It's very cute that you don't understand how Science works, but it leaves you kind of in the dark in discussions like this.

You see, comparing scientists to priests just illustrates that point beautifully.

There are all sorts of areas of climatology that people study and publish actual, real papers about that their peers then review. Much of the subject matter doesn't address man made global warming at all. Rather it's discussions about how systems work. Think of it like Astronomy. Most people aren't trying to explain why the universe is expanding. Lots of material is about moons, and stars and black holes and all kinds of other features of space beyond Earth. The same is true of climatology. Suggesting that a climatologist can ONLY write papers about man made climate change or they will otherwise be out of a job is absurd.

Finally, scientists love to prove established theories wrong. If anybody could concretely disprove man made climate change, they would be a hero in the community. Their works and findings would be published far and wide making them a scientific rock star! Alas, not only has nobody disproved it, but all but 1 were in support across the papers published specifically dealing with man made climate change over the last year.

I'm an AmeriCAN not an AmeriCAN'T.

I don't agree...

climate "science" is pretty damn close to religion... with any other science, you make a hypothesis, do some tests, get results, tweak it, retest, etc... and any results can easily be verified by your peers...

with climate science on the other hand, you look at perhaps 100 years worth of data, make up some assumptions, make up a model and try to understand how climate changed over millions of years... and on top of that you try to predict what will happen over the next million years...

so you basically have free reign to make shit up, as there is no possibility to verify if either your assumptions are true, or if your predictions are true...

all these climate "scientists" are barely able to predict if it will rain next weekend or not... and yet you expect them to predict temperature on earth in 1000 years?

I'm not saying that there is nothing to it, but it's far from a solid science... and with strong financial motivation to keep "global warming" hypothesis going, we need to take what these "studies" conclude with a grain of salt... :2 cents:

One of the great things about science is that even if you don't understand it, or disagree, it marches forward without you.

Just like Fascism.

:2 cents:

Which is why the scientists proclaimed to Pres. Nixon in 1970 that the East Coast would be under water by the year 2000 if Global Warming was not addressed IMMEDIATELY.

And then in the late 1970's scientists proclaimed that manmade emissions were instead sending us into an Ice Age unless addressed IMMEDIATELY.

And then in the late 1990's and early 2000's they again said that manmade global warming was going to have the coastal cities of the U.S. underwater unless it was addressed immediately.

Worldwide temps stopped rising for the last several years. So scientists changed their story from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"

Now scientists have discovered that the ocean itself is absorbing the excess CO2. Thus making ALL the computer models that scientists have used to publish papers on "Climate Change" old and obsolete.

Yep...Science does indeed "March On"

Problem is...the liberal media is in DENIAL. They are the new "deniers" of the new data.

Welcome to big money funding Green Energy and Carbon Credits. Multi-multi billion dollar business.

Just like big money funds coal and oil.

As The Who sang: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

Whether it's "gas shortages" or "climate change"...the oil companies win by charging ridiculous prices for oil and gas based on fucking lies.

Lol I read that as gas taxes + trolls only cover 50% of road spending

Ugh too much gfy

Also we need to raise taxes. Especially on 12clicks

LOL! If GFY trolling paid for hwys, we would be on streets of gold! :1orglaugh

Reality is: Toll roads are NOT funded by the govt. Thus the tolls.

As for Federal Hwys...I'll say it again. Funded by the gasoline tax.

The only time it has had any other money (as I've said over and over to people in this thread who REFUSE to listen or read) is the last few years. As gasoline prices have soared, people are using LESS gas. Thus less revenue. Leading to Congress moving emergency funds to keep it "solvent" (because money must ALWAYS be funneled to Senators cronies back home):

"From 2008 to 2010, Congress authorized the transfer of $35 billion from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury to keep the trust fund solvent.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected in January 2012 that the fund's Highway Account will become insolvent during 2013, and the Mass Transit Account insolvent in 2014. CBO said that although vehicles will travel more miles in the future (therefore consuming more taxable fuel), rising fuel efficiency standards and congressional refusal to increase the fuel tax or tie it to the rate of inflation means that the fund receives less money. CBO's insolvency projection assumed that Congress will not increase transportation spending beyond inflation-adjusted 2012 levels.

In 2013, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supported raising the federal gasoline tax to keep the fund solvent."

The link is here for ANY of you to read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Trust_Fund

House approves short-term, $10.8 billion bill to keep afloat Highway Trust Fund
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/15/house-approved-short-term-108-billion-bill-to-keep-afloat-highway-trust-fund/

I stopped reading. Is anyone still trying to argue that the Highway Trust Fund is not subsidized by other taxes? I know such nonsense (truth) crushes the libertarian utopic dream and it might be hard to swallow.

Here is what happens when a bunch of libertarians attempt their utopia for a few days: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifest...6bd_story.html

Read the article twice if you didn't catch how quickly they created rules and a natural hierarchy.

Yes, the OP is still trying to argue it. Even after the link HE posted defending his position proved otherwise. Admit he was wrong? Nah, double down and then throw in some climate change denials to up the kook factor.

LSD and gun nuts, sounds like a party

.

Eat like a caveman, he says, so you can live long enough to become a robot.

.


That's my life strategy! Maybe i am a libertarian

...and I have posted direct links to NOHA's website showing the last 17 years average temperatures and you flat out ignore it because it shows you are wrong and that the temp has been rising. Even if you drop it to the last 10 years it has risen. Even if you expand it to 20 or 30 years the temperature has risen.

You are flat out wrong, but that wont stop you from posting the same BS in 5 mins or the next topic.

Electric cars are kinda pointless at this point, as far as lowering your impact, if that's what you would want it for. As long as it's being charged from the power grid, I don't see it as doing much to counter a gas powered car.

That's assuming your local power company is developing it power using, coal or gas. This is why I'm not that big on the hype of electric cars, if everyone switched to them or even a large percentage of people, it would mean more natural gas and coal is burned to create the power to charge them.

To me it only makes sense if you are charging it via solar or some other form of clean energy.

Again...just read the link I presented. It explains exactly hos Federal Highways are paid for: The GAS tax.

And the FACT that the Congress is trying to raise it because they are running out of money.

Jesus guys...if Hwy's aren't funded by the Highway Fund (which is funded by the national gasoline tax)...then WHY is Congress saying that if it doesn't raise the gasoline tax that all work will stop on Highways? Why do we even NEED a national gasoline tax if what you are saying is true.

Has not a damned thing to do with your disdain for personal freedom (which is what Libertarianism is...and not about gas taxes)...it has to do with FACTS.

READ AND EDUCATE YOURSELF AND STOP POSTING OPINION PIECES:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Trust_Fund

It's really a short read, and I even quoted the part that said in 2008 Congress started moving funds into the Highway Trust Fund because people are using less gasoline and there isn't enough revenue.

How much simpler could this be to understand? I THOUGHT that some of you might be able to FINALLY understand this once all of this made the major news...but I guess not.

There was ONE scientist that made that claim in 1975 and he has since retracted.

My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong


That's an excerpt from a story I wrote about climate science that appeared almost 40 years ago. Titled "The Cooling World," it was remarkably popular; in fact it might be the only decades-old magazine story about science ever carried onto the set of a late-night TV talk show. Now, as the author of that story, after decades of scientific advances, let me say this: while the hypotheses described in that original story seemed right at the time, climate scientists now know that they were seriously incomplete. Our climate is warming -- not cooling, as the original story suggested.

And again, you're wrong. Initially you started the thread by saying?

'The next time we argue over big govt., could the people saying we should pay more taxes FINALLY stop babbling about how our tax money pays for highways?'

YOU posted a link saying that due to shortfalls it has been subsidized since 2008, by our taxes. So yes, our tax money currently helps pay for highways. Maybe you're confused as to what a subsidy is??

And the main reason there was the shortfall in the first place has a lot less to do with more fuel efficient vehicles and a lot more to do with inflation. The 18.3 cents collected per gallon in 1993 was never increased due to inflation. That 18.3 cents in 2014 purchases a lot less then in 1993. If it had been adjusted accordingly the 18.3 cent tax in 1993 would be 29.9 cents today and there would not need to be any subsidy.

No it wasn't. It was even on the cover of TIME magazine in 1977. It was all over the news. And hell yes they ALL retract it NOW lol

Wouldn't you after you were dead wrong?

I was 16 years old and remember this very well:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9y8chQ9U1O...april-1977.jpg

you read one debunked hypothesis on one tabloid.. and by god, you will never believe another word

ONE debunked "hypothesis"? In a "tabloid"???

Time magazine is not a "tabloid". And the "hypothesis" was "debunked" by the Earth NOT going into an Ice Age.

How come all the ones that were already WRONG are now nothing more than "debunked hypothesis" to you now. But the one that is based on OLD data that you are currently championing is Unquestionable Scientific FACT???

You do realize that in 1977 people were saying that (as you put it) "debunked hypothesis" was Scientific FACT as well.

Wonder what will be the next one now that "Global Warming" has been changed to "Climate Change"?

EDIT: I also gave you the example of Pres. Nixon being told in 1970 that the coast would be underwater because of Global Warming by the year 2000. I also gave you the example of Global Warming in the late 1990's that has now changed to "Climate Change" because the computer models are based on OLD information.

That's over 40 years of being wrong. So no, Richard...I'm not reading some "tabloid" and closing my mind to anything else.

But you may be if you aren't acknowledging the new data about CO2 that makes the "Global Warming" computer generated hypothesis wrong and outdated.

You could be right and I hope you are, but we are already seeing the beginning. Isnt Lake Mead the lowest point ever at 35% capacity? That would certainly concern me if I lived in Vegas.

Yes, we are in the middle of long drought in the West.

Of course you have to remember that Lake Meade is a man-made lake that has ony been in existence since 1936.

Here are some actual numbers on Lake Meade:
"Lake Mead's water level has fallen below the drought level (1125 feet above sea level) three times.From 1953 to 1956, the water level fell from 1,200 to 1,085 feet (366 to 331 m). From 1963 to 1965, the water level fell from 1,205 to 1,090 feet (367 to 332 m). Since 2000 through 2008, the water level has dropped from 1215 to 1095. In 2009 the water level rose slightly due to cool winter temperatures and rainfall.

In June 2010, the lake was at 39 percent of its capacity, and on Nov. 30, 2010 it reached 1,081.94 ft (329.78 m), setting a new record monthly low. From mid May 2011 to January 22, 2012, Lake Mead's water elevation increased from 1095.5 feet to 1134.52 feet.

Lake Mead draws a majority of its water from snow melt in the Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah Rocky Mountains. Since 2000 the water level has been dropping at a fairly steady rate due to less than average snowfall."

So the answer to what you said is "no". It DID fall to it's lowest MONTHLY level back in May 2011 to Jan. 2012

But we are in a pretty bad drought in the Western U.S.
But nothing CLOSE to the droughts of the 1930's and 1950's which were the worst in U.S. history.

I hope that "Climate Change" science doesn't claim this was man made too:

"The worst droughts in the history of the United States occurred during the 1930s and 1950s, periods of time known as 'Dust Bowl' years in which droughts lead to significant economic damages and social changes."

"Federal gas taxes have typically not been devoted exclusively to highways – The federal gas tax began its life as a deficit-fighting measure under President Herbert Hoover decades before the Interstate Highway System. Only during a brief 17-year period beginning in 1956 did Congress temporarily dedicate gas tax revenues to construct the Interstate network, a project completed in the 1990s. Since 1973, the gasoline tax has been used to fund a variety of important transportation priorities and has periodically been used to reduce the federal deficit."

"Many states use gas tax revenue for a variety of purposes – While many states have historically dedicated their own state gasoline taxes to highways, that decision has not been universal. According to Federal Highway Administration data, roughly 20 cents of every dollar collected in state gas taxes, motor vehicle fees or tolls nationwide is used for public transportation and other governmental purposes. Many of the states that do use gasoline taxes solely for highways do so because they remain bound by constitutional earmarks of gasoline taxes imposed three-quarters of a century ago, regardless of whether those decisions still make sense today."

source: http://www.frontiergroup.org/reports...pay-themselves



so tax was setup that was supposed to fund the highways... for many years there was a surplus, which instead of being used to grow the fund, was pissed away on "variety of purposes"... now when last few years there is a deficit, everyone is saying "federal income taxes are funding the highways"... when in reality, it's more like paying back what was stolen from the fund for "variety of purposes" in the first place...:2 cents:

it's a joke.

and 'tabloid', as an updated noun, means: 'sensational in a lurid or vulgar way.'

so, one guy writing one story about a hypotheses resulting in time magazine to post a cover article about 'surviving an ice age'

seems very tabloid -y..

i wonder how different the environment looks from the 70s to now.. just on an spill/nuclear meltdown/type thing.. not even getting into this 'nitty gritty' :pimp

Keep in mind that state gas tax is not the same as national sales tax.

States take a nice big chunk all on their own.
Here in Nevada we pay 51.6 cents a gallon (the state and local tax is 33 cents of that)

That was what the cost of a gallon of gas was when I was in highschool :(

I kinda see it as a "tax on the poor" . Just like taxes on food are.

Rich people can fill up their vehicles without blinking an eye. But people who are struggling and have to drive to work every day of more likely drive to job interviews...the higher the gas tax the harder it is on them.

Plus the gas tax raises the cost of EVERYTHING you buy. All the food, clothing, household needs, etc. has to be transported.

There's a reason that a coca cola that used to cost a quarter is now $1.79 at the 7-11. And part of that is because of high fuel prices.

But I guess after Congress raises the gas tax and the cost of living goes up AGAIN...people who are barely getting by now will be the ones to suffer. :(

The air is a thousand times cleaner. The environment is much, much cleaner. Cars are more efficient, etc.

I remember back in the 1970's watching the evening news on CBS and they would show "Smog Alerts" in major cities every day on the national news.

There was constant fear and talk of "Acid Rain".

It was pretty bad in the 1970's. The industrial revolution had been going on for a few decades and had ramped up after WW2 and factories were just belching shit into the air and water.

Nowhere did I say the gasoline tax went strictly to pay for transportation projects. And no, the reality is federal tax dollars fund the highways today. Whether it's because they used the money elsewhere in the past, people are driving less, cars are more fuel efficient or due to inflation (the main cause) the end result is federal tax dollars help fund the highway infrastructure in this country.

the statement that "federal tax dollars fund the highways today" may be "true", but
it should be viewed in historical context...

a perhaps good analogy would be: you and your friend are going out to drink for years, you have always picked up the tab, but last few weeks you are short on cash, and your buddy payed for the drinks...

so while the statement, "your buddy is paying for drinks" is strictly true, it's a bit misleading and almost ridiculous, he has been leeching off you for years, and only last few weeks decided to pickup the tab...

it would be a bit of a stretch to say: "your buddy is paying for drinks"
don't you agree?

It's not being "paid back." That's not how it was designed, by your own admission. And again, by your own admission, it is now being subsidized by other taxes.

Holy fuck. I want to agree with you guys because typically I do, but you are arguing with yourselves and proving with your very own arguments the exact opposite of what you are trying to say.

Any way that anyone tries to spin this, money outside of the gas tax is being funneled into the Highway Trust Fund to... get this... subsidize the fund!

Taxes are not set up as bank accounts. Money comes in, money goes out. That's what happened. If we want to play the tax piggy bank game, we could sit here all day long and talk about how this program and that program is not really subsidized because at some point in time somebody wasted the tax money that was previously collected.

It's not ridiculous at all because that's exactly what is happening. Again, you are admitting the fund is being subsidized by other taxes yet trying to find a way around it with a technicality that does not even apply.

There is no analogy. There is no other explanation. Money comes in, money goes out. That's how taxes work. That's how this tax was designed.

yep, and i even hear that the radiation issues are being fixed by special bacteria.. even the oil spills

nature is definitely a fascinating thing to watch in action, eh Robbie.

I wouldn't call it a technicality...when a fund is setup, it's supposed to be used only for that purpose... when there is a surplus the fund grows, so when in later years revenues slow down, there is $$ in the reserve... but because of mismanagement, the $$ that was supposed to grow the reserve in the fund was stolen for other purposes and so there is no reserve...

it seems ridiculous to call giving back what was stolen a "subsidy"...

Let me offer another analogy:

you operate a taxi service, you charge $10 for a trip to the airport

you do 10 routes, call it a day, go out to dinner and spend $30...

next day you go fill up your gas tank, bill is $80 and notice there is only $70 in your pocket...

what conclusions do you draw from this?

- the $10 charge is not enough to operate this business profitably? translation: "gasoline taxes are not enough to cover the costs of the highways"
- perhaps you have to "subsidize" $10 from your own money? translation: "federal income taxes are subsidizing the highways"
- or perhaps you have to just give back the $30 that you spent on dinner? so then you not only can pay for gas, you have $20 left saved up for repairs when they come up?

Go back and read the link YOU posted. The gas tax and subsequent fund WASN'T set up for that purpose.

So I'm really not sure what you're even talking about. You're arguing with yourself.

Well then, I guess according to some GFY folks...that Congress is just wasting it's time.

Federal Highways are not paid for by the national gas tax. So there is no need for it. And certainly no need to raise it.

So they should just abolish it and bring our gasoline prices down by 18 cents a gallon.

I'm good with that.

It's possible I may be confused about the facts... I was under the impression that the "Highway Trust Fund" was setup to pay for the highways....


Here is another tidbit of info I found:

Mary Peters (Secretary of Transportation):
"You know, I think Americans would be shocked to learn that only about 60 percent of the gas tax money that they pay today actually goes into highway and bridge construction. Much of it goes in many, many other areas."

Source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/trans...ructure_08-15/


so 40% of the gas taxes are used for other purposes, but yet we have to subsidize highways from income taxes?

that's some twisted logic, one that only some Washington bureaucrat could come up with...

"We're on the highway To Hell."

"Hell ain't a bad place to be."

AC/DC

acid rain was real and thru gov regs with dealt with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain I quote:

Meanwhile, in 1989, the U.S. Congress passed a series of amendments to the Clean Air Act. Title IV of these amendments established the Acid Rain Program, a cap and trade system designed to control emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Title IV called for a total reduction of about 10 million tons of SO2 emissions from power plants. It was implemented in two phases. Phase I began in 1995, and limited sulfur dioxide emissions from 110 of the largest power plants to a combined total of 8.7 million tons of sulfur dioxide. One power plant in New England (Merrimack) was in Phase I. Four other plants (Newington, Mount Tom, Brayton Point, and Salem Harbor) were added under other provisions of the program. Phase II began in 2000, and affects most of the power plants in the country.

During the 1990s, research continued. On March 10, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). This rule provides states with a solution to the problem of power plant pollution that drifts from one state to another. CAIR will permanently cap emissions of SO2 and NOx in the eastern United States. When fully implemented, CAIR will reduce SO2 emissions in 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia by over 70% and NOx emissions by over 60% from 2003 levels.[18]

Overall, the program's cap and trade program has been successful in achieving its goals. Since the 1990s, SO2 emissions have dropped 40%, and according to the Pacific Research Institute, acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976.[19][20] Conventional regulation was utilized in the European Union, which saw a decrease of over 70% in SO2 emissions during the same time period.[21]

In 2007, total SO2 emissions were 8.9 million tons, achieving the program's long term goal ahead of the 2010 statutory deadline.[22]

The EPA estimates that by 2010, the overall costs of complying with the program for businesses and consumers will be $1 billion to $2 billion a year, only one fourth of what was originally predicted.[19]

OMG, I hope none of you guys give up on this thread. Keep hammering away at each other, we're making real headway here. Given enough time, enough wall-of-text posts, enough sarcasm, this thread has a real chance of being noticed by the government, and quite possibly end up serving as a guidepost for making REAL CHANGES that are positive, sensible, and beneficial to all.

I really believe that.

I do.

Yup.

He's not very bright.

Here, I'll pour some more gas on the fire...

From today's NYTimes

Highways Need A Higher Gas Tax
About 10,000 motorists die each year because of inadequate road conditions, and millions of other Americans waste large portions of their lives stuck in traffic or stalled trains. The enormous cost to society of poor infrastructure grows every year, and most of the blame can be placed directly on a Congress that refuses to collect and spend enough money to fix it.

On Tuesday the House made the situation worse with a sad excuse for a highway funding bill: A 10-month measure that keeps spending at an inadequate level and does not address the dwindling revenues that keep producing all-too-familiar cliffhanging crises. The bill pays for building projects through a series of budget gimmicks, including one that will probably result in companies underfinancing their pensions. Yet the Obama administration, desperate to avoid the cancellation of projects that would occur if the Highway Trust Fund runs out of money next month, decided to support the stopgap bill.

This crisis was entirely foreseeable and was brought about by the ideological refusal of Congressional Republicans to raise the gasoline tax ? the traditional method of paying for road projects, because it allows those who benefit from better roads to pay for them. The gas tax has been stuck at 18.4 cents a gallon since 1993, and during those 21 years it has lost 39 percent of its value to inflation. But Republicans, afraid of violating a no-tax-increase pledge they made to an extremist group, won?t touch it. ?I?ve never supported raising the gas tax,? Speaker John Boehner said last week.

By the NY Times Editorial Board.
Full article HERE>>>

Are you kidding with this? Some the biggest multi nationals in the world have a clear economic interest in disproving global warming.

What are your thoughts on that?

With gas at almost $4 a gallon and rising. Bringing up the cost of EVERYTHING we buy (a tax on the poor).
The economy already hanging by a thread.

Do you think we need the govt. to add this tax and raise the price of gasoline even more (and thus the price of everything else that has to be transported: Food, clothing, household goods, etc.)?

They certainly do! Big oil wants to make money. No doubt.

Funny though...their scientist's findings are immediately tossed aside by the left. That "science" is "fake".

But the "science" put out by the scientists who are funded by companies with billions tied up in Green energy? Oh...that "science" is ABSOLUTE and cannot be disputed or you are an idiot and a "denier".

Just think...if GFY were around in 1977, people would be calling Vendzilla a "rightie" because he would be denying the "science" that said we were heading to the Ice Age.

It's just a thought.

All I know is "they" are fucking with the weather. Whether it be via HAARP, or big oil, or the defense department, or NASA, or however they are doing it, weather patterns are all fucked up. Summers the worst in memory, winters the worst in memory, summer in wintertime and winter in summertime. insane.

Meanwhile, I had a killer breakfast burrito today.

Thank goodness your memory over your life span isn't the actual historical facts over millions of years! :)

And I'm eating healthy oatmeal for breakfast. Get your shit together Mark! lol

The money's going to eventually have to come from somewhere. That much is clear and inarguable.

One caution though. Re: "The economy hanging by a thread" --- the US economy has seen an overall growth period over the last 5 quarters. The USD is stronger on the world market than it's been in nearly 10 years. These are things that seem to be conveniently left out of virtually every political argument currently going on on GFY. To me these are not signs of an economy hanging by a thread, nor are they indications of a bad sitting President.

Like the article suggests, either those (probably in industry) who benefit most by having properly repaired highways will cough up the difference, or (more likely) there will have to be a tax hike. Either way it's going to happen, because the more the US highway system degrades the higher the toll WILL be on your economy, in 100's if not 1000's of interesting ways. (higher vehicle repair costs and highr MVA fatalities not the least of it)