Scientific opinion on climate change

Here is an excellent Wikipedia article on global warming:

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007

Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years.[5]

The New York Times reported that “the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is 'unequivocal' and that human activity is the main driver, very likely' causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950”.[6]

The New York Times retired journalist William K. Stevens wrote: “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the likelihood was 90 percent to 99 percent that emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, spewed from tailpipes and smokestacks, were the dominant cause of the observed warming of the last 50 years. In the panel’s parlance, this level of certainty is labeled 'very likely'. Only rarely does scientific odds-making provide a more definite answer than that, at least in this branch of science, and it describes the endpoint, so far, of a progression.”.[7]

The Associated Press summarized the position on sea level rise:

On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent polar ice sheet melt continues.[8]

The scary part is that each time the scientist have the chance to measure something it surprises them that it's far more advanced than they thought it was. No one is saying what they all know, it's already too late - and it's the American's fault.

Gandalf and Magneto

World's best T-shirt. You tell them, Ian!

Elizabeth Warren

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Bread and circuses

Image via Wikipedia

This phrase come from Roman times, from Wikipedia:

This phrase originates from Rome in Satire X of the Roman poet Juvenal (circa 100 AD ). In context, the Latin phrase panem et circenses (bread and circuses) is given as the only remaining cares of a Roman populace which has given up its birthright of political involvement. Here Juvenal displays his contempt for the declining heroism of his contemporary Romans.[1]: Roman politicians devised a plan in 140 B.C. to win the votes of the poor; By giving out cheap food and entertainment, politicians decided that this policy of "bread and circuses" would be the most effective way to rise to power.

In other words, give the masses food and crazy entertainment and they won’t question what the people in power are doing.

Ever wonder why we see Lindsay Lohan all over all the news channels all the time but NEVER hear about bills trying to pass in congress, or what bills have already passed. They want us fat and happy so they can do what they want without the masses rioting or doing any other unfortunate things.

The problem is they got greedy, they got so carried away with stealing the product of our labor that they have taken away a lot of bread, so the middle-class shrinks and the number of poor go up. And people get restless.

Even in their own economic structure they need people to make enough money to buy things or everyone - even them - gets hurt.

Who are “they” you might ask? Our corporate overlords and the politicians who they get elected so that tax laws can be made in their favor. It’s happened time and again throughout history. It really doesn’t take much to keep the masses feed well enough so they don’t riot, after all, rioting is hard work and you could get hurt.

The best example of this is the French Revolution and Marie Antoinette, who said “Let them eat cake!” That was the problem, no one had any cake, everyone was in financial distress and starving. All the French Royalty had to do was make some minor sacrifices (like eating cake only twice a week instead of every day) and give some of the bread to the poor so they would calm down.

Not quite the same these days because television is the best entertainment in history. But the powers that be forgot to include the bread so the system is collapsing and there might be rioting in the near future. If too many become homeless they won’t have TV to calm them down.

Of course, the Corporate Masters have an escape plan: All they need to do is move to China and let the Chinese become their new market while letting America descend into third world status.

Vote Democratic Part 2

I found out about that chart in the first post from Rachel Maddow, who got it from Ezra Klein's blog. One of her fans sent her a new chart. This shows the same thing, that when the dems are in charge our incomes rise a lot more than when pubs are in charge. But in this chart he lays it out when the dems are in charge of the House, or the Senate, or the Presidency, or have it all. Ezra's chart dealt only with the Presidency.

You see, the Republicans are lying to you, when they say the Democrats are tax and spend they mean the dems tax rich people and spend it on the other 95% of us. The taxes for us 95% don't change a whole lot, not a lot of room for change, but the top tax rate can change dramatically. All through the 40's and 50's the top tax rate was around 90% for all income over $400,000 - and what happened in the 50's? We had a strong growth that created a strong middle class for the first time, in fact, most of the country moved up from poverty to the middle class.

In 1980 Reagan dropped the rate down to around 25%, which made the rich very, very happy. Of course, the deficit and our debt grew faster than ever before in American history and he had to raise taxes. He's known for lowering taxes but a lot of people are surprised when they hear he then raised taxes 4 times during his 2 terms. His voodoo economics simply didn't work.

The big lie from the Republicans is that they got the middle class to think the raising or lowering of taxes was about them and not the rich. There are 2 ways a modern economy can function, the rich can be taxed at a high rate in order to supply the 95% of us with a variety of services, like roads, schools, police, military, welfare, medical care, etc. Or all the tax breaks can be for the rich which funnels all our money from us 95% upward to the rich, so they can get richer and richer. Since Reagan took office until today the top 1% saw their incomes increase by 250%, while the bottom 95% of us saw our income drop by 6%. Productivity increased quite a bit as well but the workers who are working harder and better don't get to reap the rewards, it all gets funneled up to the rich.

The end results of Republican economic policy is a total collapse. It happened once back in the 1930's and we had the Great Depression as a result, and happened again at the end of Bush's watch but we were saved from another depression by Obama's economic policies. So that instead of the Second Great Depression we got the first Great Recession. Semantics? No, it really does make a difference. When Bush left office and Obama took over we were losing 700,000 jobs per month - yes, PER MONTH!! Now, we have a net gain of jobs being added by about 40,000 per month.

Unfortunately people are still feeling it because we need to be adding 300,000 jobs every month just to keep pace with the population growth. In other words, 300,000 new workers enter the job market every month. Still, moving from a falling economy to one that is gaining is quite a grand feat and worth giving Obama much credit for.

Vote Democratic!!!

Why, you ask? Look at this chart below, this alone is more than enough reason:

The blue lines show how much more we will all make under Democrat rule. Unless you are in the top 5% - those making over $200,000 a year - you WANT the democrats in and should dread the idea of Republicans gaining power again. Look at how bad it’s been lately, that all came from Republican policies going back 30 years but topped off by 8 years of George Bush

And make no mistake, Obama’s stimulus worked, it kept the economy from going over the cliff. It’s hard to make the argument that it would have been much worse without the stimulus, but I’d like to think most human beings are capable of at least that much abstract thought. We would all be in the second great depression right now if it wasn't for Obama.

What will the Republicans do if back in power? Tax cuts for the wealthy and subpoenas for everyone, shutting the government down. If tax cuts created jobs we wouldn’t be in this mess now because the tax cuts have ALREADY been there for 10 years and fewer jobs were created under George Bush's watch than any other president.

If you look at the chart you will notice that even the top 95% make more under Democrats, so why do the rich support Republicans? Because Republicans will lower tax rates. The majority of the money made by millionaires and billionaires comes from investments, which are taxed at a straight 15% rate. It used to be 20% under Clinton, so they have been making out like bandits over the past ten years. And instead of saying “OK, we’ve done really well for the past ten years, we should turn it around and help the lower 95% get a bigger cut of the pie, that’s only fair, after all.” What they really say is “KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY MONEY AAAARRRGGGGHHHH!!!!”

So vote Democratic if you want your income to go up, vote Republican if you want it to do down. And remember that while the tax breaks for everyone are over at the end of this year Obama wants to lock them in place permanently for everyone making under $200,000, but letting the tax breaks end for the top 95%. The Republicans want to continue with the tax breaks for the wealthy and are threatening to not vote for middle-class tax relief by itself. Those tax breaks for the wealthy mean an extra $100,000 per each million of income in the pocket of millionaires.

Michael Moore and the Mosque

Michael has a new blog where he intends to write every day. The one he wrote for today, 9/11, is:

If the 'Mosque' Isn't Built, This Is No Longer America

I've been talking about this for weeks, that we should be building a mosque right AT ground zero which would stick it in the face of oppressive Muslims world-wide. Mike says the same:

I am opposed to the building of the "mosque" two blocks from Ground Zero.

I want it built on Ground Zero.

Why? Because I believe in an America that protects those who are the victims of hate and prejudice. I believe in an America that says you have the right to worship whatever God you have, wherever you want to worship. And I believe in an America that says to the world that we are a loving and generous people and if a bunch of murderers steal your religion from you and use it as their excuse to kill 3,000 souls, then I want to help you get your religion back. And I want to put it at the spot where it was stolen from you.

You tell 'em, Mike! Much more at the blog and it's worth checking out, like this quote from George Washington:

"The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy -- a policy worthy of imitation. ...

"It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens ...

"May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants -- while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid."

Too bad America has seldom lived up to that ideal.

Chrome

Image via WikipediaGoogle Chrome has been my choice for a web browser for a few months now. Seems to work pretty good, much better than Safari, which I no longer touch. Firefox is good but Chrome is faster. The new Firefox 4 looks to be almost as fast as Chrome, but I haven't tested it much yet.

But - I just downloaded Chrome 6 and damned if this thing isn't even faster than the last version. Pretty soon it's going to be loading stuff while I'm just thinking about it.

Everything I do on the new Chrome seems to be very smooth and nearly instantaneous, I like it.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Chrome Stable 6, Firefox 4 Features Axed (ghacks.net)
• Chrome 6 Arrives, Just in Time for Cake (wired.com)