The Housing Bubble

Probably gifts from her other boyfriends. When are you buying her skies?

skies=skis but they sky is the limit on what you will spend on her.

Sounds like the skies the limit for that girl!

You bet, with another $50Trillion of debt. They take away the poor people’s houses and “plan” for them to buy palaces.

BEIJING (Reuters) - China’s economy may still grow around 7.5 percent this year despite signs of a slowdown, and there is no immediate need for the government to roll out fresh stimulus measures, Asian Development Bank (ADB) President Takehiko Nakao said on Monday.

Nakao, former Japanese vice finance minister for international affairs, told Reuters he expects China’s annual economic growth to be still roughly in line with the government’s target, although there may be “ups and downs”.

ADB is revising its forecast on China’s growth for 2014, currently at 7.5 percent, he said, but did not elaborate.

Chinese leaders face a challenge to keep the world’s second-largest economy on an even keel while forging ahead with a long list of market-based reforms announced at a key party meeting late last year, he said.

He said that some short-term stimulus might be necessary to smooth out volatility in the economy, but there was no immediate need as growth remains healthy due to the country’s ongoing urbanization and rising consumption.

“At this moment, I don’t think China needs to resort to a stimulus package,” he said, adding that the economy will likely grow at a rate of around 7.5 percent.

China’s engine of growth is very inefficient. They get $1 of growth for every $4 of new debt.

And what is that number presently in the U.S.? Debt is virtually always a very inefficient driver of growth. But I am willing to bet since they produce more of their own goods they have better success than we do.

Their stability or continued prosperity is not about them being able to make their own stuff. It is about a credit pyramid and how fragile that is. China has the biggest credit bubble on the planet and that is how they became an export giant and achieved miraculous growth. Their growth slowed just a little bit and we are already hearing about defaults and speculation losses. How are they different from the US in the 1920s?

Their stability or continued prosperity is not about them being able to make their own stuff. It is about a credit pyramid and how fragile that is

Their business debt is high, but their personal debt and federal government debt is low. So I do not see an imminent collapse but they are not too far behind us.

If you include all debt in China, private and public you are looking at debt just over 216% of GDP do the same thing in the U.S. including GSEs and you have debt of 360%. China is bad and catching up fast but no where near the U.S. so its collapse will come after our collapse which will probably occur prior to the 2016 election, it looks like 2016 will be the mirror image of 2008.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2014/01/21/chinas-debt-how-serious-is-it/

Jose, if I lived in NYC I would agree with you on NG. However, where I live the pipeline is about five years old

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/nyregion/beneath-cities-a-decaying-tangle-of-gas-pipes.html?ref=nyregion

interesting bar exam question

http://blackdemographics.com/households/poverty/

The PTB wanted Obama in office precisely because they know that blacks are feeling the negative impacts of globalization and illegal immigration more acutely than any other group. The Obamas have their trappings of wealth and power while the average black suffers from the above policies which continued to be facilitated by this administration. The PTB who certainly do not suffer from a lack of intelligence, only a lack of morality, correctly assumed that black’s loyalty to the first black president would prevent them from rioting due to their rapid deterioration in the quality of lives. The statistics for black household wealth are even more grim than the poverty numbers. Over the last five years, decades of progress have been wiped out. Had Romney been elected the inner cities would have been on fire unless he changed course rapidly. Ironically, he would have had to keep his promises on immigration, China and middle class capital gains taxes. While the PTB did not mind him promising those things, they certainly did not want him in office if he would have to actually implement them.

(The PTB) correctly assumed that black’s loyalty to the first black president would prevent them from rioting due to their rapid deterioration in the quality of lives.

As I said months ago, those on the far right fringe who do not like a black President would start coming up with wacko excuses of stuff like why Obama was elected twice with over 50% of the vote or how the ACA passed.

It so rattles their cage that they have to explain it to themselves like Obama pulled a fast one or the PTB pulled a fast one.

Obama won twice, fair and square. Deal with it without a bunch of wacko “theories”.

Good morning Lola. Lucrative weekend?

The truth hurts doesn’t it? Obama is just a puppet of the PTB. Why do you think he gets all the favorable coverage from news outlets like Bloomberg.

The truth hurts doesn’t it?

What truth hurts? That a cocky black dude beat two old GOP white dudes, (way more in with the PTB than Obama) twice by over 50% of the vote?

Except that Obama is a tool on many issues, that truth does not hurt so much at all.

But it sure freaks you out.

What truth hurts? That a cocky black dude beat two old GOP white dudes, (way more in with the PTB than Obama) twice by over 50% of the vote?

You mean the tool of the .01% that are probably 99% white or Asian?

Facts are stubborn things:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/business/racial-wealth-gap-widened-during-recession.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Facts are stubborn things:

That America’s 34 year experiment with Supply-side, rich-get-richer economics have hammered minorities, the poor and the middle-class?

Those facts?

We abandoned supply side economics when Reagan left office and the British abandoned it when Thatcher left office. It has been globalization with the U.S. being the demand through debt accumulation and Obama has only increased that policy.

We abandoned supply side economics when Reagan left office

On what planet did we “abandon” Supply-Side/TrickleDown?

Supply-Side Economics Definition:
An economic theory which holds that reducing tax rates, especially for businesses and wealthy individuals, stimulates savings and investment for the benefit of everyone. also called trickle-down economics. Investorwords dot com

Supply-Side Economics Definition:
……Also called trickle down economics because its proponents believe making the rich richer eventually helps the poor when the benefits of an expanding economy seep down to them. See also Laffer curve and trickle down theory.
businessdictionary dot com

Poor Lola having the army in his neighborhood is probably bad for business:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/24/brazil-army-rio-slums-violence-world-cup

having the army in his neighborhood is probably bad for business

The opposite. 4 years of militarized police in the slums of Rio has helped property values soar in the nice neighborhoods next to those slums.

A hard concept for you to understand Adan? Jealous? Yes.

So your house is next to a slum? Sounds like a party admission. The way Brazil is headed, if you are in Brazil, you will soon be in a slum because they are back growing.

So your house is next to a slum?

Your ignorance is an awesome read Adan. Copacabana, Ipanema, Leblon and São Conrado (some of the best neighborhoods in Rio) are all next to slums to one degree or another. They climb up the mountains.

This wealthy neighborhood is next to the biggest slum in Brazil.
São Conrado is an affluent neighborhood in the South Zone of the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. wiki

São Conrado is next to this slum:
Rocinha (little farm) is the largest favela in Brazil, and is located in Rio de Janeiro’s South Zone between the districts of São Conrado and Gávea.

Do you even own a valid passport Adan?

Even slower economy faster growing slums:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2014/03/24/brazils-investment-grade-rating-takes-a-hit/

I wonder what percentage of young black men aspire to the druggin’, muggin’, thuggin’ lifestyle? The ghetto image is certain to turn off potential employers. Even white kids are into it, but I’m not sure the percentage is as high. Nobody is going to hire a kid with his jeans below his @ss, a major chip on his shoulder, and a “know wha ahm saayin’ G?” vocabulary. It’s a real shame who/what a lot of kids these days look up to.

There is a big difference between living on the boundaries of a slum thus potentially benefitting from an army presence and living in a large area far from the slums but the area being adjacent to a slum. You said that the army was helping your property values so you must live physically near the slum. Of course, it is an academic point since you are in D.C. and lying about everything. If you were in Brazil you would not need to be posting Democratic talking points everyday.

Rio, would you consider globalization part of trickle-down economics, or are trickle-down and globalization just two separate means to the same end of satisfying greed?

GR, I suspect that the white kids can put on a suit and turn off their thuggin’ fakery like a light switch. Not so for the non-white. I was once in a local grocery store and one of the baggers threw off his smock and let off the rapper version of “take this job and shove it.” At that point, no amount of lib is going to help.

You said that the army was helping your property values so you must live physically near the slum.

Now you can’t even comprehend English now Adan? Rattled again?

“Copacabana, Ipanema, Leblon and São Conrado (some of the best neighborhoods in Rio) are all next to slums to one degree or another.”

would you consider globalization part of trickle-down economics

Yes. I consider the pace of America’s embrace of globalization part of trickle-down’s lie, as it benefited the rich/corporations at the expense of the rest of us.

Trickle-down’s guru, Reagan began our rush to globalization, even the conservative Cato Institute brags about it.

It failed us.

Reagan left office 26 years ago. He was but a refreshing intermission in the ongoing left wing fascist coup d’état.

Also, progressives invented globalism, they need the world to be in lock step. America’s constitution has been getting in the way all these years, all we need is a few more years of “fundamental transformation”.

Reagan left office 26 years ago.

You don’t get it. Reagan’s neoliberal trickle-down failed philosophy has never left office.

Neoliberalism is a political philosophy whose advocates support economic liberalizations, free trade and open markets, privatization, deregulation, and enhancing the role of the private sector in modern society

left wing fascist

Study words and some history.

Comment by oxide
2014-03-24 16:24:39
I was once in a local grocery store and one of the baggers threw off his smock and let off the rapper version of “take this job and shove it.” At that point, no amount of lib is going to help.

Half Baked

ME is too liberal because they don’t admit the truth; that all this happy-go-lucky self sufficiency of solar panels and whatever takes MONEY and lots of it. As in, the type of money that only cubicle dwelling yuppie sell-outs can accumulate. All their pictures are clean and idealistic and beautiful as if Martha Stewart’s stylist crew did a sweep before the cameras came. And if they can’t make it look good, they draw a cute cartoon. Real farming — especially of animals — is hard nasty dirty work.

ME’s are the people that sweep into the country to “escape the rate race” and are promptly hated by the locals.

By they way, you and your dad may enjoy Backwoods Home instead of ME. BH is extremely libertarian and much more realistic. The website address is exactly what you would expect it to be.

You’ve never been to south Jersey.

No, that’s my point. The Census bureau considers the entire state to be urban, which is an oversimplification.

Are you sure about that? NW Jersey (once you get passed Morristown) is pretty rural, like near the Poconos/Delaware Wind Gap.

Same with South Central NJ–go below Fort Dix/McGuire AFB and you could drive forever without stopping, just avoid the shorepoints during the summer. Tons of empty land, pine barrens, farm land.

NJ is the most densely populated state though, by a comfortable margin. The dense population lives on a certain notorious train/automobile corridor that shall remain nameless. Even that roadway corridor goes through some rural areas before you cross into Del., like below exit 2.

There’s this place outside of the I-95 corridor called “America”, you should check it out sometime.

http://www.picpaste.com/pics/IMG_20140323_084742_869-j8i3qel6.1395686822.jpg

So B.J. is still Joe and you still are Real Journalist? You guys need to stop changing names every five minutes.

I didn’t have time to read about it in detail. However, the Census Bureau has apprarently defined a number of metropolitan areas around the country. An area is considered to be rural only if it is not part of some metropolitan area and all of New Jersey is part of one of those areas.

http://www.census.gov/geo/reference/urban-rural.html

Yeah, rural is a place where you can find more antelope than people. It’s unincorporated land that may be agricultural, sort of useless, or a Native American reservation. The people who live there need to provide their own energy, water, plumbing, and often food. They sometimes get stuck at home because they don’t have enough gas to make it to the nearest station. It’s not just a place that has pretty scenery and a lack of high-rises.

I point I have made often. BTW, latest news about Arctic ice: I would say that the AMO is starting to turn negative due to Arctic ice hitting close to a decade high.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/arctic-sea-ice-extent-nearing-peak-for-the-past-decade/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/23/climate-change-campaigners-fear-debate-cant-face-climate-skeptics-anymore-so-they-rig-tv-news-shows/

forest fire policy….The best intentions sometimes cause the worst problems.

Yes. Intensive efforts to cutback on pollution would cause the “worst problems”.

Arctic ice hitting close to a decade high.

Newsflash:
Extent is different than volume. Thick arctic sea ice is in rapid retreat.

Has Arctic sea ice returned to normal?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Has-Arctic-sea-ice-recovered.htm

Discussions about the amount of sea ice in the Arctic often confuse two very different measures of how much ice there is. One measure is sea-ice extent which, as the name implies, is a measure of coverage of the ocean where ice covers 15% or more of the surface. It is a two-dimensional measurement; extent does not tell us how thick the ice is. The other measure of Arctic ice, using all three dimensions, is volume, the measure of how much ice there really is.

Sea-ice consists of first-year ice, which is thin, and older ice which has accumulated volume, called multi-year ice. Multi-year ice is very important because it makes up most of the volume of ice at the North Pole. Volume is also the important measure when it comes to climate change, because it is the volume of the ice – the sheer amount of the stuff – that science is concerned about, rather than how much of the sea is covered in a thin layer of ice*.

Amazing. Before water can become old ice, it needs to become new ice. The excuses the AGW crowd will come up with to try to deny that unlike they predicted the ice is not disappearing, it is growing.

The excuses the AGW crowd will come up with to try to deny that unlike they predicted the ice is not disappearing, it is growing.

I know dude. A 6 square foot 10 pound sheet of ice is much bigger than a 2 square foot 30 pound sheet of ice.

Because of your math and stuff.

“it is the volume of the ice – the sheer amount of the stuff – that science is concerned about, rather than how much of the sea is covered in a thin layer of ice*.”

The march of left wing fascists can not succeed without a villain. Take your pick: Carbon emissions, business owners, white privilege, guns, hate speech, good tasting food, smoking (cigarettes but not marijuana), etc.

Wait, so now you’re saying that Republicans are all SUV-driving, over-privileged, violent, hateful, fat, sober smokers?

The unicorn theory.
Koch NetPropaganda manual page 25

Check out the graphics - long term vs short term thinking.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

“One of the most common misunderstandings amongst climate change “skeptics” is the difference between short-term noise and long-term signal. This animation shows how the same temperature data (green) that is used to determine the long-term global surface air warming trend of 0.16°C per decade (red) can be used inappropriately to “cherrypick” short time periods that show a cooling trend simply because the endpoints are carefully chosen and the trend is dominated by short-term noise in the data (blue steps). Isn’t it strange how five periods of cooling can add up to a clear warming trend over the last 4 decades?

I have posted numerous posts that show that we are still 2 degrees Celsius below a normal interglacial period. There is nothing abnormal about a .16C increase per decade in an interglacial period. It happen when less than a few thousands humans walked the planet and the only co2 they put in the air was from breathing and burning wood.

I have posted numerous posts that show that we are still 2 degrees Celsius below a normal interglacial period.

From above article:

“Many popular climate myths share the trait of vagueness. For example, consider the argument that climate has changed naturally in the past. Well of course it has, but what does that tell us? It’s akin to telling a fire investigator that fires have always happened naturally in the past. That would doubtless earn you a puzzled look from the investigator. Is the implication that because they have occurred naturally in the past, humans can’t cause fires or climate change?”

A few hundred years of data is hardly looking at the long term, at least look at a few hundred thousand years of data:

http://climate4you.com/

at least look at a few hundred thousand years of data:

The best scientists in the world see your thousands an raise you 65 million. Now go to your KochBros NetPropaganda manual for a dumbScience comeback.

Today’s Climate Change Proves Much Faster Than Changes in Past 65 Million Years
Climate change is occurring 10 to 100 times faster than in the past and ecosystems will find it hard to adjust

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/todays-climate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years/

The climate is changing at a pace that’s far faster than anything seen in 65 million years, a report out of Stanford University says.

If global temperatures rise 1.5 degrees Celsius over the next century, the rate will be about 10 times faster than what’s been seen before, said Christopher Field, one of the scientists on the study. Keeping the temperature increase that small will require aggressive mitigation, he said.

If the Earth stays on its current course without reversing greenhouse gas emissions, and global temperatures rise 5 degrees Celsius, as scientists say is possible, the pace of change will be at least 50 times and possibly 100 times swifter than what’s occurred in the past, Field said. The numbers are imprecise because the comparison is to an era 55 million years ago, he said.

“The planet has not experienced changes this rapid in 65 million years,”

If global temperatures rise 1.5 degrees Celsius over the next century, the rate will be about 10 times faster than what’s been seen before, said Christopher Field, one of the scientists on the study. Keeping the temperature increase that small will require aggressive mitigation, he said.

If it rises by 1.5C in the next century, it will be the most rapid in 65 million years. It has not risen by that much, can you even read, this is what they do all the time they project global warming forward at the pace it was rising between 1978-98 despite the fact it has not risen for almost twenty years.

despite the fact it has not risen for almost twenty years.

“(A myth) that climate change denialists have seized on to foment doubt among the general public—”

If it’s a myth, then what was the temperature in 78, what was it in 98, and what is it today? 3 simple numbers to disprove instead of a claim. Average worldwide temperature. That is real science. If you claim to practice real science, then post those 3 simple numbers, and we will see if you are telling the truth or lying.

I will make it easy for Lola, you can find the information here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

O’ I forgot you don’t know how to read tables so I will give you a hint. 1978 .06C above the mean, 1998, .62 C above the mean and 2013 (even with manipulation that caused this ground base data not to match the satellite data .61C above the mean. If you answer anything but that the temperature has been flat to down since 1998, you are wrong. If you look at the satellite data, the decline has been even more pronounced.

The table goes back to 1880. Before that we were in the “Little Ice Age”. Why is that not discussed? What caused it? Not cow farts.

One of the ironies in all this detailed “data” is that if you round up to the digit that reflects the error in measuring technique, there would be just a bunch of zeros.

If it’s a myth, then what was the temperature in 78, what was it in 98, and what is it today?

Globally, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.

What has global warming done since 1998?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

……it hasn’t been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn’t the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What’s more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

Though humans love record-breakers, they don’t, on their own, tell us a much about trends — and it’s trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables — like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity — not by cherry-picking single points.

There’s also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on surface air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance — due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called ‘thermal mass’) — tend to give a much more ’steady’ indication of the warming that is happening. Records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there is no sign of it slowing any time soon (Figure 1). More than 90% of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3% goes into increasing the surface air temperature.

Before that we were in the “Little Ice Age”. Why is that not discussed? What caused it?

It’s been scientifically determined that the factors which caused the Little Ice Age cooling are not currently causing global warming.

What ended the Little Ice Age?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm

Climate change sceptics suggest that because the climate has changed dramatically in the past – and without man’s intervention – it is possible that current changes to the Earth’s climate are also a natural event. You may be familiar with paintings depicting Londoners skating on the frozen River Thames, when winters, at least in the northern hemisphere, were more severe. The beginning and end of this period are subject to various interpretations, but the period is referred to as the Little Ice Age (LIA) and occurred between the 16th to 19th centuries.
Limited History

If we are to understand the LIA, we need to figure out what caused it. Scientists have examined several important strands of evidence about the LIA, including the activity of the sun, of volcanoes, and ocean heat circulation, principle drivers of natural climate change.

The activity of the sun can be assessed by looking at proxies – processes we know are affected by the sun’s activity. One of these is the formation of the radioactive isotope Carbon-14 in the atmosphere, which plants then absorb. By measuring carbon-14 in tree rings and other materials we know are from a certain period, we can estimate how active the sun was at the time. This graph shows the sun’s activity over the last millennium:…………

I want people to click on that skeptical science link and see the tight correlation between sunspot activity and temperatures. For entertainment you can read how they try to explain away the obvious, it is the sun stupid.

It’s the stupid, son.

it is the sun stupid

So Adan, you think the sun is causing global warming but there is no global warming? Right.

What does Solar Cycle Length tell us about the sun’s role in global warming?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm

Claims that solar cycle length prove the sun is causing global warming are based on a single paper published nearly 20 years ago. Subsequent research, including a paper by a co-author of the original 1991 paper, finds the opposite conclusion. Solar cycle length as a proxy for solar activity tells us the sun has had very little contribution to global warming since 1975. In fact, direct measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has had a slight cooling effect on climate in recent decades while global temperatures have been rising.

Lola, all a person has to do is look at the skeptical science graph to see the connection. Of course, you also have to consider other natural factors such as the PDO, AMO and the El Nino and La Nina cycles. During 1978 to 1998 they were all supporting global warming now the last one that was still warming the AMO appears to be turning cooler along with the others. However, the AGW is hoping that a strong enough El Nino this year or next will push the world warmer than 1998 or 2010. The irony of their only hope for the AGW to claim AGW is to hope for natural help is apparent. However, even it happens the world will still be almost .4 C cooler than the models predicted for this year since the chance of any “record” being more than .01 or .02 warmer than the previous year is very remote. Moreover, it will still be 2 degrees C cooler than the average high in an interglacial period and we have hundreds of thousands of year of data to show that. What the AGW crowd is attempting to do is to use a natural cycle to convince the feeble minded that man is the primary cause of the warming.

Of course, you also have to consider other natural factors such as the PDO, AMO and the El Nino and La Nina cycles.

Wow. I’m sure NASA never even thought of that stuff. Send them an email. You’re good.

Rio,

You’re trying to discredit. Dan is stating facts. If you disagree, use the scientific method. Disagreement is fine. Ignoring facts is not. Dan acknowledges that warming is occurring at a rate of .16C per decade. He has stated that evidence he has review shows that perhaps 1/7 of this amount is attributable to human action (about .2C/decade). Somehow you call him a “denier”. He has also pointed out that there is a pause in the increase since 1998.

Now you might ask yourself, “self, why does Dan even care”? Maybe he IS a Koch shill. But according to Dan, people are trying to implement carbon taxes on him. Now ask yourself, “self, which is more likely, billionaires are conspiring to post messages on a tiny blog on the internet to influence global policy, or a middle class guy is thinking for himself and arguing against policy that looks like it will cost him lots of money for dubious reasons?” .

Now, if you are having trouble distinguishing which of those two is more likely to be reality, you might want to go back and do some work with your basic logic and reasoning skills.

You’re trying to discredit. Dan is stating facts. If you disagree, use the scientific method.

B.S.
NASA and science are doing the discrediting of Adan. Dan’s stating garbage, lies and bad math. I’ve shown studies from NASA to the world’s finest scientific institutions disproving every one of Adan’s short-term thinking, fuzzy-math Koch Brothers propaganda points.

It’s easy. It’s math and science. Next?

mathguy:

It’s one thing to deny global warming. It’s another thing to be active in your stance about tax policy. Denying global warming (as Adan does but doesn’t at the same time) will only make things worse. Your opinions about the right tax policy should be discussed openly and honestly. You should not hide behind denialist theory just to avoid talking about potential taxes.

You should not hide behind denialist theory just to avoid talking about potential taxes.

Amen.

I will always be skeptical of “truths” proposed by psychopaths, no matter how popular they are.

Many are skeptical of “truths” proposed by the Koch Brothers Minister of NetPropaganda.

So, you are a disciple of this guy?

“a terrifying phenomenon in which the planet’s deep oceans are increasingly absorbing the world’s excess carbon…”

If the deep ocean was warming it would be releasing not absorbing carbon dioxide because cold water can absorb more carbon dioxide than warm water. If you have ever drank a carbonated beverage and have any ability to think you would know that but we are dealing with Lola here.

OK, so you’re against science. As long as anyone has ever drawn a questionable scientific conclusion, then all science is bad. Science didn’t give the human race all the answers from day one, so it is flawed. Progress is flawed by its very nature because progress involves risk-taking, and change is scary. You might accidentally make the wrong change, and then it would be scary to change again.

Religion, on the other hand, is perfect. Mainly because God created a universe with YOU at the center.

Would you like to know what happens when CO2 dissolves in water? It turns into carbonic acid. Do you think the acidification of the ocean might have an impact on human society? I mean, other than the fact that only science gives us this knowledge, and it didn’t come from the Bible. What do you think about the acid itself?

Furthermore, eugenics have never been accepted by the scientific community. That is a social theory, and it’s pseudoscience.

And no, the ocean is not hot enough to start spitting the CO2 back into the atmosphere. The partial pressure of gaseous CO2 is high enough to cause said molecule to dissolve in the ocean at its current temperature. In order for the water to start emitting the CO2, it would have to get much hotter, or the the concentration of CO2 in the air would have to decrease.

Your soda pop analogy is bunk because you are talking about a small amount of refrigerated beverage with very high CO2 concentrations, sitting in a very large bath of warm air with comparatively much lower CO2 concentration.

Your soda pop analogy is bunk because you are talking about a small amount of refrigerated beverage with very high CO2 concentrations,

No, you are totally missing the point of the analogy.

The ocean has been at equilibrium with the CO2 in the air for millions of years. If the ocean warmed, it is a fact that it is then capable of holding less dissolved CO2; if the ocean cooled, it is a fact that it is then capable of holding more dissolved CO2.

Simple fact.

to=no, (autocorrect)

Tell the propaganda minister to get you a better one.

One of my all time favorite songs……

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK0PAlNdvn4

The grow or die model of capitalism = FAIL

I tend to agree. But that is Adan’s boss’s false-failed religion.

Don’t you like skiing? Too much warming couldn’t be good for that.

infinite growth in a finite ecosystem is not possible.

Space, the Final Frontier.

Yes, their are technological hurdles to address, but nothing we can’t solve for. Humans were just coming out of the Bronze Age 5000 years ago and today we have a networked world providing instant access to people and information from almost anywhere, drones, clones, nukes, warships that never need refueling, planes that are invisible to radar, weapons that emit focused sound, robots, nanobots, and cars that drive themselves.

As you like to say, the future is so bright, I have to wear shades…

But caveman, how can we move to space while still holding science in general disdain? If women can’t be educated, and men have to spend their time driving around in diesel trucks and clubbing women over the head and dragging them back to their caves, then we will never make it to space!

The Republicans want to decrease spending on science and increase spending on wars. That is not going to help us get to space, the final frontier.

Classic projection in psychology by Lola because the truth really is:

I have intelligence, history, math and science on my side.

You only have the KochBrothers 2014 NetPropaganda Manual.

It’s no contest and fun.

I have intelligence, history, math and science on my side.

You are delusional since you are off your meds. You have none of those on your side and all someone has to do is look at NASA’s own data which I posted to show that contrary to your assertion global warming stopped more than 15 years ago.

all someone has to do is look at NASA’s own data which I posted to show that contrary to your assertion global warming stopped more than 15 years ago.

Right. You understand NASA data better than NASA. You are one delusional dude to think you and your propaganda hacks can convince people that you understand NASA data better than NASA.

“….a group of scientists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS), have released an analysis of global temperatures in 2011, and near-future prospects. They find that 2011 was the 9th-hottest year on record (9 out of the 10 hottest years on record since 1880, have occurred in the 21st century), and that this cool-ish year (by 21st century standards, but hot by 20th century standards) was largely due to the cooling influence of a quiet phase of the 11 year-long solar cycle (small changes in the intensity of sunlight reaching Earth), and La Niña which has been dominant over the last 3 years (See figure 1). They conclude that the lull is an illusion, and that rapid warming of global surface temperatures is likely to resume in the next few years.” skepticalscience dot com

They conclude that the lull is an illusion, and that rapid warming of global surface temperatures is likely to resume in the next few years.”

Actually, they conclude their funding is dependent on providing cover for carbon taxes on the Middle class to fund global government and the expansion of the U.S. government. They have no evidence to support that the lull is an illusion since there is no data base for the deep ocean so they have no way to know whether it is cooling or warming.

“I have intelligence, history, math and science on my side.”

Wow. What exactly do you do for a living? Any credentials beyond Wikisearch? Just wondering, cause your only original thoughts are sophomoric at best.

they conclude their funding is dependent on providing cover for carbon taxes on the Middle class to fund….

Right Adan……… you understand NASA science better than NASA and 95% of the world’s scientific community. Because math and science are just big conspiracies. Just like Obama was put in power by the PTB to avoid Black riots. Because there’s no way real Americans would vote for a black man twice with over 50% of the vote. Unpossible. It was a conspiracy.

You seem to live in a bigoted, continuous fearful fog of paranoid, yet smug conspiratorial delusions while desperately wanting people to think you’re smart.

cause your only original thoughts are sophomoric at best

Right. That’s why my original thoughts scare the cr@p out of political hacks like Adan.

What exactly do you do for a living?

I’m a capitalist.

Right. That’s why my original thoughts scare the cr@p out of political hacks like Adan.

You are probably the dumbest person on this entire board you make a useful foil. You are like the liberals that Fox News hires to make their hosts look intelligent.

Can someone explain to a newbie what the theory is as to why most of modern science thinks there is global warming, if the facts don’t back it up?

You are probably the dumbest person on this entire board

Now now Adan. A dumb person would not live rent free in your little head - constantly disprove your bad math, and bother the cr@p out of you. wuff wuff

Can someone explain to a newbie what the theory is as to why most of modern science thinks there is global warming, if the facts don’t back it up?

According to Adan, it’s something like because AlGore has a 20 ton air conditioner, and in 1945, little George Soros kicked a Jew in the nuts.

Oddfellow:

I will try to explain as best I can. AD believes that the scientists have known since the 1960s that there would one day be a carbon tax, and they thought they might benefit from the carbon tax. So they devised this hoax well in advance. He can’t quite tell you exactly how the scientists are going to get the carbon tax in their own grubby little hands, and he can’t tell you whether or not their share of the carbon tax will compensate them for their long and low-paid careers in science. He only knows that they had a time machine already back then, and they traveled to the future and found out about the tax, and used that to create a “global-warming industry”.

None of them have made any money yet, but they’re gonna.

You really should argue with what a person says, not with what you imagine his thoughts and motives are.

“that’s practically capitulating!”

+1 The Great Wall or the Wailing Wall; it’s all good. Not.

That global poll was taken prior to the Snowden disclosures and her yelling at the staff so why does it have any present meaning?

Dannyboy and Rio having a lollie LOLZ.

The lovefest of LOLZ never ends with you two.

Don’t you have some generals to fluff? I think you accuse others of fluffing the Koch brothers because you want to move over. It would not be an actual change in position, it would be more like a lateral move.

Wait, Rio has been borrowing my line about Koch fluffing without attributing it to me?

That’s low man, really low.

B-j-j-j-joe

You know I mean you.

That global poll was taken prior to the Snowden disclosures and her yelling at the staff so why does it have any present meaning?

Because I live and travel in the big world out here and I still feel much less hostility towards Americans than when Bush was President. Much less. Do you own a passport?

Rio has been borrowing my line about Koch fluffing without attributing it to me?

I don’t think I’ve ever even used that word here.

You have been too busy fluffing Obama to use it.

More like the real living room, or at least that is what it is in my cousin’s house. Most of the downstairs rooms are very small. The kitchen is a reasonable size has room for a table, but the living room is tiny and the room in the back is meant as a ground floor bedroom (it has a full bath and a pretty large closet. It is for grandma who can’t climb the stairs. The bonus room upstairs is the only decent sized “living” room in the house that isn’t the basement, but it isn’t downstairs so they can’t call it the living room.

So four years into the housing debacle, some numbskull paid an inflated price of $953k.

Why would any fool think its worth more than that considering a decade of depreciation?

Tax assessments here are some multiplier of actual property value. The property tax on that house for 2011 was over $39,000. Yikes. Definitely better to rent it, if one’s taste runs to that sort of place.

Wilmette has a really good HS, New Trier HS. A big feeder school for HYP and Stanford.

some numbskull paid an inflated price of $953k.

It’s worse than that, HA. Some numbskill paid an inflated price of $953K just for the land. He then spent 3 years building this new little castle. Inflated? Likely. But at least he built something nice for the money, instead of engineering a ranch into a bad McMansion on an inappropriate lot solely to maximize the $/sq ft.

In my lowly nabe, any work on the house is either to fix something that broke, or to increase the bedrooms or bathrooms so you can squeeze more people in the house.

HA, some numbskull paid $953,000 for the lot plus the cost of the teardown. Builders gotta build, whether they are $35/sq ft or $400+/ sq ft builders. And they will build as much house as can legally be fit onto the lot.

$953k + demo and disposal($25k). $1 million.

The place is worth maybe $500k so he already lost $500k and we haven’t even tabbed the cost of that mausoleum looking box.

The builder did just fine: sold it in 2005 for $2.7 million. The current owner will likely take a loss. And then there are those property taxes for the past 9 years. The public schools loooove builders!

He did? Are you sure?

Well, it says so on Zillow. But you can’t believe everything you read.

It says the “builder” made money?

We had rapid economic growth in the 1950’s and 60’s so you are comparing apples to oranges. As far as Krugman, I do not now what he predicted for inflation but he ignores how corrosive inflation is to an economy and that is my point and your points are irrelevant to that point.

>On the other hand, you can look at Japan, which has had close to zero inflation for over 20 years. It hasn’t been great for Japanese growth.

Pretty disingenuous… WHY did Japan have low inflation for 20 years? What was the CAUSE? Did their central bank set rates low in response to some kind of bubble? Oh IMAGINE THAT!

http://mises.org/daily/5170/The-Myth-of-Japans-Lost-Decades

As far as Krugman, I do not now what he predicted for inflation but he ignores how corrosive inflation is to an economy and that is my point and your points are irrelevant to that point.

Well, I can tell you that Krugman predicted that there would be no big jump in inflation in response to QE. More importantly, he certainly never predicted that there would be zero inflation. There’s only been one year without any inflation since 1955 and Krugman has easy access to that data. So part of the article that you linked to has false information, that’s all. Is the writer a member of your family or something?

Also, Mathguy, yes the Japanese deflation was caused by the bursting of a bubble, but that’s not what I’m talking about. My point was that the deflation caused a lot of trouble for the Japanese economy.

you mean the bubble bursting. deflation != bursting bubble. If you told me your house was built on bedrock and the bedrock was deflating, I would be pretty concerned for you. If you told me your house was built on a foundation of bubbles and the bubbles were popping, “poor you”.. well, i’d laugh in your face.

My health insurance just went up from $126 a month to $290 a month

You need a better employer… my company held the line on premium increases, absorbing the entire increase that the insurance provider asked for. They also pay for a supplemental insurance to reimburse employees for out-of-pocket health care expenses like deductibles.

$290 is the employee paid amount.

Obamacare is far from universal coverage as the disillusioned left is finding out.

It is the biggest program leading the USA towards universal coverage that the freaked-out right is just now finding out.

It’s funny watching you flip out up there.

If you consider a program that has resulted in the Republicans regaining the House and having a good chance of regaining the Senate a win, you really do need to get your meds changed.

Another classic example of you not seeing the big picture Adan. Your shallow, snap-shot in time constant short term thinking is a sight to read. It’s actually mind-boggling how smart you try to sound without being it at all.

Carney: Obamacare ‘Absolutely Worth It’ Even if Dems Lose the Senate
nationalreview dot com

Even if Obamacare proves to be electoral Kryptonite for Democrats in this year’s midterms, the White House still believes the health-care law was worth the political hit.

“The answer is it is absolutely worth it, no matter what happens politically,” press secretary Jay Carney told ABC’s Jon Karl. In fact, Carney didn’t expect running against Obamacare to even be a winning message for Republicans “because they’ve got to explain what repeal [of the law] means.”

It is the biggest program leading the USA towards universal coverage that the freaked-out right is just now finding out.

No one on the right is freaking out over Obamacare they are looking forward to the fall election. It is the Democrats that are freaking out and trying to shift the focus to global warming which is exactly what you are being paid to do. However, the facts are not on your side on either issue and the polls are showing people less and less worried about AGW despite the MSM running alarmist stories every day.

No one on the right is freaking out over Obamacare

Now there’s a real gut buster.

Why are you so funny when you don’t want to be but, so unfunny when you try to be?

You would know when to appropriately laugh, if you were on your meds.

You would know when to appropriately laugh, if you were on your meds.

My point proven again. Why are you so funny Adan when you don’t want to be but, so unfunny when you try to be?

LOL