JPF Home Page Forums Who is minding the store?

As it says: there are no words to describe this. Enjoy!

http://dailybail.com/home/there-are-no-words-to-describe-the-following-part-ii.html

Well,
You will find out, if you don't already know, that there is NO ONE in charge! Maybe the people that vote these things into existence should actually read them? Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing?

I think we are in bigger trouble than I thought.

Actually there are words.

Yes, Ethan. But you can't say all of them in public.

Joe

When I went there no words and no video appeared.
Anyone care to post a synopsis?

Lee, it is a video of Senator Alan Grayson, first term Democrat, questioning the witness, Elizabeth Coleman, Inspector General of the Federal Reserve.

Here is a transcript:

00:00 → 00:07

Alan Grayson: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Inspector Coleman, you’re the Inspector General for the Federal Reserve, right?
00:07 → 00:09

Elizabeth A. Coleman: That’s correct.
00:09 → 00:15

Alan Grayson: Okay. Have you done any investigation concerning the Federal Reserve’s role in deciding not to save Lehman Brothers,
00:15 → 00:20

which led to shockwaves that went through the entire financial system?
00:20 → 00:27

Elizabeth A. Coleman: In that particular area, you know, I don’t feel like to comment on specific investigations,
00:27 → 00:32

but we do not currently have an investigation in that particular area.
00:32 → 00:38

Alan Grayson: All right, what about the $1 trillion-plus expansion of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet since last September?
00:38 → 00:41

Have you conducted any investigations regarding that?
00:41 → 00:52

Elizabeth A. Coleman: Well, right now, we have a… we call it a review and with the term investigation, we have different connotations.
00:52 → 01:00

We’re actually conducting a fairly high-level review of the various lending facilities collectively, which would include, you know,
01:00 → 01:09

the TOWS, the variety of the different programs that are in process, so we’re looking at them at a fairly high level to identify risks.
01:09 → 01:13

Alan Grayson: Well, I understand that, but we’re talking about events that started unfolding eight months ago.
01:13 → 01:19

Have you reached any conclusions about the Fed expanding its balance sheet by over a trillion dollars since last September?
01:19 → 01:22

Elizabeth A. Coleman: We have not yet reached any conclusions.
01:22 → 01:24

Alan Grayson: Do you know who received that money?
01:24 → 01:32

Elizabeth A. Coleman: For the… we are in the process right now of doing our review and…
01:32 → 01:37

Alan Grayson: Right, but you’re the Inspector General. My question specifically is
01:37 → 01:42

do you know who received that $1 trillion-plus that the Fed extended and put on its balance sheet since last September.
01:42 → 01:45

Do you know the identity of the recipients?
01:45 → 01:51

Elizabeth A. Coleman: I do not know. We have not looked at that specific area at this particular point on those reviews.
01:51 → 01:54

Alan Grayson: (AUDIBLE SIGH)
01:54 → 02:04

Alan Grayson: What about Bloomberg’s report that there are trillions of dollars in off-balance sheet transactions that the Federal Reserve has entered into since last September?
02:04 → 02:08

Are you familiar with those off-balance sheet transactions?
02:08 → 02:21

Elizabeth A. Coleman: You know, I think it may be important at this point to, just to bring up a certain aspect related to our jurisdiction and just to clarify perhaps some of my earlier comments.
02:21 → 02:31

We are the Inspector General for the Board of Governors and we have direct oversight over Board programs and operations
02:31 → 02:41

and we’re also able to look at Board-delegated functions to the Reserve Banks, as well as the Board’s oversight and supervision of the Reserve Bank.
02:41 → 02:50

We do not have jurisdiction to directly go out and audit Reserve Bank activities specifically.
02:50 → 02:58

Nevertheless, in our lending facility projects, for example, we are looking at the Board’s oversight over the programs and to the extent that it extends out to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
02:58 → 03:03

Alan Grayson: Well, I have a copy of the Inspector General Act here in front of me and it says among other things that if you’re responsible,
03:03 → 03:08

you can conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of your agency.
03:08 → 03:10

Elizabeth A. Coleman: That’s correct.
03:10 → 03:15

Alan Grayson: So I’m asking you if your agency has in fact, according to Bloomberg, extended $9 trillion in credit,
03:15 → 03:24

which by the way works out to $30,000 for every single men, women, and child in this country. I’d like to know if you’re not responsible for investigating that, who is?
03:24 → 03:36

Elizabeth A. Coleman: We, actually… we have responsibility for the Federal Reserve’s programs and operations, to conduct audits and investigations in that area.
03:36 → 03:45

In terms of who is responsible for investigating… would you mind repeating the question one more time?
03:45 → 03:58

Alan Grayson: What have you done to investigate the off-balance sheet transactions conducted by the Federal Reserve, which according to Bloomberg now?
03:58 → 04:08

Elizabeth A. Coleman: I’ll have to look specifically at that Bloomberg article. I’m not… I don’t know if I have actually seen that particular one.
04:08 → 04:15

Alan Grayson: That’s not the point. The question is have you done any investigation or auditing of off-balance sheet transactions conducted by the Federal Reserve?
04:15 → 04:20

Elizabeth A. Coleman: At this point, we’re conducting our lending facility project at a fairly high level
04:20 → 04:25

and have not gotten to a specific level of detail to really be in a position to respond to your question.
04:25 → 04:35

Alan Grayson: Have you conducted any investigation or auditing of the losses that the Federal Reserve has experienced on its lending since last September?
04:35 → 04:46

Elizabeth A. Coleman: We are still in the process of conducting that review. Until we actually, you know, go out and gather the information, I’m not in a position to really respond to this specific question.
04:46 → 04:56

Alan Grayson: So are you telling me that nobody at the Federal Reserve is keeping track on a regular basis of the losses that it incurs on what is now a $2 trillion portfolio?
04:56 → 05:04

Elizabeth A. Coleman: I don’t know if… you’re telling me that there’s… you’re… missing… that there are losses.
05:04 → 05:14

I’m just saying that we’re not… until we actually look at the program and have the information, we are not in a position to say whether there are losses or to respond in any other way to that question.
05:14 → 05:23

Alan Grayson: Mr. Chairman, my time is up, but I have to tell you honestly, I am shocked to find out that nobody at the Federal Reserve including the Inspector General is keeping track of this.
05:23 → 05:26

Mr. Chairman: All right. Thank you, gentleman and…
##################################################

I won't even comment. It speaks for itself.

Mike, you forgot my favourite part....she went off on a meander, saying nothing really, then stopped and asked "what was the question???


Duhhhhhh

I'll bet she was stalling so his allotted time would be up.

And folks just like her are going to be in charge of health care.

Lee,

Well, don't forget what Reagan called The Nine Scariest Words in the English Langauage: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Hmmm, The government has already taken over the auto, banking, and tobacco industries, and will soon take over health care...I wonder what's next?

The media.

I think we're already there, especially since "Oprah Nation" elected him in the first place! The media has given "The Chosen One" a free pass from the get-go. When I saw supposed "hard news" guy Brian Williams shortly after the election GUSHING about what a "beautiful family" the Obamas were, I knew we were doomed!

That last speech he gave tells us that nothing is safe.
The Fed reserve is gonna have jurisdiction over just about anything that has to do with finance. Not just the banks.

And of course any company that takes anything from the fed will be subject to pay control by the pay czar. Some say that will eventually extend to companies that take tax breaks.

According to a News story on CNN or Fox the democrats in the house are looking at ways to raise taxes on everything such as Soda to acholol products. Cigarettes have already been raised.

No new taxes on anyone making less than $250,000.00 right?

Ray, maybe they're going to raise the taxes first, and let us make the $250,000 later.

joe

Now they are trying to put Cheerios under the control of the FDA.
Will the insanity never end? Sheesh.

NOW they're trying pass a "Global Warming" tax! {GAWD I wish I could make this crap up, but I can't, and I'm not!!!} CHANGE WE ALL CAN BELIEVE IN!!!! Now we have anarchy in Iran, and N. Korea threatening to send NUKES our way {har har!} Say what you will about Dubya, but this would have NEVER have happened under his watch, they all had a healthy FEAR of the "Cowboy". Whatever dubious decisions he may have made, he wasn't afraid to MAKE THEM, at the risk of being "unpopular"..{I.E he had testicular fortitude that the current "King" lacks!} I've posted this before, but Obama is Jimmy Carter round # 2. He's a spineless, tax and spend, big government, liberal wimp,who thinks he can appease our enemies by sucking up to them, and I'm calling out one of my all-time favorite songwriters John Fogerty...This looks like "Deja Vu All Over Again" circa 1976.

Good news guys, NJ which already has close to the highest insurance rates in the country has decided to tax that too. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!! By the time all this is done I will be working into August just to pay my share (?) of the taxes instead of just late May!!!

Coleman did a horrible job with this questioning. She was only in the job around a month at the time, but that's no excuse.

Still, let me play devil's advocate.

Mike, you talk about logical fallacies, but you don't recognize a loaded question like "have you conducted an investigation?"
The inference is that there should have been an investigation --but as a member of the House banking committee, Grayson would know if there were one.
He's just trying to get her to say no, she isn't still hitting her wife.

(He's a representative, not a senator. He's also a member of the House subcomittee on -- get this -- Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises and the subcomittee on Oversight and Investigations, but he doesn't know if there have been investigations into the Fed's balance sheets regarding the bailout and stimulus? Pleeze. He's either showboating or pretty incompetent himself.)

If he thinks there should be an investigation into Lehman Brothers, shouldn't he say why?
It's not like there's a big mystery about what happened. The Fed (including Geitner who worked for the New York Fed branch at the time), the Treasury Department and a number of banks tried to put together a rescue package for Lehman.
When that fell apart, Treasury and the Fed decided, along with Bush, not to use taxpayer dollars to rescue it.
After the "shock waves," they decided AIG and the major banks were "too big to fail," and we were off to the races with the bailout.
And all you guys started shouting "socialism." I mean, you do realize he's trying to get her to agree with him that the taxpayer bailout should have started earlier?

And once again, why would there be an investigation of the expansion of the Fed's balance sheet? Do you even know what that means?
She should have asked him what should be investigated.

The Fed's balance sheet has increased because of the money it's borrowed, at the behest of Congress, largely from the Treasury, for the the bank bailout and the stimulus package.
Also, since the economic crisis, banks have started holding their reserve money instead of using it to buy short term commercial assets like they used to do.
The Fed has started doing that instead to prop up the liquidity in the banking system and has needed to borrow money to do it.
I mean, I know that. A member of the banking commitee doesn't?

What the hell does he mean by "drawing conclusions" about that? What kind of conclusions?
He wants her to tell him who got that money, but Bernanke has decided not to say, or say what the collateral is, claiming it could cause a run on the banks that got the money.
So she's supposed to "investigate" a decision by her bosses? What should she investigate?

Bloomberg reported the Fed has committed up to $9.7 trillion if necessary -- that's the off the balance sheets actions it's taken, but it hasn't "extended" anywhere near that much.
The portfolio, as Grayson points out, is closer to $2 trillion.

What is there to "investigate?" The board of the Federal Reserve, in conjuction with Congress, two presidents, and the Treasury Department (where the Fed borrows this money, which gets it from China ) made that decision.

He berates her for not "investigating or auditing" the losses and gains of the money from the bailout.
However, the Fed has been issuing a report on profits and losses from the bailout loans money once a month since last September. (Once again, I know that, but a member of the banking committee doesn't?)
But that's not a function of the inspector general. Should she duplicate other people's jobs, does Grayson think there's something nefarious going on? He doesn't say.

So, in other words, she didn't know enough to know she didn't need to know. Over her head.

"Mike, you talk about logical fallacies, but you don't recognize a loaded question like "have you conducted an investigation?"

Not without knowing additional information I wouldn't. And no, I didn't stop beating my wife.

No offense, dude, but this post is so full of Cheerios it isn't even funny.

What "global warming tax" are you talking about? The cap and trade tax that that liberal wimp John McCain first introduced in the Senate in 2003?

What exactly do you think Bush would have done in Iran? Invaded it and been greeted as a liberator? Or that the clerics would have given up power because they were afraid of Bush? Puhleeze.

I'm rooting for the democratic movement in Iran, too, but one thing the hard liners and reformers have in common there is disdain for the U.S. For example, the hard liners and reformers all want Iran to have their own nuclear program, even the most pro-Western factions.

Why? Well maybe it's because we overthrew the Muslim world's first democratically elected government in Iran -- put together by prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh -- in the 50s and installed a despot, the Shah. The people who overthrew the Shah are the ones in power now.

That's why Obama is being so careful about this. He doesn't want the clerics in Iran to have any ammunition they can use to support their claim the uprising was caused by us. He's trying to preserve his options short of military action over Iran's nukes regardless of who winds up in power.

North Korea exploded its first nuke and tested its first long-range missile in 2006, when it withdrew from the Six Party negotiations and ended UN inspections. Yep, Cowboy George scared that whack-a-doodle Kim Jong Il silly.

Speaking of Cheerios, Bill:
The FDA told General Mills to stop making specific claims about how much Cheerios can lower cholesterol because it hasn't undergone the kind of testing that would allow it to make that claim. GM was basing the claim on study of a low-cholesterol diet of which Cheerios was a part.

The FDA said that if GM wanted to talk about whole grain foods and their benefits, the ads would be out of their jurisdiction.
But if they wnat to make the specific claims about how much Cheerios lowers cholesterol, it could apply to have it undergo testing as a drug because that kind of testing that establishes those sorts of claims.

Mike: Honestly, I wasn't very impressed with either one of them.
But I have more sympathy for her. He's berating her about things that aren't part of her job, and she's trying to answer.

And when she says that he's talking about things that aren't her job, he "interprets" the law on the spot -- his interpretation, which isn't what she operates under -- and tries to get her to admit somehow that things she has no control over should be "investigated."

I think she was trying to answer his questions, but he never really asked many things she could have answered. And she was way too polite.

If you didn't recognize this as a series of loaded questions, you should review your fallacies.

Now, if we're going to require that General Mills' claims that Cheerios stop heart disease have testing by or for the FDA, I think we should have the same requirement of an FDA test for Obama (et al.)'s claims that this aforementioned tax will stop global warming. What is sauce for one kind of duck should be sauce for another kind of duck, yes?

Joe

joyboy,

She should have known what her job was...and wasn't. If she can't stand up to him, how will she stand up to those with whom she is entrusted to inspect? Will anyone who may be hiding something shy away from using any tactic? No one said her tormentor was fair. As St. Richard J. Daley might have said, "We don't need no people who need to be played with fair."

Similarly, I don't need to review my fallacies, I have you or my wife to do that. By the way, I haven't stopped pinching your ta ta's either.

Joyboy

As far as the Cheerios thing goes I think it is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
It's advertising fer chrisakes. There are countless products on the market that make specific claims. How about all the Male enhancement products? Pretty specific there. Why aren't they going after them? Or maybe they will be next.
When was the last time you were in a health food store. There's all kinds of outrageous claims in the products on the shelves. How about weight loss products. The list goes on.

It is simply one more attempt for the Government to take over another industry.
More Government, Bigger Government. I wouldn't be surprised to see an amendment to repeal the 22nd amendment so they can keep the Regime intact.

And I don't really care one way or the other which party is trying to tax us with cap and trade or Global warming or what ever you want to call it. Global warming is Bullshit. It's nothing but a sham. A way to raise taxes.
Bush Sr. knew it and Bush Jr. knew it. Clinton Knew it and Obama knows it.
Al Gore knows it too but it has made him Millions.
This planet has ALWAYS been in these cycles. The Earth's normal state IS warm. The polar Ice caps and Glaciers are only present during Ice Ages. The Current interglacial period of this Ice Age is still on the wane and will continue for some time and we will be in a warm spell. More rain, more storms, more Hurricanes.
Then another ice age will start. But I'll be dead by then so I don't worry about it much.
Does anyone really believe there won't be another one mile thick sheet of Ice covering most of North America at some time in the future? I wonder if they will try to tax it.

Sheesh we need another Reagan. Please someone dig him up and clone him.

I do think it good we stay out of Irans politics. Matter of fact I think we should stay out of all middle east or Muslim or Arab countries. We shouldn't have troops there at all. We should pull out and let them kill each other to their little hearts content and let the winner take all. It's none of our business. If they want to stone their women and castrate their men I say let them have at it. It is none of our business.
So maybe having a wimp for President is a good thing. Maybe he will get us out of Afghanistan before we loose a few thousand more of our young men and women fighting a war in a place where everyone hates us.

While he's at it he can pull our people out of Japan and Korea too. Let them deal with North Korea. We already did it for them once.
The next time they set a rocket on that launch pad we should destroy the whole complex. Let them spend another ten years rebuilding it.

Bill,
The Cheerios package said it could "lower your cholesterol 4 percent in six weeks."
If one on those male enhancement pills claimed it could make your package 4 percent larger in six weeks, the FDA would shut them down, too, unless they had clinical, FDA-approved testing to prove it. Watch those pills' ads. They don't make any overt claims.

All those supplements in the health food store and all the weight loss products say on the label that their claims haven't been verified by the FDA and that they aren't intended to treat or prevent any disease.(Ever notice that the weight loss ads say results aren't "typical" and may vary?)

The FDA said that Cheerios ad suggested that it was designed to treat or prevent heart disease. Only products that are clinically proven to treat or prevent heart disease can make that claim legally. That's all there was to it. What industry is being taken over?

Yes, the Earth's climate has changed before. But that doesn't mean we aren't changing or speeding the process now. Al Gore shot himself in the foot by making that climate-change movie so much about him. People who dislike him project those feelings onto the issue.

Even so, it's interesting that people talk about Gore making money, but not Exxon or Westmoreland or Peabody.

Bush's administration was notorious for censoring and burying studies that suggested man might have an effect on climate change.
But the week before he left office, they released a bunch of studies that supported the idea. One was about Arctic ice. Here's a link about it. Notice the first bullet.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2109&from=rss_home

If it weren't for oil, and 9-11, we wouldn't be in the Middle East militarily. But we have a history there. The West pretty much created the countries in the Middle East after the world wars -- that's why, for example, there are Kurds in Iraq. Just leaving now is kind of wishful thinking.

I'd agree about North Korea, except that if we did anything militarily against them, they might really be crazy enough to attack South Korea. And they could obliterate South Korea in a matter of days without nukes -- they have incredible armament pointed south.

Joyboy
I still think the Cheerios thing is simply stupid. A big to do about nothing.
And yes the Pills do claim to make "That certain part of the man's anatomy larger" I'd say that is pretty specific and it is a false claim that cannot and has not been proven in any scientific study.
What you don't want to see is the ever expanding Federal Government taking more and more control.
I am not an expert on the constitution but I simply do not believe it is supposed to be this way in our country.

What industry has been taken over?
You are kidding, right?

I still believe man made Global warming to the extent it will create a major problem is a myth put forth by tree huggers and used by people like Gore to make Millions. If I am not mistaken Gore has made close to 100 million off this bull since 2001. If the Ice melts it won't be the first time and it sure won't be the last.
If anything there are reports that if there is man made global warming it may prevent or delay the next Ice Age.

To late to pull out of the middle east? Why? They don't want us there and I think most Americans don't want us there.
The Kurds where there before WW2. After WW2 they were promised a country of there own, Kurdistan, and it never happened. Their land was divided up between Turkey,Iran,Iraq and I think, Syria.

And so what if North Korea takes over South Korea? Why is that our problem?
If North Korea launches another Missile and it is headed in the direction of any US territory it should be shot down.

Seems as though we didn't learn our lesson. Wasn't our involvement in Vietnam supposed to teach us that we couldn't continue to be the world's policeman? But yet there were many people who thought we should have stopped Hitler before we did, and if so might have been able to prevent the Holocaust.

Does anybody feel that the same kind of social unrest now taking place in Iran could happen here? And why or why not?

Why not we've been there before. We did it in the 60s and early 70s. We had the whole works riots, bombers, etc. Just didn't catch on (we were bought out). One step away from civil war. Could easily happen again.

Hitler could have been stopped by the German People just like Slavery and Racism in America was stopped by the American people. No one helped America. The other European countries could have banded together and stopped Hitler as well. But they didn't. By the time they decided they should it was too late.

There is Genocide happening in other countries right now and we don't do anything to stop it. But then again they don't really have anything we want.

Do I think the Social unrest in Iran could happen here.
It has, the Million man March, MADD, the demonstrations against the Vietnam War. Remember Kent State?
The 1968 Riots, Watts. Detroit, Chicago Convention.
Those are all incidents of Social unrest.

Will it happen now. Well, we have had the Tea Parties. They were small in comparison but they are happening, I think July 4th you may see more.
But nothing on the grand scale of Tehran. And not with the violence. If the Government starts shooting at people here we will shoot back....Big difference.
But that would only happen if you could find enough people who are really PO'd at the Government. Or enough people willing to sacrifice their soft lives to do it. Entitlements kind of limit the number of folks willing to upset the apple cart.
Take away welfare, Food stamps, unemployment benefits, and medicaid, etc. and things might be different. Folks might actually stand up and be counted.

I believe the contribution of man to global warming has largely reached concensus among scientists. To anyone that believes this is a conspiracy among scientists, ask yourselves whether you could build a conspiracy like this among musicians. Then consider that scientists are as hard to herd as musicians.

That Al Gore might be getting rich off it doesn't make it any less true.

But even if it wasn't true, we're still going to (at this rate) run out of fossil fuels long before the planet becomes inhabitable. It just makes sense to me to start pursuing alternatives now before we are truly over a barrel. Logically, it makes sense to me to pay for this development by taxing (either directly or indirectly) the use of the fossil fuels that we are burning through.

I say this even though I probably spend more per year on gasoline than anyone here - unless you are a long-haul trucker

Scott

Scott,
Where I am from, Southeastern Ohio, there is coal under the ground that they aren't going to get to in the next 300 years. Also gas and oil. Out in Utah there is also lots of coal that the enviromentalists won't let anyone tap. I do drive vehicles that get good gas milage so I am doing my part.

Global Warming? Didn't seem like it a few months ago. If it is so there isn't much man can do about it. If we here in the U.S. did what some want us to do most would be out of a job.

Bill,
The difference is that those "magic pills" don't claim to treat a medical condition. Cheerios did. Viagara does -- and had to be tested to prove it.
It doesn't bother you that someone might think they could treat dangerous cholesterol levels by eating Cheerios?

What industry is the FDA taking over by pulling Cheerios ads?

The ICCP has all the evidence of man contributing to global warming that anyone needs. It's there on the Web. Actually, global warming could potentially cause an ice age in northern Europe.
As the Arctic ice melts, it dilutes in the salt in the ocean which could interupt the Gulf Stream. It brings warm water up the Atlantic, which is why England's climate is so much more moderate than, say Canada and Alaska at the same latitude.

At the end of the last ice age 11,000 years ago, a giant rush of water that had been trapped on the North America continent did just that, and northern Europe had a mini ice age that only lasted about 1,000 years.

I don't have any problem with pulling out of the Middle East militarily other than Afghanistan. It would be seen around the world as a victory for radical Islam, but let them think what they want.

Other than the fact South Korea is our ally and millions could die, heck why be concerned about them?

Man caused global warming is the biggest fraud since Social Security. Climate changes are a natural process and humans are way to unimportant to have any effect. To think that man could have an effect on climate is egotistical. Every thing man does doesn't equal a dinosaur fart.

Joyboy
It's still a waste of time and money for the FDA to pursue this.
Quaker Oats has been saying for years that eating Oatmeal will lower your Cholesterol. I guess the difference is they didn't put a specific percentage on the box.
I still say it's much todo about nothing.
Just more Federal government in our lives.
And actually it has been shown that Oats and grains can lower cholesterol so yes I do recommend people eat Cheerios. With low fat milk of course. Along with a sensible diet and exercise just like what is stated by General Mills.
Those magic Pills claim to treat a medical condition the same as viagra without a prescription. They also put a disclaimer on their ads that says the FDA has not evaluated or approved the claims. I see no difference between the two.

Yeah, the old George Carlin routine.....

I loved George as much as anyone but when I want information about climate change I think I'll listen to, oh I dunno, scientists rather than comedians.

Scott

Is this a myth?

Global Warming Petition

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.

No Bill, it's not a myth. It's real.

But it's been pretty thoroughly debunked. You can find a lot of info about it through google.

Scott

I did and I didn't find anything seriously debunking it. I actually found recent data supporting it.
These same scientists have updated this petition as late as last month.
For every article debunking it there is an article supporting it.

Nothing I have read either for or against Global Warming has convinced me it is happening on any grand scale other than natural occurrence.

Do we pollute? yes.
Do we damage the environment? yes.
Is it going to bring our demise? I seriously doubt it.
The destruction of the rain forest probably does more damage than we do with fossil fuels.
We will probably blow ourselves up or kill ourselves off with some out of control biological weapon long before the earth gets warm enough to kill us.

will we stop using fossil fuels soon? Probably. It is just a matter of time until technology makes it feasible. Right now we simply do not have technology that is affordable enough. It is too expensive.
I'm a big fan of Solar Power. I want to put it on my house. It is too expensive.
If king Obama wants to do something why doesn't he give us a huge tax break or a subsidized residential Solar Program.
I would install it on my house if they made it cheap enough.

But in the end it really doesn't matter.
Our time here is finite. We die one at a time. And our Suns die one at a time. When ours burns itself out this rock will die with it.

Bill:

I'm always hesitant to post links because its easy to be accused of cherry-picking. You can find things on the web that can support anything. Personally, I try to find non-biased sources though even that can be difficult.

There seem to be two major types of criticism of this petition. One based on their claims about the number of "scientists" and the other based upon the scientific accuracy of their claims.

In regard to the former, Scientific American investigated the petition back in 2001. This is what they wrote:

"Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community."

What they are saying is that, of the 31000 "scientists" who signed, only about 200 of them are knowledgeable enough to have an opinion that matters. And that this is a small fraction of the total people who could legitimately weigh in with an opinion.

I believe this because, based on the data that the petition organizers themselves supplied, I came to a similar conclusion. The overwhelming majority of these people have degrees in areas unrelated to atmospheric sciences. And the majority of those that DO work in the right fields do not have enough experience with this particular issue.

I actually have some personal experience in this matter. I am not an expert on global warming and I'm not an atmospheric scientist. Nevertheless, these folks asked me to sign their petition a few years back. Had I signed it, I would have been one of the 31000 "scientists" they advertise - even though I didn't have the expertise to form an opinion.

As for the scientific accuracy of their claims, well that's another story for another day. I'm getting sleepy...

Scott

Of course, there is the theory that man-made global warming is actually staving off an oncoming ice age. I'm not saying that I necessarily believe the theory, but it's something to consider.

Scott
While I don't doubt the accuracy of your post I personally simply do not believe Man will be the undoing of the Earth's climate.
I think it very arrogant to think so.
For one thing the majority of people on this planet believe in God. A God that is all powerful and can and will eventually save us all from ourselves.
If so then what's to worry.

Right now they are studying the effects of Cow and Pig farts on the climate and the resultant changes. Some actually estimate the Termites contribute more to Global climate change than Man.

The Ice age is another matter.
There was a Mini Ice age a few hundred years ago. Long before the industrial age.

This is what I have learned about climate change.
Ice ages. We are in one right now. Have been for about 2.5 Million years. The Current Glaciation period of the current Ice age is almost over. The Glaciers have receded and will most likely completely disappear in a couple hundred years. Possibly less because of Global Warming. The Polar Ice cap will likely melt.
Will we have another period of Glaciation before that happens? Possibly not because man made pollution may cause enough warming to prevent it. Hence....Global Warming.
So I don't actually believe Global Warming is a myth. I believe Man's contribution to our demise though Global Warming is a myth.
We are inconsequential.
And arrogant to think we are not.

Man has been here for a couple hundred thousand years. A blink actually in the time line of this planet. How much longer will we be here? Who knows, but if current world events are any indication I don't think it will be very long.
We will destroy ourselves long before any climate change will.

We really only have a few thousand years of proof that we even exist. In a hundred thousand years there will be very little, if any, evidence we ever existed. It will be as if we never were.

So like the man says
Don't worry. Be happy

I think a few million years of history shows that climate change has nothing to do with humans. Anyone who looks at the history of climate change and still thinks humans effect it is delusional.

Well, I reckon neither of us are going to change the other's mind, Bill, so I'll lay off.

I can't say the discussion has been worthless to me though because your posts and Doug's have made me realize what the biggest challenges will be to folks who want to convince others that mankind can have an effect on global warming:

(1) Countering the belief that we are too insignificant to have an effect

(2) Countering the belief that the climate has been changing in the absence of man so it must not be us.

Until the issues can be addressed, no one is gonna convince anyone of anything.

In my own view, I think we tend to underestimate the effect that we can have on the world. Thomas Jefferson thought that it would take 100 generations to settle the west. It took four.

The Grand Banks (a huge area of the western Atlantic) have been essentially depleted of cod within just a few generations.

There are plenty of other examples that man can be a strong agent of change to large systems.

As far as point (2) goes, this will be a tough one. It is a fallacious argument to state that just because something has always changed, we can't be affecting it. However, proving it in such a complicated system that changes over very long periods of time is difficult. I believe folks have done so to the satisfaction of scientists but have failed to deliver the message convincingly to everyone else.

I think they have their work cut out for them......

Scott

BTW Scott, I am a scientist, but not in climatology. Biology and genetics are my fields or were before I retired. I haven't met any scientifically educated people who believe that global warming is caused by humans.

Well,
Remember Newton's Law of Physics, (If I remember correctly).

For Every Action there is an Opposite and Equal Reaction.

We had an Ice Age about 11,000 years ago. I don't think man had much to do with that. If there is Global Warming man will probably be a small factor, if any.

There have been predictions that when all the Ice melts Sea Levels will rise from 3 to 20 feet. The only problem with all the Ice melting is it melts in one place and freezes somewhere else. Of which makes predictions variable at best.

Cool, Doug!



I probably haven't either. But replace the word "caused" by "magnified" or "accelerated" and the story changes (for me anyway). And that's the rub....

Scott