Chess Online

Play online chess!

From	Message
anomalocaris 26-Jun-09, 12:55	Obama supporters Are you really ok with the cap and trade? Are you not at all alarmed by the increasing government over things?
thumper 26-Jun-09, 13:32	Stinky The libs are the biggest busy bodies around. They have no problem with big government as long as they think it's they (vicariously) who are in charge.
softaire 27-Jun-09, 08:25	Cap & Trade... Americans are in trouble. And, you other non-American countries will be in trouble, or are already in trouble, if this type legislation takes hold in your country. It basically puts energy development by coal, oil, & nuclear power on hold, indefinitely. It gives special privileges, rights, and benefits to specified companies but taxes most others. (Nancy Peolosi and Diane Feinstein, and I am sure many other politicians from both parties, own companies and/or have large amounts of stock in these companies that will profit from this legislation.) It costs business enormous amounts of money to continue doing business where they emit a green-house gas. Since India, China, and other third world countries will ignore this type of legislation, and not pay their share for "polluting" the environment, it amounts to a huge transfer of wealth from the industrialized nations to the developing nations. Of course, the cost increase to business will be passed on down to the consumer. That is especially troubling since there is no real proof that emitting green-house gases actually "pollute" the environment and the argument about global warming is beginning to lose its' consensus among scientists. We actually may be in the beginning of a global cooling. However, even if that were not true... The cost to many businesses to continue operations in America will be more than the cost of exporting the jobs to India, China and other third world countries such that the CBO estimates a loss of another 2.5 Million jobs because of this. The direct cost increase to each and every American household will average $3,000 per year in energy costs... meaning cost of electricity. The average electricity bill is estimated to almost double... up by 90%. I am not sure how the cost of winter home heating gas & oil fit in, but I imagine they will be going up substantially. Because the development of our oil resources is on hold, the cost of oil products (which is almost everything we consume other than food) will go up. Automobile gasoline is already back up over $3.00 per gallon. We had a temporary dip in prices, just in time for the election, but it will soon be back up to $4.00 or $5.00 per gallon. The cost of all other oil based products will rise correspondingly. I think it was Illi that said "the best days of America are still ahead of us". Maybe... if you are Nancy Pelosi or another government "muckiddy-muck". Otherwise, I think not. Most of us can look forward to declining standard of living and being told what you can buy and how you can use it.
softaire 27-Jun-09, 11:27	Interesting Quote... "We cannot expect the Americans to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of Socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism." Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959
chessnovice 27-Jun-09, 11:35	... Maybe I'm wrong, but this cap and trade bill looks a lot like another form of tax to me. And not really one of those "top 2%" taxes Obama was pitching...
captaingoodvibes 28-Jun-09, 02:46	I expect as always the devil is inthe detail. That said do any americans seriously still believe that they SHOULD be putting new resource into developing high carbon energy options???
softaire 28-Jun-09, 06:11	Mark I don't think that there are many, if any, who think that developing pollution-high energy sources is the way to go; however, a great many do see using what we have, temporarily, while we develop new alternative energy sources, is the way to go. For example, we have some of the safest nuclear plants and highest standards in the world and it is NON-polluting... yet it is impossible to get permission to build a new plant. And, if they could get permission, it would be enormously expensive. It is well and good to say we mandate electric cars (to remove pollutants from the air) but to get the electricity to run the cars you need to burn coal or oil these says. More electricity being used by cars means more electricity generated by plants burning coal or oil. That means less coal and oil for winter home heating. We could be generating a huge amount of solar electricity by building a solar farm in the desert here in Southern California, but it was recently not approved... because it was going to be built by non-union workers. (apparently, some politicians would rather reward the labor unions than think in terms of what is best for the country). We could be generating a lot of wind-power electricity with wind-mills scattered about the desert and mountains to the east of L.A. but getting the permission from the land holders in between has been a problem, building access to the remote areas is a problem, and transmission from the remote areas remain problems not likely to be solved for many years. The single best idea, I see, so far is to cover all roofs in the Southern California area with solar power cells but, so far, the best the politicians can do is offer tax incentives. Most people still feel that they can not afford the cost. Therefore, that is why politicians are making the cost of energy rise... so that soon it will be cheaper for everybody to put solar panels on their roofs rather than to pay the electric company, although this will reduce every bodies net income and reduce the standard of living. I will be 90% OFF the grid next month when my solar calls are installed on my roof. The break-even point for me, right now, is 7 years but as electricity costs rise, that will go down.
anomalocaris 28-Jun-09, 09:08	everything they have done so far hurts the middle class. I for one can NOT afford to make any of these changes. I will be living below the poverty level.
illinawek 28-Jun-09, 13:44	I consider myself to be a supporter of Obama, but I am against "cap and trade." I think it is a big mistake. It has nothing to do with the "environment." Its just another taxing scheme. Only Al Gore is stupid enough to believe that the World's carbon based energy consumption is going to be affected by a stupid US law. All this is going to do is kick middle class people in the pants. The rich are going to buy offsets and keep consuming as much energy as they want. The middle class won't be able to afford the offsets and they are the ones who are going to asked to sacrifice for the good of the planet. All the jobs are going to go to countries where they are smart enough to not listen to Al Gore, but World energy consumption is not going down, not ever. Its an upward trend and it will continue to be. I'm afraid the planet is still doomed, but this will make sure we in the USA are miserable while it is happening.
thumper 29-Jun-09, 11:29	>OBAMA ADMIN PROMOTES FAKE "SCIENCE" -- REST OF WORLD LAUGHS - WSJ: The Climate Change Climate Change The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.<
captaingoodvibes 29-Jun-09, 14:24	Oh come on Thumper. If you are going to post this drivel at least cite the source. I'd love to read the peer reviewed material that flies in the face of current scientific near consensus.
thumper 29-Jun-09, 20:27	Oops... On second thought, what do you care if I cite a dozen sources Mark? It doesn't matter. You've already decided that anything contradictory to the claim of man made global warming is 'drivel'. I'm surprised you haven't criticized the sentence structure or punctuation. I guess there's still time... Let me throw this out; What if man made global warming is true? What if it's no accident, that it's being done on purpose? Would all the models you hold so dear still fit? Yes? Hmmm. That changes the flavor of everything that's being done doesn't it? Oh, don't mind me. I'm just thinking outside the box. Far be it from me to claim to be a 'free thinker' though.
chessnovice 29-Jun-09, 22:39	... Submitted for Jeff's approval as a fair article for markallen... ;o www.telegraph.co.uk Peer reviewing can unfortunately on the peers doing the reviewing, sometimes. I'm ambivalent mostly about the global warming argument, but even suggesting that the pseudoscience used to argue it is anywhere near a consensus is disappointing. It's actually a disturbing thing watching anyone say the "Everyone agrees, don't question science" stuff because Gore said so.
qiwi 30-Jun-09, 03:31	I seriously doubt that the millions of people around the world are who are concerned about the ramifications of global warming are concerned because "Gore said so"...... I also believe that it is no coincidence that the great majority of sceptics are conservatives and american.... I wonder whether their opinion would be different if "Dick Cheney said so."
captaingoodvibes 30-Jun-09, 04:31	Here's a citation that might help. Chess with respect i believe you're not paying attention to the debate but dont have time to do an extensive googly for you right now. data.giss.nasa.gov I guess thumpers uncited article is technically correct though perhaps a study of statistics 101 might help to arrive at inferences that move beyond the silly obstructionist nonsense that only seems emanate from right wing US sources these days as qiwi correctly points out. Beyond the issue of temperature there's the issue of ocean acidification arising from the same carbon/co2 story that the "life as usual" crowd including jdh have conveniently ignored addressing when i raise it.
anomalocaris 30-Jun-09, 04:51	So what are we talking about now, ocean acidification? Qiwi skeptics? I would say yes I am a skeptic. I actually believe in global warming tho, and I believe in global cooling. I also believe that the temperature of a planet is beyond our control. I struggle to keep my house cool in the summer and warm in the winter. To think we have that much of an impact on the temperature of the earth is arrogant. I do think we should all try and limit things that could potentially harm the environment but I definitely feel taking this on as a political cause is going overboard. Being skeptical is much better than just believing what your told.
softaire 30-Jun-09, 13:13	EPA Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming I have posted this in two topics as it seems to apply to each. CBS news says that the EPA may have suppressed a report critical of Global Warming. What do you think? www.cbsnews.com
illinawek 30-Jun-09, 14:01	I never thought that this has anything to do with global warming. This is another try at Bill Clinton's proposed BTU tax with a new name. That Global Warming B.S. is how they get stupid people to agree to the new tax.
anomalocaris 30-Jun-09, 15:08	ILL I am agreeing with you more lately.
chessnovice 30-Jun-09, 23:24	Now that Franken sealed the 60 seat majority, we can expect more expeditious BS like this from the Senate. Oh happy day...
chaz- 01-Jul-09, 06:35	On the other hand ... ... shifting attention from armed conflict elsewhere in the World to environmental debate here at home does have SOME merit, doesn't it?
anomalocaris 01-Jul-09, 13:09	Chaz If it were a debate it would be different. We will be paying a tax based on a liberal belief system. Global warming DOES NOT exist. At least not in the sense the libs want us to believe. The planet warms up, the planet cools down. An apparently natural cycle. I am curious how the ice ages started and then ended without the help of man? This clean energy bill will tax everything outside their belief system. I don't want to pay taxes on cow farts.
captaingoodvibes 01-Jul-09, 14:55	....or the integovernmental panel on climate change it seems.... www.ipcc.ch stinky has spoken. Nothing to worry about folks......
anomalocaris 01-Jul-09, 15:30	hey Mark, nice of you to worry about my taxes. Perhaps since you feel so sure about this you could pay them.
anomalocaris 01-Jul-09, 15:42	Mark since you just sent a link to a site that didnt really answer anything I looked them up, here is some useful information that I found. "The IPCC does not carry out research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena." They basically listen to other scientist just like we do. They are by no means an authority on anything as far as I can tell. Was there something in particular on that site I was supossed to see or look at? Its a big site so maybe I missed something.
captaingoodvibes 02-Jul-09, 05:09	stinky this should give a good and impartial view of who the panel are and their terms of reference and cridibility. thats right , just like you.... en.wikipedia.org \ re your taxes...thanks for the offer but im having enough problems with my own
anomalocaris 02-Jul-09, 15:36	Mark I like wikipedia too. Here is an interesting article about the ice ages. It's weird that there were at least 4 ice ages they know of (some say 5). I was wondering if you could make any sense of an earth that cooled off enough to go through four ice ages and then warmed up enough on its on to end these ice ages without man to help. One part of the article states that during the ice free periods it is thought that even at high altitudes there was no ice. That sounds pretty darn warm. en.wikipedia.org

GameKnot: play chess online, free online chess games database, Internet chess league, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, chess clubs, online chess puzzles and more.