RE: Climategate

RE: Climategate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Moonhead -> RE: Climategate (11/30/2009 10:38:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead No idea if it was voted on or not, to be honest. The main thing that I remember (as an evil lefty) is that Bush made a big deal of stating that he didn't care if the prior management had signed it, he was going to ignore it. Moon, even Ted Kennedy and John "French" Kerry voted against it. And, no president is bound by what a previous president "said." They wouldn't be able to do the job if they were! Actually, doesn't that mean that we could have stopped repaying the Marshall Plan loans the second Roosevelt was out of office?

popeye1250 -> RE: Climategate (11/30/2009 10:50:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead No idea if it was voted on or not, to be honest. The main thing that I remember (as an evil lefty) is that Bush made a big deal of stating that he didn't care if the prior management had signed it, he was going to ignore it. Moon, even Ted Kennedy and John "French" Kerry voted against it. And, no president is bound by what a previous president "said." They wouldn't be able to do the job if they were! Actually, doesn't that mean that we could have stopped repaying the Marshall Plan loans the second Roosevelt was out of office? Ah,.....no Moon, that's not what it means? You mean we never paid back those Marshall Plan loans?

Moonhead -> RE: Climategate (11/30/2009 11:33:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead No idea if it was voted on or not, to be honest. The main thing that I remember (as an evil lefty) is that Bush made a big deal of stating that he didn't care if the prior management had signed it, he was going to ignore it. Moon, even Ted Kennedy and John "French" Kerry voted against it. And, no president is bound by what a previous president "said." They wouldn't be able to do the job if they were! Actually, doesn't that mean that we could have stopped repaying the Marshall Plan loans the second Roosevelt was out of office? Ah,.....no Moon, that's not what it means? You mean we never paid back those Marshall Plan loans? No, I mean that the UK only finally finished paying them off about five years back. If international agreements with an American President become void the second he leaves office, then presumably we could have stopped paying off the war loans as soon as Roosevelt finished his term.

popeye1250 -> RE: Climategate (11/30/2009 12:00:17 PM)
LOL, Moon, it doesn't work that way. We have signed contracts for that kind of thing. A president can't just say; "Hey, here's a billion dollars, pay us back when you can." What do you want to do, put all the lawyers in Washington out of business?

Moonhead -> RE: Climategate (11/30/2009 12:01:16 PM)
You mean that you don't want to put all of the lawyers in Washington out of business?

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Climategate (11/30/2009 2:00:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead If international agreements with an American President become void the second he leaves office, then presumably we could have stopped paying off the war loans as soon as Roosevelt finished his term. Technically, international agreements aren't made with the President. Any treaty must be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the U. S. Senate to be binding. The Leagueof Nations and the Treaty of Versailles which ended World War One were both supported by and agreed to by Woodrow Wilson and both were repudiated by the U. S. Senate. The United States signed a seperate peace treaty with Germany and never joined the League of Nations. No President's "word" on something is legally binding, and certainly shouldn't be relied upon through a change of administration.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Climategate (11/30/2009 2:24:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Science is about the ability to review the data, the replication of results, and checks against such normal human attempts to "personally invest" in a belief or hypothesis. Michael Crichton gave a great speech on just this subject in 2005. You can watch it here: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/video-speeches-aei.html Or read the transcript here: http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-sciencepolicy.html "...more troubling, to me, is the degree to which the political process seems to have captured and often corrupted the integrity of the scientific research that is used to formulate policy, and inform policy decisions." - Michael Crichton

Moonhead -> RE: Climategate (11/30/2009 2:29:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead If international agreements with an American President become void the second he leaves office, then presumably we could have stopped paying off the war loans as soon as Roosevelt finished his term. Technically, international agreements aren't made with the President. Any treaty must be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the U. S. Senate to be binding. The Leagueof Nations and the Treaty of Versailles which ended World War One were both supported by and agreed to by Woodrow Wilson and both were repudiated by the U. S. Senate. The United States signed a seperate peace treaty with Germany and never joined the League of Nations. No President's "word" on something is legally binding, and certainly shouldn't be relied upon through a change of administration. So the Marshall Plan would have been set up and negotiated by the senate rather than whoever was in the white house at the time. Thank you, I didn't know that.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Climategate (11/30/2009 2:51:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead So the Marshall Plan would have been set up and negotiated by the senate rather than whoever was in the white house at the time. Thank you, I didn't know that. Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948 and President Truman signed it into law on April 3rd. Looking at it, while treaties must be approved by the Senate, spending bills must originate in the House. Aid Bill is Signed by Truman as Reply to Foes of Liberty

Moonhead -> RE: Climategate (11/30/2009 2:59:04 PM)
Thank you.

TheHeretic -> RE: Climategate (11/30/2009 6:20:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: It's called a "lead," RML. Wikipedia should be sufficient (try looking under "journalism). Just FYI, if you're gonna send him looking--the correct term is "lede." "Lede" is obsolete, and basically just an acceptable spelling affectation. I'm sure there are some institutions and individuals that have completely embraced it, just for snob appeal.

Musicmystery -> RE: Climategate (11/30/2009 6:51:03 PM)
Hardly an affectation. Tradition would be more accurate. A "lead" was a blank space inserted between lines. The distinction of "lede" was necessary, and still is used by many in editing and publishing. Practical and creatures of habit, perhaps. But clear and an important distinction. I still see -30- at the end of press releases. Definitely outdated--but everyone knows what it means, and I doubt anyone thinks "What a snob.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Climategate (11/30/2009 8:24:29 PM)
Yes, but the real question is why is there no more Lederkranz. [sic]

TheHeretic -> RE: Climategate (11/30/2009 8:25:37 PM)
No, they think "what a lazy bastard."

FirmhandKY -> RE: Climategate (12/1/2009 4:40:11 PM)
FR: One down. Temporarily, at least ... Climate scientist at center of e-mail controversy to step down By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, December 1, 2009; 3:45 PM A scientist who is one of the central figures in the controversy over hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit announced Tuesday that he is stepping down while the university investigates the incident. ... Phil Jones, director of the university's Climatic Research Unit [has stepped down]. ... East Anglia's Vice-Chancellor Professor Edward Acton said he had "accepted Professor Jones's offer to stand aside during this period. It is an important step to ensure that CRU can continue to operate normally and the independent review can conduct its work into the allegations." Action added the university will disclose details of the probe, including who will head it and how long it will last "within days." Firm

popeye1250 -> RE: Climategate (12/2/2009 10:21:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead You mean that you don't want to put all of the lawyers in Washington out of business? Moon, I do. But, how can you expect President Obama to abide by something that, Herbert Hoover "said" or Bill Clinton "said" in a speech? Or a future president to abide by something President Obama "said" during his presidency? Would anyone want President Obama to go along with what George Bush "said" a few years ago? Just because a president "says" something doesn't make it law.

vincentML -> RE: Climategate (12/2/2009 1:15:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead If international agreements with an American President become void the second he leaves office, then presumably we could have stopped paying off the war loans as soon as Roosevelt finished his term. Technically, international agreements aren't made with the President. Any treaty must be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the U. S. Senate to be binding. The Leagueof Nations and the Treaty of Versailles which ended World War One were both supported by and agreed to by Woodrow Wilson and both were repudiated by the U. S. Senate. The United States signed a seperate peace treaty with Germany and never joined the League of Nations. No President's "word" on something is legally binding, and certainly shouldn't be relied upon through a change of administration. (The President) shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur... US Constitution, Art II, § 2, cl 2 Technically, it appears the President has the power to make treaties ... with a very big proviso, however. Is "ratified" the proper term here? Yeh, I guess so. Nit picky, I know, but seems international agreements are made with the Pres.

Brain -> RE: Climategate (12/2/2009 10:59:22 PM)
Jon Stewart On ClimateGate (VIDEO) On the Daily Show Tuesday night, Jon Stewart dug into ClimateGate -- a series of leaked emails between climate scientists which global warming skeptics have latched onto to prove climate change doesn't exist. "Poor Al Gore," Stewart proclaimed, "global warming completely debunked via the very internet you invented." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/jon-stewart-on-climategat_n_376672.html

Brain -> RE: Climategate (12/2/2009 11:15:30 PM)
ClimateGate: The 7 Biggest Lies About The Supposed "Global Warming Hoax" A few weeks ago, hackers broke into the emails of one of the Climate Research Unit of The University of East Anglia, and climate skeptics have been having a field day making mountains out of molehills about what the emails contain. The verdict on global warming is in -- it's caused by humans and it is happening and nothing in the emails remotely challenges that. However, with the internet abuzz about what has been labeled "ClimateGate," we thought we should set the record straight about the rumors, lies and insinuations about what the emails actually contain -- and what they "prove" about climate change. "ClimateGate" itself is a misnomer, the nickname should be "SwiftHack" for the way people with political agendas have "swiftboated" the global warming reality. As world attention turns to the climate conference in Copenhagen this December, this email hack acts as a distraction from the huge task at hand of getting world leaders to commit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As professor Richard Somerville says, "We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public." Check out our slideshow and pick what you think the most dangerous lie that is being spread by skeptics about the emails. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/climategate-the-7-biggest_n_371223.html

Moonhead -> RE: Climategate (12/3/2009 5:50:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead You mean that you don't want to put all of the lawyers in Washington out of business? Moon, I do. But, how can you expect President Obama to abide by something that, Herbert Hoover "said" or Bill Clinton "said" in a speech? Or a future president to abide by something President Obama "said" during his presidency? Would anyone want President Obama to go along with what George Bush "said" a few years ago? Just because a president "says" something doesn't make it law. What Vincent said. If the bugger can't sign treaties that'll be honoured beyond his term, there's no point having him there in the first place.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.298828E-02