Taking a look at the data proves your points...sm

• Katrina Reveals Poverty Reality - Democrat
  • Yes, poverty is a problem that will never... - SM
    • Blame must go somewhere. - Zauber
      • Taking a look at the data proves your points...sm - Democrat

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

State	Aug. 1996 families	Dec. 2005 families	Pct. change	State	Aug. 1996 families	Dec. 2005 families	Pct. change	State	Aug. 1996 families	Dec. 2005 families	Pct. change
Ala.	41,032	20,316	-50.5%	La.	67,467	13,888	-79.4%	Ore.	29,917	20,194	-32.5%
Alaska	12,159	3,590	-70.5%	Maine	20,007	9,516	-52.4%	Pa.	186,342	97,469	-47.7%
Ariz.	62,404	41,943	-32.8%	Md.	70,665	22,530	-68.1%	Puerto Rico	49,871	14,562	-70.8%
Ark.	22,069	8,283	-62.5%	Mass.	84,700	47,950	-43.4%	R.I.	20,670	10,063	-51.3%
Calif.	880,378	453,819	-48.5%	Mich.	169,997	81,882	-51.8%	S.C.	44,060	16,234	-63.2%
Colo.	34,486	15,303	-55.6%	Minn.	57,741	27,589	-52.2%	S.D.	5,829	2,876	-50.7%
Conn.	57,326	18,685	-67.4%	Miss.	46,428	14,636	-68.5%	Tenn.	97,187	69,361	-28.6%
Del.	10,585	5,744	-45.7%	Mo.	80,123	39,715	-50.4%	Texas	243,504	77,693	-68.1%
D.C.	25,350	16,209	-36.1%	Mont.	10,114	3,947	-61.0%	Utah	14,221	8,151	-42.7%
Fla.	200,922	57,361	-71.5%	Neb.	14,435	10,016	-30.6%	Vt.	8,765	4,479	-48.9%
Ga.	123,329	35,621	-71.1%	Nev.	13,712	5,691	-58.5%	Virgin Islands	1,371	421	-69.3%
Guam	2,243	3,072	37.0%	N.H.	9,100	6,150	-32.4%	Va.	61,905	9,615	-84.5%
Hawaii	21,894	7,243	-66.9%	N.J.	101,704	42,198	-58.5%	Wash.	97,492	55,910	-42.7%
Idaho	8,607	1,870	-78.3%	N.M.	33,353	17,773	-46.7%	W.Va.	37,044	11,275	-69.6%
Ill.	220,297	38,129	-82.7%	N.Y.	418,338	139,220	-66.7%	Wis.	51,924	17,970	-65.4%
Ind.	51,437	48,213	-6.3%	N.C.	110,060	31,746	-71.2%	Wyo.	4,312	294	-93.2%
Iowa	31,579	17,215	-45.5%	N.D.	4,773	2,789	-41.6%	U.S. total	4,408,508	1,870,039	-57.6%
Kan.	23,790	17,400	-26.9%	Ohio	204,240	81,425	-60.1%
Ky.	71,264	33,691	-52.7%	Okla.	35,986	11,104	-69.1%

Source: Department of Health and Human Services

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-sci-warming23jun23,1,200411.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&track=crosspromo

U.S. Panel Backs Data on Global Warming

By Thomas H. Maugh II and Karen Kaplan
Times Staff Writers

June 23, 2006

After a comprehensive review of climate change data, the nation's preeminent scientific body found that average temperatures on Earth had risen by about 1 degree over the last century, a development that is unprecedented for the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia.

The report from the National Research Council also concluded that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.

Coupled with a report last month from the Bush administration's Climate Change Science Program that found clear evidence of human influences on the climate system, the new study from the council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, signals a growing acceptance in Washington of widely held scientific views on the causes of global warming.

The council's review focused on the controversial hockey stick graph, which shows Earth's temperature remaining stable for 900 years then suddenly arching upward in the last century. The curve resembles a hockey stick laid on its side.

The panel dismissed critics' charges that fraud and statistical error were responsible for the graph's sharp upward swing, noting that many studies had confirmed its essential conclusions in the eight years since it was first published in the journal Nature.

There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change … or any doubts about whether any paper on the temperature records was legitimate scientific work, said House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), who requested the study in November.

The finding was a rebuke to global warming skeptics and some conservative politicians who have attacked the hockey stick as the work of overzealous scientists determined to shame the government into imposing environmental regulations on big business.

Geophysicist Michael E. Mann of Pennsylvania State University, lead author of the study that debuted the graph, said it was time to put this sometimes silly debate behind us and move forward, to do what we need to do to decrease the remaining uncertainties.

Though scientists have cited various factors as evidence of global warming — including the melting of polar ice caps and measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide — the hockey stick encapsulated the issue in an instantly recognizable way.

It's a pretty profound, easy-to-understand graph, said Roger A. Pielke Jr., director of the University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. Visually, it's very compelling.

The chart drew little attention until it was highlighted in a 2001 report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

After that, the hockey stick was everywhere, Pielke said.

It also became an easy target.

If you are someone who's interested in critiquing climate science, he said, the hockey stick would be a lightning rod.

One prominent attack came from the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), who last year launched an investigation of Mann and his colleagues. Barton demanded information about their data and funding sources — an effort widely viewed as an attempt to intimidate the scientists.

Barton's committee has launched an inquiry into the statistical validity of the hockey stick. Larry Neal, the committee's deputy staff director, criticized the National Research Council panel Thursday for having only one statistician among its 12 members.

The crux of the dispute is that thermometers have been used for only 150 years. To determine temperatures before that, scientists rely on indirect measurements, or proxies, such as tree ring data, cores from boreholes in ice, glacier movements, cave deposits, lake sediments, diaries and paintings.

Mann and his collaborators tried to integrate data from many such sources to produce climate records for the last 1,000 years. Their report was filled with caveats and warnings about the uncertainties of their conclusions — caveats that were overlooked as the research achieved more celebrity.

The panel affirmed that proxy measurements made over the last 150 years correlated well with actual measurements during that period, lending credence to the proxy data for earlier times.

It concluded that, with a high level of confidence, global temperatures during the last century were higher than at any time since 1600.

Although the report did not place numerical values on that confidence level, committee member and statistician Peter Bloomfield of North Carolina State University said the panel was about 95% sure of the conclusion.

The committee supported Mann's other conclusions, but said they were not as definitive. For example, the report said the panel was less confident that the 20th century was the warmest century since 1000, largely because of the scarcity of data from before 1600.

Bloomfield said the committee was about 67% confident of the validity of that finding — the same degree of confidence Mann and his colleagues had placed in their initial report.

Panel members said Mann's conclusion that the 1990s were the warmest decade since 1000 and that 1998 was the warmest year had the least data to support it.

The use of proxies, they said, does not readily allow conclusions based on such narrow time intervals.

The report said that establishing average temperatures before 1000 was difficult because of the lack of data, but said the trend appeared to indicate that stable temperatures could extend back several thousand years.

These posters are paid political trolls.  I knew they would think up something else.  This post is absolutely laughable, asking MTs to come up with $50,000 to $60,000 for such a ridiculous cause so they can become  heroes"  ....baaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha 

I think most MTs these days are more concerned with having enough work to pay the light bill and buy groceries.

First, that Scarborough can criticize Bush, as well as compliment him.  He can do both, unlike you.  If he sees something wrong, he has the courage to say it; however, he is still a conservative and he still supports Bush.  As I said before, he just doesn't *blindly* support him, and he has the ability to be objective.

The second thing it proves is the CON method of doing things is to silence and disparage those who have the audacity to exert their (so far) constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech.

Scarborough is a respectable man.  He loves America and he respects the Constitution.  Unlike your *God Bush,* who thinks the Constitution is only a *piece of paper.*  The fact that you so aggressively defend someone so obviously devoid of morals and ethics tells me way more than I want to know about you.  People like you give me the heebie-jeebies, and I'd just rather associate myself with your kind of people, so I won't be responding to you any more. 

You really do belong on the CON board, you know.  Your nastiness and constant harassment of people on this board is getting old, is incredibly distasteful and just might wind up being brought to the moderator's attention if it continues.

 We are still talking about the MJF ad and I never even heard anything about Ben Affleck which just proves that his voice does not  reach  quite as many people as Rush does.  If I had heard what he said I would condemn that as well. I really really do not think there is ever an occasion when it is all right to malign the disabled.

...a terrorist, as he's been ridiculously accused of being.

I'm still worried about Bush finding a reason to declare martial law and creating a dictatorship before Obama takes the oath of office, and I wonder if a terror attack would assist in that endeavor. 

post about the popularity of Fox News and the country being a majority of dullards.  Not enough information to understand the debates on Meet The Press or other actual news programs, so watch 2 clowns argue.  When finished, turn on the wrasslin' channel.

Bush Proves How Far Removed He Is 

Rep George Miller

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, President Bush proved once again just how far removed he and his Administration are from the life experiences of most Americans. The President issued an executive order on Thursday that makes it possible for federal contractors to pay extremely low wages to workers hired for the Gulf Coast rebuilding. Bush accomplished this by suspending the 1931 Davis-Bacon law, which says that federal contractors must pay their workers a “prevailing wage” on construction projects.

Not the least bit surprised that you're a Coulter groupie, though.  I will pray for your sad, sad soul.

 do that phase strike a familiar note?

Maybe you're just as wrong about Obama, as well.

Either way, the article below shows that this is really a non-story.  Nobody seems to be listening to Bush any more.  He couldn't even get enough reporters to fill the seats for his final press conference, so he had to fill the empty seats with people who weren't even reporters, just to make it look like he had a full room (perhaps his final attempt to deceive Americans).

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CBS_Obama_appears_to_have_skipped_0116.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duLds-TZMGw

Hilarious!!

to do is fight with someone.  What possible reason could you have for being over here?  Obviously you are not creating dialogue or trading ideas....the only reason is to start something and then here come the insults.  Guidelines posted when they started these boards were to post on your own board. 

I do notice that conservatives post more on that board, but instead of discussing opinions and ideas and their reasons for them, all they do is bash the left. 

I couldn't find the Russert quote because you misquoted.  I believe both Cheney and Russert changed their positions since this interview.....

As far as the "747" you mention -- I couldn't find it because it was actually a "707" and here is another opinion on its significance:

"a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain’s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. “We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,” the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane—which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training—when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. “That’s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,” the former agent said. “They train in basements. You don’t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.”

Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war."

Here we go with the celebrity subject again.  Also I don't want the Spears family used as a standard against which to select our national leaders. 

Bush "anticipated" this war as far back as 1999 when he said if he ever had the chance to invade Iraq, he would, so he could be seen as a war-time President and thus have a successful presidency.  This was two years BEFORE 9/11 happened and one year before he was President.

So this nonsense of "not anticipating war" is just another Bush lie, and I would encourage anyone who is truly interested in the "integrity" of George W. Bush to read the link I provided below in its entirety because it is quite revealing.  It not only includes this tidbit about his wanting to invade Iraq but also shows, once again, how an innocent man who was his ghost writer on a book (and also a family friend of the Bushes) had his character attacked after the Karen Hughes and others came in, realized that Bush said too much, and the author (Mr. Herskowitz) was fired, citing personal habits that interfered with his writing -- totally false and another example of how Bushies will destroy anyone -- even friends of the family.  It shows just how despicable they all are.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm

Second:  His comment regarding the economic crisis:  "You know, I'm the president during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in president," Bush said.

He threw his own father under the bus on this one because the administration in control "over a decade or so" before Bush's installment as President was Bush 41.

Third:  Bush said that he regrets that he was unable to change the partisan tone in Washington -- one that permeated his presidency.

"I didn't go into this naively; I knew it would be tough," he said. "But I also knew that the president has the responsibility to try to elevate the tone.

And, frankly, it just didn't work, much as I'd like to have it work."

"9/11 unified the country, and that was a moment where Washington decided to work together," he said. "I think one of the big disappointments of the presidency has been the fact that the tone in Washington got worse, not better."

9/11 DID bring the people of this country together until BUSH, through his actions, brought about the divisions and the low morale that exists today and might never disappear.  The tone in Washington got worse because Bush continually thumbed his nose at the Constitution and at the Congress with all his "signing statements," "executive orders," playing deadly politics with outting a CIA agent, etc., etc., etc.  He laughed and joking about WMDs, pretending to look for them under his desk, and quipping, "Nope.  They're not there."  He showed his contempt for our brave soldiers during a ceremony where he was distributing medals to the survivors of soldiers who had been killed and told a griefstricken mother, "Now, don't go selling this on eBay."  (heh heh, smirk smirk)  He has used every conceivable opportunity to "raise the terror level" whenever it was politically convenient in order to keep this country in a constant state of fear and submission.

He has only ever cared about the richest top 1%-ers in this country.  The current (and never-ending) "bailout" will continue to make his rich criminal cronies even richer, and that's fine because we always have enough money to do THAT.  We just never have enough money to help the citizens of the USA.  Indeed, to suggest that we might even need help results in accusations of us being lazy or living beyond our means, etc.  There is no doubt about it.  All these "bailouts" are Bush's babies (complete with same secrecy and lack of transparency which has become his trademark), and buying up banks is fascism, plain and simple.  He can't blame Clinton, can't blame his father, and he can't blame Obama. 

We still have way too much time (in my opinion) left with him as the Commander-in-Chief, and he can do a lot more damage (besides all the safety regulations he is in a frenzy to dismantle, each of which that will make Americans UNSAFE).

With all the things he has done and is continuing to do, the only worry on this board is whether or not the Supreme Court will overthrow the will of the people (which could be very convenient for Bush in instituting martial law and promoting himself to "Dictator-in-Chief," the prospect about which he's "joked" on three separate occasions.  I wonder when the last time was that Scalia went hunting with Cheney and what their plans for this whole birth certificate non-issue are.

I suppose if the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, then everyone on this board will say the Supreme Court is hiding something and go on an anti-Supreme Court tirade for a few months.

Or they might just let it go and return to questioning the "true motive" behind Obama getting his daughters a puppy (the "timing" of which has already been questioned on this board, which is even more bizarre).

All these terrible things that Bush has done over the last eight years -- and is still doing -- including stating that the Constitution is just a (insert Rev. Wright's "God" phrase here) piece of paper.  (How telling that I can't even properly quote the President of the United States because his language is too vulgar.)  I'm ashamed that Bush has not only talked that Constitutional talk but has consistently walked that Constitutional walk, as well.

His "divide and conquer" technique has certainly worked, as is evidenced by a quick look at this board and the negative judgment of the President-Elect before he has even taken the oath of office.

I've stated before that I will support Obama, as I supported Bush (before Bush gave me a TON of reasons not to).  However, it's clear to me that no matter how much Obama proves he loves this country, no matter how hard he works to unite us once again, no matter how devoted he is to bringing back the "American Dream," and no matter how hard he works to fix all the damage done by Bush, there are certain people on this board that will still invent reasons to condemn him, and they'll continue to jump from one non-issue to another non-issue.

I wonder where they all were during eight years of Bush's contempt for the Constitution and how loud their voices were in disapproval of his actions.

Bush can try to rewrite history all he wants, but I will remember what he did and what he's still doing.