Why Is Universal Health Care ‘Un-American’?

[Wavex]

Sure, I agree the bill should be understood, but I am sure the people who created it understand it... I am sure most politicians understand it... I am sure the AARP and AMA and all other organizations who endorsed the bill understand it... again, it seems there is a minority who don't understand it on purpose

I haven't read the bill personally, I am not smart enough to be able to graps the massive implications of this bill on the US economy myself so I leave that to the people that were elected into office by the people... it is their job to do what's right and I trust them to do their best.
Do I think the bill is perfect? no... do I think we need to rush its implementation? no, I personally could care less but I think the sooner the better or else it'll get dragged for another 25 years before something happens.

I never claimed to be a "Healthcare bill" expert, I just read/watch the US and International news and make up my mind based on that. I don't have all the answers and don't care to have them... again, I trust the ppl elected to do their job. Does that means that I advocate that everybody shut-up and trust them blindly? Of course not, I respect the fact that you are concerned about your country's politics and you may voice your point of view all you want.... I am merely telling you my own point of view and take on this, that's all.

One fundamental difference between you and me is that you are obviously disgusted by Obama and believe he is a liar and a Marxist on a quest to destroy your country... I personally believe he is a very smart level headed guy, genuinely trying to better his country/the World. I don't see why anyone would think his agenda would be to do the opposite, but whatever... I am still convinced that no matter what Universal Healthcare bill is presented by the Dems, you and a LOT of reps will ALWAYS find SOMETHING to be disgusted about and to blow out of proportions invoking terrible outcomes for the American people and their future...
Here is one comment posted about the UK Guardian article above, which I thought was funny:

This just in: Republicans are now predicting that passage of the health care bill will cause the Angel of Death to visit every household in the land, taking the firstborn child of each one. They advise anyone wishing to avoid this fate to paint a big red "X" (with emphasis on it being red) upon their doorways as a sign that the Angel should pass over their household and instead take the firstborn of the liberal household further down the block.

:rof: makes my point...

 

[Cuba]

Sure, I agree the bill should be understood, but I am sure the people who created it understand it... I am sure most politicians understand it... I am sure the AARP and AMA and all other organizations who endorsed the bill understand it... again, it seems there is a minority who don't understand it on purpose


One fundamental difference between you and me is that you are obviously disgusted by Obama and believe he is a liar and a Marxist on a quest to destroy your country... :rof:

No, actually this has been written by committee behind closed doors (also a violation of Obama's promisses btw) by multiple politicians each working separately and piecing these extremely long legal language parts together, similar to the "stimulus" bill, to a point where no single individual can have a full understanding of what is contained in the bill. AARP and AMA support this because it is great for both insurance companies and hospitals. It contains no cost cutting measures (their profit centers) only government mandates for increased volume of insured (more business mandated permanently by law) that is being paid for by you and I. Why is it that if the politicians fully understand it, they cannot explain it? Why can't Obama the great communicator explain and convince the public that this bill fullfills his #1 goal of cost containment? Because it does not do that.

Your obvious conclusion is incorrect. I stand by my statements, that I have made many many times and stayed very consistant with- Obama is a very inexperienced leader, he has never held a job in business, he has no education or expreience with economics, and he has never been in an executive role. It shows. Is he trying to destroy the country? No, but that doesn't mean he won't severely hurt our economy in doing what he thinks is best. No, I don't trust him. He has lied about many things, he has broken many promisses, and he has been far from the transparent, postpartisan unifier willing to listen and compromise for the greater good. He hadn't counted on the massive majorities that election brought his party and he has made the conscious decision to abandon his principals in order to steamroll the legislation he wants. This tactic will hurt his party long term and seems to be derailing their reelections in 2010 according to the polls and the signs from high profile republican wins earlier this month. He means well, but he has abandoned the principals that got him elected and his inexperience is glaring at this point. His own party has apparently ignored his instructions for this reform and rather than fight them he has laid down for the very real fear that it would destroy the unity in his party. The problem is that by bowing to the extreme left he has lost independents and moderates- the people that decide elections.

So I ask again, your confidence in this bill's sustainability comes from what?

 

[Wavex]

I personally don't know if it'll be sustainable or not, I have no read it nor have I made all the calculations necessary to show whether it will or not... can you post your own calculations? LOL the only thing you're going to do since you did not read the bill either and have made NO calculations yourself about this topic is copy/paste from one of your right-wing website... then I will go on one of the website of the opposite side and will find the counter-calculation showing it will be OK... and we're going to go back and forth with copy/paste bull****, so let's spare us the time and agree to disagree... you believe some ppl's calculations and I believe others... the bottom line is that there will be a Universal Healthcare system in this country soon whether you like it or not, which is a great thing as the American people will finally have a right to proper healthcare, like every other citizen of all other industrialized country in the World... and if wasting 1.5 trillion on a BS war, while weathering the biggest recession in almost 100 years has not sunk the US, it's not another trillion over 10 years for the health of your own ppl which will make it happen...

 

[Cuba]

I personally don't know if it'll be sustainable or not, I have no read it nor have I made all the calculations necessary to show whether it will or not... can you post your own calculations? LOL the only thing you're going to do since you did not read the bill either and have made NO calculations yourself about this topic is copy/paste from one of your right-wing website... then I will go on one of the website of the opposite side and will find the counter-calculation showing it will be OK... and we're going to go back and forth with copy/paste bull****, so let's spare us the time and agree to disagree... you believe some ppl's calculations and I believe others... the bottom line is that there will be a Universal Healthcare system in this country soon whether you like it or not, which is a great thing as the American people will finally have a right to proper healthcare, like every other citizen of all other industrialized country in the World... and if wasting 1.5 trillion on a BS war, while weathering the biggest recession in almost 100 years has not sunk the US, it's not another trillion over 10 years for the health of your own ppl which will make it happen...

You're sort of right on the agree to disagree, but what I am arguing here is that given the fact that you have agreed with me, that you don't think cost containment is the goal of this bill and that Obama's real motivation is just to extend coverage and not fix the broken system, do you feel that this bill will actually contain the cost and more importantly, why? It has nothing included for tort reform, it does not alter the motivation for doctors to overperscribe treatments and meds, does not allow interstate competition, and does not project the effects it will have on private insurance whereas private insurance HAS projected substantial increases in cost. Also rather than reducing the burden on businesses as was the stated goal, it directly increases that burden in the form of massive tax hikes and mandates for employer coverage. In short, it doesn't add up and you have not disputed this.

What you are saying is you don't care what effect it will have, don't care whether it's sustainable (i.e. whether it will be possible to actually continue to offer expanded coverage), or whether or not it will hurt the economy. That's where we can agree to disagree, but understand that you are also disagreeing with the very reasons Obama gave, the crisis he is trying to fix.

Twilight Zone stuff.

 

[Wavex]

WOW... I am "sort of right" for Cuba... I feel closer to God now

what I am arguing here is that given the fact that you have agreed with me, that you don't think cost containment is the goal of this bill and that Obama's real motivation is just to extend coverage and not fix the broken system, do you feel that this bill will actually contain the cost and more importantly, why?

The way you word things definitely shows you're a politician at heart... can't help but twist everything... All I said above was that I believe the primary goal of this reform is to provide proper healthcare to the American people. That's been the battle for a century in the US and don't tell me the goal has always been to reduce cost... BS... the goal of universal healthcare is not to reduce cost, but it is to provide healthcare to ALL YOUR FELLOW AMERICAN BROTHERS AND SISTERS. Is that bad?

Now, something you're purposely not understanding here, is that having a "primary" goal doesn't mean that it's the ONLY goal... it just means it is the #1 on the priority list...

Here is a website I am sure you never visited: you should check it out it gives you an actual list of what the plan tries to achieve (as you can see, it's not ONLY to reduce cost... there are a lot of other interesting things in there):

Organizing for America | BarackObama.com | The President's Plan for Health Reform

Now, if you're going to copy paste some sentences from this page in here and say "he lies, that's never going to happen, look this guy said blah blah which means Obama's plan is a lie!!!", let me stop you right now... this isn't Utopia... we live in the real world here... we all know that having goals and reaching the goals are 2 very different things, however, I believe they will try as hard as they can to get as close as possible to all these goals... and you know what? I think in 25 or 50 years ppl will look back and declare it a success for America... If you have to ask "why" to this statement, you're still missing the whole point of this reform

To answer your question, I don't know if it will contain the cost... I hope it will and believe Obama and his team will do everything they can to make it happen.

It has nothing included for tort reform, it does not alter the motivation for doctors to overperscribe treatments and meds, does not allow interstate competition, and does not project the effects it will have on private insurance whereas private insurance HAS projected substantial increases in cost. Also rather than reducing the burden on businesses as was the stated goal, it directly increases that burden in the form of massive tax hikes and mandates for employer coverage. In short, it doesn't add up and you have not disputed this.

I haven't disputed this because you're the only one stating all of that without even having read the bill... so why would I believe you? All you're doing is giving me a list of things the bill doesn't include... sure ok fine...and? I am sure you could find trillions of things this bill doesn't have... doesn't mean anything.
At the end of the day:
=> you have not read the bill yourself,
=> you believe the ppl you want to believe in, just like I am,
=> you have not demonstrated anything to me that I haven't already heard from Rush Limbaugh,

Seriously, demonstrate to me that the current bill as it is will be more expensive than the current system over the same period of time. I challenge you to prove it to me using economical models and actual numbers... go ahead... show me that you actually know something others don't.

Ah you have no clue? Ok then... Twilight Zone indeed.

What you are saying is you don't care what effect it will have, don't care whether it's sustainable (i.e. whether it will be possible to actually continue to offer expanded coverage), or whether or not it will hurt the economy. That's where we can agree to disagree, but understand that you are also disagreeing with the very reasons Obama gave, the crisis he is trying to fix.

I think it will be sustainable and you think it won't...

oh crap... I am disagreeing with Obama? damn... thanks for letting me know... that's just terrible....


:thumbup:

 

[Cuba]

To answer your question, I don't know if it will contain the cost... I hope it will

That's the point, you are making decisions based on blind faith. Rolling the dice and hoping for the best without knowing the effects of what they are proposing. That's what sheep do. That's what we did with Iraq and Afghanistan. I am proposing the exact thing that Obama has: bipartisan debate, transparency, a bill that will avert the crisis he has spoken of time and time again, a bill that will reduce the burden on businesses and the public, taking the time to get it right because we cannot afford to fail.

Seriously, demonstrate to me that the current bill as it is will be more expensive than the current system over the same period of time. I challenge you to prove it to me using economical models and actual numbers... go ahead...

CBO estimated increased cost over 10 years= $1.2 trillion dollars.

Taking into account the 3 years of revenue before the plan actually becomes effective in 2013, the 10 year run rate= $1.7 trillion dollars.

Proposed tax increase on small business= 10%

Proposed increase in madated employer subsidies= 22.6%

The esitmate I have for our small, minority owned, green company, which already subsidizes 50% of our employees health insurance, is over $200K a year.

So, an increase of over $200K a year over the current system, not including the expected increase in premiums for private insurance coverage as a direct result of this bill, and not including the 10% increase in federal income tax that directly cuts into our ability to reinvest in the company in the form of jobs. The profits made by this company are distributed to the shareholders in order to help cover their tax burden as a result of those profits, distributed to the employees in the form of profit sharing bonuses to reward our hard work, reinvested in the form of new hires, training, and upkeep of our IT, facilities, etc., and used to pay down bank debt and deleverage making us finacially stronger and able to weather economic downturns such as this.

In other words the direct effects are known, they will reduce salaries, reduce new hires, cause layoffs, increase our bank debt, decrease the return on investment, and decrease the bonuses for every employee in the company. I realize your understanding of basic economics is severely lacking, but this is pretty basic stuff. Even Oscar would have to agree with me here, being an accountant and all. But also this is EXACTLY what Obama has pledged was his #1 reason for reform, the AVOIDANCE of these effects. So I say again, we have entered the Twilight Zone.

Agree to disagree.

 

[wrightme43]

BTW Steve, even if we have different political views, I still respect you

:BLAA:

Ha haha hah

Off topic but the reason I came to this decision is that you stated the Iraq war was a "fake war" That dishonors, all the soldiers that died, and all all the civilians that were raped and killed by a mad man and his policies.
You actually troll.
You have started fights with many members on this site. Consistently behave badly then go right back to the who, what, me defense.
Your desire seems to be to instill a Euro style government in the US. We dont want it.

Tolerance of evil and tolerance of destruction are not something to be proud of.

 

[Wavex]

That's the point, you are making decisions based on blind faith. Rolling the dice and hoping for the best without knowing the effects of what they are proposing. That's what sheep do. That's what we did with Iraq and Afghanistan. I am proposing the exact thing that Obama has: bipartisan debate, transparency, a bill that will avert the crisis he has spoken of time and time again, a bill that will reduce the burden on businesses and the public, taking the time to get it right because we cannot afford to fail.

Thanks for comparing me to a sheep... that's nice Especially when what you're doing is exactly what I am doing, i.e. you have not read the bill, you have not studied it, you are only choosing the sources of the information you want to believe in and then paste bits and pieces from these sources here, just like I am doing. So spare me the "sheep" comments...

oh and:

Health care reform debate in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wake up dude, the debate has been ON for a long time... time now to stop the debate and make something happen! :thumbup:

CBO estimated increased cost over 10 years= $1.2 trillion dollars.

Increased? as in on top of what the current system is costing us? lol... you need to re-read your sources!!!

Taking into account the 3 years of revenue before the plan actually becomes effective in 2013, the 10 year run rate= $1.7 trillion dollars.

Proposed tax increase on small business= 10%

Proposed increase in madated employer subsidies= 22.6%

The esitmate I have for our small, minority owned, green company, which already subsidizes 50% of our employees health insurance, is over $200K a year.

So, an increase of over $200K a year over the current system, not including the expected increase in premiums for private insurance coverage as a direct result of this bill, and not including the 10% increase in federal income tax that directly cuts into our ability to reinvest in the company in the form of jobs. The profits made by this company are distributed to the shareholders in order to help cover their tax burden as a result of those profits, distributed to the employees in the form of profit sharing bonuses to reward our hard work, reinvested in the form of new hires, training, and upkeep of our IT, facilities, etc., and used to pay down bank debt and deleverage making us finacially stronger and able to weather economic downturns such as this.

In other words the direct effects are known, they will reduce salaries, reduce new hires, cause layoffs, increase our bank debt, decrease the return on investment, and decrease the bonuses for every employee in the company. I realize your understanding of basic economics is severely lacking, but this is pretty basic stuff. Even Oscar would have to agree with me here, being an accountant and all. But also this is EXACTLY what Obama has pledged was his #1 reason for reform, the AVOIDANCE of these effects. So I say again, we have entered the Twilight Zone.

Agree to disagree.

That's weird, my numbers are different, check it out:

Taking into account the 3 years of revenue before the plan actually becomes effective in 2013, the 10 year run rate= $0.7 trillion dollars.

Proposed tax increase on small business= 0.8%

Proposed increase in madated employer subsidies= 4%

The estimate I have for our small business, is less than $10K a year.

Weird how we could have such a disparity in our numbers... can you show me your calculations so I can compare?

 

[Wavex]

Off topic but the reason I came to this decision is that you stated the Iraq war was a "fake war" That dishonors, all the soldiers that died, and all all the civilians that were raped and killed by a mad man and his policies.

No, you are simply too narrow minded to understand that criticizing a stupid war that most of the World (including Americans) admit was an error, has nothing to do with the poor people who fought in it. Again, the fact that poor soldiers died in a war doesn't make that war the "right thing to do".
That's all.

You actually troll.
You have started fights with many members on this site. Consistently behave badly then go right back to the who, what, me defense.

:spank: I am a bad bad man indeed... a horrible person in fact, and trolling is all I do around here... many many members hate me....

Sure thing boss.

Your desire seems to be to instill a Euro style government in the US. We dont want it.

1) wow, it's been a while since I've seen such a childish comment lol... "my government is better than your government!" Nice Steve, very mature.

2) and who the f cares about my desires? wth???

3) I actually prefer the US style gov. overall (I am a capitalist at heart), but each have good/bad points... In any case, I have NEVER expressed ANY desire to instill a Euro style gov. in the US at all and I have no idea wth you are talking about. One of the points for which I do like the Euro style gov. (or ANY gov. from ANY industrialized country except the US) is healthcare. It is my belief that healthcare should be a right, not a business.

4) who's "we" in your sentence? you speak for all Americans now huh? The smart ones too? you're sure?

On a side note, have you ever traveled and spent time in Europe? Do you know the French or German or Swedish healthcare systems intimately to be able to reject them as a block? Do you think they're 100% bad and have absolutely nothing that the US could use over here?

I know the French healthcare system intimately myself, as I grew up there and went to the hospital every 3 months when I was a kid (I am exaggerating, but not by much... I broke a lot of stuff in my body as a kid)... a French hospital also saved my first daughter from potential death while my wife was pregnant... we were both in France, not married at the time, and she was 1 month pregnant and started bleeding... yep, that's right, an American without a social security number or travel insurance got full healthcare benefits for free in France... Yes, she was exploiting the system like the illegal immigrants do, what a horrible person she is right? Maybe, but my wife and daughter are alive today... not sure it'd be the case if we were in this situation but in the US...
I also wish my wife had given birth in France, so we could have saved a few thousand dollars it cost us to do it here in the US!
Don't take me wrong, there are lots of issues with the French healthcare system (nothing's perfect of course), but none of them are worth going nuts about when you realize that the health of your own ppl is on the line... It's easy to look at this from behind our flat screen TVs, from our cosy heated house, comfortably laying on the couch and claim that universal healthcare is crap, it's another thing to be faced with the actual horrendous conditions some American families live in simply because they were screwed over an f_ed up healthcare issue... or because the other party had more cash for a better lawyer...
I would bet my shirt that half the ppl against universal healthcare in this country would change their mind if:
- they traveled to other industrialized countries and experienced the healthcare there for themselves as opposed to listening to the century old US propaganda on the subject...
- they actually were faced with some of the realities yielded by the business/healthcare model currently in place in the US...

 

[Cuba]

Thanks for comparing me to a sheep... that's nice Especially when what you're doing is exactly what I am doing, i.e. you have not read the bill, you have not studied it, you are only choosing the sources of the information you want to believe in and then paste bits and pieces from these sources here, just like I am doing. So spare me the "sheep" comments...

oh and:

Health care reform debate in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wake up dude, the debate has been ON for a long time... time now to stop the debate and make something happen! :thumbup:




Increased? as in on top of what the current system is costing us? lol... you need to re-read your sources!!!





That's weird, my numbers are different, check it out:

Taking into account the 3 years of revenue before the plan actually becomes effective in 2013, the 10 year run rate= $0.7 trillion dollars.

Proposed tax increase on small business= 0.8%

Proposed increase in madated employer subsidies= 4%

The estimate I have for our small business, is less than $10K a year.

Weird how we could have such a disparity in our numbers... can you show me your calculations so I can compare?

:rof:

Really? So if it is an increase of $1.2T over the first ten years, but you are including revenue without costs for the first three, what will the run rate be for years 4-14? You have it backwards. The increase in COST, not the increase in revenue, was projected at $1.2T. That $1.2T is the cost for the 7 years this thing is actually incurring costs. $1.2T divided by 0.7 is $1,714,286,000,000 when rounding to the nearest million. Even if you had it ass backwards and multiplied where you should have divided, you are still wrong.

Small business taxes cap at 35%, the new proposed cap is 45%. That is a 10% increase for small/medium businesses such as mine. No, not the pizza shop down the street that isn't making squat, but the businesses that are successful, expanding, and employing decent numbers of employees. The types of businesses that are innovating and increasing value for other businesses.

The proposed mandates for employer subsidies are 72.6% for individuals and 65% for family coverage. Most employers that offer health coverage subsidize and industry standard 50%. That's 22.6% per individual and 15% per family. When we cover somone's family of four we are already subsidizing 50% of insurance costs for 3 people that don't work here, now up to 65%.

So you must either work for a tiny business that doesn't have many employees or make any profits, or you don't have an adequate understanding or access to the financial information that is required to make that estimate. Either way, I am correct in my estimates for our business based on our costs and the proposed changes in this Pelosi bill, and correct in my run rate assumption given the facts. That's only for the known costs, there will be others that are yet unidentifiable and depend on the effects on private coverage rate increases and our company performance, the better we do the worse the penalty. You are dead wrong in your run rate assumption and most likely are using incomplete or inaccurate assumptions for the effects on your company. Does your employer offer health insurance coverage? What percentage do they subsidize and for how many people? Is it 50%? Then add another 22.6% on top which is actually a net increase of 45.2% in the company's cost of insuring an individual employee. $10K increase? So your company's expense for health insurance is only $22,123.89 a year? Not bad, very small company indeed.

We haven't even discussed their plans for capital gains tax increases, which are not just going to effect people making over $250K a year. They will effect anyone that makes any money on any stock sales, sale of a house, etc. This is the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Wavex]

I am proposing the exact thing that Obama has: bipartisan debate, transparency, a bill that will avert the crisis he has spoken of time and time again, a bill that will reduce the burden on businesses and the public, taking the time to get it right because we cannot afford to fail.

Looks like you and Obama want the same thing... some ppl did not want the debate though...

WASHINGTON – Invoking the memory of Edward M. Kennedy, Democrats united Saturday night to push historic health care legislation past a key Senate hurdle over the opposition of Republicans eager to inflict a punishing defeat on President Barack Obama. There was not a vote to spare.
The 60-39 vote cleared the way for a bruising, full-scale debate beginning after Thanksgiving on the legislation, which is designed to extend coverage to roughly 31 million who lack it, crack down on insurance company practices that deny or dilute benefits and curtail the growth of spending on medical care nationally.
The spectator galleries were full for the unusual Saturday night showdown, and applause broke out briefly when the vote was announced. In a measure of the significance of the moment, senators sat quietly in their seats, standing only when they were called upon to vote.
In the final minutes of a daylong session, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., accused Republicans of trying to stifle a historic debate the nation needed.
"Imagine if, instead of debating whether to abolish slavery, instead of debating whether giving women and minorities the right to vote, those who disagreed had muted discussion and killed any vote," he said.

 

[C-bus Biker]

Looks like you and Obama want the same thing... some ppl did not want the debate though...

I feel strongly that we should have had a debate to discuss whether or not to initiate the debate that decided whether or not to debate. Debate is good. Transparency is the key.

 

[Wavex]

lol that's true...

One reason to expedite this thing now is that it's stopping Obama from making other critical decisions... he has had to put his other priorities more or less on hold because he needs this healthcare reform to go through before putting more pressure on other topics, like Afghanistan, or Copenhagen... right now for example he is walking on eggs about Copenhagen, when everybody knows it's time to act on global warming and set a clear international plan to limit emissions and help the emerging countries that are already suffering the consequences of the warming... Obama knows that, but again, he is stuck until the healthcare reform goes through Congress...

 

[Cuba]

lol that's true...

One reason to expedite this thing now is that it's stopping Obama from making other critical decisions... he has had to put his other priorities more or less on hold because he needs this healthcare reform to go through before putting more pressure on other topics, like Afghanistan, or Copenhagen... right now for example he is walking on eggs about Copenhagen, when everybody knows it's time to act on global warming and set a clear international plan to limit emissions and help the emerging countries that are already suffering the consequences of the warming... Obama knows that, but again, he is stuck until the healthcare reform goes through Congress...

Any input on the recent IPCC scandal? Is this at all relevant to the Copenhagen discussions?

 

[Wavex]

You mean the leaked emails? How would that have anything to do with Copenhagen? A bunch of purposely selected emails taken out of context is not going to chance the fact that Global Warming is happening (I think everybody agrees on that at least)... I can understand if ppl want to challenge the part of humans responsability of this warming, but even independently of all that, is there anybody out there who thinks we should not try to regulate our massive pollution? In 1900, we were 1.5 BILLION on this planet, now we're almost at 7 BILLION and growing fast, with the majority of these 7 BILLION ppl being in emerging countries, i.e. they don't use nearly as much energy per person compared to the US YET... soon enough they will though, and then the vicious circle will go exponentially... I think trying to establish an international consensus on these matters is pretty smart for this generation, but mainly for future generations... This may sound lame and I am not environmental activist, but we're trashing our planet pretty badly right now, and it may be time to realize it and act on it

 

[Cuba]

You mean the leaked emails? How would that have anything to do with Copenhagen? A bunch of purposely selected emails taken out of context is not going to chance the fact that Global Warming is happening (I think everybody agrees on that at least)... I can understand if ppl want to challenge the part of humans responsability of this warming, but even independently of all that, is there anybody out there who thinks we should not try to regulate our massive pollution? In 1900, we were 1.5 BILLION on this planet, now we're almost at 7 BILLION and growing fast, with the majority of these 7 BILLION ppl being in emerging countries, i.e. they don't use nearly as much energy per person compared to the US YET... soon enough they will though, and then the vicious circle will go exponentially... I think trying to establish an international consensus on these matters is pretty smart for this generation, but mainly for future generations... This may sound lame and I am not environmental activist, but we're trashing our planet pretty badly right now, and it may be time to realize it and act on it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...rst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/01/AR2009120102737_pf.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57879

“For instance,” Inhofe wrote, “one scientist wrote of a ‘trick he employed to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperature trends, as well as discussed attempts to ‘redefine what the peer-review literature is’ to prevent papers raising questions about anthropogenic global warming from appearing in IPCC reports.

“Another scientist stated, ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming and it is a travesty that we can’t.’ Still another wrote, “I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same,’” Inhofe added.




They have been caught redhanded, they destroyed the raw data, colluded to delete emails and data contrary to their reports, deleted or "lost" virtually every shred of raw data used in their reports, have used "tricks" to alter the results by selecting which teperatures to use (and destroying the backup data), have colluded to corrupt the peer review process, have threatened and discreditted scientists that hold dissenting opinions, have violated the freedom of information act by destroying and witholding data, they stated in plain English that their data does not support their claims of global warming, and they have been using massive US taxpayer funding all along. The head of the Climate Research Unit has stepped down because of this, and multiple investigations are currently underway.

Weird that I searched MSNBC and the last article they published on the IPCC was this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34112435/ns/us_news-environment/ns/us_news-environment/

Just one week before "Climategate" was leaked. Weird. Even if you ignore the conspiracy theories I'd still call this big news, the head of the CRU stepping down in scandal just before Copenhagen.

Edit: I take it back MSNBC does have a story on it sort of, they just never mention IPCC or Phil Jones stepping down:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34246461/

Thread hijacked, sorry, I have no more climategate left in me, we'll see how it plays out. I think anything that might have happened at Copenhagen is DOA though.

 

[Cuba]

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1799/...egF-since-Gore-released-An-Inconvenient-Truth

Whoops! How inconvenient...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

http://plancktime.blogspot.com/2009/01/average-global-temperatures-no-global.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/74019.html

I wish we could find that data. The funny quote from Phill Jones was that he used the term "trick" to mean a "clever method" to defend his emails. The problem I have with this explanation is that usings a "clever method" to "hide the decline" is still fraud, right? Depends on your definition of "is" I guess...

Okay now I'm done. You should start a new thread for this if you want a rebuttal, otherwise we might not get universal healthcare.

 

[Wavex]

As the OP of this thread I declare it immune to threadjacking

Sure these guys falsified some data... sure the media jumped on it because they know this is a sensitive topic... but what does it change? Some ppl aren't honest, that's not news, but that doesn't mean everything that was ever said on climate change is a lie...
It's the same technique the creationists use: "well, look! this tree was found laying across multiple layers of soil, but the evolution experts state that each layer of soil represents 1000 years... how could this tree have grown through 30000 years of sediment accumulation? Conclusion: evolution is a lie".

What's your point though? Climate change = a conspiracy? Greenland is not covered in soot and it's ice cap is not half the size it was 50 years ago? Global temperatures are not rising? Human pollution trends are perfectly fine "as is"? Greenhouse gases don't exist? Sea levels are not rising? Making cleaner energy is a bad idea? Stopping our dependence on fossil fuels (and specifically oil) is a stupid idea? We should try to increase our carbon emissions even more? There are absolutely and positively NO risks at all to keep going exactly like we are right now, and future generations will never have to face the consequences of our energy gluttonousness, and irresponsible polluting, and the fact that the 5 billion ppl in developing countries will soon expect the same comfort as us (and we know what that means...) is not a problem at all.

Is that your point?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8397265.stm

 

[Cuba]

No I am not opposed to finding multiple ways to reduce our impact on the environment, our reliance on foreign oil and fossil fuels in general, but the idea that the case is settled and that it is scientific fact that it is soley the fault of human industrialization that is changing the climate seems premature. It seemed so even before we find out these scientist are committing fraud to try to prove their theory and destroying the evidense that shows the contrary. We have been in a cooling phase for the better part of a decade (which is why they have dropped the term "global warming" for the new "climate change" theme- it made them sound a bit... wrong), but they don't know why. It doens't jive with their theory. Polar bear populations that were supposed to be devasted have increased 500%, the planet is cooling, we are having record cold temperatures throughout the US, heavy snows in Texas, etc. We are also long over due for an ice age according to most scientists, but this doesn't seem to be included in these scientists reports.

The fact is the climate of Earth has and will continue to change, sometimes very dramatically, for billions of years. The thought that we are soley responsible, to me, is pretty absurd. The thought that by reducing emissions by 20%, or even 50%, will somehow stop climate change is also a very big claim that does not seem to be well argued. If we are infact reaching a "tipping point" as they claim, and our answer is to continue dumping massive amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses but to a lesser degree, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Is it possible that the amount of greenhouse gasses is actually having a moderating effect on global temperatures that are naturally in decline? I don't know, it would be nice if we had the data!

The fact that this group of scientists, who are responsible for the global warming (or cooling, definitely changing anyhow...) scares are committing fraud to support their claims of potential armeggeddon, and they are receiving massive tax payer funding as a result of their claims. I don't see this as the massive conspiracy that some do, but I do see it as outrageous not only in principal but because it casts doubt on everything we think we know and clouds our judgment on what should or shouldn't be done about it.

 

[Wavex]

No I am not opposed to finding multiple ways to reduce our impact on the environment, our reliance on foreign oil and fossil fuels in general, but the idea that the case is settled and that it is scientific fact that it is soley the fault of human industrialization that is changing the climate seems premature.

No scientist or group of scientist EVER wrote that humans are the sole root cause of climate change. I don't know where you got that info from, but the source is very very wrong.

We have been in a cooling phase for the better part of a decade (which is why they have dropped the term "global warming" for the new "climate change" theme- it made them sound a bit... wrong), but they don't know why. It doens't jive with their theory.

Sure if you carefully choose the period, you can make any claim you want...

This seems pretty self explanatory:

Polar bear populations that were supposed to be devasted have increased 500%

LOL where did you get data from?

the planet is cooling, we are having record cold temperatures throughout the US, heavy snows in Texas, etc. We are also long over due for an ice age according to most scientists, but this doesn't seem to be included in these scientists reports.

lol you're like John and Ken on KFI... "these scientists don't know what they're talking about and I have proof! Temperatures are colder in California than last year! Conclusion: global temperatures are going down and Global Warming is fake"... yeah... just FYI, the US and Texas is NOT the World.

The fact is the climate of Earth has and will continue to change, sometimes very dramatically, for billions of years. The thought that we are soley responsible, to me, is pretty absurd.

Who says we're the sole root cause? I get Discover and Scientific American mags every month and have read quite a lot on climate change, but NEVER EVER heard of a scientist claiming humans is the sole cause... that would indeed be pretty absurd. Again, it's the typical response of opponents (half assed response not knowing what they're talking about).

The thought that by reducing emissions by 20%, or even 50%, will somehow stop climate change is also a very big claim that does not seem to be well argued. If we are infact reaching a "tipping point" as they claim, and our answer is to continue dumping massive amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses but to a lesser degree, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Is it possible that the amount of greenhouse gasses is actually having a moderating effect on global temperatures that are naturally in decline? I don't know, it would be nice if we had the data!

You are mixing a lot of topics and making very little sense. No-one said that if we cut our emissions of greenhouse gases by 50% climate change will suddenly stop... there are however a number of independent and internationally accepted studies showing a strong link between the acceleration of global warming and the heavy industrialization phase that started after WWII. Of course the direct global consequences of this acceleration are very difficult to establish (along with the time frame), and some scientists are probably exaggerating their findings, but even if half of what may happen happens, we'd be in real trouble so why take any risk? We're not talking about the US healthcare system here, we're talking about the planet's healthcare... this is no small topic we can just choose to ignore forever just because a couple of scientists were dishonest...

The fact that this group of scientists, who are responsible for the global warming (or cooling, definitely changing anyhow...) scares are committing fraud to support their claims of potential armeggeddon, and they are receiving massive tax payer funding as a result of their claims. I don't see this as the massive conspiracy that some do, but I do see it as outrageous not only in principal but because it casts doubt on everything we think we know and clouds our judgment on what should or shouldn't be done about it.

I agree, fraud sucks. If you hadn't noticed though, fraud is everywhere and is part of human nature... what can you do.
For me, even if global warming did not exist, I would still support and encourage international concertation and cooperation about global pollution/emissions and energy use. Obviously, we can do much better and it can only help us (humans) and our planet for the future... unfortunately, the data is not 100% reliable (with or without that specific fraud in that specific organization doesn't make much of a difference) due to the VERY complicated nature of the problem, so defining policies based on this data is no easy task, but something has to happen and we need to start somewhere... I think we're doing just that right now and it seems all World leaders agree.