RudyTHEGANGSTER

New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds 'Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence' An inconvenient new peer-reviewed study published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology. Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence: Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes ('fingerprints') over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is 'unstoppable' and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation. These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia). The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming." Co-author John Christy said: "Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide." Co-author S. Fred Singer said: "The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth's atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface and thus the climate." Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. ? but very costly. See also: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11561541/ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71211101623.htm

I didn't say the government creates jobs. You claimed the economy would suffer a blow if bureaucrats lost their jobs. The coost of bureaucrats literally robs jobs from the overall economy. But then again, you said you support Obama's foreign policy because he "didn't mean" those things he said about bombing pakistan and iran. So apparently, the plain facts don't mean that much.

I agree that we have a massive problem with the federal trade deficit. However, that doesn't mean that we need to take a wrecking ball to the government. You guys claim that you want to create jobs, but have you considered the thousands of people who would be out of work because the government closed all of these various departments? I can't even imagine the shock from that. The primary reason that Medicare and Medicaid were established was to help elderly retired people on fixed incomes that just can't pay the insane prices for some of the drugs they need to survive. Yes, like anything, it has likely gone far beyond that, but it shouldn't be scrapped completely just because it doesn't work 100% efficiently. In a situation like that, you need to do an internal review of some kind and determine the best ways to make things work better. If I was to eliminate any department, it would be DHS. They are an unnecessary new bureaucracy created in the aftermath of 9/11 that has done nothing at all to increase our security. Instead, it looks like it has made it even harder for government security agencies to communicate with each other. 1. Ron Paul is the only advocate pledging to get rid of the DHS. 2. The government does not "create" jobs. If taxpayers kept more of their money, they would spend it somewhere else other than the government and new jobs would exist. However, because taxation leads to dead weight losses, the economy will simply have less jobs than if it had no such economic inefficiencies created by the

I'm not sure I'd donate to a campaign that has used some of its funds on a blimp. Maybe that is just me. I can certainly think of a whole bunch of better uses of campaign funds... I think it is a publicity stunt. It could be very useful (and cost effective) in that sense.

Those boatload of services are killing our economy and perpetuating a cycle of poverty. We are not going to be able to afford our entitlements and foreign policy for much longer. At least Ron Paul supporters are not advocating the vandalism of one of our country's most valuable resources: blimps. bulls***. Explain to me how, if Ron Paul's policies are enacted, anyone but the rich will benefit. And I need more than just a "taxes are teh ghey" response. First, taxation takes money out of the economy creating massive economic inefficiences called "dead weight losses." Second, it makes it more expensive to do business in America (being that corporate income taxes in America are much higher than in other countries, this too puts us at an absolute disadvantage.) Now, if you actually cared about poor people, you would want them to have jobs. However, dead weight losses and the loss of job overseas generally do not put the rich out of work. They hurt the working class the most. Thus, if you want to maximize the amount of good paying jobs in this country, you want low taxes. If you bothered taking a class in economics, you would know this. Now, low taxes means we all make more money and have more jobs, BUT there must be a smaller social safety net. So yes, there are tradeoffs to having low taxes (such as having a tough break and being sh*t out of luck), but no one with any understanding of economics whatsoever doubts the fact that low taxes are good for everyone in the aggregate economically. Only idealogues will lie to people with nonesense about how if we only taxed people more we would have more jobs. That is quite simply not a feasible proposition. Ibn Khaldun had all of this figured out in the 14th century. Yet, we still live in relative economic ignorance all these years later.

Just pop the blimp, no one has to be on it. Honestly though, IF Ron Paul was president, this country would be in a lot of trouble. So you're one of those in favor of staying in Iraq till (at least) 2013 are you? Or you're happy that every new dollar that enters our economy (after being created out of thin air for congress to waste) is then owed with interest to the shareholders of a private bank? This country is already in a lot of trouble. Ron Paul is the only one suggesting we address the causes (insane foreign and monetary policies along with the overgrown federal government.) He wants to rip the government apart and remove most of the services that the nation provides to the people. That would cause boatloads of problems. I think the main draw of him to people is that he wants to abolish income taxes. That would be my guess. Those boatload of services are killing our economy and perpetuating a cycle of poverty. We are not going to be able to afford our entitlements and foreign policy for much longer. At least Ron Paul supporters are not advocating the vandalism of one of our country's most valuable resources: blimps.

So killing ron paul supporters is funny, but killing some political hack isn't...let me make a mental note. Oh yeah, talking about killing anyone is distasteful. Where's the outrage over the blimp comment?

Let's just get rid of schools altogether. That will save BILLIONS!

Say what you want about "not believing" but until you show willingness to actual delve into the issue, you sound rather naive. The point of the findings is that while the gay community is "underground" and inaccessible, the statistical relationship between drug use, HIV, and homosexuals/bi males is not directly attached to social stigmas. Drugs are not always used in instances of futility or unhappiness due to lack of acceptance (social stigmas). The study makes explicit note of saying that gay communities are statistically more likely to use stimulants to heighten the sensation of intercourse, when placed against heterosexual males. In context, this has been used in gay populations to both reduce intimacy problems and increase orgasms. The point is implicity made that drug use is in most instances a cornerstone to gay culture. There are no clear answers, as is this is a somewhat unreachable community for study, but nowhere is a connection made between social stigmas and drug use. This could be the case for certain youths (my own estimation), but here the study is claiming there are more issues with the culture inherently we can't so directly account for. Fox's comment his highly perfunctory and is missing the statistical points made by this study. Nothing here is based upon stereotype, but ethnographic study. So I should read all 270 pages. At the risk of sounding naive, I'll pass. Who needs books!

Someone needs to shoot it down. I would rather have someone just shoot Obama. It beats having one guy die than a whole blimp-full.

And what's your point? We are too PC in this society. Just because a politician pointed out the fact that homosexuals are disproportionately unhealthy in the past, that does not make him evil. The homosexual community has some major problems (though I am sure many can be traced to discrimination from heterosexuals.) But they are real. Now isolation is a different story.

I don't know about isolation, but homosexuality is positively correlated with unhealthy behaviors, depression, suicide, and drug use. You can interpret that however you please, but these things are facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y6WtEQfyM0 (the blimp on CNN) This has been the most interesting presidential primary I ever followed. Ron Paul's supporters, not the campaign, raised their own money to buy their own blimp to begin flying around the country and it will fly. As an all around fan of the Hindenburg, Led Zeppelin, and Fuji Film, I anticipate a new trend in presidential politics--semi-rigid airships galore!

What part of "Congress shall make NO law" is so dam hard to understand? Leave it to the states to regulate these things. As a side note, I am vehemently-anti pronography, so my disdain for this is on constitutional grounds. Just curious, why? I take a functionalist view when it comes to vice in this country. I think legalizing and regulating most all of it would do a lot of good. At heart, I am a religious nut-job who takes the "turn the other cheek" and "lusting after a woman is audltry" stuff that jesus said seriously. But also, it exploits women who are often addicts who resort to such acts.

What part of "Congress shall make NO law" is so dam hard to understand? Leave it to the states to regulate these things. As a side note, I am vehemently-anti pronography, so my disdain for this is on constitutional grounds.

This is why I hate Presidential elections: "I won't vote for that guy cuze he's moromon." "I won't vote for that guy because he takes the Bible way too literally." What do any of these tyhings have to do with a President's policies. I would be more concerned with their stances on foreign policy. Bush ran saying we should have a non-interventionist foreign policy, and look how that turned out. I just wonder wha a war-mongering candidate now will become when she has her finger on the button.

It looks like FOX news has pimped out this Democrat in Republican's clothing to the spot as THE frontrunner. He already threatens to win some of the early primaries as well. At least Huckabee isn't actually flat out evil and he is relatively honest unlike almost every other politician this election, so I like that. A great political rags-to-riches story. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315264,00.html

Environmentalists just have contempt for humanity. They think fossil fuels are evil though they are the reason we don't live in rags anymore. And they hate dams because they make sendiment pile up. And they hate windmills because birds die. These people should not be given so much attention from the press.

No way. People never follow those visas. They just stay here. Get rid of all welfare, man the borders, increase legal immigration, and start defending the US border with force. That way you know that whomever is crossing illegally is a foreign enemy, criminal, or drug runner. That's how you fix the immigration-defense problem. Defending the US border with force, huh? So we're going to shoot people for trying to come into our country? Man, I'm really hoping you aren't of Eastern European, Irish, German, Japanese, Chinese, Cuban, South American, or Italian descent, because if you are, you are a gigantic hypocrit. So if we had an open immigration policy and people still crossed the border, they should not be shot? I would not want you to be running border security in Iraq! The fact of the matter is that until we get hit really big, we are going to live in border la la land. I would rather have the borders constitutionally protected than all my 4th amendmenmt rioghts sacrificed. And it appears that that is the strategy (which does not work) the government is taking and the people are supporting. We will officially not be America anymore when that happens.

I agree illegal immigration should be controlled. The question is how you can do that. The best way to do that, IMO, is to increase the number of immigrant and non-immigrant visas available every year. The number of temporary guest workers is very low... the economy needs more. If you do those things, illegal immigration will undoubtedly go down. I would say 99 percent of all illegal immigrants come here because they want to work and there are jobs for them. That's the bottom line. Any policy that doesn't recognize that basic fact is doomed to fail. No way. People never follow those visas. They just stay here. Get rid of all welfare, man the borders, increase legal immigration, and start defending the US border with force. That way you know that whomever is crossing illegally is a foreign enemy, criminal, or drug runner. That's how you fix the immigration-defense problem. Terrorist are more likely to enter through US-Canadian border than US-Mexico border. I don't see the Canadian border getting any attention...... It certainly should.

I agree illegal immigration should be controlled. The question is how you can do that. The best way to do that, IMO, is to increase the number of immigrant and non-immigrant visas available every year. The number of temporary guest workers is very low... the economy needs more. If you do those things, illegal immigration will undoubtedly go down. I would say 99 percent of all illegal immigrants come here because they want to work and there are jobs for them. That's the bottom line. Any policy that doesn't recognize that basic fact is doomed to fail. No way. People never follow those visas. They just stay here. Get rid of all welfare, man the borders, increase legal immigration, and start defending the US border with force. That way you know that whomever is crossing illegally is a foreign enemy, criminal, or drug runner. That's how you fix the immigration-defense problem.

Lowest levels since a year and a half ago in a 4.5 year war? Not quite the progress that should be making us feel great about our foreign interventionism.

Studies show immigrants are much less likely to seek welfare benefits than their American counterparts. This is easily verifiable. The main benefits are related to schooling and things of that sort, which everyone has access to. Again, why does that even matter? They are not citizens! As long as we have a welfare state and a security problem, encouraging illegal immigration is a bad iodea.

many illegal immigrants actually have valid social security numbers. so, it's actually a much higher number that file their taxes. in addition, you neglect the fact that many illegal aliens actually use fake social security numbers, which means they pay taxes into the system but cannot get any returns. in other words, they can't get the credit you mentioned, so they pay into the system but don't get anything back. Sources? A source you quoted put the number at 1.4 million...far below their number. My source: my family and I. We came over illegally in the 80s fleeing the communist government/war of Nicaragua. Initially, my mother and older brother used a fake social security number to work, which meant they paid into the system but never received credit for such payment or a return. Before you get your panties in a wad, we're all legal now (in fact, American citizens, and proud of it), my brother is an orthodontist, I am an attorney, and I went to a top college and law school. Huckabee's program would have benefitted me (had I been illegal at that time and had I not decided to go to a private university) and definitely would have benefitted my brother (he did go to a state school). My brother and I together pay a ton of money in taxes now - well more than any benefits we might have ever received. Anecdotal evidence is not exactly convincing when we are talking about a group of people that are increasing who are a drain on the taxpayer base. Again, I have nothing against immigrants. However, we can no longer afford the welfare state and open borders. If we did not have a problem with foreign terrorism and no welfare state, I would welcome anyone here.

Again, I have nothing against immigrants as individuals. The reason why we cannot just legalize them all, becauyse like the 80s, that is construed as amnesty and adds further incentive to enter the country illegally. many illegal immigrants actually have valid social security numbers. so, it's actually a much higher number that file their taxes. in addition, you neglect the fact that many illegal aliens actually use fake social security numbers, which means they pay taxes into the system but cannot get any returns. in other words, they can't get the credit you mentioned, so they pay into the system but don't get anything back. Sources? A source you quoted put the number at 1.4 million...far below their number. ___ The majority of the people are humble, hard workers who come to this country to do jobs that no one in here will be willing to do. They're working in conditions you can't imagine. I am sure I can imagine them, you do not know my background. They're being exploited for every miserable penny they earned. Exploited? They are receiving a fair market wage for unskilled labor. You have no idea how important they really are to the economy of this country. Is not really a bad figure considering circumstances and all... I would much rather see assimilated and contributing the kids of immigrants. Assimilatinmg to the inner city is the last thing we need in the country. Often, the illegal immigrants themselves are fine. The first generation Americans in the inner-cities are much worse. But who cares?? The fact of the matter is that we are in a war and endangering ourselves by having open borders. The fact we cannot be safe walking around in our own cities is just another minus. Huckabee's program was a state program. So, suppose this program was offered in a state that had no state personal income tax (Florida, Alaska, Nevada, Texas, South Dakota, Washington or Wyoming), would the child of the illegal immigrant be more entitled to be part of that program because, presumably, his/her parents have contributed as much to the state's revenue as a family of legal status with similar economic means would have? Technically, a state should be allowed to do any stupid thing it wants. However, the fact of the matter is that ideally ALL financial incentives for illegals should be rescinded as part and parcel in a program to end illegal immigration.