Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
>>>Muslims want to wage jihad against unbelievers. They want to cut our heads off!<<<
All muslims want to do that......or just some?
>>>what policy is failing?<<<
Which one is succeeding except anything having to do with aiding oil and war related industries? Oh......one more. First time ever (?)......someone made a business out of counting down the days for a president's days left in office. I bet this guy can retire i style already. Best part of the global population is counting.
http://www.backwardsbush.com/
>>>Our policies are based upon it being the only Democratically elected government in the Middle east<<<
You mean...."based upon it being the only Democratically elected government in the Middle east that america likes"...?
November 2006:
The White House said it is "increasingly concerned by mounting evidence that the Syrian and Iranian governments, [Hezbollah] and their Lebanese allies are preparing plans to topple Lebanon's democratically elected government."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/01/us.lebanon/index.html
Four months or so earlier:
"In this week's issue of the New Yorker, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reports Israeli officials visited the White House earlier this summer to get a "green light" for an attack on Lebanon. The Bush administration approved, Hersh says, in part to remove Hezbollah as a deterrent to a potential US bombing of Iran. A government consultant said the Bush administration also saw the attack on Lebanon as a "demo" for what it could expect to face in Iran."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14540.htm
A man surveyed the damage in southern Beirut after a wave of Israeli airstrikes.
I guess some middle east democracies are protected differently than others....? Just different methods and tactics.
>>>Many Islamist's blame their hatred of us on supporting Israel.<<<
Bin Laden October 29, 2004
"But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers. And these special events that directly and personally affected me go back to 1982 and what happened when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. And assistance was given by the American sixth fleet.
And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/
>>>Please explain how allowing a nuclear weapons program in Syria is in the best interest of Israel?<<<
Or like someone who's not hypnotised by Israel might ask............please explain how allowing nuclear weapons in Israel is in the best interests of Syria? Both countries have a history of aggression so it's hard to argue that one or the other deserve it more because of their peaceful disposition and desire for peace.
>>>No, he decided his piece of the puzzle was more significant than it was, only, when no WMDs were found, months after the invasion<<<
Isn't that exactly what i said? He came forward once it became clear that the bogus evidence he had discovered wasn't the only thing bogus about the war. What's strange about that?
>>>According to you it should be a slam dunk<<<
You lie as often as the politicians whose asses you kiss......you're just not as good at it as they are. Show me a post where I said any such thing or even commented on the civil trial.
This is what you said earlier:
"in interviews, he stated his belief that Iraq did have WMDs and a nuclear program."
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=24076292
Again.......doesn't it seem like he thought his piece of the puzzle that didn't fall into place seemed insignificant.....until everything else fell apart and that's when he came forward? Sounds like he believed what millions of other idiots believed which is why he was reluctant to come forward at first.
>>>Not until some months after the invasion, when no WMDs were discovered, did Wilson go public with his prior misgivings.<<<
Makes sense to me. Wilson's only had knowledge related to one specific issue which by itself wouldn't have trashed Bush's war plans even if he'd spoken up earlier. Remember.......Bush and Condi Rice had already warned about mushroom clouds and Rumsfeld knew exactly where the WMD were......with or without Wilson's report.
"We know where they [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat....
ABC News This Week, March 30, 2003
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld
You think maybe Wilson finally spoke up when it became clear that it wasn't just the "proof" he had been asked to deliver that was bogus but everything else too?
>>>SH had "tried to acquire" yellowcake, something that Wilson's "fact finding" trip actually provided evidence to support.<<<
Such as this?
The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.
I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.
Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.
(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)
Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?ei=5007&en=6c6aeb1ce960dec0&ex=1372824000&pagewanted=all&position=
>>>The Vice President's office clearly did not send Joe Wilson to Africa.<<<
Don't think we'll ever know exactly who made the final decision to send Joe Wilson to Niger but at least we seem to agree it wasn't Valerie Plame. Considering what was at stake, I was hoping we could also agree the decision was made at a fairly lofty level which would invalidate your claim that Joe Wilson was known as a useless liberal hack with no credibility and hostile feelings towards the Bush administration.
You do know he worked for Bush Sr. at one time and was pronounced a war hero by him....?
"From 1988 to 1991, he was the Deputy Chief of Mission (to U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Catherine Glaspie) at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq. In the wake of Iraq's 1990 Invasion of Kuwait, he became the last American diplomat to meet with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, telling him in very clear terms to "get out of Kuwait".[9] When Hussein sent a note to Wilson (along with other embassy heads in Baghdad) threatening to execute anyone sheltering foreigners in Iraq, Wilson publicly repudiated the dictator by appearing at a press conference wearing a homemade noose around his neck, and declaring, "If the choice is to allow American citizens to be taken hostage or to be executed, I will bring my own fucking rope."
Despite Hussein's threats, Wilson sheltered more than one hundred Americans at the embassy, and successfully evacuated several thousand people (Americans and other nationals) from the country. He was praised by President George H. W. Bush for his actions: "...when I arrived back in Washington on January 13, 1991, the very next day I was in the Oval Office ... The President introduced me to his War Cabinet as a true American hero."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson
You know what I think? I think the VP's office was well aware of Wilson's credentials and considered him a great choice for this mission. He had worked for both parties in the past, he had deep diplomatic relations established in Africa and his report would be respected across party lines. Problem was.........neoconservatives never consider the possibility of being wrong so when Wilson was unable to prove them right, the shit hit the fan and then some.
>>>I also never said she personally appointed her husband for the trip<<<
So you want me to interpret "sending a Democratic operative" differently? Please tell me how it should be understood.......especially since the mission was on behalf of a neoconservative VP trying to justify America's first ever preemptive war.
"Attempting to embarass the administration by sending a Democratic operative husband to answer a vice presidential request for information is not being inconspicuous."
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=24025547
I think I'll withhold comment on the rest of your slop until you explain why the Bush administration would pin its hopes on selling the Iraq war on "democratic operatives".
>>>fine, you pay for their stupidity. It's one thing if a disaster happens that no one could predict but SoCal knows this is coming every year!<<<
If these Californians are guilty of stupidity for living where they live, are you ready to declare all americans living in the midwest, upper midwest the south and anywhere along the Atlantic seaboard or the Gulf coast idiots too? I guarantee you all of them know about the annual tornado season and hurricane season respectively.
>>>Attempting to embarass the administration by sending a Democratic operative husband to answer a vice presidential request for information<<<
So which one is it? In one breath you guys say Plame was nothing but a lousy secretary and in the next you say she had enough authority to personally appoint someone collecting intelligence overseas for the VP at a time of war.
Who do think had the last word on who went on that assignment? The VP himself or his staff, George Tenet or Valerie Plame?
>>>You just need to get a life and stop worrying about the comments of a talk show host on a stupid morning talk show.<<<
A little too much misrepresentation in one sentence to just ignore.
1. I'm not worried. Just tired of the world's largest news network lying and fabricating to please the WH.
2. News anchor.......not talk show host. We already established this. Remember?
3. Morning news show.......not talk show. We established that too just hours ago.
What I can't understand is why you wouldn't just let my cut & paste post (no comment added by the way) stand on its own merit and let it go with that. It was self explanatory in making Fox and it's anchors look like idiots and you have gotten exactly nowhere trying to change that with 4 or 5 posts by now.
You said who needs to get a life?
>>>It's amazing these stupid things you worry about with all that's wrong with the world today.<<<
Excuse me but aren't YOU the one who's picking this apart into a game of semantics and talk show versus news show and anchor versus entertainer? Friends of Fox is a morning news show that mixes news with lighter moments.......much like many other morning shows that report news. Fox news lied as usual and I'm ready to leave it at that if you are.
And by the way........that was an "anchor" who made the bogus comments.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1233,00.html
>>>Looks like a talk show to me. Didn't see any "anchors" there.<<<
That's what it looks like to you because you're trying to help the morons save face at any cost. Took 10 seconds to pull this up:
"Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade, Kiran Chetry, and many others anchor the early morning "zoo-cast" where at times producers talk over the intercom, anchors cross the set for more coffee, and interns do the weather or sports. On the serious side, they update the news, discuss issues with liberal and conservative pundits, and take calls from or read viewer email. Stars from sports, music, movies and TV drop by regularly as well."
http://www.tv.com/fox-and-friends/show/2263/summary.html
>>>Is "Fox and Friends" a news broadcast or a talk show?<<<
They report - you decide.
http://www.foxnews.com/foxfriends/index.html
>>>the CA wildfires were clearly an act of islamofascism<<<
Ill-informed Fox anchors spread fears of al Qaeda link to California fires
10/24/2007 @ 8:35 am
Filed by David Edwards and Nick Juliano
Questionable 4-year-old FBI memo presented as new to stoke terror fears
Did al Qaeda start the California wildfires?
As more than a million people escaped the flames, Fox News anchors couldn't help speculating about a terrorism link to the blazes ravaging southern California.
"I've heard some people talk about this a little bit to me, but have you heard anybody suggest that this could be some form of terrorism," Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy asked Wednesday morning.
Correspondent Adam Housley said he's received "hundreds of comments" from readers of his Fox News blog speculating about a link to terrorism.
Investigators have determined that one 15,000 acre fire in Orange County was deliberately set, and Housley reported that authorities arrested one man who set a hillside on fire. Causes of most other fires are still being investigated, and there has been little speculation beyond Fox News about a terror plot.
A review of Housley's blog posts about the fire reveals that his characterization of the terror fears perhaps was inflated.
Of his 15 posts on the fires, just two included speculation from commenters about a terrorism link.
"Is anyone asking how these fires started? I see no comments or speculations," observed "clyde teeter" in response to a post Tuesday. "Could it be linked to illegal alien misadventure on the border [...] Terrorism? ... If you are a journalist, then these questions need to be asked and investigated. Your coverage is admirable but the emotional journalism about the loss of peoples homes is not helping to find the causes."
Fox & Friends co-host Judge Andrew Napolitano tried to serve as the voice of reason.
"That's a fear, Adam, but is there any evidence of it?" the judge asked.
Such skepticism could not last, though.
Later Wednesday, Fox anchors returned to fanning the terror fears, digging up a four-year-old FBI memo and presenting it as new information relating to an al Qaeda link to the fires.
In June of 2003, FBI agents in Denver detailed an al Qaeda detainee's discussion of a plot to set forest fires around the western United States, although investigators couldn't determine whether the detainee was telling the truth, and his plot did not include setting fires in California.
Such small discrepancies in dates and details proved to be no obstacles for Fox anchors, who reported that the memo was from "late June of this year" and "is just popping up this morning."
The memo was first reported by the Arizona Republic in July 2003, although a Fox anchor said it was reported "five days ago." That confusion seems to stem from an inability to read the date on an Associated Press account of the memo from the time it was first reported.
A July 11, 2003, AP story, still available online via USA Today, reported, "The contents of the June 25 memo from the FBI's Denver office were reported Friday by The Arizona Republic."
On Fox, that information became, "The June 25 memo from the FBI's Denver offices was reported three days ago, excuse me five days ago, by the Arizona Republic."
Further distorting the report, Fox failed to mention a key caveat from the 2003 AP story they appear to have ripped from.
"Rose Davis, a spokeswoman for the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, told The Associated Press that officials there took note of the warning but didn't see a need to act further on it."
The following video is from Fox's Fox & Friends, broadcast on October 23, 2007.
Partial Transcript (via ThinkProgress):
DOOCY: You’re looking live at pictures from San Diego — Santiago, CA, where the wildfires continue. We were talking earlier in today’s telecast with Adam Housley and apparently police officers in a hovering helicopter saw a guy starting one of these fires. And Allison Allison Camerota, an FBI memo from late in June of this year is popping up this morning and it is ominous.
CAMEROTA: This actually has happened for many years in the past as well. An FBI sent out to local law-enforcement said that an al Qaeda detainee had given them some information that the next wave of terrorism could be in the form of setting wild fires. Adam Housley said lots of people on his block were asking him about it. Obviously this is something the FBI has looked into. They will continue to investigate it.
CARLSON: If they have this person in custody it probably won’t take long to be able to develop a link if there is one.
KILMEADE: A June 25 memo from the FBI’s Denver offices reported three days ago, excuse me, five days ago, by the Arizona Republic, that is a newspaper, they have been carrying the story and they continue to expand upon it.
DOOCY: Brian, the plot they say, according to this detainee, and they don’t know if the detainee is telling the truth. The plot was to set three or four wildfires. But they don’t mention California. They mention Colorado, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming. We do know for a fact that a number of the fires in southern California are of a suspicious nature and they are investigating arson.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Fox_advances_theory_that_CA_fires_1024.html
>>>Are there not any decent Republicans who will speak up and condemn speech like this?<<<
Just my opinion but I think many of those who do speak up against the hate mongers on boards like this ARE decent republicans or used to be. Those who deliver the hate slurs may have been decent republicans at one time but have totally lost their way being swept up in the good against evil mindset fostered by Bush.
Seriously.........what's genuinely republican or conservative about those who side with GW Bush and call themselves republicans? The bigger the government the better......especially the kind that snoops on you and ignores the constitution. And fiscal discipline is stupid since it only leads to more terrorist attacks and less preemptive wars which are key to our safety. Disagree even in part with any of this and you're now an unpatriotic, liberal idiot who in their mind should be deported to Saudi Arabia.
Decent republicans are still decent republicans imo. They're just out shouted by hysterical former decent republicans who lost their cool on 9/11 and never regained it.
>>>Plame outed herself, by imposing herself and her husband into domestic politics.<<<
What nonsense. By all accounts available her imposing herself and her husband into politics amounted her saying "what about Joe" when the Niger trip was discussed. The actual outing was handled by Richard Armitage and Bob Novak last i heard.
What's the difference between bribery and business as usual in DC anyway? Here's a senator accepting - in 4 months - 40 times the annual amount of cash contributions he usually receives from two phone companies and 6 month later he votes to give them immunity from prosecution..........splitting with his own party. Scary stuff when all the attention this kind of behavior by a senator is getting is scant mention in a newspaper editorial.
>>>First of all, if someone in the administration broke the law, leaking her name, why weren't they prosecuted?<<<
Hard to treat that as a serious question. You really don't know?
>>>Since 1987, the proportion of registered voters who call themselves independents has grown in every party-registration states but two<<<
It's the largest block of voters now. Too bad they don't have a party to vote for.
>>>Many wonder who is paying the Dems way in Congress<<<
Glad you asked. Remember this from the NYT piece?
We were left wondering who is really in charge, when in a bipartisan press release announcing the agreement, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Kit Bond, described the bill as “a delicate arrangement of compromises” that could not be changed in any way. The committee’s chairman, Jay Rockefeller, didn’t object.
Of course he didn't object. He'd already cashed his checks.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 — Executives at the two biggest phone companies contributed more than $42,000 in political donations to Senator John D. Rockefeller IV this year while seeking his support for legal immunity for businesses participating in National Security Agency eavesdropping.
Mr. Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, emerged last week as the most important supporter of immunity in devising a compromise plan with Senate Republicans and the Bush administration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/washington/23nsa.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=login
"With Democrats Like These"
October 20, 2007
Editorial
With Democrats Like These ...
Every now and then, we are tempted to double-check that the Democrats actually won control of Congress last year. It was particularly hard to tell this week. Democratic leaders were cowed, once again, by propaganda from the White House and failed, once again, to modernize the law on electronic spying in a way that permits robust intelligence gathering on terrorists without undermining the Constitution.
The task before Congress was to review and improve an update to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, that was pushed through the Capitol just before the summer break. That bill endorsed warrantless wiretapping and gutted other aspects of the 1978 law.
House Democrats drafted a measure that, while imperfect, was an improvement to the one passed this summer. But before the House could vote, Republicans tied up the measure in bureaucratic knots and Democratic leaders pulled it. Senate Democrats did even worse, accepting a Potemkin compromise that endorsed far too much of the bad summer law.
We were left wondering who is really in charge, when in a bipartisan press release announcing the agreement, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Kit Bond, described the bill as “a delicate arrangement of compromises” that could not be changed in any way. The committee’s chairman, Jay Rockefeller, didn’t object.
As the debate proceeds, Americans will be told that the delicate compromises were about how the government may spy on phone calls and electronic messages in the age of instant communications. Republicans have already started blowing hot air about any naysayers trying to stop spies from tracking terrorists.
No one is doing that. The question really is whether Congress should toss out chunks of the Constitution because Mr. Bush finds them inconvenient and some Democrats are afraid to look soft on terrorism.
FISA requires a warrant to spy on communications within the United States or between people in this country and people abroad. After 9/11, Mr. Bush ordered the National Security Agency to spy, without a warrant, on communications between the United States and other countries. The N.S.A. obtained data from American telecommunications companies by telling them it was legal.
After The Times disclosed the program in late 2005, Mr. Bush looked for a way to legalize it retroactively. He found it this summer. FISA also requires a warrant to intercept strictly foreign communications that happen to move through data networks in the United States.
That Internet age flaw has a relatively simple fix. But the White House seized the opportunity to ram through the far broader bill, which could authorize warrantless surveillance of Americans’ homes, offices and phone records; permit surveillance of Americans abroad without probable cause; and sharply limit the power of the court that controls electronic spying.
Democrats justified their votes for this bad bill by noting that the law expires in February and by promising to fix it this fall. The House bill did, in fact, restore most judicial safeguards. But the deal cooked up by Mr. Rockefeller and the White House doesn’t. It would not expire for six years, which is too long. And it would dismiss pending lawsuits against companies that turned data over to the government without a warrant.
This provision is not primarily about protecting patriotic businessmen, as Mr. Bush claims. It’s about ensuring that Mr. Bush and his aides never have to go to court to explain how many laws they’ve broken. It is a collusion between lawmakers and the White House that means that no one is ever held accountable. Democratic lawmakers said they reviewed the telecommunications companies’ cooperation (by reading documents selected by the White House) and concluded that lawsuits were unwarranted. Unlike them, we still have faith in the judicial system, which is where that sort of conclusion is supposed to be reached, not in a Senate back room polluted by the politics of fear.
There were bright spots in the week. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon managed to attach an amendment requiring a warrant to eavesdrop on American citizens abroad. That merely requires the government to show why it believes the American is in league with terrorists, but Mr. Bush threatened to veto the bill over that issue.
Senator Christopher Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat, said he would put a personal hold on the compromise cooked up by Senator Rockefeller and the White House.
Otherwise, it was a very frustrating week in Washington. It was bad enough having a one-party government when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But the Democrats took over, and still the one-party system continues.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/opinion/20sat1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
>>>The American people are smarter than you think.<<<
You're saying that as 80% of them disagree with you. Which means you're smarter than 80% of them or you're a little confused on this one?
"Eight in 10 Americans favor expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or S-CHIP, including large majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/17/opinion/polls/main3378278.shtml
Ahhh........so it's an integrity thing? You just can't stomach untruths being told about people. Sounds good until you realize that you post Ann Coulter columns every chance you get and that you're only concerned with slander of George Bush. If truth and integrity is what it's all about wouldn't you at least on occasion stick up for someone except Bush?
>>>Probably will with people like you spreading lies about what he said/intended.... Sad for your family and heirs... A heritage oif distortion and lies<<<
24%, still in freefall and you're unflappable. Would be admirable........if you could explain why.
>>>We can all sleep soundly at night, next year we'll probably have a President in the White House, who will not do everything possible to protect the nation.<<<
Explain yourself please. You sleep soundly at night knowing Bush has killed 1/2 million Iraqi civilians in a botched national security invasion/occupation while leaving our own borders wide open for all practical purposes? What exactly are you worrying the next president won't do that the current one is doing?
Glad you're enjoying yourself hap. Me..... I haven't quiet cracked the comical code on global warming yet but maybe with time. Meanwhile, the pragmatic side of me is asking why this is happening for the first time ever.
"For the first time, scientists have confirmed Earth is melting at both ends......
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1678441&page=1
Got something useful to add?
>>>you think the TV is going to tell you? you think the print contolled media is going to tell you...<<<
>>>Please provide a link showing that high CO2 levels causes global warming<<<
"MYTH: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?
FACT: Although water vapor traps more heat than CO2, because of the relationships among CO2, water vapor and climate, to fight global warming nations must focus on controlling CO2.
Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by how much coal, natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down, as well as by natural processes like plant growth. Atmospheric levels of water vapor, on the other hand, cannot be directly controlled by people; rather, they are determined by temperatures. The warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor is part of an amplifying effect. Greenhouse gases like CO2 warm the air, which in turn adds to the stock of water vapor, which in turn traps more heat and accelerates warming. Scientists know this because of satellite measurements documenting a rise in water vapor concentrations as the globe has warmed.
The best way to lower temperature and thus reduce water vapor levels is to reduce CO2 emissions."
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
What causes global warming?
Carbon dioxide and other air pollution that is collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Coal-burning power plants are the largest U.S. source of carbon dioxide pollution -- they produce 2.5 billion tons every year. Automobiles, the second largest source, create nearly 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.
Here's the good news: technologies exist today to make cars that run cleaner and burn less gas, modernize power plants and generate electricity from nonpolluting sources, and cut our electricity use through energy efficiency. The challenge is to be sure these solutions are put to use."
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp
"Human activity releases CO2 from the fossil fuels that we burn, especially since the industrial revolution. The CO2 level in the air has been monitored since the 1950's and is increasing. Besides a natural annual change (it drops each spring as plants grow and rises each fall as leaves decay), there has been a steady background rise of about 20% in the past 100 years. This is caused by humans. And it should cause the earth to get warmer.
Nearly 100 years ago the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius and the American geologist Thomas C. Chamberlin independently advanced the hypothesis that changes in the abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would affect the surface temperature of the earth. Arrhenius estimated that a doubling of the concentration would cause a global warming of about nine degrees C. In 1939 G. S. Callendar suggested that the global warming observed over the previous 60 years might have been caused by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. Gilbert N. Plass argued along similar lines in the early 1950's.
None of the above is in dispute. But when coal burns it also releases small particles and SO2 which forms small droplets: these reflect incoming sunlight and cool the earth. This offsets the warming effect, but the relative balance is in dispute. Also there is a "law of diminishing returns" here. Maybe CO2 levels are already high enough that more does not make much more difference."
http://www.bigissueground.com/scienceandfuture/blair-co2andglobalwarming.shtml
>>>If the elevated level of CO2 were causing the global warming, and the level of CO2 has only risen sharply recently, how can the highest temps in 1934 be explained???<<<
Recently? You see no correlation here between the introduction of burning fossil fuels and a relatively linear increase in temperatures and CO2 levels?
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.smooth75.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png
>>>WOW!!... I'm shocked again. You guys are turning
against your leaders?!<<<
Not much but more than most Bush republicans are capable of. Sounds like you're slowly realizing that criticizing George Bush doesn't turn one into a far left radical by default. Work with ieddy on this, and a few others.......time allowing.
>>>I agree on Pelosi.<<<
She's stupid, arrogant and inept beyond what's excusable for a US congresswoman......never mind a majority leader.
This is really unbelievable. Against the advice of many in her own party and THREE former secretaries of defense...
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=84784
...she still felt that this was the perfect time to condemn a key ally in the w.o.t. over something that happened almost 100 years ago.....?
"Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House would definitely take up the measure. “I said if it comes out of committee, it will go to the floor,” she told reporters. “Now it has come out of committee, and it will go to the floor.”
In Turkey, there was widespread expectation that the House committee vote and any further steps would damage relations between the countries.
Turkish officials and lawmakers warned that if the resolution were approved by the full House, they would reconsider supporting the American war effort in Iraq, which includes permission to ship essential supplies through Turkey from a major air base at Incirlik, in southern Turkey."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/europe/12turkey.html?fta=y
Off with her head or at least take the gavel away from her.......quickly.
>>>I don't see Reid as a leader - never have.<<<
agree........and that goes for Pelosi too btw.
>>>IF that " larger trend " started in 1934- when there was no greenshouse problem<<<
Nobody burned coal in 1934.....or drove cars? And the number of coal burning power plants and cars have not increased in direct proportion to the earth's population growth?
Maybe what you and those who agree with you keep pointing to as evidence are just small fluctuations within a larger trend? Looking at the bigger picture, is that possible in your opinion?
>>>how long will you believe the official fairy tale.<<<
At least as long as it takes you to explain the unofficial fairy tale.