Maybe Congress will provide relief for Victims of Hurricane Sandy. Maybe not

When you learn to understand what you read, PM me and I'll take you off ignore.

 

Leave me on ignore. Or don't. Any bad behavior can be defended by saying, "That is just the way the world is", though I don't notice Democrats picking up that torch when it comes to the Sandy Hook shooting. Oh no. When it comes to some idiot shooting up a school, suddenly guys like you think it all can be fixed with gun control, as if the stats from the last assault weapons ban didn't prove that thinking to be pure idealism.

Let me repeat. The reason there are more than 20 countries perceived to be less corrupt than the US is because the ARE more than 20 countries that are less corrupt than the US, and they are first world democracies where people compromise. Compromise in Switzarland is defined as raising taxes 1% in order to improve schools. Compromise according to status quo Americans, like yourself is defined as raising taxes 4% so all the decision makers can give their backers some perks in the name of improving schools. If you can't see the difference, or acknowledge the difference exists, there is no hope for you.

 

This is the Liberal's Final Argument. But it is a one-way argument. It's only applied when Democrats are caught red-handed, damned with their hand in the cookie jar, liberals will shrug their shoulders and say "yeah, we're corrupt, this is how it is". The Republicans will admit that this is how Washington works today, But Liberals fail to support Republicans that want to eliminate the corrupt systems.

Martin Luther King said, "The means by which we strive must be consistent with the ends we seek".

This has been a revealing thread. Earl tried to repeatedly slam Republicans for not passing a bill called the "Hurricane Sandy Emergency Relief Bill". But when it was pointed out that this $60 Billion bill gives less than $20 Billion to Sandy relief and the rest is pork and payoffs, Earl launched into a hate-filled name-calling tirade. He bought into the bullshit, and when the bullshit was exposed, he went mental.

Republicans are now trying to introduce a version of the Sandy Relief Bill that will ONLY have money go to Sandy victims. It would save lives. Earl will be opposed, because his limited mindset is "my party all right, other party all wrong". If the Republicans do the right thing, Earl NEEDS AND WANTS to find something wrong with it. If he can't find something wrong, his mind runs to his biases and he will lie.

This is true.

The Tea Party stands for what the Democrats pretend to stand for. Democrat's opposition to the Tea Party proves it's not about what's right, it's about what FEELS right.

 

Yet again, another boring attempt at an insult. Good try though.

We all know your brain works in one direction.

Anyways...

Yep, and you can't forget the fact that they've become experts at completely ignoring anything they do wrong while pointing the finger at the other guy.. All with the lovely help of the biased media!

 

The House passed legislation that was virtually identical to the Senate bill, ensuring that finally after 3 months following Sandy's devastating hit to NJ, NY, and CT these states will get aid to help in their recovery.

Ultimately it took the efforts of GOP politicians from the Northeast to utterly shame the GOP house republicans to vote on this issue. It was very clear. Real people with real responsibilities, Governor Christie of NJ and Representative Peter King of NY spoke on the issues.

They are both elected members of the GOP.

Among the more astonishing pieces of bullshit from the far right wing mafia forces such as the Club for Growth that attacks moderate Republicans, and pushes the most extremist views of their private big business financiers was that a small minority of the funds were going to recovery from the storm and efforts to build infrastructure support to replace what was destroyed and damaged and protect against future problems. Possibly if people looked at the funding sources for katrina aid and the funding sources for Sandy aid they would see there is a lot of overlap...regardless of how the Club for growth wants to twist the facts.

In a sense its sort of scary, the same people who fund groups like the Club for Growth, who basically didn't want to support recovery from Hurricane Sandy, are the same people (Koch brothers in particular) who fund climate change denial and non action.

Some scientists felt there was an extra 12 inches of storm tide that hit Long Island specifically related to the rise of sea levels in the Atlantic. That is all connected to global warming issues, the melting of the polar ice cap.

Its astounding. The same people that want no action on global warming then want no efforts to help the people struck by ever worsening weather conditions and emergencies possibly or probably tied to these worsening conditions.

It appears to me the interests of the Koch brothers and bin laden are very aligned.

 

To be fair, I haven't read both bills, but from looking at the cover, the bill passed by the House was 50.7 Billion dollars, while the Senate bill was 60 billion. Now I know in the Democrat speak, a 9 billion dollar difference in price is "virtually identical", but to us dumb tea party extremists, 9 billion dollars sounds like a whole lot of money. Perhaps we havent been to the right education camps?

Again, excuse my extreme ignorance and racism. As a supporter of the illuminati, the free masons, the club for growth, and the other secret societies that support the hatred of small children and Americans on the whole, I must not have received the memo on the Koch Brothers. Here I was under the impression that the Koch Brothers were a major source of funding for scientific research and scientific education, including the PBS, Nova Channel, and studies confirming not only the existence of global warming, but man made contributions to global warming.

Please, end my ignorance and guide me to the correct and more truthful information that backs your claims. I know you and like thinkers would never simply crap a boogyman out of your ass, set him up as a straw man based on lies and bullshit, attributing any political view you disagree with to this boogyman, and then attack the strawman/boogyman with yet more lies and bullshit.

 

O-nation: either you are being completely and purposefully misleading (how likely is that? ) or you forgot (purposefully) that the house earlier passed $9.7 billion funds for Sandy relief. In total its close to the same.

 

So it would appear, though when you look at the details, there were cuts.

Now that you have drawn my attention to the facts of the matter, the source of debate over the issue is printed in black and white:

In other words, the Republican house wanted to pay for money they authorized to be spent as they spent it while the Democrats wanted to simply borrow the money from China and leave our grand children to worry about who will pay for it. A few Republicans then joined the Democrats in this line of thinking and got the rest to borrow the money instead of paying for the spending.

While I can look at the bright side by acknowledging some of the pork was removed from the bill, I suppose I can look at the other bright side by knowing who needs to be primaried next election cycle.

 

Not even so much Long Island. Battery Park, where the higher base sea level caused the storm surge to pour over the sea wall (not 12 inches, but about 13 feet of additional surge height), caused much more damage in money - where underground power equipment (all power transmission in Manhattan is underground) was destroyed by the inrush of salt water, and subway tunnels were not only flooded, but destroyed by the action of salt water on 600 volt power rails. The last subway lines have only recently been partially restored, and many power lines still aren't back. A few feet lower and it only would have been rain damage - which the city has endured for decades with just minor tunnel flooding. (The tunnels are designed to withstand rain flooding.)

 

Oh the irony. 13 foot storm surge, up from 12 inches, and all attributable to global warming. Forget the cool aide, I think you swallowed the cup. Its like watching an interview with Jeanine Garafalo, or an episode of Jackass.

I'll bite. Do either of you two global warming experts have the first clue as to what real climatologists have placed the change in sea level since 1870? When the two of you knuckle heads get that data point, perhaps you can explain your other [non] scientific theories making Sandy an irrefutable artifact of global warming(Climate) rather than an anomalous artifact of weather. I'd also love to see you explain this mythical 12' variance in hurricane storm surge.

Jesus, do either of you ever take a step back before you speak and think, "Perhaps I should think this through?".

 

As a native Long Islander, and a degreed scientist, I'd like to see an authentic cite to back up your above smelly runny wet bullshit.

Because from what I have read, the high sea levels was partially due to the fact that the storm hit Long Island at the exact moment that it wasn't just a high tide, it was a full moon high tide.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2012/10/29/sandy-full-moon-tide/1666479/
During a full moon, the moon is essentially lined up on the opposite side of the Earth from the sun (this is what allows the near surface of the moon to be illuminated in its full splendor) and the gravitational tug of war between those two intensifies at this time, resulting in higher tides.

Now, Scientific American has stated that yes, there is a global change in the Earth's climate, and that change has affected hurricane cycles, but there is no proof that this is NOT part of a regular cycle.

Earl, leave science to the scientists.

 

Corwin: anything you write leaves a lot to be desired. I would have loved seeing this. A live corwin...not a digital commentator in anonymity, walking up and down the streets of long island screaming....don't send money, cut the money for recovery, blame the democrats.

It took live people in the real world who were Republican politicians to shame the tea party radicals in the House and the house leadership to get $$ to Long Island, NY, NJ, and Ct for recovery. not some digital teaparty whacko railing against his family and neighbors. Seriously what planet are you from?

You would have been tarred and feathered. most of what you post defies reason.

 

Which is totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether we die from global warming due to natural causes or global warming due to anthropomorphic causes - we're still dead.

The scientific argument with the Luddites isn't why there's global warming, it's that there's global warming. (Yes, there are still people who claim that the average temperature of the planet isn't increasing - despite the physical evidence that it is.)

Leave climatology to the climatologists, Corwin. Or at least, to people who actually understand the discussion. Saying, "there is no proof that this is NOT part of a regular cycle" is saying, "I don't know what the actual issue is". Who cares what the cause is? We have to stop (and reverse a little, if possible) the effect - before we reach the tipping point, and we can all bend over and ... If it's a natural cause, it's one that we can't allow to continue.

 

Yes, but if it's natural, isn't it arrogant to think that humans have the ability to change the climate of an entire planet?

The power in one single hurricane is 6.0 x 10^14 Watts, (600,000,000,000,000 Watts) or 200 times the entire world's electrical generating capacity:
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html

That's one single hurricane. And that power is a fart in a tornado compared to the combined power of the earth's weather.

Aren't you deluding yourself if you think that humans can compete with the immense power of natural planetary climate change? You yourself ADMIT you don't even understand this discussion!

Leave science to the scientists. I have skills in the dynamics of systems, and the Earth's climate is a dynamic system. How about you explain your equations to me, then I'll explain mine? Is that fair?

Saying, "there is no proof that this is NOT part of a regular cycle" is saying, IT IS PART OF A REGULAR CYCLE! I assume you flunked logic in high school? It's a good bet you wouldn't pass Calculus.

Look, you have no understanding of science, so let me explain: if this was part of a regular cycle, there would be distinct markers in the natural weather chain. Normal patterns would be disrupted in ways that can't be explained by known natural phenomenon, so non-natural causes would be searched for to undercover the reason for the effect. I know that you don't understand this, but really, these things can be easily researched.

The cause IS important. What if the cure is worse than the cause? What if removing natural carbon from the atmosphere plunges the planet into an ice age? (I don't believe we can, but by your weird logic the government can build machines that affect the weather, yes?)

Rukbat, you're not a scientist, you admit you don't understand the problem, then state that we have to reverse whatever it is that you don't understand, using methods you can't comprehend, to fix something you can't explain.

Wow. If this was high school physics you'd get a solid "F" in that, too.

There is an important test in science - it's a test for bias. You ask yourself, "How wold I know if I was wrong"? If you refuse to even entertain this question, then you are too corrupt by your own bias to consider the problem.

 

Like Al Gore? Mr. Global warming has done more damage to the Global Warming alarmists than any other single person, and I have yet to see a single one of those people call out his carbon market for what it is.

I personally believe there is much we can do about the earth's temperature, and not one of the credible ideas I've heard includes raising taxes on American businesses to line the pockets of a hypocrite who recently sold his left wing propaganda outfit to a middle eastern oil emirate filled with America hating Muslims. It takes the under educated and uninformed Democratic base to back an idiotic play like that.

 

No. Remember, we still don't know if we caused the current warming trend - which is a change in the climate of an entire planet.

Which has what to do with which? I mean, it's a nice show of the power of a huge rotating sphere and a lot of heat (which is what causes and drives a hurricane), but that's about as relevant to global warming as the albedo of the moon. We're not looking to stop a hurricane by waiting until it's a force 3 storm. In fact, the discussion has nothing to do with stopping hurricanes. It has to do with eliminating some greenhouse gas from the atmosphere to eliminate some of the greenhouse effect. Try to keep your mind on the discussion and don't bring in all these tangents of yours.

As I said, we may be (no one can show that we definitely aren't) responsible for causing the warming of the entire planet. You don't understand the difference between the butterfly effect and the result.

Reading comprehension problem? I admitted that you don't understand it.

You have 'skills' in the dynamics of the climatological system of the planet? Have you notified NASA? (Since they haven't been able to adequately model it yet with all the skilled people they have working on it.)

Not if you really think that you can model the climate of the planet. It's not even fair how hard you made me laugh with that one.

Well, there goes any claim you ever thought you had to understanding either science or logic. No, it doesn't. Sorry. It's just saying that there's no proof. Absence of proof isn't proof of opposite.

Passed it the first time I studied it. Didn't "pass" it when I taught it.

Did - probably before you were born.

Nope - just faked my way through it for over 50 years. Lucky me that I worked for morons who never caught on. Lucy I never killed anyone in that rad lab I worked in either. I mean letting little old "have no understanding of science" loose on all that radioactive material? I could have killed thousands.

Or maybe you're vibrating the top of your hat again.

So anything natural can't be explained by "known natural phenomena"? Let me explain: when you contradict yourself in your explanation, I don't have much faith that you know what you're talking about.

What would a "non-natural" cause be? A god? (Man is part of the natural environment.)

What you're saying, though, is that if global warming weren't caused by man, it would be part of a "natural" cycle, so there would be patterns in the weather cycle that couldn't be natural. IOW, the natural weather cycle on the planet is due to unnatural causes. So the natural is the unnatural.

And you say I don't understand logic? Not your kind, that's for sure.

No, I only understand sense, not nonsense.

To understand? Yes. To the point that we do nothing until we understand the cause?
If a man comes into an emergency room, bleeding from a punctured artery, do they first determine the cause of the bleeding, or do they first stop it? Because that's the situation we're in right now. Once we pass the point that the patient is dead, there's no medical procedure that can fix the damage. We can look for the cause of the puncture later, but we have to stop the bleeding before the patient exsanguinates.

We know how much heating we get from how much carbon (approximately). Or did you think this was all total guesswork?

No. I won't ask you to stop putting words in my mouth, because you're too far from my mouth for anyone to think you were doing that. Stop putting words in the mouth of that guy way over there.

Of course not. You looked me up on the internet and you know my entire educational and vocational history, and you know I'm not a scientist. (Or you're making stuff up again.)

Again, you're confusing me with yourself - I admit that you don't understand the problem.

Is that the new right-wing mantra - "Reality is the fantasy I wish it were, so I'm going to say that it is"?

If you were in my class, I'd send you back to 3rd grade, which wouldn't be that much of a challenge for you that you couldn't squeak by if you really applied yourself. Please learn one thing here - making stuff up, then presenting it to someone who actually knows the subject, doesn't make you appear to be super-intelligent.

That's a good description of your post. I know you don't see it, but it really is.

 

Corwimp: Must remind myself to pay you no attention. You create elaborate lies. I busted one wide open in late December. You came up with a (corWIMPY) response.

Come on corwimp. You and everyone else with half a brain knows you were lying through your teeth and elaborating on it.

Now you are a scientist. Before in your digital imagination you were a salesguy into the auto world. Not many scientists peddle goods for a commission. You have neither authority or awareness on any topic besides a vivid and child like emotionalism tied to your political bent.

I still suggest you walk around Long Island, (if you are in Long Island) in revolutionary garb, a la the teapartiers, and tell the folks of Long Island they don't deserve help.

 

Depending on exactly where on the island he did that (it's pretty large - physically it's 120 miles long), he might find people agreeing with him. We have our pockets of "stupid". I suggest he waits until most of the residents of Breezy Point come back for a day trip, and do it there. (Is a "corwinroast" like a weeny roast using a corwin?)

I was lucky. Aside from having to pick up a few twigs from the yard, and resetting clocks a few times, all we got here was rain. (We're about 25 feet under the peak of the cliff on the north shore, so the wind speed here is normally about 5mph - in a calm or a hurricane.) My rotary ventilator didn't even spin very fast. And the "flood" was so bad my shoe soles got wet when I stood in front of the mail box.

But the house on the corner had a 36" oak tree lying across it - inside. My brother, 3 blocks away, was without power for 9 days. My niece's husband's car was totaled by a tree. And we all got away easy compared to some places.

And, as large as Sandy was, and as much damage as it caused, it wasn't the Yankee Clipper (Shinnecock Inlet - carved out by that one - is easily visible from space) and didn't cause nearly as many deaths.

But to say that people living a few miles from the nearest body of water shouldn't be helped by the government? (Especially after people living right on the water were helped by the government?) Corwin must have been one of the lucky ones, like me. And if he doesn't need help, why should anyone get help, right?

 

I know I've already called out the obvious idiocy of this line of reasoning, but I really didn't expect you to back my play.

I wasn't familiar with the Yankee Clipper, so I looked it up:

In short, Sandy's 13' storm surge was nothing compared to the Yankee Clipper of 1938(though the 1821 Norfolk Hurricane also produced 13' storm surge), yet Sandy is a clear consequence of global warming.

I have another theory. Your line of reasoning is produced by lead deposits in the aging pipes of your water system. At first blush, my theory sounds better than yours.

 

Rukbat, it's simple, really - there is NO PROOF that recent climate change is man-made, therefore it is not manmade. Simple logic.

And you don't understand basic logic. "You can't prove a negative". In other words, you can't say there's no proof something is wrong, therefore it must be right. In science, this logical fallacy is called "Evidence of absence". I urge you to read these documented references:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
- Inability to disprove does not prove: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
- Unfair Burden: in law, a plaintiff cannot prove a negative about a defendant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_burden (This sort of illogic is not allowed in courtrooms.)

EXACTLY! They can't model it because the premise is flawed! They can't model manmade climate change because climate change isn't manmade.

No, if global warming was caused by man, there would be markers in the weather pattern that couldn't be explained by natural phenomenon, so there would be patterns in the weather cycle that couldn't be natural. In the absence of those markers, the natural weather cycle is caused by natural causes.



Look, if you want, cite me ORIGINAL RESEARCH that shows how climate change is 1) caused by man and 2) is negatively affecting the planet. I will be happy to read it, and I will change my position if it is compelling. Does that sound fair?


@Earl - I've noticed that you've completely abandoned argument in favor just slinging insults like a monkey throwing feces. I see no attempt to persuade. I see no polite attempt at logic. You can't even cite references or even Wikipedia. All you do is insist and demand that people MUST believe you.