From Mc Auley’s World: Oh well ….. Bill, you should read the posts and check the sites I provide. The “majority” of scientists around the world do not support the “theory” of global warming – it is a “theory” and is not proven fact ….check out this site …. as was suggested in my series of posts …. it originally appeared on WORD PRESS but has left this provider …. we all known why ……. you’ll find international scientists posting on the site from all over the world ……. http://wattsupwiththat.com/

The most recent post is quite on point ….. Is Climate Change 10 minutes of fame over?
26/10/2009 – From NetNewsledger.com
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/26/is-climate-change-10-minutes-of-fame-over/

or

Spencer: AGW has most of the characteristics of an “urban legend”
24/10/2009
An Expensive Urban Legend
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/24/spencer-agw-has-most-of-the-characteristics-of-an-urban-legend/

McAuleys World Update: 11/05/09 – Well Bill – check out this article by Dr Richard S Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, PhD from Harvard in applied mathematics, formerly a Professor at both Harvard and the University of Chicago. Lindzen is a recipient of the American Meteorological Society’s Meisinger and Charney Awards, American Geophysical Union’s Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Prize from the Wallin Foundation in Goteborg, Sweden. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, and was named Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and a member of the United States National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He was a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. who offers this -

“Don’t Believe the Hype – Al Gore is wrong. There’s no “consensus” on global warming. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

Bill, I know you know who Dr Lindzen is, because he was in on the ground floor of the current Climate Research …….

Bill my point is that you site 1 letter signed by a group of scienitists – my point is this – Dr. Lindsen and the scienitits you may decsribe as “deniers” rank in the thousands also. I certainly hope you are aware that Dr Lindzen and many of the other you might decsribe as “deniers” have been in on the ground floor of Climate research – including the research mentioned as the basis of your post ……. a letter, absent the underlying documents and studies upon which it is based, is nothing more than a political statement …. note the following …..

” the IPCC was stung by criticism that the summaries were being written with little or no input by the scientists themselves, the IPCC had a subset of the scientists review a subsequent draft summary – an improvement in the process. Except that the final version, when later released at a Shanghai press conference, had surprising changes to the draft that scientists had seen.”

THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE FINDINGS MADE AND APPROVED BY THE SCIENTISTS WERE ALTERED IN THE FINAL REPORT …..

“The summaries’ distortion of the IPCC chapters compounds another distortion that occurred in the very writing of the scientific chapters themselves. Dr. Lindzen’s description of the conditions under which the climate scientists worked conjures up a scene worthy of a totalitarian state: “throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC ‘coordinators’ would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that ‘motherhood’ statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their ‘green’ credentials in defense of their statements.”

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0

THE FINAL CONCLUSION OF THE NAS – “The 11 members of the panel, which included Richard Lindzen, concluded that the science is far from settled: “Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward).”

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0

Your SPIN on this topic reminds me of the CNN report on the above NAS finding, “The press’s spin on the NAS report? CNN, in language typical of other reportage, stated that it represented “a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room.”

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=63ab844f-8c55-4059-9ad8-89de085af353&k=0

Thanks for your comments – the total number of visitors to read this months old post doubled from 20,000 to 40,000.

and in response to your criticisms – my article states facts – and lists 5 of the myths of Global Warming – Your retort was and remains that a letter was allegedly signed stating a group supports the theory of Global Warming – how surprising – some people believe in the hype. Gore’s movie, while incredibly inaccurate, was very entertaining for many …… Others have signed “statements” in the past, only to find that the statements to which they afixed their names, were, in fact, changed prior to publication …. how said and unscientific.

Thousands of the worlds foremost scientists and the actual “science” dispute the “World Climate Change” hysteria. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf

There is no need for me to respond – my post presents verifiable facts … the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the amount produced naturally … etc, etc ……… the issue is your rant doesn’t address or hasn’t disproved any of the scientifically accepted facts relayed in my post ….. again, the post is fully linked so your readers can check the sources themselves.

You can read a copy of this reply/post as an addendum to your original “rant” at McAuleys World.

See Dr Lindsen’s presentation “Deconstructing Global Warming” here: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf

WATCH DR LINDSEN PRESENT THE PAPER HERE ON “you tube”: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=22D4DD5727161348

LOL ….. in confirmation of my claim that thousands of Scientists around the globe dispute the theory of Global Warming I invite you to visit WATTSUPWITHTHAT.COM, where thousands post and publish on this topic. WATTS is the 2008/2009 Weblog Award Winner as the best science blog on the NET. Upwards of 1 million (1,000,000) visitors per month visit and post on the site, one of the largests sites on the NET.

If there is a consensus on Gloabl Warming, it is a political not scientific one ….. a consensus based on Politicians spending your tax money on their “special interest groups” and “special invetsment” schemes ……

“implementation costs for operations of the Internal Revenue Service and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are not included. ”

PAGE 3 sub note (a)

*a. ” Does not include effects on spending subject to future appropriations.”

Tell me why, when the (CBO is leaving OUT the COST) to (IMPLEMENT and OPERATE) ( MEDICARE, MEDICAID AND IRS), that (NO ONE) is writing or (telling) the (PUBLIC this).

WHAT ARE( future appropriations) money spent on?
The IRS will be in charge in of keeping track of everyone who has health insurance, who gets help, who does not, who gets some help with premium, a lot of help, who let insurance lapse, who gets FINED, and so on.
(They can not keep track of WHO has CAR insurance, much less who will have health insurance.)

The (expense) to keep (track) of (EVERYONE) in (country) who (has) (health insurance), the (IRS part) (alone )would (cost a fortune). In middle of same paragraph on (PAGE 9) of (CBO projection) it goes on to say,
“*Those discretionary costs could total (several billion dollars) over the 10-year period “,

SEVERAL BILLION

ALL YEAR LONG, EVERY DAY,
ALL this, will be based on your our jobs… what HOURS workd
commissions paid
tips you got
bonus if any, even Christams, or Earnings bonus
overtime
pay raise
change jobs
laid off
temp job’
land a one time, large contract or sale
and then not have that the following year

What happens when BAD check written to health insurance company?… DO YOU PAY FEE fee since YOU WENT WITHOUT INS A FEW DAYS?

What happens if you become DISABLED?
HOW SOON, will they start helping you with insurance premiums, so you can keep health insurance going, at a time you need it most?
SINCE IRS is in charge of keeping up with this, and we know how well they do in tracking down all those who get paid in CASH, and who are BEHIND NOW in their TAXES, (at least THREE YEARS), will it be THREE years before they know WHO to HELP and – NOT too?

I hope this sheds SOME light, to how much EXPEPENSE it will actually cost, to just IMPLEMENT this into current IRS, much less OPERATE it.

ALL the EXPENSE to IMPLEMENT and OPERATE IRS is NOT in the PROJECTION,
That is WHY the CBO clearly show on PAGE 9 middle of page, on CBO report on pdf file, OCT 7, 2009.

PG 3 BEGINNING OF CHART. Notice small ( a )
* NET CHANGES IN THE( DEFICIT) FROM INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVISIONS a

PG 3 End of Chart. Notice small (a)
* NET (CHANGES) IN THE( DEFICIT) a

PAGE 3, sub not ( a ) explanation of SUB note (a) below is EXACT COPY OF WHAT IT SAYS

*a. Does (not )include (effects) on (spending) subject to (future appropriations).

PAGE 9, MIDDLE OF PAGE, shows EXAMPLE to what is ( FUTURE APPROPRIATIONS ) and what Federal spending, i.e., our taxes, are( NOT INCLUDED ) “LOOK “ where it STARTS OFF BY SAYING, Federal spending that would be funded by future appropriations is not reflected in these estimates.

* Federal spending that would be funded by future appropriations is not reflected in these estimates. For example, implementation costs for operations of the Internal Revenue Service and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are not included. Those
discretionary costs could total several billion dollars over the 10-year period, but CBO has not yet completed an estimate of the appropriations that would be necessary. (In contrast, administrative
costs for establishing and operating the exchanges, largely funded through a premium surcharge, are included in Table 1.) Not enough room here to put whole projection, but go in and read the projection, and thew ask yourself, WHY is NO ONE writing, or telling us THIS information?

BOTH parties MUST be getting paid off by BIG PHARM to keep mouth shut, and are only ACTING like they disagree on this, and will PUSH, shove, DRAG us into this, no matter if we WANT it or not.
Having coverage for everyone, PAID for by TAXPAYERS, will ASSURE drug companies will continue to get richer, and be able to charge the BILL to those of us who WORK>

Watch and see. Illegal immigrants WILL be covered, NO matter what BILL says, since several years ago, same type thing came up about education.
WE did not want to PAY to educate those who were NOT paying taxes into schools.
Supreme Court ruled, constitution says, FOR THE PEOPLE, not FOR the CITIZENS…
OBAMA knows that since a Harvard law graduate…
WE will be paying this bill, with MUCH higher taxes…

Thank you, Diana

MCAULESYWORLD:

I have several posts on the topic – use the search function Word Press supplies – when a stat is used for the first time I cite the source – YOU MIGHT JUST DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH AND USE THE MOST RECENT DATA – please note my post date – the stats differ, slightly, year to year and by source – some individuals are in denial that a problem exists ………

The question is stupid anyway how do you expect Obama to fix the economy in an instant, when it took GW 8 years to F it up.

Wake up and drink reality repubutards

MCAULEYS WORLD RESPONSE:

LOL – can’t argue with the stats – G.W – had an average Unemployment Rate of 4.8% over his 8 years – that is right, a 4.8% average, less than one half of the current unemployment rate – the economy didn’t tank until the Dems got control of the House of representatives and the Senate. Look to Michigan, another shining example of Democratic Party Governence – where Democratic Governor Granholm, Obama’s economic advisor, ruined the State while she was in office (this is her 7th year) – while Michigan’s Congresional delegation and both Senators are Democratic. Michigan’s demise was led by Granholm’s tax and spend policies which continue today – policies that Obama is trying to implement Nationally.

Why do you assume there are multiple votes – the problem isn’t in multiple votes, the problem is you don’t like the outcome of the Poll – the Poll is statistically valid ….. too bad OBAMA IS ALIENATING THE IDNEPENDENTS AND CENTRISTS THAT GOT HIM ELECTED – Obama’s slumping numbers have nothing to do with Republicans inflating this polls numbers, your problem its the Independents and Democrats that are abandoning his far left agenda Obama is puching – wake up and smell the coffee before it is too late.