data skewed the findings?
I'm sorry, I misunderstood where you were at as far as your knowledge level and what level type of data that you wanted to look at. I'm not interested in reading years worth of scientific data to discern what the truth and I assumed (erroneously) that you were on the same page. But one of the great things about FR is that there is always someone who is willing to do something that the rest of us have no interest in doing. LOL!
My area of interest is the Constitution and Austrian economics (the only real free-market economics). That's where I focus my energy and how I filter my world-view. My approach to global warming is, common sense:
Even global warming advocates admit that the amount of "greenhouse gases" produced in the world by human activity is between 2% and 5% of the total produced in the world. The largest contributor is volcanoes. Geysers, marshes, and flatuance from cows (I kid you not) are other big contributors. So the question is; What can people, which produce 2-5% of the total, do to reverse this "problem?" Totaly leave the planet?
The second thing I look at is, what are the economic effects of doing what the global warming people say? Answer:
A Great Depression...Then comes the socialists/fascists telling us that capitalism doesn't work and we'll have to let the elites take over. Could the effects of having no snow in NH or being able to grow wheat in Greenland (like the Vikings did in the 13th Century heatwave) be worse than a Depression and living under the yoke of a collectivized economy?
That's where I'm coming from.
I think a calmer approach would be the most helpful, and I do not think that Rush Limbaugh knows beans about science (and apparently very little about how to be successful in political strategy).
I agree with you on Rush, I listen to him for entertainment (while I work).
Good luck with your research!
Actually if you bothered to read the report it says there has been no policy change under the Bush administration. And Rush agrees with Bush.
I see you completely ignored my post on another thread where you just outright lying about Bush and the fact that he has elimination funding on federal programs, even after I provided a link to support it.
He did and he still got it wrong...
Hey, it ain't called the "Stupid Party" for nothin'.
I listened for a little bit today, and what Rush was saying while I was listening sounded more like what some of us have been saying than what he was reported to have said yesterday.
I wouldn't guess as to what caused his change of attitude. Maybe he actually read the report (as opposed to the NYT) today?
Technically there are over 10,000 federal programs, many just tiny obscure expenditure items like the example you provided. Any given year some will change names or have their funding go to another program which may or may not have the same purpose. You will always be able to pick one of these tiny obscure expenditure items and say “Oh no, the president is eliminating programs, the sky is falling,” even if a communist was president and government was growing at 40% a year. There is no way 10,000+ items will ALL increase every year.
Politics is the way to get some of what your principles demand, when others don't agree with your principles.
The alternative is just plain stupid, as it requires Bush to ignore or attempt to steamroll those with whom he disagrees -- and they own the Senate and the media. Picking a stupid battle is a sure-fire way to lose all influence, not to mention the next election. You can't influence policy if you're out of the game.
Show me the proof, using ground, lower atmospheric and upper atmospheric temperature readings. Then tell me how you reconcile differences in the three, and how that's consistent with global warming due to greenhouse gases.
I don't listen to rush. I have always felt he was a liberal socialist, big government rat.
Just curious though, what are all these changes you noted?
A Gallup survey indicated that only 17% of the members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society thought the warming of the 20th century was the result of an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
From what I read, 2% at most. The effect is insignificant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.