What Do We Think About Climate Change

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

"The trend in global surface temperature has been nearly flat since the late 1990s despite continuing increases in the forcing due to the sum of the well-mixed greenhouse gases" [Solomon et al., 2009] (Hansen does not agree, of course)

The trend has been upward. All the quibbling, cherry-picking of data and sidetracking in the world doesn't change that. As I pointed out earlier, the 80's were the warmest decade on record; the 90's were warmer than the 80's; and the last decade was warmer than the 90's.

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by troy2000

The trend has been upward. All the quibbling, cherry-picking of data and sidetracking in the world doesn't change that. As I pointed out earlier, the 80's were the warmest decade on record; the 90's were warmer than the 80's; and the last decade was warmer than the 90's.

More propaganda based on tainted warmist-gathered not credible data. Freedom is at stake here.

[Boston]

so three independent data sources all showing an increasing trend and representative of three independent teams of scientists are all fake?

hardly likely

B

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Boston

so so three independent data sources all showing an increasing trend and representative of three independent teams of scientists are all fake?

hardly likely

B

Independent? Collusive would be more like it. Watch your wallets and watch your freedom. Both are at risk.

[Boston]

both have always been at risk or do you forget my nationality, that does not however mean that the science is faulty.

[hoytedow]

Originally Posted by Boston

both have always been at risk or do you forget my nationality, that does not however mean that the science is faulty.

How could I forget your nationality? Your nation gave us the bi-camaral legislature of which we are so proud today(making gagging noises).

http://www.pollingreport.com/CongJob.htm

[Boston]

actually its the woman of my nation who elect the men to run the place and if they screw up they throw them out

the two party system came from England

its the federation of states and the constitution that was copied from my people
that and voting

[hoytedow]

bi-camaral does not mean 2-party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress

http://www.ushistory.org/us/1d.asp

"The five tribes designed quite an elaborate political system. This included a bicameral (two-house) legislature, much like the British Parliament and modern U.S. Congress. The representatives, or sachems, from the Seneca and Mohawk tribes met in one house and those of the Oneida and Cayuga met in the other. The Onondaga sachems broke ties and had the power to veto decisions made by the others."

[Boston]

my apologies and thanks for the link

did that come from the Iroquois ? I will have to read through the link when I have a chance

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

bi-camaral does not mean 2-party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress

http://www.ushistory.org/us/1d.asp

"The five tribes designed quite an elaborate political system. This included a bicameral (two-house) legislature, much like the British Parliament and modern U.S. Congress. The representatives, or sachems, from the Seneca and Mohawk tribes met in one house and those of the Oneida and Cayuga met in the other. The Onondaga sachems broke ties and had the power to veto decisions made by the others."

A fascinating bit of history. But if you read your own quote carefully, our system was obviously inspired by the British, instead of the Iroquois.

The Iroquois had two equal houses, each representing only part of the people--two tribes each--with the fifth tribe as a tiebreaker. Our Congress, on the other hand, was set up with an upper and lower house like the British, with each house selected differently but representing all the states.



If you read your own quote

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

More propaganda based on tainted warmist-gathered not credible data. Freedom is at stake here.

It's obvious that you'll never accept any data, research or conclusions that don't match your preconceived notions, no matter what the source. To you, the simple fact that it doesn't match what you believe proves it's a lie.

As I said earlier: 'my mind is made up; don't try to confuse me with facts.'

You make almost as much sense as the folks who believe evolution is a Satanic conspiracy to destroy our faith in God, and doom us all to Hell. Almost as much sense....

[Boston]

I am embarrassed to not have known that

thanks for the info
B

[hoytedow]

If you think the senate is equated with the house of lords you are as delusional as the senators who try to lord it over us. The reason for the set-up was not a house of lords/house of commons situation but rather to make sure little states didn't get trampled by the larger ones.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by hoytedow

If you think the senate is equated with the house of lords you are as delusional as the senators who try to lord it over us. The reason for the set-up was not a house of lords/house of commons situation but rather to make sure little states didn't get trampled by the larger ones.

Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs, Hoyt.

I didn't say our system duplicated the British system. But it was certainly inspired by it. Your explanation for its structure is true as far as it goes, but it's woefully incomplete. Like most institutions, there were multiple interlocking reasons for a bicameral legislature.

And I repeat: as set up, we had a 'lower' House of Representatives, with short-term members elected by, speaking for, and directly responsible to the people of their districts.

Then we had a much smaller 'upper' house, the Senate, selected by the state legislatures in whatever method they chose--meant among other things as a counterweight and damper to short-term public opinion (which was also one function of the House of Lords). Senators were not directly elected. They were given terms three times as long as that of Representatives, and their terms staggered, so they could theoretically take a more long-term view of things.

Rather obviously, Representatives were intended more to represent the local interests of their individual districts--while the Senate would be regarded more as looking out for national interests: for example, only the Senate needed to approve foreign treaties or confirm Presidential appointments.

Even though Senators are directly elected now, a lot of the original differences in function and temperement between the Senate and the House still remain. The Senate is the slower, more deliberative body, while the House reacts much more quickly and is more easily swayed by short-term political trends and situations.

[troy2000]

Here we go, Hoyte. Whoever wrote this article for Wikipedia has done a better job of explaining the Senate than I did:

The United States Senate, named after the ancient Roman Senate, was designed as a more deliberative body than the House of Representatives. Edmund Randolph called for its members to be "less than the House of Commons... to restrain, if possible, the fury of democracy." According to James Madison, "The use of the Senate is to consist in proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch." Instead of two year terms as in the House, senators serve six year terms, giving them more authority to ignore mass sentiment in favor of the country's broad interests. The smaller number of members and staggered terms also give the Senate a greater sense of community.

Many of the founding fathers greatly admired the British government. At the Constitutional Convention, Alexander Hamilton called the British government "the best in the world," and said he "doubted whether anything short of it would do in America." In his "Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States," John Adams said "the English Constitution is, in theory, both for the adjustment of the balance and the prevention of its vibrations, the most stupendous fabric of human invention." In the minds of many of the Founding Fathers, the Senate would be an American kind of House of Lords[1]. John Dickinson said the Senate should "consist of the most distinguished characters, distinguished for their rank in life and their weight of property, and bearing as strong a likeness to the British House of Lords as possible."[2]

The Senate was also intended* to give states with smaller populations equal standing with larger states, which are given more representation in the House. (See "Connecticut Compromise")

*Emphasis mine....