JohnSmith2007

You seem quite skilled at denying things. Doesn't mean it's not true though. I have my sources. If you aren't Gary, why not ask a moderator to confirm or deny that GaryC is NOT one of your former accounts? You change names and post the same topics using the same posts.

Why should I have to prove anything to you or anyone else? I know who I am. Its your problem if you want to think I am someone else. If you have your proof then out with it.

You sound like:

Where-ever there is suffering and injustice...

Maybe, I will eventually break him of posting his GW #######. If not then we will have some fun.

Really Gary? You're going to have to be less obvious next time you make a sock puppet. Don't use a sock puppet name that you have been suspended on in the past. It also helps if you don't post in the same hysterical tone that you do on your main account.

Where do you come up with that? You are looking more foolish by the moment.

New name, same old Gary

Old name, same old #####

Awww, look at the sock puppets arguing, isn't it cute?

If you only knew how dumb that assumtion makes you.

Then you do have a vendetta. For that, then, this thread is not the correct place for you to be having an anti-Steven attack.

The story itself is saying something you agree with and disagree with at the same time. GW is natural and sufficient evidence states that it is man-made in addition to the natural causes. You seem to be missing things because you are not reading things carefully in your knee-jerk to assume intent.

Now, acne rates may increase if global temps continue to increase- acne has bacterial roots, and these tend to thrive better when temperatures are higher. And global mean temperatures have steadily increased. I am sure you can refute what science has agreed to as well, and that would be your opinion to be somehow scientifically defended.

hehe, I can see we are going to have fun. Welcome to P&R. Anytime Steven posts anything about GW with his agenda of blaming everything he can on it I will be there. If you don't like it then tough.

As to your statement about GW being natural and the sufficient evidence of a man made component, nope. We are not having GW since the temps have stayed the same since 1998. Any and all variations of the global temps is 100% natural. Every single model and prediction having something to do with the man made component of climate change has failed. Not a single one of them has come true. Man is no more responsible for climate change than we are responsible for the last ice age or warm spell. It is beyond our ability to start the change or to stop it.

Well, who will it be this week? I thought Casey and James just nailed it. It couldn't have been any better. Stephano did a great job, I think he is also safe. I hate to say it but I think the two ladies and Paul will be the bottom three. From the way things have been going it looks like we will lose yet another lady from the show tonight.

Well... IF climate change/global warming has an effect on geological events, THEN seismic activity may be affected. That is what Steven posted, and its best to agree or disagree with the posted words until a clear pattern of intent can be established. I know you may have a history with him, and that's fine, but I prefer the story at hand. You on the other hand seem to have a vendetta.

I must be careful with what people say on the internet then. You never know who is saying what and who is who.

I don't really care about the story itself, only the intent of the author and Steven to try and imply that GW is causing earthquakes. Remember, the people that did the study are not the same ones that wrote the story. Clearly, the intent was to imply that GW was causing earthquakes. For proof all you need to do is read the title and the first two lines of the story.

Climate change affects tectonic plate movement, causing earthquakes: study

Scientists have for the first time shown a link between intensifying climate events and tectonic plate movement in findings that could provide a valuable insight into why huge tremors occur.

Understanding why plates change direction and speed is key to unlocking huge seismic events such as last month's Japan earthquake, which shifted the Earth's axis by several inches, or February's New Zealand quake.

I am calling out Steven for yet another lame attempt to blame everything from earthquakes to acne on GW.

GW/Climate Change has always been happening. It wouldn't be crazy to find links between climate events and the geology. This research team just showed some preliminary correlation. Breathe.

Yes you are right, climate change has happened since the earth formed and will continue as long as there is an earth. I am not disputing the idea that the climate MAY cause some type of tectonic changes but you are not getting my point. This story is nothing but an attempt by Steven to link GW with the earthquake in Japan. The talk of that started the day after the earthquake and I have been waiting for Steven to latch onto it. The story is intentionally misleading and so was Stevens intentions despite what he says. He is a tin foil hat wearer and you are defending him.

There you have it, John. Steven is not implying anything about 'Man'-Made GW.

No, Steven says he is not implying anything. Reality is very different. Take a look at post #2. It seems that a lot of people agree with me. They know Steven, you haven't been here long enough to understand that what he says and what he does are frequently two different things.

Have you done a diagnostic on your logic circuits, HAL?

Hmm.. you know, you may be onto something there.

You need to take a breather and take words as they are. I am talking about the research, not Steven's intentions. For that, its best to ask him instead of assuming. Did it occur to you that maybe he put this out to bait people into not reading things carefully? Check out post #4...

If you can't defend words as they are written, then you have nothing to add other than what your feelings are on the subject that isn't being presented by the researchers.

Unless of course, you know more than the researchers know. And for that there is no counter-argument, being the internet and all.

Read the opening line and say that all again.

Scientists have for the first time shown a link between intensifying climate events and tectonic plate movement in findings that could provide a valuable insight into why huge tremors occur.

This is just another bogus attempt by Steven to link GW to anything and everything. That was his only intent.

Hey buddy... post #4 kind of got you. The research conducted shows otherwise to your knee-jerk:

It didn't "kind of got me". This is total nonsense. Steven posted this with the clear intent of trying to say GW is causing earthquakes. As usual he is posting the same nonsense and as usual you are defending it. Come on man, I have respect for you, don't tell me you are a part of the tin foil bregade.

Oh brother!! :rofl: :rofl:

This is lame even for the GW nuts. Whats next? GW causes the earths orbit to shift? How about GW causing the sun to go nova? Maybe GW will cause the borg to come and take over. Thats it! The borg is causing GW so the planet is habitable for them! Watch out for the invasion!!!!

Your hat is ready for you Steven.

I love how Cali and Vermont are snuggled together towards the bottom. I should have posted this on P&R, could have been fun.

Lets start arguing politics and get Darnell to move it.

The reason Cali is on the bottom is because of the high taxes and the pin head liberals.

Your turn.

How do you feel about his other idea - a 20% tax on imports from China?

We import $300 billion worth of Chinese goods - 20 percent of that

is only $60 billion. A drop in the bucket next to the deficit.

I think the idea is to make Chinese imports on par with American made goods. You know, stimulate our manufacturing base and all that. Plus it sounds good. The money made on the tarrifs is secondary.

GOP Proposes Drastic Cuts To Transit Infrastructure Spending

and here:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/02/14/v-print/108731/federal-budget-cuts-could-hit.html

Needed infrastructure vs non needed pork We need to make the difference clear.

You assume one thin which I would say disagrees with what you actually wrote. Being your statements and all I will give you the benefit of doubt in reading your own commentary on your own time. For now a massive migraine is starting so I gotta go

Peace brother. I got no quarrel with you. Its fun sparring like this. Welcome to P&R!

Atkins chose to look at census figures for some of these "at risk" locales to see whether the U.N.'s predictions - pun intended - hold water. What he discovered was that far from seeing a population exodus, many of these areas are growing in their number of ** sapiens.

These included the Bahamas, St. Lucia, Seychelles, and the Solomon Islands. Atkins continued:

Meanwhile, far from being places where people are fleeing, no fewer than the top six of the very fastest growing cities in China, Shenzzen, Dongguan, Foshan, Zhuhai, Puning and Jinjiang, are absolutely smack bang within the shaded areas identified as being likely sources of climate refugees.

Similarly, many of the fastest growing cities in the United States also appear within or close to the areas identified by the UNEP as at risk of having climate refugees.

More censuses are due to come in this year, and we await the results for Bangladesh and the Maldives - said to be places most at risk - with interest.

However, a very cursory look at the first available evidence seems to show that the places identified by the UNEP as most at risk of having climate refugees are not only not losing people, they are actually among the fastest growing regions in the world.

But we are still suppost to "take their word for it" that GW will at some point cause all this damage. I am still waiting for an explanation as to how we can still be getting GW when the highest temp recorded was in 1998.

No you merely implied it with absolutist language as you have been pointed out on before.

Can we get back to the identification of inequality now?

Where did I imply anything like that? I think I was rather specific each time I used the ambition phrase.

Can you point to the Republican leaders in Congress as indicating that all infrastructure spending will not be cut?

No, can you point the the rep leaders that are calling for infrastucture spending cuts?

The more frequent conservative monicker for why the poor are poor has more to do with lazy attitudes than wih an actual drive to succeed. This is what happens whe we generalize things into deceiving ourselves into vague and false conclusions. This logic fail happens in many lines of thought.

But I never said that.

Republicans. Republicans in Congress want to see cuts in all kinds of spending, including infrastructure spending (but not including deploying expensive military assets in Libya).

You got what you want. And if this cut didn't affect SC, you'd not give a damn.

Show me where a rep that has any sway over the budget has talked about cutting infrastucture spending.

1 percent by 1 percent for 1 percent...

How is that relevent in any way to what we are now talking about? Is troll a 1%'r?

I see very good answers here pertaining to income and the road to that income. John, nobody is arguing against the notion that a desire to attain wealth by self sacrifice is present in the less- fortunate. Your assertion hat the poor are poor because they lack ambition is not mutually exclusive from that previous and frankly obvious 'truth'...

And believing that top incomes are as low as those listed above does go to show ignorance of the distribution of incomes within each group.

Ah, now get it right. I never said a "lack of ambition". I said a "lack of ambition to be rich". There is a difference.

I am not in favor of cutting infrastructure spending. I am in favor of more spending on projects like this SC port.

But you guys aren't. So I hope you enjoy watching your pet project lie idle for a while

You guys, there it is again. What "you guys" is that? The ones that still want this infrastucture project and are mad its getting held up?

If you had a debt of $100,000 on a credit card, would you try to fix it

by using one less square of toilet paper every time you use the restroom?

Some cuts are so insignificant, you might as well leave them alone

and go after the big stuff.

Troll is actualy arguing against cuts. So that must mean he is in favor of higher spending.

So John, if a Democratic Senator can articulate for you that without Federal funding, they can't continue a project, then you'll see the merit in continuing such a project?

This is infrastructure spending. The one place that does not need to be cut. But troll knows that. He is just playing with me. He just doesn't like the idea of someone calling him on his very poor attempt at trolling, thats all.

It doesn't even matter. They should have thought about all the little pet projects they want before they started clamoring for cuts.

What did they think, the only states that would bear the brunt of the cuts would be blue states?

Slip sliding away. I got to hand it to you, your even better than fish at dancing.

That is what makes this so beautiful. They can't do this without federal money and.... yet they wanted federal budget cuts.

They got what they asked for.

They, what they? Are you in favor of not cutting the budget? You want more spending? See, I can play this game to.

Sounds petty to me. How much are the Feds expected to pay for the project overall? Why does there have to be proven "a Federal interest" if the Fed is not expected to contribute to the cost? If the Feds didn't need to be involved and the state could do the project all on their own, they wouldn't be standing there with their hand out.

There is a federal law that stops them from doing it on their own. Do I have to paste that part again?