Next Time We Argue Over Big Govt.

[Robbie]

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?

I've corrected them over and over and over and kept pointing to the fact that the Federal Highways are paid for by the GAS TAX. You know, the one they want to raise now because people are driving less and driving more fuel efficient cars (you know, like Pres. Obama told us would SAVE us money...the money we will now spend anyway on gas tax)

But every goddamn time that taxes come up...the same people will say over and over and over that income taxes pay for roads.

Well, it's all over the news right now. So can you please STOP with that bullshit.

Please...no more ignorance.

[sarettah]

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

Highway advocates often claim that roads ?pay for themselves,? with gasoline taxes and other charges to motorists covering ? or nearly covering ? the full cost of highway construction and maintenance.

They are wrong.

Highways do not ? and, except for brief periods in our nation?s history ? never have paid for themselves through the taxes that highway advocates label ?user fees.? Yet highway advocates continue to suggest they do in an attempt to secure preferential access to scarce public resources and to shape how those resources are spent.

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.

Since 1947, the amount of money spent on highways, roads and streets has exceeded the amount raised through gasoline taxes and other so-called ?user fees? by $600 billion (2005 dollars), representing a massive transfer of general government funds to highways.

So, since the taxes raised by gasoline taxes do not cover the cost of the roads I would have to assume that the money I pay in other taxes goes to covering the shortage.

.

[Fat Panda]

this may be the dumbest post in gfy history

gas taxes + tolls only cover roughly 50% of road spending

where does the rest come from? oh ya...

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by Robbie

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?

I've corrected them over and over and over and kept pointing to the fact that the Federal Highways are paid for by the GAS TAX. You know, the one they want to raise now because people are driving less and driving more fuel efficient cars (you know, like Pres. Obama told us would SAVE us money...the money we will now spend anyway on gas tax)

But every goddamn time that taxes come up...the same people will say over and over and over that income taxes pay for roads.

Well, it's all over the news right now. So can you please STOP with that bullshit.

Please...no more ignorance.

the people advocating for higher taxes are the people who don't pay them.

[Sly]

The gas tax has not been raised in decades. The money that was there was taken out and spent elsewhere, and really wasn't enough as is. Highways and such are subsidized by XYZ funding from whatever jurisdictions can and will kick in cash.

Read more: http://www.frontiergroup.org/reports...pay-themselves

I agree with your sentiment, but using the gas tax as your basis was way, way off. Long story short. We would not have highways if they were only paid for by the gas tax.

Please… No more ignorance.

(I see that someone already posted the link. Oops.)

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by Robbie

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?

I've corrected them over and over and over and kept pointing to the fact that the Federal Highways are paid for by the GAS TAX. You know, the one they want to raise now because people are driving less and driving more fuel efficient cars (you know, like Pres. Obama told us would SAVE us money...the money we will now spend anyway on gas tax)

But every goddamn time that taxes come up...the same people will say over and over and over that income taxes pay for roads.

Well, it's all over the news right now. So can you please STOP with that bullshit.

Please...no more ignorance.

Being as conservative as ever....

[Robbie]

I just read that opinion piece link.

It just keeps talking about "advocates" and saying over and over that gas taxes don't pay for highways.

Never once says what does pay for highways.

And apparently Congress disagrees with what you guys are saying. They are saying that gas tax DOES pay for highways. And the "decades" since it was raised was 1993 by Pres. Bill Clinton.

Why does it need to be raised at all?
Because we are using less gas.

I'm not off base about this at all.

Unlike that opinion piece you guys linked to...I'm going to post a link telling you where the money does come from (gas tax):

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

In the last few years, Congess has moved a few billion over from the "General Fund" (income tax revenue) to the Highway Trust Fund to keep it "solvent"

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by bronco67

Being as conservative as ever....

Wearing blinders and being a servant to the govt. as ever...

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

the people advocating for higher taxes are the people who don't pay them.

Oh they will PAY through the nose for a gas tax.

Every piece of food, article of clothing, things they buy at the store will all increase in price due to the cost of transporting them.

Not to mention that gasoline is already too expensive (70 bucks to fill my jeep).

This is a tax on the poor in my opinion (just like "sin taxes" are)

[Fat Panda]

how fucking dumb are you?

[_Richard_]

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

Image that has NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about

Richard, this isn't about politics. It's about the govt. and taxes. Your cartoon about political parties isn't relevant.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by Robbie

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

In the last few years, Congess has moved a few billion over from the "General Fund" (income tax revenue) to the Highway Trust Fund to keep it "solvent"

From your very own link and quote, the Highway Trust Fund is subsidized. Here is more info: http://usa.streetsblog.org/2012/09/2...way-subsidies/

Do any random search for Highway Trust Fund and you will find an endless supply of links talking about it being subsidized.

[Fat Panda]

dont even try sly...hes just your typical obtuse baby boomer

im not even shocked any more how dumb most amerikans are

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Richard, this isn't about politics. It's about the govt. and taxes. Your cartoon about political parties isn't relevant.

a thread about government and taxes isn't about politics?

it appears this thread is full of right wingers arguing with each other

thus, my image.

[Sly]

On top of everything listed above, are you suggesting that the government is properly budgeting the gas tax and handling all of highway maintenance with that one tax alone just fine and dandy? You of all people should be utterly amazed and even dubious of a government trying to make that claim.

[CDSmith]

Whatever pays for your highways I wish Canada would figure out something similar for our ONE highway to make it interstate-comparable. You guys have the greatest highway system on the planet bar none, with the better part of 100 primary interstates. All Canada really needs is ONE and we can't even do that right. Our trans-Canada highway is by comparisson utterly pathetic. It's not like the US didn't have to blast through mountains and rocks to get their great highways through. No excuse for Canada.

You'd think we could have just one highway of that quality. Ug. What a shame.

Anyone who's driven for any length on the trans-Canada knows what I'm talking about. Truckers certainly know.

[American Psycho]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Oh they will PAY through the nose for a gas tax.

Every piece of food, article of clothing, things they buy at the store will all increase in price due to the cost of transporting them.

Not to mention that gasoline is already too expensive (70 bucks to fill my jeep).

This is a tax on the poor in my opinion (just like "sin taxes" are)

You should get a chevy volt like Markey mark prince

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Whatever pays for your highways I wish Canada would figure out something similar for our ONE highway to make it interstate-comparable. You guys have the greatest highway system on the planet bar none, with the better part of 100 primary interstates. All Canada really needs is ONE and we can't even do that right. Our trans-Canada highway is by comparisson utterly pathetic. It's not like the US didn't have to blast through mountains and rocks to get their great highways through. No excuse for Canada.

You'd think we could have just one highway of that quality. Ug. What a shame.

Anyone who's driven for any length on the trans-Canada knows what I'm talking about. Truckers certainly know.

i have heard a lot simply drive through the states than use the canadian side

[woj]

why are we arguing about some subsidies that account for <0.3% of the federal budget?

[Vendzilla]

Fedral taxes have not changed in almost 20 years at 18.4 cents a gallon

The money from the taxes make up 80% of the capital costs of federally funded transportation projects with states making up the remainder. Congress had to spend 34 billion during the years 2008 to 2010 to make up for a funding shortfall

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by Fat Panda

dont even try sly...hes just your typical obtuse baby boomer

im not even shocked any more how dumb most amerikans are

wow, you must be pretty successful then.
what is your claim to fame?

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

i have heard a lot simply drive through the states than use the canadian side

Damn straight they do, spending their hotel, motel, gas and food money there instead of at Canadian businesses along the trans-Canada.

One of our greatest shames IMO.

[2MuchMark]

Hi Robbie,

The general argument is that taxes are already very low in the US, and there are so many loopholes in the tax code, and so many businesses and people use them, that the taxes paid do not cover the costs of things such as infrastructure. There are many roads and bridges in the US that are in real need of repair. A quick Google search will show you this.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by **********

Hi Robbie,

The general argument is that taxes are already very low in the US, and there are so many loopholes in the tax code, and so many businesses and people use them, that the taxes paid do not cover the costs of things such as infrastructure. There are many roads and bridges in the US that are in real need of repair. A quick Google search will show you this.

Gas taxes here in the US are lower than most, only Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have lower gas taxes than the US

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/18/opinio...gas-tax-myths/

[CarlosTheGaucho]

All I can say is I'd take both, your highway system and gas prices in a heartbeat - it currently costs about $ 150 to fill up, with more than a half of it being a gas tax.

What's the current US gas tax rate anyway?

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Robbie

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?

I've corrected them over and over and over and kept pointing to the fact that the Federal Highways are paid for by the GAS TAX. You know, the one they want to raise now because people are driving less and driving more fuel efficient cars (you know, like Pres. Obama told us would SAVE us money...the money we will now spend anyway on gas tax)

But every goddamn time that taxes come up...the same people will say over and over and over that income taxes pay for roads.

Well, it's all over the news right now. So can you please STOP with that bullshit.

Please...no more ignorance.

that's a funny as give 'California back to the Mexicans'... attention dumb mother fuckers... it was SPAIN, SPAIN owned California ..

[Axeman]

Originally Posted by CarlosTheGaucho

All I can say is I'd take both, your highway system and gas prices in a heartbeat - it currently costs about $ 150 to fill up, with more than a half of it being a gas tax.

What's the current US gas tax rate anyway?

Been 18.4 cents a gallon for about 20 years now.

[CarlosTheGaucho]

Originally Posted by Axeman

Been 18.4 cents a gallon for about 20 years now.

Heaven on earth, over here (central Europe) 53 pct. of the retail price if I'm not mistaken, that's $4 + per gallon

[BFT3K]

I've heard this story used as another idiotic reason why we can never evolve past fossil fuels.

"But how will we ever pay for the roads if vehicles go electric or get better gas mileage?"

Pathetic.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I just read that opinion piece link.

It just keeps talking about "advocates" and saying over and over that gas taxes don't pay for highways.

Never once says what does pay for highways.

And apparently Congress disagrees with what you guys are saying. They are saying that gas tax DOES pay for highways. And the "decades" since it was raised was 1993 by Pres. Bill Clinton.

Why does it need to be raised at all?
Because we are using less gas.

I'm not off base about this at all.

Unlike that opinion piece you guys linked to...I'm going to post a link telling you where the money does come from (gas tax):

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

In the last few years, Congess has moved a few billion over from the "General Fund" (income tax revenue) to the Highway Trust Fund to keep it "solvent"

But the Wikipedia article you linked up does tell us where the money comes from...

During 2008 the fund required support of $8 billion from general revenue funds to cover a shortage in the fund. This shortage was due to lower gas consumption as a result of the recession and higher gas prices. Further transfers of $7 billion and $19.5 billion were made in 2009 and 2010 respectively.

I see a real crisis brewing here. Cars are becoming more and more efficient, and people are driving a lot less due to the cost of gas combined with the recession. When electric cars are much more common... There will be even less tax dollars for our freeways. Combined with our already crumbling infrastructure we are completely screwed.

At the same time.... Thanks for the new freeway you just built outside my town. My hometown here had a two lane freeway (two lanes in each direction) pour directly into Main Street, one lane in each direction, with a dozen lights... That clogged our hometown up completely during commute hours. Eventually the state, using local and federal funds, built a huge freeway bypass so that freeway now routes around the city and continues past us. I myself thought this would kill the local economy, but it seems just the opposite - all of those cars driving through were just driving through and not stopping or spending money here, but now the local population is coming out more often because it's easier to get around.

[DamianJ]

Derp derp

[L-Pink]

I think the highway fund works like my g/f's budget. Her revenue pays her living expenses with me periodically making up the shortfall.


.

[Robbie]

The state takes gas tax as well for the state roads by the way.

And if any of you read the link I posted it does indeed say that:
"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"

In other words: YES the federal Hwy. Fund is funded via the National Sales Tax on Gasoline.
In 2008, fuel efficiency + less driving = lower revenue. So now they need to raise the gas tax to keep the money rolling in at previous levels.

And my point STILL remains...my income taxes go to pay for a bloated govt.s payroll for lifetime/carreer politicians and the lifestlyes they lead (limos, private jets, etc.) and then a HUGE chunk to pay for out over-bloated monster war machine military to kill people world-wide.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

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?

I've corrected them over and over and over and kept pointing to the fact that the Federal Highways are paid for by the GAS TAX. You know, the one they want to raise now because people are driving less and driving more fuel efficient cars (you know, like Pres. Obama told us would SAVE us money...the money we will now spend anyway on gas tax)

But every goddamn time that taxes come up...the same people will say over and over and over that income taxes pay for roads.

Well, it's all over the news right now. So can you please STOP with that bullshit.

Please...no more ignorance.

Well I've never said we should pay more taxes.. I've said we need to pay for shit we buy and not borrow.. IE like the tax break congress just handed out to big business. It's a tax cut that isn't paid for which means it will add to the national debt.

Tax CUTS do not equal paying more. It means you were allowed to pay less. I don't believe we should allow any tax cuts until the budget it balanced and we have a surplus.

Anyway I'll say whatever, as long as you agree to stop saying Global Warming isn't real and that you keep using cherry picked stats that have been proven wrong over and over..

[Robbie]

I haven't said Global Warming isn't real and I haven't used cherry picked stats.

What I have said is that there is NEW data. And all the computer models being espoused for Climate Change are based on OLD data.
I believe in science. And as I've pointed out...scientists have been wrong over and over about this in my lifetime alone. That's just fact, not cherry picked. Or I should say the scientists who desperately WANT to prove "global warming" caused by man have been proven wrong over and over (because they cherry pick their data)

You can NOT prove me wrong even once on that. Scientists told Richard Nixon in 1970 what the East Coast would be underwater by the year 2000 (14 years ago) if global warming wasn't addressed immediately (44 years ago).
Then a few years later in the latter 1970's they decided we were heading into an Ice Age because of mankind's emissions.
Now they are going off of data from the late 1990's to try and "prove" global warming again. But scientists have shown that the computer models they are working from are outdated because the ocean is now sucking up the excess CO2

All of that is true and easily found on Google.

As for your ideas on taxes...I think that we should be creating an environment that draws businesses back to the U.S. Just like the car companies manufacturing cars in the Southeast getting tax breaks to do so.

That creates a much larger tax base and increases govt. revenue (so the govt. can take that money and kill more people by bombing them all over the world).

How will new jobs ever be created if we keep making an environment that isn't conducive to business?

It's just common sense.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

that's a funny as give 'California back to the Mexicans'... attention dumb mother fuckers... it was SPAIN, SPAIN owned California ..

Umm Spain first laid claim to it, but It became part of Mexico in 1821 after Mexico won it's independence during it's revolution. It was then ceded to the United States in 1848 after the Mexican American war.

So yes the US did take it from Mexico not Spain..

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I haven't said Global Warming isn't real and I haven't used cherry picked stats.

What I have said is that there is NEW data. And all the computer models being espoused for Climate Change are based on OLD data.
I believe in science. And as I've pointed out...scientists have been wrong over and over about this in my lifetime alone. That's just fact, not cherry picked. Or I should say the scientists who desperately WANT to prove "global warming" caused by man have been proven wrong over and over (because they cherry pick their data)

You can NOT prove me wrong even once on that. Scientists told Richard Nixon in 1970 what the East Coast would be underwater by the year 2000 (14 years ago) if global warming wasn't addressed immediately (44 years ago).
Then a few years later in the latter 1970's they decided we were heading into an Ice Age because of mankind's emissions.
Now they are going off of data from the late 1990's to try and "prove" global warming again. But scientists have shown that the computer models they are working from are outdated because the ocean is now sucking up the excess CO2

All of that is true and easily found on Google.

As for your ideas on taxes...I think that we should be creating an environment that draws businesses back to the U.S. Just like the car companies manufacturing cars in the Southeast getting tax breaks to do so.

That creates a much larger tax base and increases govt. revenue (so the govt. can take that money and kill more people by bombing them all over the world).

How will new jobs ever be created if we keep making an environment that isn't conducive to business?

It's just common sense.

We argued about your CO2 being sucked up by the oceans last time and I showed you, it was only 20-30% at best and that left 70-80% still lingering in the atmosphere. Not to mention that someone else showed you that the CO2 that the ocean was sucking up, was causing a rise in plankton which was causing even more problems, because it wasn't beneficial plankton and this rise of bad plankton was actually using up the resources of the good plankton.

Also the extra CO2 was changing the water chemistry and causing yet further problems, showing that CO2 going into the ocean solves nothing and creates more environmental problems that will have even further reaching effects.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by crockett

We argued about your CO2 being sucked up by the oceans last time and I showed you, it was only 20-30% at best and that left 70-80% still lingering in the atmosphere. Not to mention that someone else showed you that the CO2 that the ocean was sucking up, was causing a rise in plankton which was causing even more problems, because it wasn't beneficial plankton and this rise of bad plankton was actually using up the resources of the good plankton.

Also the extra CO2 was changing the water chemistry and causing yet further problems, showing that CO2 going into the ocean solves nothing and creates more environmental problems that will have even further reaching effects.

LOL. You didn't show me shit.

I'm going with the scientists whom have proven it. You on the other hand are blindly accepting OLD data that is no longer relevant (kinda like your political stance on everything)

But whatever...I've said it before, arguing with you is useless. You believe your talking points and have no desire to think anything but what you read from the Democrat Party.

But I don't dislike you. You've never been disrespectful and you've always showed a good tenacity for your argument and I like debating it back and forth with you.

Opposing ideas are healthy.

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by crockett

Umm Spain first laid claim to it, but It became part of Mexico in 1821 after Mexico won it's independence during it's revolution. It was then ceded to the United States in 1848 after the Mexican American war.

So yes the US did take it from Mexico not Spain..

Correction Dickhead!
A war was fought somebody won somebody lost. We didn't take it you idiot.

[crockett]

Umm it was theirs prior to the war which we started. We won and forced them into a treaty which gave us both New Mexico and Alta California. We gave them a couple million bucks.

I'm sure had we not gone to war, that they would of given us the same deal..


Also.. Once again another conservative whom can't have a normal conversation, but instead has to resort to name calling and acting like a idiot. Seriously what is wrong with you guys, that you all suffer from the same inability to act like adults?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

LOL. You didn't show me shit.

I'm going with the scientists whom have proven it. You on the other hand are blindly accepting OLD data that is no longer relevant (kinda like your political stance on everything)

But whatever...I've said it before, arguing with you is useless. You believe your talking points and have no desire to think anything but what you read from the Democrat Party.

But I don't dislike you. You've never been disrespectful and you've always showed a good tenacity for your argument and I like debating it back and forth with you.

Opposing ideas are healthy.

What I just stated was a direct counter to the research about the CO2 going into the oceans. It wasn't old data, it was studies that countered what you were saying.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by crockett

What I just stated was a direct counter to the research about the CO2 going into the oceans. It wasn't old data, it was studies that countered what you were saying.

It didn't counter what I said...some scientists are theorizing on possible problems that the ocean MIGHT encounter by absorbing all the CO2.

The new data does indeed change the computer models that the current "climate change" scare was working out of. The ocean IS sucking up the CO2 that they were basing everything on.

Looking at what scientists (who are all funded by grants from one special interest or another) have done with the entire issue of climate change since 1970...it's kinda looking to me like they simply ignore whatever doesn't go along with their predetermined outcome to begin with.

And that holds true for the ones who get their grants from the people with big money invested in green energy and the ones with big money from oil and coal.

My gut feeling (and what has shown to be historically the case since the beginning of time) is that the Earth adapts. And when something truly catastrophic (like a meteorite or giant volcanic eruptions) occurs on a giant scale...then we will see the end of the human race.

But not the end of the Earth. And certainly not the end of whatever the next species are that will inevitably replace us (that will be the beginning for them).

Having said all that...I'd love to get an electric car. But I'm not gonna trade in my Prowler for a freakin' Volt like Mark Prince did with his Camaro! lol

If I get an electric car it will be a Tesla roadster.

And I'm not sure if I'm going to keep my big ass house for many more years. I have one more kid at home who will graduate highschool next year. So I don't see any upside to spending a small fortune on solar panels now. I'm thinking about moving into a nice high rise condo near the strip in the next few years.

But if I were going to stay here in this house for the rest of my life, I'd definitely go solar.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by Robbie

...
I'm going with the scientists whom have proven it. You on the other hand are blindly accepting OLD data that is no longer relevant (kinda like your political stance on everything)

Curious as to which scientists you're talking about?

Powell recently finished another such investigation, this time looking at peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013. Out of 2,258 articles (with 9,136 authors), how many do you think explicitly rejected human-driven global warming? Go on, guess!


One. Yes, one. Here?s what that looks like as a pie chart:


http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro...al_papers.html

Whoever they might be, they've been awfully quiet on the subject.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by **********

Hi Robbie,

The general argument is that taxes are already very low in the US, and there are so many loopholes in the tax code, and so many businesses and people use them, that the taxes paid do not cover the costs of things such as infrastructure. There are many roads and bridges in the US that are in real need of repair. A quick Google search will show you this.

I had to spend time with my accountant today going over tax stuff. I'm sorry, but it's a joke. He had a list of questions...

"Do you ever use your car for work?" asked. Not really. "Do you drive to the bank to deposit your checks?" he asked. Well, yeah.... Bingo, now I can write off a portion of my car. (That's my Jeep really; My truck is owned by my wife's business because we it requires a truck so that's written off too....)

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by Robbie

My gut feeling (and what has shown to be historically the case since the beginning of time) is that the Earth adapts.

Hard to argue with your logic when you bring such convincing evidence to the table. I mean shit,t he vast majority of scientists who conduct climatological research and publish their results in professional journals, versus your gut feeling! No real contest there.

And if that wasn't enough, which clearly it is, there's also the fact that you've been around for what 50 of the roughly 200,000 years modern man has been on Earth. Your sample size of .025% is impressive, indeed.

[Atticus]

Originally Posted by WarChild

Hard to argue with your logic when you bring such convincing evidence to the table. I mean shit,t he vast majority of scientists who conduct climatological research and publish their results in professional journals, versus your gut feeling! No real contest there.

And if that wasn't enough, which clearly it is, there's also the fact that you've been around for what 50 of the roughly 200,000 years modern man has been on Earth. Your sample size of .025% is impressive, indeed.

That's pretty much the standard operating procedure of Republicans. Oh again, sorry I keep forgetting you guys now go by Libertarians. Every policy issue is decided using the age old 'gut test'. Science is for pussies.

'Snowed a foot today, coldest day in 5 years. And they claim global warming. Puhlease.'

'When I go into a WalMart the old man greeter always looks happy to me. He doesn't seem to mind getting paid poverty wages. Always gives me a nice smile and wave. All WalMart employees love their jobs.'

'Economy improving? I don't think so. I hit up Red Lobster last Tuesday and it was dead. Back in 06 I couldn't even get a table at 4pm on a Tuesday.'

And so on and so on.

[Vendzilla]

I posted before, temps have been flat for 17 years. That comes from the place that monitors it

[woj]

Originally Posted by WarChild

Curious as to which scientists you're talking about?

Whoever they might be, they've been awfully quiet on the subject.

You are missing one minor detail that there are whole industries dedicated to "global warming", scientific journals whose only purpose is to discuss it, conferences about it, even college degrees in "environmental engineering", countless of people who spent their whole careers dedicated to it, etc...

so there is strong self-serving bias to keep the charade going... what motivation is there to disprove it? there is no $$ to be made from proving there is no man made "global warming"... but there is ton of $$ to be made by playing along...
(if there is no problem, obviously there is no $$ to be made by solving it)

it's kinda like expecting a priest to admit in church that he isn't 100% sure god exists...

would you ever expect to see a speaker in church discuss how it's possible that god might not be real? Why would you expect a "scientific" journal whose only purpose is to discuss global warming, to publish papers disproving it?

[BFT3K]

This article is 4 years old, but just as valid today, maybe even more so...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ntrariness-on/