Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

A "theory" is not SCIENCE anymore than the

Posted By: Aunt Louise on 2009-04-08
In Reply to: Google it...... - ABC

theory of evolution is science.  Science is a repeated study in the laboratory that produces the same result over and over. 


Gravity is not a theory.  You jump 100 floors, you die.  Repeated over and over with same results, inside and outside the laboratory. 


So much for your public education. 




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Science? Guess we don't need it any more....

Poll: Give Bible story of creation equal time


Laurie Goodstein,  New York Times
August 31, 2005 RELI0831











 





In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released Tuesday found that nearly 66 percent of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.


The poll found that 42 percent of respondents hold strict creationist views, agreeing that living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.


In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time; of those, 18 percent said that evolution was guided by a supreme being, and 26 percent said it occurred through natural selection.


In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.


The poll was conducted July 7 to 17 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The questions about evolution were asked of 2,000 people; the margin of error is 2.5 percentage points.


The poll showed 41 percent of Americans want parents to have the primary say over how evolution is taught, compared with 28 percent who say teachers and scientists should decide and 21 percent who say school boards should.


Asked whether they believed creationism should be taught instead of evolution, 38 percent were in favor, and 49 percent were opposed. Those who believe in creationism said they were very certain of their views (63 percent), compared to those who believe in evolution (32 percent).


The poll also asked about religion and politics, among other things. Respondents agreed in nearly equal numbers that nonreligious liberals have too much control over the Democratic Party (44 percent agreed), and that religious conservatives have too much control over the Republican Party (45 percent agreed).


ARROGANT? The Decider had that down to a science!
Landing on that aircraft carrier with his fake package - hahahahaha - Mission Accomplished all right! See ya in the soup kitchen!
facts, evidence, science, and reason
Hasn't worked so well lately, has it?
This is not rocket science. If Americans have access to
it creates a win/win situation for us all. If they open that plan to such a broad base, they would be able to essentially write their own ticket in terms of policy and coverage. As the plan stands now, it is perfectly acceptable, affordable and offers broad choice.

If McCain and his supporters want to wallow around in the politics of nay-saying, fear and hate, no problem. Go for it, but don't expecct Americans who are ready for change and are looking forward instead of backwards in terms of policy to buy into all hat negativity. That's the Bush world mentality and those days are numbered now down to less than 100.
It doesn't take rocket science to figure out....
the crap you are posting is just that, crap.
I see you've been reading the junk science

mags, watching AL Gore movies.  You really are being disingenous here.  There are 692 scientists who have declared that global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity.  Now, we are talking scientists with pedigress a mile long after their names.  You make that insidious claim that the ice caps are melting, and yes, they are, like they usually do, but you neglect to speak to the fact that as they melt, bigger ice caps form that are not melting.


If you have the intelligence to read the report on Fox News, you will see that this is a UN initiative that has been in the works for years.  It goes right along with their plan to strip property rights, huddle the masses in "villages," and only those in power will be the land owner barons. 


Law of Logical Argument - Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.


 


 


Apparently you don't understand statistics or science. Get educated, please!!

 


It's not scientifically sound to make pseudo-scientific statements about U.S. obesity based on a television program you saw that featured some obese people in it.  But it seems when it comes to scientific fact, statistics or the truth - you CONS don't have a clue.


 


Rankings: Obesity Rates Grew In Every State But Oregon


Mississippi Ranked Heaviest State



POSTED: 8:29 am PDT August 23, 2005

UPDATED: 9:34 am PDT August 23, 2005


The obesity epidemic isn't winding down -- in fact, it's expanding, according to state rankings released Tuesday by Trust for America's Health, a nonprofit health advocacy group.

Obesity rates continued to rise last year in every state but Oregon. Mississippi ranked as the heaviest state, Colorado as the least heavy, according to the report, titled F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing in America, 2005.

The rankings are based on averages of three years of data from 2002 to 2004 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hawaii was not included in the report.

About 64.5 percent of adult Americans are either overweight or obese. The report found that more than 25 percent of adults in 10 states are obese, including in Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, Michigan, Kentucky, Indiana and South Carolina.

From the Christian Science Monitor earlier this year












from the March 16, 2005 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0316/p16s01-lire.html


For evangelicals, a bid to 'reclaim America'


The Center aims to increase its 500,000-strong e-mail army to 1 million, and to encourage Christians to run for office. It has plans for 12 regional offices and activists in all 435 US House districts. And a new lobbying arm in Washington will target judicial nominations and the battle over marriage.


If they don't vote our way, we'll change their view one way or another, executive director Gary Cass tells the group. As a California pastor, Dr. Cass spearheaded efforts to close abortion clinics and recruit Christians to seek positions on local school boards. We're going to take back what we lost in the last half of the 20th century, he adds.


For the faithful who gathered in Florida last month, the goal is not just to convert individuals - but to reshape US society.


By Jane Lampman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor


FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA. - For the Reback daughters, the big attraction was the famous Ten Commandments monument, brought to Florida on tour after being removed from the Alabama judicial building as unconstitutional. The youngsters - dressed in red, white, and blue - clustered proudly around the display.


For more than 900 other Christians from across the US, the draw at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church last month was a national conference aimed at reclaiming America for Christ. The monument stood as a potent symbol of their hopes for changing the course of the nation.


We have God-sized problems in our country, and only God can solve them, Richard Land, a prominent leader of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), told the group.


Their mission is not simply to save souls. The goal is to mobilize evangelical Christians for political action to return society to what they call the biblical worldview of the Founding Fathers. Some speak of restoring a Christian nation. Others shy from that phrase, but agree that the Bible calls them not only to evangelize, but also to transform the culture.


In material given to conference attendees, the Rev. D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge pastor wrote: As the vice-regents of God, we are to bring His truth and His will to bear on every sphere of our world and our society. We are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government ... our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors - in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.


This is the 10th conference to spread this cultural mandate among Christians, and although the church's pastor couldn't speak due to illness, others presented the message intended to rouse the conservative faithful, eager to capitalize on gains won during the November election.


This melding of religion and politics, Christianity and patriotism, makes many uneasy, particularly those on the other side of the so-called culture war, who see a threat to the healthy discourse of a pluralistic society.


This is an effort to impose a particular far-right religious view, and political and social policies that result from that, on others, says Elliot Mincberg of People for the American Way, a group that advocates for a diverse society. There's nothing wrong with trying to convince others to adopt their views, but [Dr. Kennedy's] effort is also to use the levers of government to force changes.


An energetic pastor who built Coral Ridge into a 10,000-member megachurch with far-reaching radio and TV audiences, the Rev. Dr. Kennedy regularly calls the US a Christian nation that should be governed by Christians. He has created a Center for Christian Statesmanship in Washington that seeks to evangelize members of Congress and their staffs, and to counsel conservative Christian officeholders.


Some critics suggest these views reflect far-right Presbyterian thinking, some of which extends to the realm of theocracy, the belief that God - or His representatives - should govern the state.


Frederick Carlson, author of Eternal Hostility: the Struggle between Theocracy and Democracy, says that if Kennedy is not a theocrat, he is certainly a dominionist, one who supports taking over and dominating the political process.


Kennedy is not in the theocratic camp, says John Aman, Coral Ridge spokesman. He does believe that Christians should not sequester themselves inside their stained-glass ghettoes, but seek to be 'salt and light' - apply biblical moral truth and the Gospel - to every area of society.


It's apparent that those who've traveled here from 40 states are eager to do just that. Many of them say they are most motivated by signs of moral decline in America, concern for their children's future, and what they see as an effort to keep God and religious speech out of public life.


The country is getting further away from Christian values, and we're being stifled, says Debbie Mochle-Young, of Santa Monica, Calif. Other nationalities are coming to live here and say, 'We want our beliefs,' but they don't let you have yours. Nathan Lepper, an Air Force retiree active in politics in Florida, says he has a personal passion to help America turn back to its moral and ethical bases.


Some are already involved in their communities - in antiabortion actions, in trying to prevent removal of feeding tubes from Terri Schiavo, or in efforts to oppose same-sex marriage by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.


Gabriel Carpenter, from Dryden, N.Y., works at a local crisis pregnancy center and is a coordinator for the now-required sexual abstinence program in New York public schools. He and his wife, Penelope, say they hope to learn more about how to share America's Christian heritage with others.


Christianity and patriotism are interwoven throughout the gathering, from Christian and American flags marched into the sanctuary, to red, white, and blue banners festooning the church complex, to a rousing patriotic concert. Several speakers emphasize the idea that America's founders were largely Christian and that their intent was to establish a biblically based nation. (No mention is made of other influences on the Founding Fathers, such as Englightenment thinkers or issues of freedom of conscience.)


David Barton, a leading advocate for emphasizing Christianity in US history, deftly selects quotes from letters and historical documents to link major historical figures such as George Washington to a Christian vision, and to suggest that the courts and scholars in the last century have deliberately undermined the original intent of the Founding Fathers.


Critics, including historians and the Baptist Joint Committee, challenge the accuracy of some of Mr. Barton's work, including what he calls the myth of separation of church and state.


In Blessed Assurance: A History of Evangelicalism in America, religious historian Randall Balmer of Columbia University writes that a contrived mythology about America's Christian origins has been a factor in the reentry of evangelicals into political life, helping sustain the conservative swing in American politics. Barton and others say they are recapturing truths hidden behind a secularist version of history, while critics say they are producing revisionist history that cherry-picks facts and ignores historical evidence.


But Barton is clearly a favorite speaker, with a theme buttressing the identity and purpose of those eager to reform the country. And there's plenty for them to do. Coral Ridge's Center for Reclaiming America is building a grass-roots alliance around five issues: the sanctity of life, religious liberty, pornography, the homosexual agenda, and creation vs. evolution.


The Center aims to increase its 500,000-strong e-mail army to 1 million, and to encourage Christians to run for office. It has plans for 12 regional offices and activists in all 435 US House districts. And a new lobbying arm in Washington will target judicial nominations and the battle over marriage.


If they don't vote our way, we'll change their view one way or another, executive director Gary Cass tells the group. As a California pastor, Dr. Cass spearheaded efforts to close abortion clinics and recruit Christians to seek positions on local school boards. We're going to take back what we lost in the last half of the 20th century, he adds.


Taking back is a major theme - taking back the schools, the media, the courts.


It's time to take back the portals of power, and particularly those of commerce, because commerce controls all the gates - to government, the courts, and so on, says businessman Michael Pink in a workshop. Recounting his own business success based on in-depth Bible study, Mr. Pink says he's now urging wealthy Christian businessmen to start using their earnings to purchase such prizes as ABC and NBC.


Interspersed between worshipful singing, prominent activist leaders tout recent successes. Alan Sears of the Alliance Defense Fund, who has led the charge in the states against same-sex marriage, talks of victories in Ohio and California and the phalanx of 800 lawyers now trained for the fight across the US. Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association highlights growing impact on the entertainment industry, from spurring FCC regulatory actions against broadcast indecency to causing major companies to pull their ads from TV programs.


Yet it's the most combative language that brings the crowd to its feet in applause: Judicial activists are running rampant and a God-free country is their goal.... All means to turn the tide must be considered, including their removal, urges the Rev. Rick Scarborough, founder of Vision America, which mobilizes patriot pastors across the US.


SBC's Dr. Land, credited with helping to turn out evangelical voters in the 2004 election, says Kennedy's conferences have an impact: No one has been more important in helping Christians of every denominational persuasion understand first, their evangelistic responsibility ... and then their responsibility to be salt and light in the world.


Others suggest that among evangelicals as a whole - whose numbers are estimated to represent at least 25 percent of the US population - the appeal and influence of such religio-political activism are limited.


This is more right wing and religiously politicized than the majority of evangelicals, says Christian Smith, professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Most would not make the kind of 'take back America' statements in such an overt way.


In an in-depth national study published in 2000 under the title, Christian America? What Evangelicals Really Want, Dr. Smith explored the views of a remarkably diverse group, with many holding conflicted views on political involvement and the issues and methods of activists.


Still, the 2004 election confirmed a growing mobilization of conservative Christians. And in a recent Barna survey of American pastors about their choice for the most trusted spokesperson for Christianity, Dr. Kennedy made the top 10, sharing the final spot with three others, including Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson and President Bush, each winning the vote of 4 percent of the clergy.







www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.
For permission to reprint/republish this article, please email
Copyright




 


Religious "voodoo?" Science has documented and shown that....sm
life begins at conception, those cells are living, have their code, and I have seen my own children on ultrasound as early as 8 weeks (with high risk pregnancies) fully formed, moving all extremities, trying to suck their thumbs, kicking, tiny heart beating away, with everything that you or I have, only inside the womb. Now if you wish to believe that a woman can do with THAT as she wants, so be it, I still have to stand with the pro-choice crowd not because I believe in abortion or that it is okay and not murdering a human being, but because I can see the instances where a woman would be justified in her actions, and let her make her own peach and atonement with God, as we all will. Science more and more is proving out what has been in the Bible all along. I do not think that was a fair or rational characterization of "religion," and it was hurtful and inflammatory. Choose to be atheist or agnostic, Christianity is not "voodoo."
I did not say they said global warming as a general theory was not good science...
but that Gore's version in his movie was not good science. And I said it was debunked...but that they said it was bunk.

Here's one....an interview with a noted scientist in the field:

Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.

The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.

There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.

"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.

The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said. Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said. "It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."

Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe." Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.

"I have now worked for zero dollars since I retired, long enough that I have paid back the people of Wisconsin every cent they paid me to give me a wonderful, wonderful career. So we are even now. And I feel good about that," said Bryson.

So, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it? "Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?" Bryson shot back.

"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"

Speaking out against global warming is like being a heretic, Bryson noted. And it's not something that he does regularly. "I can't waste my time on that, I have too many other things to do," he said.

But if somebody asks him for his opinion on global warming, he'll give it. "And I think I know about as much about it as anybody does."

Up against his students' students: Reporters will often call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson said. "And that goes in the paper as 'scientists say.'"

The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years, he said. "It is sort of a smear."

Bryson said he recently wrote something on the subject and two graduate students told him he was wrong, citing research done by one of their professors. That professor, Bryson noted, is probably the student of one of his students.

"Well, that professor happened to be wrong," he said. "There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts."

While Bryson doesn't think that global warming is man-made, he said there is some evidence of an effect from mankind, but not an effect of carbon dioxide. For example, in Wisconsin in the last 100 years the biggest heating has been around Madison, Milwaukee and in the Southeast, where the cities are. There was a slight change in the Green Bay area, he said. The rest of the state shows no warming at all.

"The growth of cities makes it hotter, but that was true back in the 1930s, too," Bryson said. "Big cities were hotter than the surrounding countryside because you concentrate the traffic and you concentrate the home heating. And you modify the surface, you pave a lot of it."

Bryson didn't see AL Gore's movie about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth." "Don't make me throw up," he said. "It is not science. It is not true."

Another:
One of the world's leading meteorologists has described the theory that helped Al Gore win a share of the Nobel prize "ridiculous".

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, spoke to a packed lecture hall at UNC Charlotte and said humans are not responsible for the warming of the earth.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Gray, 78, a longtime professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie (An Inconvenient Truth) and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said instead that a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - is responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle means a period of global cooling will begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Gray said.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Gray said.

He said his beliefs have made him an outsider in popular science.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

Seeing a link here? They want grants, they have to buy into global warming. Hellooo. Follow the money.

This is from Newsvine (owned by MSNBC, home of Chris Matthews...biased yes, but in your favor), about the "consensus of scientists" who buy into Gore's theory:
Article Source: dailytech.comworld-news, global-warming, study, scientists - of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

Here is another: the scientists quoted are not conservatives.

Gore Slams Global Warming Critics



Reprint Information
Book on Katie Couric Makes Waves


In twin appearances last night former Vice President Al Gore dismissed critics of his global warming theory as a small minority not credible in their opposition.

In an unprecedented, uninterrupted eight-minute monologue on Keith Olbermann’s "Countdown," Gore characterized those scientists who dispute the reality of global warming as part of a lunatic fringe.

Later, on Charlie Rose’s show, Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, "The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”

NOTE: Again with the consensus...as stated above, the consensus he claims does not exist.

This flies in the face of such challengers as professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia who said: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."


Famed climatologist and internationally renowned hurricane expert Dr. William Gray of the atmospheric-science department at Colorado State University went even further, calling the scientific "consensus" on global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." For speaking the truth he has seen most of his government research funding dry up, according to the Washington Post.


Neither Gray nor Dr. Carter believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.

Nor does famed Oxford professor David Bellamy who sniffs that Gore’s theory is "Poppycock!"


Writing in Britain's Daily Mail last July 9, Dr. Bellamy charged that "the world's politicians and policy makers ... have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credo of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide – the principal so-called greenhouse gas – into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.



"They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.


"As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and rubles into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist. The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic."

Wrote Dr. Bellamy "It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be [$1.3 trillion]. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.


"If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist – money that could be used in umpteen better ways: Fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.


"The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact."

In agreement with Dr. Bellamy were a host of other respected climatologists including the 19,000 who have signed a declaration that rejects Gore’s accusation that the rise of greenhouse gasses is caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels. As has been pointed out, previous ice ages have been preceded by a rise on CO2 levels long before there were humans or fossil fuels or backyard barbecues.

Commenting on the scientists who support Gore’s thesis, Dr. Carter one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change, says, "‘Climate experts’ is the operative term here. Why? Because of what Gore's ‘majority of scientists’ think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to U.S. science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of who know, but feel unable to state publicly, that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April, 60 of the world's leading experts in the field asked Canada’s Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake – either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents – it seems like a reasonable request, wrote Tom Harris in the Canada Free Press.

According to Harris, a mechanical engineer, former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball notes that even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

Adds Ball, among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not predictions but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

Canada's new conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been urged by more than 60 leading international climate change experts to review the global warming policies he inherited from his predecessor.

In an open letter that includes five British scientists among the 60 leading international climate change experts who signed the letter, the experts praise Harper’s commitment to review the controversial Kyoto Protocol on reducing emissions harmful to the environment. "Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science," they wrote in the Canadian Financial Post last week.

They emphasized that the study of global climate change is, in Harper's own words, an "emerging science" and added: "If, back in the mid 1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, they wrote.

"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.

"Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"

The letter is the latest effort by climate change skeptics to counter Gore's demonstrably false claims that there is a consensus that human activity is causing alleged global warming.

Listening to Al Gore makes one wonder if he is the one who believes that "the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.”



'Bout time, too! This science shows such great promise in
N/M
they don't do that anymore...
You get a maxium amount regardless of how many kids you have.
what I would do is make them take a class a month towards a trade, CNA, teaching assist, something in demand, in order to get their welfare for the next month, unless they were getting it b/c they were disabled.
Not anymore they don't!
--
This is not an option anymore
I've been listening to the news people talking and this is not an option anymore. Barack is being polite about this, but I see no way for them to run together. Her time has passed. He is now looking at other very qualified people to be VP. One is a woman and one is even a republican. A lot of people think that it will be so easy to win over republicans this fall, but if McCain is running against Hillary he for sure will win as there is too much negativity about Hillary. I cannot stand McCain, but I for one would vote for him over Hillary. First I would change my party to independent, and then I would vote for McCain. People are saying there are three parties running here. The republicans, the democrats and the Clintons. The Clintons have put themselves into their own party. Although a vote for Clinton and a vote for McCain are virtually the same thing. She used to be a republican before she switched to democrat years ago, and her voting record is quite conservative. I for one am glad that Obama is looking at other people for VP slot and his list is pretty impressive. The candidates all seem to be very good choices and I hear many people really respect these people. There are even a lot of republicans who do not want McCain in there, however, they want Hillary even less. I believe that if Obama is the nominee he will win as a lot of republicans will back him, but if Hillary is in there McCain will win as she and Bill have so much bad history attached to them. The only people who are now pushing for an Obama/Hillary ticket are the Hillary supporters as they are trying anything and everything to get her in there, but none of the talk of them running together is coming from Obama's side. Makes you kind of think about that.
On another note it seems as if every state she wins she tries to convince people that if you don't win that state you will not win in November. Funny how these states never include the ones she lost in. You don't hear her saying that about Iowa or Minnesota. We sit and laugh and say nice try Hillary. Then we listen to the news and they say the same thing.
I really don't care anymore.

They can call me what they want. Only I know if I am or not a racist. I do know I am against the dems so if that makes me a racist, so be it.


Will not be a river anymore is why we

So hot that the rivers and lakes are drying up.


Okay, I can't stand it anymore....
the answer is......Hitler.  His directive 51 was pretty much the same thing.
I don't think it matters anymore
We are on the brink of a major depression. I don't know that anything they do will prevent it. The best they can do is maybe lessen the severity and length. The automakers, credit card companies, and banks are going to end up like the airlines (at best) in having to be propped up for an indefinite period of time by the government.


I know. So did I but I don't care anymore.
I was called a racist just because I don't trust O. So be it. It sure was a surprise to my foster son.
We don't buy dog food anymore....
and that saves a lot of money.
That's why we don't watch TV anymore -
TV is just for movies and entertainment. Can't expect to get any "real" news from the tube.
Does it get anymore juvenile than this?
Or is it just party dumb we see here?
Not anymore. We are THEIR servants. They are not ours. (nm)
.
You won't be anymore uninformed than he will....he
NM
No, I refuse to try and debate you anymore
because you can't be anything but condescending and ugly. 
MT doesn't hang around here much anymore. sm
So I am going to take up for her.  Frankly, I am not sure why you are so upset.  So your friend exaggerated.  Lots of people do that.  MT (and most of us) have certainly taken our licks on these boards a lot of times. I really don't see why you being so mean about it.
Is this the liberal board anymore?
I give you Democrats and/or liberals credit for even being able to respond to the right wing who for some reason, I just cannot understand why, constantly come over to the liberal board and post more than the liberals do and every post is a disagreement or outright attack towards the liberal poster who posted on the liberal board..I frankly have had it with the Republicans.  They have messed up America with their backward way of thinking and they still dont get it.  Their party is falling apart and they are looking at more Democrats being voted in yet they still spew their hate, bias, closed mindedness..From Limbaugh to Coulter to Falwell to Robertson, Dobson, Hannity, etc., etc., they show the world how uninformed and racist and backward they are..and the Republican masses follow blindly.  I just about choked on the latest idiotic comment by Coulter concerning Christians and Jews.  Someone needs to set that broad straight real fast.  The comments she made that Jews need to be perfected is a mind set right out of Hitlers Germany. Oh and all you Republicans who will wander over to the liberal board and real this, dont waste the energy, I will not respond to your posts nor read them.  This is a post to my fellow Democrats/liberals. 
I'm not arguing this anymore, it's pointless
but your last argument hit me. If abortion was made illegal and I got pregnant and carrying that baby was going to kill me - then someone would have the power to choose whether I live or die - the people who chose to make abortion illegal.

And before anyone argues that abortion would be allowed in those cases, who would get to decide? The courts? By the time the case went through the sluggish system, it could be too late.

This debate has no winner, everyone has their own views. However, from a legal standpoint it either has to be legal or illegal. A pregnant woman is not given the luxury of time for the court to decide whether it is okay in her particular case to be allowed to have an abortion.

God bless.
Oh my God. You really sound ignorant, but I am not going to say anymore. nm
/....
Well, I don't trust any politician anymore
It seems they're only out to rip us off. As soon as I heard of this "buying" votes, the idea of the O  coming so quick from nothing to president elect and was from Illinois gave me the idea that he bought his seat. I've been watching the news and maybe that's what they do in Illinois without realizing it's wrong. After all, there have been so many politicians from there that have been indicted for political crimes, I'm thinking that it's a natural way of doing "business" there. Even the governor  doesn't think he did anything wrong. Are they a different country and we don't know it?
No one would listen and he is not an option anymore sm
I started preparing and investing in sound money 2 years ago because of him. My silver may end up being worth $200 an ounce and all the Federal Reserve Notes will be worth the same as Monopoly money. We all knew this was coming and it is going to get worse. Note the date:

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
July 16, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie), and the National Home Loan Bank Board (HLBB). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone.

One of the major government privileges granted these GSEs is a line of credit to the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out these GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps them attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.

The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of housing-related GSEs. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.

Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie, Freddie, and HLBB have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

However, despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.

Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to the GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope my colleagues will stand up for American taxpayers and investors by cosponsoring the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.
I agree with you. I was on the fence, too, but not anymore

I thought Obama was going to be my choice then I did some research because I wondered how he was going to accomplish all those ideas. It's a dream scheme, nothing but a lot of hot air and higher taxes as usual. There's no way he can do what he wants to do.


McCain is not promising the world on a silver platter. He's not the greatest speaker, but I believe he'll do a better job.


 


Families abandon their own a lot anymore.
nm
He isn't unskilled anymore then. Why do you want to argue about EVERYTHING? SM
BS
More the reason we don't need anymore taxes
@
Not anymore monotonous than the rote...
ohhhbaaamaaa can do no wrong. What alternate reality do you exist in that you think just because he won the election people who are concerned about what he will do will just fold their tents and go home? That we would all join the Obama lovefest? Seriously???? lol.
I can't write too fast anymore, but here's what I did get

1. Fiscal Stimulus Plan: Before or after inauguration (sp). Wants to get it moving quickly, but if he has to wait until January 20, so be it, but states he will try during these couple months to push one through now.


2. Retooling assistance plan for automakers for fuel-effieicnt cars. He realizes that the auto industry employs thousands and other companies depend on the auto industry for their jobs. Wants this package done quickly.


3. Review implementaion of plans and not rewarding management for housing problems that are caused.


4. Grow middle class in the long term.


Reporters asked questions but couldn't get them all.


1. He wants to help the states financially.


2. As to going to other countries for conferences: He is developing a team and weighing all his options. Iran's nuclear weapons are unacceptable along with the militants. This has to cease. It's not something he can do in a knee-jerk fashion and wants to be careful (not to p--s them off).


3. Tax plan: 95% of WORKING Americans will get it. His first goal is tax relief for struggling families and to build the economy from the bottom up.


That's all I could get.


Unions don't work anymore.

Some union members are afraid to vote for better benefits or strike because management threatens to move, like the other posters stated.


Case in point: A small manufacturing shop. Union wanted higher wages or strike, and health care benefits to stay the same, both in cost and care. The union wanted a $.25 an hour raise. Owner said No. Union asked for $.15. Owner said no. Union said strike. Workers said no. They were afraid the owner would shut down and they had their jobs for 30 years.


The union steward fought for better benefits but when the workers voted against the better benefits, the company won. Two weeks later, the steward was laid off, along with a member of my family just because he was friends with the union steward. That was 3 years ago. The workers are still working for the same hourly rate this year. How's that for being fair?


I was a member of the Teamster's. When we went on strike for better wages back in the ྂs, he company threatened to move out.. We also wanted (women) equal pay for equal work because we did the same work the men did, but got paid $.25 an hour less.  They moved and 100 jobs were lost. So, you see, companies still have the upper hand, not unions. They only want your money anymore. They really don't care about the workers.


I'm guessing they're not around anymore.
And yes, they are actually more profitable now because of sending too many jobs overseas and many MTs here working as ICs (i.e. no benefits). But what I'm saying is, and why I used the MTSO as an example, that if they have to start paying more in taxes, things are just going to get worse - for us, not them. They'll figure out a way to stay profitable no matter what. It's the American MTs that are going to lose our jobs or work for worse wages than we are already. I'm not saying that's fair or that's right, but what these days is? That may sound kind of pessimistic, but I think it's looking kind of glass half empty, even with Obama as our future pres. I hope to God I'm wrong, though, and would be very pleased to chow down on some of that crow you mentioned a little while back! =)
I didn't think much could surprise me anymore
but this is some creepy stuff. What's next?
All you do anymore is laugh at people.
nm
That doesn't work anymore.
my friend. ;-)
but we do not have a draft anymore, so it does not matter!
On Jan. 27, 1973, Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird announced the creation of an all-volunteer armed forces, negating the need for the military draft.


Can you get anymore tunnel vision and one-sided?

Dang..We do not want a warring America anymore

 


These people are my heros..Protestors are my heros!  True patriots one and all.







School of the Americas Protest
A Film by Rebecca MacNeice

QuickTime
DSL | 56K
Windows Media
DSL | 56K
RealMedia
DSL | 56K

I stand corrected - sheesh! who can you believe anymore
I'm totally confused with everything going on now adays. I don't know truth from smears. You would think if someone is actually putting their name to something they would be telling the truth due to serious outcomes of false accusations.

So how can we tell if something we hear on TV, radio or internet is true or not?

Makes me just not want to vote anymore and turn off the TV and put my head in the sand and ignore all going on. I just don't know what to believe anymore.
Not anymore...they are dead even. Everyone is bailin Palin...nm
the honeymoon is over!!!!

Obama is back on track again..WOOHOO!!!

lol
It is true for some people, but I don't think it is the majority anymore (sm)
I am white and have many friends who are different races and most of the white people I know, who do not know my other friends necessarily, are not racist. I know many white people who are voting for Obama. I also have a lot of black friends who tell me that a lot of their relatives, mostly older, are very prejudiced against white people. When will people realize that they should look at the person for who they are, not the color of their skin? But truly, I do not think it is any longer the majority who is racist. I think it is mostly older people who have the prejudices and that most people 40s and under are no longer racist, and those who are are generally very unintelligent people. By the way, I am from the deep south.
save it - I do not read your posts anymore
I can tell you I have made a decision based on this board of who I will be voting for...
who cares about the stock market anymore? it's
my stock-based 401K is all but gone, and even if i had the money next year, or ever, not a cent of it will ever go back into the stock market's house of cards. so i personally dont give a rip what happens to it from here on out.
I started school this summer - can't take it anymore!!! nm
x