Page 11 of 366 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314152161111 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 5480
  1. #151
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    There has not been a supervolcano eruption in some 500,000 years if I remember right
    you couldnt be more wrong.

  2. #152
    Joined
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    1,235

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Very witty Madgamer. Almost as insightful as your usual posts. I was going off of recollection regarding the Yellowstone caldera and a history channel program I watched months ago.

    640,000 years ago was the last eruption of that caldera that falls under the category of a "supervolcano." Forgive me for making my point with generic numbers, seeing as how it obviously perturbed you enough to grace us with your reply.

    Now if you'll excuse me, the point of my post does not hinge on whether or not it was 500k years ago or 640k years ago. Perhaps that was the only part you understood and that is why you only commented on that aspect.

  3. #153
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,281

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari
    Evidently you're too dense to understand this, since I've already said it: the video is about Global Climate Change. It is not about Man-Made Global Warming.

    I know of some advanced elementary school children whom would've already gotten past that fact, yet you have not.
    Oh noes... personal insults. For someone who wines about them so much.. you seem to be unable to start or finish a sentence without one.

    For the record.. I already responded to the "Climate change" portion. But I'll restate my position again as you sem to have hazed over it. Why should we feel a need to stop something that is always changing? Prove to me that climate change is a bad thing that needs to be stopped, minus the MMGW boogeyman hysterics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari
    According to you.
    According to science... not the made up numbers the MMGW proponents use to convince the sheeple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari
    I haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. I hesitate in saying this, because I don't believe you'll understand the concept, but you really need to get your facts straight.
    Eh.. my bad.. wrong hypocrite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trekari
    I am not asking you to defend your ignorance on Global Warming at all. I am asking you to show why his video was illogical as you claimed.


    As for your asteroids, volcanoes, and other potential global catastrophes - we as a society ARE working on those potential situations and how to avoid, prepare or recover from them. There has not been a supervolcano eruption in some 500,000 years if I remember right, which is in theory the 'cycle' at which those types of eruptions have happened, so why try to find ways to prevent it? We haven't been hit by a global-killer asteroid in some 65 million years, so why spend money on that either?

    Your argument is nothing more than selective ignorance. I'd wager that you simply don't like the fact that man-made inventions can modify the climate and the planet, so you choose to stick your head in the ground and pretend it doesn't exist.

    I personally don't see what could possibly be more important that taking simple steps, precautionary or otherwise, to ensure that the global climate and ecology remains ideal for human life to flourish.
    His 4 square "why don't you want to save the earth" bit is the worst kind of argument for why we should ruin the world economy. Could apply to any fictional "threat" like MMGW or Sasquatch. Like I said before... if the argument is not for MMGW.. then prove to me that "climate change" is a threat that needs to be addressed. A point you seem rather reticent to reply. Why? We boyh know why. Because without the MMGW boogeyman/doomsday fear mongering behind it... climate change is no threat. It's been much warmer and much colder.. both in recorded history. We as humans seem to be thriving despite "climate change".

    There is a mile of difference between "preparing for and recovery from" natural disasters and actually claiming to take action stop something that is arguably fictional like MMGW. Which is why I said if I HAD to choose.. I'd much rather toss $$ at something real like an anti asteroid defense system.

    And after all that you fall back on personal insults and and pull the MMGW boogeyman. So which is it Trek.. MMGW or Climate Change? The two are wholly different. Go sharpen your pencil and come back when you are able to make a compelling argument w/o your fictional MMGW boogeyman.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  4. #154
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    seeing as how it obviously perturbed you enough to grace us with your reply.
    It perturbed me almost as much as your usual and habitual personal insult seems you always feel the need to do that when backed into a corner.


    if I remember right
    I was just helping ya out lighten up a bit there

  5. #155
    Joined
    Jun 2003
    Location
    SO CAL USA
    Age
    68
    Posts
    1,602

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by /\/\adGamer View Post
    you couldnt be more wrong.
    Category 8 minimum 1000 km3 > 10000 years.
    Taupo 26000 years 1170 km3
    Toba 73000 years 2800 km3 caused millenium ice age and deaths of 60% of human life.
    Yellowstone 640000 years 1000 km3
    Category 7 < 1000 km3 all caused Global climate change from 1-30 years cooler
    Taupo 181 AD 100 km3
    Tambora 1815 160 km3
    Thera 1600 BC 60 km3
    Category 6
    Krakatoa 1883 21 km3 The crack heard round the world.
    All theories and estimates as to volume of material,and of course human life.How they propose to measure the amount of material,and numbers of human life before and after is beyond me.speed of light, sound, temperature, can be measured,how do you measure the amount of material deposited over uneven surfaces thousands of square kms? For instance Thera/Minoa is estimated to be 1/2 to 2x the number postulated.How do you measure correctly the bottom of the Sea? Air currents and sea currents would not allow even distribution of materials,as well as the material of the caldera focusing the blast in irregular directions as happened in Krakatoa and Mt St Helens.Seems junk science is operative in too many fields nowadays besides MMGW.But as can be seen a volcanic eruption almost 3 times the size of Yellowstone only 73000 years ago.
    asrock x370 taichi,16g gskill flarex3200 wd250mu 3wdblack 1 tera
    Asrock 990FX FX8120 8G Gskill 2133 2x WD2T 6.0 pc p+c 950w
    Asrock 890FX 1090t 2x4 Gskill 1866 RipJaw WD 1T 6.0 mushkin 850w
    DFI 790FXB M3H5 PII 965 8 Gskill RipJaw 1866 WD1T 6.0 ocz 750 w
    DFI 790FXB M3H5 PII 965 2x4 Gskill Rip Jaw 1600 Ocz evo720
    DFI 790FXB M2RSH PII 955 2x1Gskill 1600 Saph 4670 Ocz Evo 720W
    DFI 790FXM2RS PII 720 2x1gig Gskill 1600 Sapphire HD3400
    DFI Lp ultra D SLI Opti 148@300x10 @33c 1 gig Crucial ballistix 4000

  6. #156
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    I haven't noticed scoot whinin'... just pointing things out.

    The insulting from the Prius wannabe crowd here fits the theme of MMGW, though. If ya can't argue the subject, lob real clever names across the bow.

    Have any of ya caught the latest Newsweek article?

  7. #157
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,281

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar
    I haven't noticed scoot whinin'... just pointing things out.

    The insulting from the Prius wannabe crowd here fits the theme of MMGW, though. If ya can't argue the subject, lob real clever names across the bow.

    Have any of ya caught the latest Newsweek article?
    I caught a summary... have not read the article yet. Not sure I'll bother. From what I have gathered.. it's pretty void on hard scientific fact.. pretty long on hyperbole. Seems to be SOP in the MMGW crowd of late. Funny to see the "true believers" scrambling to rationalize their MMGW hysterics. Even funnier to note.. as you pointed out.. many in the same crowd are anti-religion. Guess they have not taken a long look "inward" recently...lol.

    I was pretty surprised to find the lengths that the MMGW folks went to and the amount of non-disclosure they showed in regard to the program and data used for the now infamous "hockey stick" graph. Seems to be being overlooked by the usual suspects in TLR that usually are among the first to think "conspiracy' if it is related to GWB. The double standard seems to be firmly entrenched.
    Last edited by BlackDragon24; 08-13-2007 at 01:04 PM. Reason: Response to name calling
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  8. #158
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,281

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Hmmm.. my posts seem to be getting shorter than I remember. Not to worry mod types.. I get your reasoning.

    Sure is looking more and more like hard science got kicked to the curb in order to fit the MMGW "consensus" hive mentality. Buyer beware the creative number massaging of a self serving 50 Billion dollar a year industry.

    NASA global warming temperature revision redux: How big is the problem?

    Via Noel Sheppard, the guys who exposed the big data bug in the NASA temperature calculations last week have now responded to the global warming believers who naturally downplayed the error and dismissed it as irrelevant to GW trends. No commentary here from me; just follow the drill from the last post and read Steve McIntyre’s and Warren Meyer’s posts slowly and carefully. The bullet points version of McIntyre to guide you as you go:

    1. NASA and James Hansen have allegedly shown an astonishing amount of bad faith in protecting their bogus numbers. Last week’s posts noted how secretive Hansen has been in hoarding the algorithm he uses to make temperature adjustments, but most of McIntyre’s wrath this time is reserved for NASA, which pointedly declined to mention prominently that it had revised its own data lest it attract any unwelcome public attention.

    2. While the revisions to U.S. data didn’t have an affect on global averages, they did obviously have a “significant” effect on U.S. averages while pointing up potential errors in data collection worldwide. Specifically, according to McIntyre, not only are certain U.S. temperature measurement stations that are thought to be unreliable being “adjusted” by algorithm, even stations not thought to be unreliable may be undergoing adjustment. Quote:

    The USHCN station history adjustments appear particularly troublesome to me, not just [at the Grand Canyon] but at other sites (e.g. Orland CA). They end up making material changes to sites identified as “good” sites and my impression is that the USHCN adjustment procedures may be adjusting some of the very “best” sites (in terms of appearance and reported history) to better fit histories from sites that are clearly non-compliant with WMO standards (e.g. Marysville, Tucson). There are some real and interesting statistical issues with the USHCN station history adjustment procedure and it is ridiculous that the source code for these adjustments (and the subsequent GISS adjustments - see bottom panel) is not available/
    3. The flip side of the last point: how many global measurement stations are unreliable and are not undergoing adjustment? Quote again:

    [M]any of the stations in China, Indonesia, Brazil and elsewhere are in urban areas (such as Shanghai or Beijing). In some of the major indexes (CRU,NOAA), there appears to be no attempt whatever to adjust for urbanization. GISS does report an effort to adjust for urbanization in some cases, but their ability to do so depends on the existence of nearby rural stations, which are not always available. Thus, ithere is a real concern that the need for urban adjustment is most severe in the very areas where adjustments are either not made or not accurately made.
    Meyer makes a similar point about what systemic problems in U.S. data collection and adjustment portend for global measurements. As he put it last week, “This is not the end but the beginning of the total reexamination that needs to occur of the USHCN and GISS data bases.” Which explains his first recommendation now.

    Now go read McIntyre, making sure to stay with him through the devastating conclusion.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  9. #159
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,281

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle



    For real...


    Newsweek Editor Calls Global Warming Cover Story ‘Fundamentally Misleading’


    It appears hell hath frozen over, for a Newsweek contributing editor published an article Saturday extraordinarily critical of his magazine's cover story last week about "global-warming deniers" being funded by oil companies in an organized scam to thwart science.

    In fact, Robert J. Samuelson accurately noted how "self-righteous indignation can undermine good journalism," and that this disgraceful article was "an object lesson of how viewing the world as ‘good guys vs. bad guys' can lead to a vast oversimplification of a messy story."

    Fortunately, Samuelson was just getting warmed up (emphasis added throughout, h/t Marc Morano):

    The story was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading.

    [...]

    NEWSWEEK's "denial machine" is a peripheral and highly contrived story. NEWSWEEK implied, for example, that ExxonMobil used a think tank to pay academics to criticize global-warming science. Actually, this accusation was long ago discredited, and NEWSWEEK shouldn't have lent it respectability. (The company says it knew nothing of the global-warming grant, which involved issues of climate modeling. And its 2006 contribution to the think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, was small: $240,000 out of a $28 million budget.)

    The alleged cabal's influence does not seem impressive. The mainstream media have generally been unsympathetic; they've treated global warming ominously. The first NEWSWEEK cover story in 1988 warned the greenhouse effect. danger: more hot summers ahead. A Time cover in 2006 was more alarmist: be worried, be very worried. Nor does public opinion seem much swayed. Although polls can be found to illustrate almost anything, the longest-running survey questions show a remarkable consistency. In 1989, Gallup found 63 percent of Americans worried "a great deal" or a "fair amount" about global warming; in 2007, 65 percent did.
    Shocking. But, Samuelson wasn't finished:

    But the overriding reality seems almost un-American: we simply don't have a solution for this problem. As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale-as NEWSWEEK did-in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society.
    Bravo, Robert! Bravo!
    Last edited by AMDScooter; 08-13-2007 at 03:01 PM.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  10. #160
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,281

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Ouch..

    There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."

    - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
    How Important Was NASA’s Change to Historical Climate Data Last Week?

    ^^ Pretty damming summation.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  11. #161
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,281

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    MMGW repeat... circa 1922..

    Before Gore

    Before Gore

    D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

    The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."


    "This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all."

    Worth pondering

    Reacting yesterday to word that certain European governments and officials are suddenly trying to abandon their costly "global warming" policies, Royal Astronomical Society fellow Benny Peiser, of the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University in Great Britain, recalls the teachings of Marcus Aurelius: "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  12. #162
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,281

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Koyoto... when GWB did not sign this economically suicidal "protocol" it was big news. Now that it's effects are being felt... well.. not so much a big deal....

    A Really Inconvenient Truth: Kyoto Protocol Destroying Ozone Layer

    Here's something the mainstream media are guaranteed to ignore: "The biggest emissions-cutting projects under the Kyoto Protocol on global warming have directly contributed to an increase in the production of gases that destroy the ozone layer, a senior U.N. official says."

    Didn't hear about this? Well, how could you, for although Reuters published its article on the subject Monday, no other mainstream press outlet thought it was newsworthy.

    Not one!

    Alas, there were even more worrisome revelations in this Reuters piece that folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio would find very inconvenient if media actually did their job and reported them (h/t Benny Peiser, emphasis added throughout):

    In addition, evidence suggests that the same projects, in developing countries, have deliberately raised their emissions of greenhouse gases only to destroy these and therefore claim more carbon credits, said Stanford University's Michael Wara.

    [...]

    At the heart of the clash is a carbon trading scheme under Kyoto, worth $5 billion last year, whereby rich countries pay poorer ones to cut greenhouse gas emissions on their behalf, called the clean development mechanism (CDM).

    The most popular type of project has been to destroy a potent greenhouse gas known as HFC 23, one of a family of so-called hydrofluorocarbons, in China and India.

    The problem is that HFC 23 is a waste product in the manufacture of a refrigerant gas which damages the ozone layer, called HCFC 22, and chemical plants have used their CDM profits to ramp up production.


    "This is certainly one of the major drivers now in the increase in production of HCFC 22," Rajendra Shende, director of ozone issues at the United Nations Environment Programme, which administers the Montreal Protocol, said on Monday.
    For those unfamiliar, the Montreal Protocol was a treaty first created in 1987, and eventually signed by 191 nations, to phase out the international production of substances known to cause ozone depletion. As such, it appears the Kyoto Protocol is stepping on the toes of the Montreal Protocol, and media couldn't care less.

    Nor are they interested in the carbon credit scam this has spawned:

    CDM projects which destroy HFC 23 are especially lucrative because the gas is 12,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2), although its overall contribution to climate change is far less because CO2 is much more common.

    As a result, destroying HFC 23 spawns far more money-spinning carbon credits than any other way of curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

    [...]

    The environmental credentials of HFC 23 projects are further undermined by evidence that chemical plants in China have deliberately "tuned" their factories to produce more of what should be a waste product, to make more money under CDM.

    Chemical plants participating in CDM make twice as much HFC 23 as a proportion of the actual end product refrigerant than those in rich countries which can't participate in the scheme, said Michael Wara, research fellow at Stanford University.

    "It doubles the flow of carbon credits, but there are real questions whether it's hot air," Wara said. The carbon credits are being used as carbon offsets to allow companies to continue to produce greenhouse gases in Europe.

    "They've tuned the plants to double the amount of HFC 23 you would normally produce, for example in Europe or the United States. All CDM participant plants came in at 3 percent (HFC 23 versus HCFC 22), the Kyoto Protocol maximum, versus 1.5 percent in countries that can't participate in the scheme."
    Add it all up, and you find that the ozone layer is being negatively impacted while developing nations like China increase their emissions of GHGs only to get rich selling carbon credits to companies in Europe so that they can "offset" the GHGs they're releasing into the air.

    Put more simply, GHG emissions are actually increasing as a result of all this, while the ozone layer is being destroyed.

    Any questions as to why our media won't report this? Wouldn't a truly "green" media trying to advance truly "green" concepts want to disseminate information concerning flaws in the Kyoto Protocol that are actually having a negative environmental impact? Isn't that newsworthy?

    Or, is the environment really much less important to our press representatives than advancing the manmade global warming myth along with socialist economic "solutions" they deem are beneficial in the long run regardless of the apparent lack of environmental benefit?

    As the latter seems likely, it appears media are taking quite a Machiavellian approach to their journalistic responsibilities, wouldn't you agree?

    How disgraceful.
    The 50 BILLION dollar MMGW juggernaut rolls on...
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  13. #163
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,281

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    Pretty funny.. if the pro MMGW calls us "deniers"... lets call them MMGW "jihadists".

    Not so hot air

    n every child's life there comes a time when childhood fantasies are shattered and he or she is forced to accept reality — there is no Santa Claus or tooth fairy; parents don't always mean it when they promise to stay married until parted by death.


    Grown-up scientists, theologians, historians, archaeologists and others who pursue facts and objective truths are rooted in reality and constantly adjusting their conclusions, theories and hypotheses when new information comes to light. Those who ignore facts and cling to outdated information, or outright falsehoods, can quickly embrace fanaticism.


    So it is with "global warming," the secular religion of our day that even has a good number of adherents among people of faith. Having decided to focus less on the eternal and whether anyone dwells there, global warming fundamentalists are pushing planet worship on us in a manner that would make a jihadist proud.


    There are at least two characteristics all fundamentalists share. One is the exclusion and sometimes suppression of any and all information that challenges or contradicts the belief one wishes to impose on all. The other is the use of the state in pursuit of their objectives, overriding the majority's will.


    With global warming, some members of the scientific community — not all of whom are climatologists, who disagree among themselves — have circled the wagons, denying access and labeling illegitimate any scientist who disagrees with the "doctrines" of a recently warming planet. The big media have been complicit in this censorship or ridicule of alternative views, mostly refusing to interview anyone who does not push the global warming faith. CBS News this week broadcast a four-part series on "climate change." Newsweek magazine recently slammed global warming "deniers." That brought a counterattack in the Aug. 20 issue from Newsweek contributor Robert Samuelson, who termed the article "highly contrived" and "fundamentally misleading." In 1975, Newsweek was just as convinced — using "scientific evidence" — that a new Ice Age was upon us.


    Many global warming fanatics have pointed to NASA as proof that their concerns about a warming planet are justified. They have repeatedly cited the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), whose director, James Hansen, has asserted that nine of the 10 warmest years in history have occurred since 1995, with 1998 the warmest. When NASA was confronted with evidence provided by Climate Audit, a blog run by Stephen McIntyre devoted to auditing the statistical methods and data used in historical reconstructions of past climate data, it reversed itself. Without the fanfare used to hype the global warming fanaticism it had earlier supported, NASA now says four of the top 10 years of high temperatures are from the 1930s. Several previously selected "warm" years — 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 — fell behind 1900.


    GISS now says its previous claim that 1998 was the warmest year in American history is no longer valid. The warmest year was 1934.


    Has any of this new information changed the minds of the global warming fundamentalists? Nope. Neither has much of it seen the light of day in the mainstream media, which continue to carry stories where seldom is heard an alternative word and the skies are polluted all day.


    The New York Times ran a story in its Sunday Business section last week that said it would cost a lot of money to fight global warming. The implication being that this money should come from government (and taxpayers), along with more government regulations and control over our lives by the very people who seem to have difficulty winning wars and controlling spending.


    The Earth has warmed and cooled over many centuries. One can get a sense of who is telling the truth about global warming by the company the concept keeps. Most of the disciples of global warming are liberal Democrats who never have enough of our money and believe there are never enough regulations concerning the way we lead our lives. That ought to be enough to give everyone pause, along with emerging evidence that the global warming jihadists may be more full of hot air than the climate they claim is about to burn us up.
    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  14. #164
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,281

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    NYT movie critic seems dismayed the MMGW cult is having a hard time indoctrinating new members..

    NYT: Leonardo DiCaprio Trying to Save the World, But No One's Listening

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


  15. #165
    Joined
    Mar 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    26,281

    Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle

    "The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
    Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."


    -The Gipper


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •