Climate change will make some tropical regions wetter – then dry them out

Jul 31, 2014
Credit: Kozumel

Some parts of South America are projected to get wetter this century due to climate change, but then dry out again after 2100 as patterns of rainfall shift southwards – according to research involving the University of East Anglia

The findings show that climate change could affect certain regions in profoundly different ways as time progresses.

The research, led by the University of Reading, found that certain regions in South America will get considerably wetter as the 21st century progresses, as the effect of global warming pushes a tropical zone of heavy rain south, towards the equator. This is expected to give northwestern South America, including parts of Venezuela and Columbia, 20-50 per cent more summer rain on average than it currently gets.

But the zone of heavy rain is likely to continue moving south, leaving behind a drier zone after about 100 years. Indeed some model projections suggest that certain regions might get less rain than now. Average temperatures, on the other hand, are expected to get hotter, with serious implications for people in the region, as well as plant and animal life.

This 'wetter, then drier' pattern is likely to present a considerable challenge to planners, farmers, and ecosystems, which may have to deal with a climate shifting in two different directions over time.

Dr Hawkins, from the National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS) at the University of Reading's Department of Meteorology, was lead author of the research, published today in the journal Nature Climate Change. He said: "This band of heavier rain will move in a similar way to a weather front – but instead of taking a few hours to pass over, it will take about 100 years."

Co-author Dr Manoj Joshi, from UEA's School of Environmental Sciences, said: "A commonly stated consequence of climate change is that most wet areas will get wetter, while most dry areas will get drier. But as scientists learn more about climate change at regional levels, and over longer timescales, we are finding that the picture is more complicated: the more the world warms, the more the potential there is for surprising changes, with serious consequences for both people and the fragile natural ecosystems that exist in this region."

Dr Hawkins added: "Our findings relate to one region, but the underlying message is likely to be relevant elsewhere in the world. The climate is changing but some regions should not just expect one-way traffic - the climate could be moving from one big change to another as time passes.

"Governments are faced with serious long-term decisions about how to adapt to climate change. For example, should they invest in more flood protection if the climate is going to get wetter? Or do they need to invest in bigger reservoirs, desalination plants or water conservation measures if it is going to get drier? Such projects can cost billions, and governments want to know their money is being invested wisely in the long-term."

Prof David Frame from Victoria University of Wellington, one of the study's co-authors, added: "Generally, economic models of assume quite simple and constant relationships between rainfall and temperature. This research demonstrates the limits of these assumptions."

'Wetter then drier in some tropical areas' is published in Nature Climate Change on July 30.

Explore further: Study finds Europe's habitat and wildlife is vulnerable to climate change

More information: "Wetter then drier in some tropical areas." Ed Hawkins, Manoj Joshi, Dave Frame. Nature Climate Change 4, 646–647 (2014) DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2299. Published online 30 July 2014

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Scientists make strides in tsunami warning since 2004

22 hours ago

The 2004 tsunami led to greater global cooperation and improved techniques for detecting waves that could reach faraway shores, even though scientists still cannot predict when an earthquake will strike.

Trade winds ventilate the tropical oceans

23 hours ago

Long-term observations indicate that the oxygen minimum zones in the tropical oceans have expanded in recent decades. The reason is still unknown. Now scientists at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research ...

User comments : 109

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TegiriNenashi
1.4 / 5 (18) Jul 31, 2014
PBS runs a series "Australia's First 4 Billion Years". They claim there were periods in earth history when CO2 levels were much higher, temperatures were so high that ice caps didn't exist, and the climate was wetter than today. The author should contact them, as apparently they didn't get the memo (about dry spells).
jonekat
1.8 / 5 (19) Jul 31, 2014
Is there anything global warming can't do? http://www.americ...warming/
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (15) Jul 31, 2014
They claim there were periods in earth history when CO2 levels were much higher, temperatures were so high that ice caps didn't exist

Neither did humans. What's your point?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (16) Jul 31, 2014
Utah and Nevada used to be covered by a large sea.
Now it's not.
Climates change.
TegiriNenashi
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 31, 2014
Neither did humans.


Did I get wrong impression that your side cares more about lush vegetation than humans?

What's your point?


They [PBS] didn't get the memo.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 31, 2014
Yep, exactly like when they said snow will disappear.
howhot2
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2014
"Governments are faced with serious long-term decisions about how to adapt to climate change. For example, should they invest in more flood protection if the climate is going to get wetter? Or do they need to invest in bigger reservoirs, desalination plants or water conservation measures if it is going to get drier? Such projects can cost billions, and governments want to know their money is being invested wisely in the long-term."


You have to plan what infrastructure will be like in response to this massive global warming disaster! I would add in; Planning new taxes and applying deep fines against polluters helps immediately stop the problem.
24volts
3.1 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2014
Utah and Nevada used to be covered by a large sea.
Now it's not.
Climates change.


If the ice melts at the poles like they think it's going to, Utah and Nevada might very well have that large sea again down the road a bit.
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Aug 01, 2014
Yep, exactly like when they said snow will disappear.


Decades in the future - in many places, yes. Which is why I'm on here. My minuscule contribution to countering denialist idiots. As evidence by the above ignorant statement.
I like snow.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 01, 2014
Yep runrig, we all know you like snow so much, you ate the yellow one.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2014
Yep runrig, we all know you like snow so much, you ate the yellow one.

Not big and not clever Anti - but I'll roll with it as though coming from a naughty child...

Actually I make the yellow bits when skiing. Always did have a weak bladder, and you know, old age and that, things don't get any better.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 01, 2014
Utah and Nevada used to be covered by a large sea.
Now it's not.
Climates change.


If the ice melts at the poles like they think it's going to, Utah and Nevada might very well have that large sea again down the road a bit.

Climates change.
Adapt or die.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2014
Utah and Nevada used to be covered by a large sea.
Now it's not.
Climates change.


If the ice melts at the poles like they think it's going to, Utah and Nevada might very well have that large sea again down the road a bit.

Climates change.
Adapt or die.

Mr ryggy:
In olden times this was of course necessary. We did not have the knowledge that science has uncovered this last ~150years to enable mankind to live as we now do...with the infrastructure, population and integrated complexity.
So, Mr ryggy requires us to forget all that and time-warp back those years to behave as primitive cave-dwellers or tribal/feudal societies and just ... let it happen. Keep burning fossils because - I wont have my "tax dollars f**cked with by socialists.
The selfish c**t.
"Adapt" when applied to modern man involves the use of the grey matter we have evolved in the intervening centuries - and mr ryggy's one cell does not comprehend. FFS squared.
KDK
1 / 5 (11) Aug 01, 2014
AGW is not merely a farce, it is the greatest hoax and con ever perpetrated on humankind, as Climategate validates and Agenda 21 explains--unless you are referring to global COOLING via Solar Cycle 24 and/or the Milankovitch ice-age cycles, as this is indeed a very real threat!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 01, 2014
n olden times this was of course necessary.

It is still necessary.
We did not have the knowledge

'We' still don't have the knowledge to control climate, therefore, adapt or die.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2014
AGW is not merely a farce, it is the greatest hoax and con ever perpetrated on humankind, as Climategate validates and Agenda 21 explains
@kdk
so, you actually think it is easier to believe that a global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists from different countries who can't even get along or agree about small things like living space, freedoms and the right to a different religion that is not state sponsored... these people from vastly different cultures somehow came together WORLDWIDE to form a conspiracy SO TIGHT KNIT that there is no way to refute it ...rather than believe the overwhelming scientific evidence?

this is more believable to you than the overwhelming amount of empirical data in the scientific reports/publications/peer reviewed papers over the last few decades?

really?

WOW...

if you are representative of a large group of people then humans have their work cut out for them in the future...
Ever considered trying for a Darwin award?
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 02, 2014
n olden times this was of course necessary.

It is still necessary.
We did not have the knowledge

'We' still don't have the knowledge to control climate, therefore, adapt or die.

ryggy:
You are by far and away the most ridiculously, deliberately obtuse person (evidenced on here anyway).
It is only necessary up to a degree. We don't have to sit back and do the "Allah wills it" bit.
We have things that can be done. Should be done.
So your philosophy is to travel through life, and worse, actively campaign for others too ... to just continue to *do* whatever an individual (and therefore by cororally) big corporations -anything/everything unhindered? without regard to things mankind has learnt, and I may say, against what is blindingly obviously wrong to a sentient being.
Not on my planet sunshine.
Oh - we do not have to "control climate". Where did you conjure that up from?
Stopping pouring CO2 into the air is not controlling. Just sensible change of behaviour.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Aug 02, 2014
Ever considered trying for a Darwin award?


LOL Capt...
I've considered using this with some on here - it does make sense in evolutionary terms.
Seems we *stopped* evolving some time back, or at least the recessionary gene is stubbornly stuck in a portion of the population.
This place brings that home I'm afraid.
I blame the 'elf 'n safety culture myself.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Aug 02, 2014
Just sensible change of behaviour.

Why?
CO2 was not involved in the MWP or any other previous warm period or previous ice ages.
CO2 levels are now rising, temperatures are not.
THE CLIMATE MODEL has been falsified.
Dr_toad
Aug 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 02, 2014
"Model overestimation of warming is significant whether or not we account for a level shift, although null rejections are much stronger when the level shift is included."
http://onlinelibr...abstract
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 02, 2014
"IPCC conceded in the Government Draft that there has been a 15-year "hiatus" (their term) in temperature increase, but assert that "individual decades" of hiatus are also "exhibited" in climate models, during which time the "energy budget is balanced" by energy uptake in the deep ocean: "
"However, pointing to the deep ocean doesn't actually resolve the discrepancy between models and observations, since, as Hans von Storch recently observed, climate models did not include this effect."
"The suddenly-fashionable attribution of the present hiatus to unmodeled energy accumulation in the deep ocean also invites questions about the earlier hiatus, which the climate "community" conventionally attributes to aerosols. There is no independent record of historical aerosol levels,"
http://climateaud...idnight/
antigoracle
1 / 5 (11) Aug 02, 2014
Oh, the doom and gloom prophesies of the AGW Cult. I'm surprised they failed to mention the plagues of frogs and locusts that will come with the floods and droughts.
KDK
1 / 5 (10) Aug 02, 2014
@Capt. Stumpy,

Just like these guys:

4th. Of July Reflection: More Than 1000 International Scientists Call Man-Made Global Warming A Fraud – Challenge NWO Operatives ~ UN IPCC & Gore

ReduceGHGs
5 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2014
The climate change "hoax" is what some of the vested fossil interests have perpetrated on many gullible Americans. Human-caused climate change is a fact and the consequences are not good. This is well-established science. Just research what ANY of the respected scientific institutions have said about it. There's no reasonable doubt. Our future generations will suffer from our neglect if we don't change our ways.

So more of us need to do something about it. If we can get more of the obstructionists out of Congress meaningful emission-reducing legislation can become law. Please join the efforts.

ExhaustingHabitability(dot)org
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2014
ReduceGHGs
Welcome....

You will find that this is very apt for here.....

"There's no reasonable doubt."
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2014
ReduceGHGs
Welcome....

You will find that this is very apt for here.....

"There's no reasonable doubt."

It's interesting you use legal jargon, not science jargon.
But it's understandable as the science is THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL which is being falsified.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2014
Planning new taxes and applying deep fines against polluters helps immediately stop the problem.
It's more expedient to scream like a baby and blame Russia for everything
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2014
Just like these guys:
4th. Of July Reflection: More Than 1000 International Scientists...
@kdk
this is actually funny... lets look at this logically:
IF they were SCIENTISTS &
IF the had ISSUE with the SCIENCE &
IF they think global warming is a "fraud" THEN
WHY AREN'T THEY ABLE TO PROVE IT?
WHY ARE THERE NO STUDIES PROVING IT?
WHY ARE THEY NOT PUBLISHING PAPERS REFUTING IT?

when you consider the REALITY of the situation, you can see the logic. There was ONE paper here already that said the same as you regarding "scientists" thinking this a hoax... turns out, the "scientists" were anyone in a scientific sounding field/job (like IT or Lab tech)
SHOW ME THE PAPER and the NAMES... lets see WHO the "scientists" really are!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2014
The climate change "hoax" is what some of the vested fossil interests have perpetrated on many gullible Americans
@ReduceGHGs
It may not be as simple as this, either. I recently read an article that made some sense regarding the way people "vote" or support issues.
here is the link: http://arstechnic...nformed/

it appears people are willing to IGNORE the empirical data in order to "vote" or "support" their cultural identity or peers
public opinion on these topics is fundamentally tied to cultural identities rather than assessment of scientific evidence. In other words, rather than evaluate the science, people form opinions based on what they think people with a similar background believe
[sic] the above quote from the paper is profound and shocking IMHO

It also explains a lot: from cults and religions to the deniers above. it is also STUNNING from anyone on a science site (to me, anyway)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2014
it appears people are willing to IGNORE the empirical data

That's how Obama and his fellow socialists get elected.
Empirical data shows the failures of socialism yet many who claim to support science support socialism.
Many who post here.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2014
it appears people are willing to IGNORE the empirical data

That's how Obama and his fellow socialists get elected.
Empirical data shows the failures of socialism yet many who claim to support science support socialism.
Many who post here.


I've had a good life while working my ass off in a capitalist system and gladly supporting a social safety net. That makes me a socialist?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2014
gladly supporting a social safety net. That makes me a socialist?

Did you have a choice to support a social safety net or did the Regulatory State plunder your wealth to redistribute to those they thought more deserving of your wealth?
If you support the Regulatory State and its state control of private property, you are a socialist.
The Road to Serfdom was written for socialists of all parties.
supamark23
5 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2014
Utah and Nevada used to be covered by a large sea.
Now it's not.
Climates change.


@ryggeswatever - That's not climate, it's geology and plate techtonics fuckstain. Protip - you're an idiot, stop proving it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2014
yet many who claim to support science support socialism. Many who post here.
@rygtard
this is called PERSONAL CONJECTURE and is unsupported by the evidence

YOU ASSUME this because you WANT TO BELIEVE that anyone who argues against YOU is a socialist. you are WRONG. your argument FAILS on many levels, and there is NO LOGIC to it. it is also more targeting COMMUNIST. There are plenty of DEMOCRATIC gov't that have socialist medicine that are not socialist states. Our own gov't has socialist programs but that does not mean that we are a socialist gov't, state, or land.

a member of the paraphyletic group of organisms that consist of all gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits being utilised for battery in cultural art that generally involves movement of the body, often rhythmic and to music: https://www.youtu...Qp-q1Y1s

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2014
Geology and plate tectonics don't change climates?

Our own gov't has socialist programs but that does not mean that we are a socialist gov't,

Of course it is. The ball started rolling under Lincoln and was significantly advanced by Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, ....Socialism is as socialism does, state control of private property.

Do you fear your govt or does your govt fear you?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 04, 2014
"Scientists always thought tectonic movements affect climate because it creates new mountains and trenches in the sea. The opposite is is also true."
http://www.smartp...ovement/

"The horizontal and vertical displacements associated with plate tectonics play a fundamental role in climate change over a wide range of timescales. The solid-earth surface is in direct contact with the atmosphere and oceans and its evolving character affects balances of incoming and outgoing radiation, atmospheric circulation, ocean currents, and the location of elevated terrain suitable for glaciers and ice sheets. Tectonic processes also have important indirect climatic effects through their control on geochemical cycling and the composition of the atmosphere and ocean."
http://www.spring...452.html
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2014
Socialism is as socialism does, state control of private property
@rygtard
the gov't does NOT control MY property...
Do you fear your govt or does your govt fear you?
my gov't fears me. After all, I am classified as a potential domestic terrorist by homeland security (even though they apologized for it...)

YOU are delusional... and the only threat YOU pose is to yourself, ryg.
just because there are socialist style programs does not mean a country is socialist... just like having a VOTE doesn't mean a country is democratic! (Russians during the cold war could vote, but does that mean cold war russia was a democratic state? NO... just like having Social Security, or social medicine doesn't mean a gov't and a people are socialist, ya moron! see Germany, Britain, US, Canada, Australia and MORE for proof... although you will likely state that they are all socialist because you are living in a delusion of your own making)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2014
the gov't does NOT control MY property...

Of course it does.
And you call me delusional!
What does the Dept of the Interior do? Control your property.
Same for the Dept. of Ag, HUD, ....HHS, .....
having Social Security, or social medicine doesn't mean a gov't and a people are socialist,

Yes, it does.
You don't own your wealth. The state plunders your wealth to redistribute to others.
24volts
1.4 / 5 (5) Aug 04, 2014
Captain Stumpy, ryggsogn2 does have a valid point about owning your property. Can you build on the property without a permit, dig a well without a permit?, put in a driveway without a permit, cut down trees without a permit? Or even put a new roof on the house or replace plumbing without a permit? Try not paying your property taxes for a couple of years. You will find out who REALLY owns your property and guess what? It isn't you. You no more own it than lords in England owned their property. It's all owned by the king or in your case the Government. All that title does is give you the right to buy it and sell it and even then you have to pay taxes on the money it sells for. It doesn't even give you the right to live on it in some places. It's not right but it is reality.
supamark23
5 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2014
Captain Stumpy, ryggsogn2 does have a valid point about owning your property. Can you build on the property without a permit, dig a well without a permit?, put in a driveway without a permit, cut down trees without a permit? Or even put a new roof on the house or replace plumbing without a permit? Try not paying your property taxes for a couple of years. You will find out who REALLY owns your property and guess what? It isn't you. You no more own it than lords in England owned their property. It's all owned by the king or in your case the Government.


Sorry, but the name on the land deed is the person who owns it. All that permitting stuff? Because you have to protect the property rights of *everyone* from everyone else and to make sure what you do doesn't screw over your neighbors. Put a bad roof on your house, it's liable to fly off into your neighbor's house during high winds for example. Dig a well without checking for what's already buried? that'd be dumb.
Vietvet
4.8 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2014
@24volts
As someone who had a career in the construction industry I can speak to the necessity of the permitting process. Too often I had to rectify the work done without permits, work that cheated customers and work done by homeowners that endangered themselves and their neighbors.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 04, 2014
Sorry, but the name on the land deed is the person who owns it.

If you own it, you can destroy it.

necessity of the permitting process.

Yes, it controls your competition which is why local contractors become so involved with local govts.

Dig a well without checking for what's already buried? that'd be dumb.

Yes, it would be dumb. But if you OWN the property, why don't you know what is buried on it?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Aug 04, 2014
"Zoning often requires a minimum square footage for a home. Many places want a type of exterior. Some specify a specific look, such as colonial, ranch, Spanish, etc.

Others areas may want certain construction features: a roof of hand-split shakes or a roof of fire-retardant materials. A few may even tell you what the pitch of the roof must be. One Utah city, that we have been working with, will not allow a house that doesn't have a three-twelve pitch. Well, a dome house has a tiny little spot that is flat, so you won't be able to build in that city – kind of dumb, but it's a zoning law they passed."
"Monolithic Domes meet or surpass any building code in the United States. If the code has to do with strength, fire or safety, no other type of structure can beat the Monolithic Dome. It is tornado- and earthquake-safe.

But it looks different. "
http://www.monoli...-permits
If you can't build this on 'your' property, you don't own the property.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2014
Empirical data:
"What is the best way to reduce a government's budget deficit?

A new working paper by European Central Bank economist Maria Grazia Attinasi and International Monetary Fund economist Alexander Klemm once again confirms what we've long argued: when it comes to preserving the prospects for economic growth, cutting government spending is a much more effective way to go about reducing a government's budget deficit than is increasing taxes.

Attinasi and Klemm came to that conclusion after reviewing the impact of discretionary fiscal policy on the economic growth of 18 countries in the European Union over the years from 1998 through 2011, finding that "expenditure-based adjustments" (spending cuts) are much less harmful to economic growth than "revenue-based adjustments" (tax hikes). "
http://www.mygovc...g-taxes/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2014
"What's more interesting is that they found that most of the negative impact of government spending cuts in the short term has to do with cuts to programs that involve investments in things like public infrastructure. Other types of government spending cuts, such as cuts in government subsidies that support consumption and the compensation of public employees, turned out to have no statistically significant impact upon economic growth.

What that means is that these two things, government subsidies and public employee compensation, are the first two things that should be cut when reducing a government's budget deficit is necessary, because they are nearly free of pain where the nation's economy and economic growth prospects are concerned."
http://www.mygovc...g-taxes/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2014
a valid point about owning your property. Can you build on the property ...dig a well ... put in a driveway ... cut down trees ... Or even put a new roof on the house or replace plumbing without a permit?
@24volts
Yes, I can, I did, and I do.- No permits required
...so, No, rygtard does NOT have a point unless he is discussing this with a city boy.

I live in a VERY rural area, and there wasn't even POWER to within 7 miles of me until 5 years ago when my next door neighbor got it (he lives a mile or so down the road)
Try not paying your property taxes for a couple of years. You will find out who REALLY owns your property
I don't pay any taxes at all. haven't paid in over a decade. I don't make enough on the VA disability to pay taxes and as for personal property taxes- I am exempt... one of the FEW benefits to being a disabled vet with the experience I have had.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2014
I live in a VERY rural area

Try changing the water shed or, God help you, if the feds find an endangered species like a black footed ferret.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2014
I live in a VERY rural area

Try changing the water shed or, God help you, if the feds find an endangered species like a black footed ferret.
built a dam & pond to have a water supply (not potable for me). worked great for livestock/food/hunting
Have several protected species here that technically don't exist per the forest service, Game and Fish (Mountain Lion is one. illegal to kill here. they will tell you we have none here, but they just released 7 into my area three years ago, less than a mile from my house)
protected owls here too

I can do as I please and I have done as I please... would you like to visit?

It makes the wolves mad... they don't like intruders, but it would be a good learning experience for you to get out and see the REAL world, and not just mom's basement.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2014
I can do as I please and I have done as I please.


they just released 7 into my area

So can the govt.
Did the govt get your permission to release 7 mountain lions on 'your' property?

And, of course, anything strays on 'your' land you can kill and grill, without any worries from any govt agent.
Where do you live?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2014
Did the govt get your permission to release 7 mountain lions on 'your' property?
@rygtard
are you stupid or can you not read properly? they didn't release them onto my PROPERTY, just the area where i live... and given that there are only about 7 people in this stretch of land that is about 1500 sq miles, I don't see the problem with it... it is all wilderness and they were released into a wilderness site.
I just happen to live in it. so what?
Where do you live?
in the middle of nowhere with only a few people around
without any worries from any govt agent
pretty much. no one comes up here. even the poachers are afraid to be out here alone.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2014
I just happen to live in it. so what?

Anything that strays on your property is yours to kill and grill?
BTW, a 'wilderness site' is usually govt property.
How do you like the rest of the country paying for your view?
Ain't socialism grand!
ItsThatGuy
5 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2014
Yes, it actually really is grand, mostly because this socialism that you seem to deplore is directly responsible for nearly every aspect of american life. You like roads? socialism. you like sewage treatment? socialism. You like having water, much less water fit to drink, piped right to your home, socialism. computers? socialism. Internet? Socialism. Currency? socialism. Vaccines? Socialism. Huge decrease in poverty rates? socialism. High literacy rates? Socialism.

You can thank capitalism for making health care all but unaffordable, your internet costing you more with worse service than European countries, and people working full-time but still needing to choose between eating or rent.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2014
You like roads? socialism.

Not socialism. We pay users fees and tolls.

All your 'socialist' examples are not socialism.
Socialism is govt control of private property.

You like having water, much less water fit to drink, piped right to your home,

Ask the residents of Toledo.
You can thank capitalism for making health care all but unaffordable,

What capitalism? There has been no capitalism in health care for decades in the US.
In places were capitalism has been applied to health care, the costs are low and care is high.
Huge decrease in poverty rates?

The poverty rate is the same or worse since the socialist's War on Poverty began in the 60s.
howhot2
5 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2014
Socialism is govt control of private property.

Interesting definition there @R2. So then, what country exists that isn't socialist then? Take your answer list and compare it to the poorest countries in the world. Correlation? Your so so full of it my friend; you really need to be de-programmed from your brainwashing.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
You like having water, much less water fit to drink, piped right to your home, socialism.

Socialism has worked very well to keep California supplied with water. Two major dams on the Colorado River can't keep California supplied with water.
Socialism is doing great for Detroit that cut off water.
what country exists that isn't socialist then

None.
But there are a few that recognize the key idea that the prime function of the state is to protect private property and not to redistribute wealth and acquire power.
Here is one example for govts to follow:
"Apart from its policemen and firemen—which, under Georgia's constitution, must be public workers—Sandy Springs has only seven full-time employees: a city clerk, a court clerk, a finance director and four people who work in the city manager's office. "
http://www.econom...21559633
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
ou like sewage treatment? socialism.

All that plunder wealth (socialism) is not working out very well in Ghana:
"Despite a series of infrastructure projects backed by foreign donors, Accra doesn't have a working sewer system, leaving most of its citizens to choose between communal latrines or defecating on open ground. That's contaminating the city's groundwater, according to the World Bank, and almost 700 people have contracted cholera since June. The failure to maintain existing treatment plants has rendered them unusable, while a lack of political will means there's little prospect of any immediate improvement."
http://news.myjoy...ings.php
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
Take your answer list and compare it to the poorest countries in the world.

Compare what the most economic free and prosperous nations are doing.
Dig into the data at the Index for Economic Freedom and you will find common, key features that enable their success.
And none of them involve govt control of private property.
Mayor__Dooley
5 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2014
Rygg, offering you intelligent discussion is like handing a chimp some cutlery.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
Socialism has worked very well to keep California supplied with water.

This is sarcasm.
Lakes Meade and Powell on the Colordao River, built and owned by the federal govt were supposed to water the California deserts.
Why have they failed?
Nature has a role, but more importantly water was priced to its users at the cost to supply it.
Soviet Union collapsed because they couldn't plan production of anything without the cost/price feedback.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2014
BTW, a 'wilderness site' is usually govt property.
@ryg
so that is supposed to preclude people owning property in or around it? sorry illiterate boy... I OWN my property and it is surrounded by wilderness area AND some gov't owned land that is protected. SO WHAT?
Anything that strays on your property is yours to kill and grill?
only when I need groceries
How do you like the rest of the country paying for your view?
you live in a city and ASSUME that the city rules apply everywhere. They DON'T!
Usually, in county (not in incorporated or sities) the rules are totally different. Try living there sometimes and stop posting about a subject which you have NO KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER... like owning property in the country and the military
Ain't socialism grand!
ONLY TO YOU!
Not socialism. We pay users fees and tolls.
you pay taxes for SS too... and you pay for medical too... same thing dork boy
and you have NO CONTROL over the roads, only the gov't does
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2014
All your 'socialist' examples are not socialism.
Socialism is govt control of private property
@ryg
like emminent domain? https://en.wikipe...t_domain
isn't that technically "socialism" per your own definition?
you really should STOP while you are behind and looking like a total moron!
you know NOTHING about the world other than what is directly around you, and I am NOT SO SURE about that either, considering your posts to date. You should have your doc adjust your meds!

the socialism that you are arguing about is radical, and usually called COMMUNISM. perhaps you should learn the differences before you open your mouth and look even stupider
2. In socialism, the resources of the economy are managed and controlled by the people themselves through communes or councils while in communism, management and control rest on a few people in a single authoritarian party
http://www.differ...unism-2/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
Socialism in the US:
"Federal rules cost America an estimated $1.86 trillion per year, calculated the Competitive Enterprise Institute. At Koch Industries, we've seen how punitive permitting for large projects creates years of delay, increasing uncertainty and cost. Sometimes projects are canceled and jobs with them. Meanwhile, 30% of U.S. employees need government licenses to work. We need a system that rewards those who create real value, not impedes them."
"Government policies such as Obamacare have given businesses a powerful incentive to hire two part-time people to do one full-time job. This trend was reflected in June's employment data, which included the loss of half a million full-time jobs."
"we need greater incentives to work. Costly programs, such as paying able-bodied people not to work, are addictive disincentives."
http://www.usatod...3643229/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2014
And none of them involve govt control of private property
@rygtardo-the-delusional
this is called COMMUNISM
Socialism is govt control of private property
this is ALSO CALLED COMMUNISM
In socialism, the means of production and distribution of wealth are increasingly owned by the community as a whole. The government steers the economy rather than stepping back and letting markets largely regulate themselves

https://answers.y...4AAID9ZN
In communism, all property is held in common, and you'll tend to end up with a single authoritarian government without political parties, without government turnover, etc. Private ownership is essentially abolished, as are social classes
and now you know why everyone treats you like an idiot TROLL. You've been shown this before (BY ME) and you STILL ignore it = stupid!
your argument to date has been against COMMUNISM, not socialism.

you should try google once in a while

and stop being stupid
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
wilderness area

Who owns the 'wilderness area'?
Why does the govt own 'protected' land?
Why does the federal govt own most of AZ, NM, NV, UT, ...?
Govt ownership...means of production. And you say the US is not a socialist state?
this is ALSO CALLED COMMUNISM

Socialism is state control of private property. See Socialism by von Mises.
Fascism, communism, corporatism, etc. all varies flavors of socialism as all have the common denominator of the state controlling property. The state can be a republic, a democracy, a dictatorship, a commune, ...it doesn't matter. The state has the monopoly on violence and is socialist if it uses the power to control rather than to protect private property.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2014
Who owns the 'wilderness area'?
@ryg
you are really that stupid? it is "unassigned" and controlled by the gov't
when I BOUGHT my land, that is how it was listed. unassigned. I bought land against a gov't controlled protected area... the rest is considered "unassigned" but managed by the gov't... you should learn the difference
Why does the govt own 'protected' land?
because of idiots like you: read up on the Buffalo river
And you say the US is not a socialist state?
it is not. see above descriptions. and by the way... you still can't comprehend the difference between socialism and communism... and that ALL GOV'T own the "LAND" that is unassigned you moron!

you are only making yourself look worse by posting and showing how uneducated and STUPID you can be... ignoring reality for the sake of a faith/personal belief is called delusional you know
Socialism is state control of private property
see above dork-nut
supamark23
5 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
Poor ryggitard, doesn't understand that in a society you must live with others and take them into account. He seems to believe that anything short of total anarchy is socialism, and that he should be allowed to do *anything* he wants on/to his property regardless of how it affects those living around him. Pretty much a complete narcissist, quite sad really.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2014
live with others and take them into account.

How does a govt that protects private property of every individual NOT take everyone into account?

http://mises.org/...nts.aspx
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
I see no one can answer the question, "How does a govt that protects private property of every individual NOT take everyone into account?"

Most likely because you want a govt that has the power to plunder from those you don't like and possibly give some of that plunder to you.
A govt that has the power to do FOR you has the power to do TO you.
supamark23
5 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
live with others and take them into account.

How does a govt that protects private property of every individual NOT take everyone into account?

http://mises.org/...nts.aspx


Uh, rygg... those protections are the regulations and laws you decry. You can either have the gov't protect your property via the rule of law (and law enforcement), or you can go the anarchy route and protect it yourself.... until a group of people comes along and kills you and takes your property. Those groups get larger over time to better protect and support the group members, and soon you have a gov't (again). You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of why governments exist.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
Uh, rygg... those protections are the regulations and laws you decry. You can either have the gov't protect your property via the rule of law (and law enforcement), or you can go the anarchy route and protect it yourself.... until a group of people comes along and kills you and takes your property
@Supamark
yeah... that is why I ignored him
We've been down this route before... and because you posted that you understand laws and why they exist, he will likely call you a socialist etc like he did me...

just ignore that troll comment.... it only gets worse from here.
Just point out the obvious stupidity and move on... trying to understand what he is saying is like trying to french kiss a shark... SOMEONE is gonna get screwed up, and there is NO REAL REASON to continue
supamark23
5 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
@ Capt. S - yeah, I know but I can't let the disinformation stand... I'm doin' it for the children! ;)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
hose protections are the regulations and laws you decry.

No, they are not.
There is a difference between 'positive' laws and 'negative' laws.
This is a complicated topic for socialists to understand so I will write slowly.

"When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all. "
"But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed — then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. "
The Law, Basiat
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
"It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property. "

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. "
{And the socialists here are acting true to form.}

"It must be admitted that the tendency of the human race toward liberty is largely thwarted, especially in France. This is greatly due to a fatal desire — ...They desire to set themselves above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it according to their fancy. "
The Law, Bastiat
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
"They desire to set themselves above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it according to their fancy. "

Which is what so many attempt to do here by yelling and trying to shout down those who disagree and challenge their beliefs.

Here is just little, silly example of what the Regulatory State and done. The FDA passed a law for the labeling of 'gluten free'.
A company that has been making gluten free products for many years was pleased with this added plunder.
Why must the Federal Govt pass a law and use force on this issue? (This basic how the FDA began. Only it was at the insistence of the 5 big meat packers of the day.)
This is a 'positive' law adding more govt employees and regulation to solve a problem negative laws would handle more quickly and efficiently.
Mislabeled products are fraud. Prosecute the violators for fraud. Gluten free producers could work with NSF to create a gluten free certification just as the organic folks did. (cont)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
Here is one example: GMO project:
http://www.nsf.or...fication

The socialists will likely say what about people too stupid to read or pay attention?

I ask why do you want to perpetuate stupidity?

If people want to to ensure what the buy is what is states on the label, why should they trust the govt?
People who care about gmo or organic or non-gluten, or ...will read the labels and demand some certification for that standard. Companies that refuse to be certified or lie, will loose business. A much swifter punishment than having a bureaucrat coming after.
A bureaucrat that the offending business can lobby and apply pressure via The Law to twist the law in his favor.
The RS gives a false sense of security, too. Bernie Madoff had a reputation and SEC friends. How could Bernie be lying if their was a govt agency regulating his business?
Do you trust USDA Grade A...?
supamark23
5 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
Protip rygge - just because some dead French guy (French!) said it doesn't mean it's true. I think the real problem is that you are both an ideologue and stupid - a bad combination. I mean, Bastait was stupid enough to believe that unregulated markets were a good thing - something the guilded age and great depression put the lie to with finality. If you want to know why the FDA exists, look into "patent medicines" (i.e. snakeoil) and read Sinclair's "The Jungle". Every regulation and regulating body exists because industry and the markets have proven time and again that they cannot be left to regulate themselves.

You would have been on much firmer footing had you quoted an Enlightenment thinker because, you know, that's who our founding fathers were reading when they thought up this crazy experiment called the USA.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
How does this protect everyone's private property?

"If the money spent in America on enforcing and complying with federal regulations was used instead to start a whole new country, this new country would be a major economic player on the world stage. So calculates Clyde Wayne Crews at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in his annual survey of the state of federal regulation, titled "Ten Thousand Commandments.""
" Americans paid a grand total of $1.863 trillion in federal compliance costs for 2013"
http://reason.com...complian
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
Every regulation and regulating body exists because industry and the markets have proven time and again that they cannot be left to regulate themselves.


"Sinclair's fictional characters talk of workers falling into vats and being turned into "Durham's Pure Leaf Lard," which was then sold to the public. This was supposedly made possible by the alleged "corruption of government inspectors.""
"Yes, you see, there were government inspectors, even back in 1905, so does it really make sense that the solution to this supposed food safety problem was . . . government inspectors?"
"The 1906 report of the Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Animal Husbandry refuted the worst of Sinclair's charges point-by-point. The report labeled his claims . . .

* "willful and deliberate misrepresentations of fact"
* "atrocious exaggeration"
* And "not at all characteristic (of the meat packing industry)"

"
http://libertymav...ir/9929/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
"Meanwhile, as Congress went through the time-consuming process of investigating Sinclair's fictions, the free market was regulating the meat packing industry in its own harsh way. Meat sales plummeted.

This led the meat packing industry to lobby Congress for increased regulation!

The industry actually wanted the government to protect them from the consumer backlash by imposing regulations that would restore consumer confidence, even though new regulations were totally unneeded! "
"The result was the passage of the Meat Inspection Act of 1906.

But this was not a triumph for the idea of government regulation. Instead, it was a victory for corporate welfare . ."
"Upton Sinclair himself actually recognized this, and opposed the law! "
http://libertymav...ir/9929/
Sinclair wrote The Jungle to promote socialism.

http://www.fee.or...and-myth
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
"As popular myth would have it, there were no government inspectors before Congress acted in response to The Jungle and the greedy meatpackers fought federal inspection all the way. The truth is that not only did government inspection exist, but meatpackers themselves supported it and were in the forefront of the effort to extend it!"
"In the end, Americans got a new federal meat inspection law. The big packers got the taxpayers to pick up the entire $3 million price tag for its implementation as well as new regulations on their smaller competitors, and another myth entered the annals of anti-market dogma.

To his credit, Upton Sinclair actually opposed the law because he saw it for what it really was-—boon for the big meatpackers.10 Far from a crusading and objective truth-seeker, Sinclair was a fool and a sucker who ended up being used by the very industry he hated."
http://www.fee.or...and-myth
supamark23
5 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
Hey rygge - stop spamming this *SCIENCE* news aggregation site with your political bullshit, nobody comes here to see your 8th grade Ayn Rand fantasies written all over the place. The long and short of it is that you are nothing but a troll trying to push your fringe beliefs on the rest of us. Just go back to Yahoo or breitbart or wherever the fuck you came from and leave the people here interested in *SCIENCE* news to their *SCIENCE*.

Also, Libertarianism is no more or less valid than Marxism - neither work worth a fuck in the real world where a mix of systems is most effective.
24volts
5 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
Captain, if that is how it still is where you live than HANG on to that place.... Not too many places like that still around. If I had the money I would love to move someplace close by there myself.

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2014
Hey rygge - stop spamming this *SCIENCE* news aggregation site with your political bullshit, nobody comes here to see your 8th grade Ayn Rand fantasies written all over the place. The long and short of it is that you are nothing but a troll trying to push your fringe beliefs on the rest of us. Just go back to Yahoo or breitbart or wherever the fuck you came from and leave the people here interested in *SCIENCE* news to their *SCIENCE*.

Also, Libertarianism is no more or less valid than Marxism - neither work worth a fuck in the real world where a mix of systems is most effective.


Supa: This is very well said and summarizes Rygg2 perfectly. I like the idea that you continue to battle with him for the children. Keep up the good fight.

I suggest for the rest of us we just summarize by saying that Rygg2 is a batshit anarchist who spams the pages like a typical troll and just give him the 1s he deserves (he actually deserves zeros but those are not available).
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
" But the best conclusion of all is that this line of thought means that both parties benefit when a voluntary trade is made, or else they wouldn't participate. On a normal day, when I'm unwilling to pay $5.50 for a corn dog, the vendors don't even set up shop. Therefore as I stepped up to the stand and ordered my corn dog, I realized it wasn't a rip-off or exploitation in any way; we both came out better and the world was a better place for it. Rather than being a greedy scalper of cornmeal and mystery meat, the vendor was performing a highly valued service, and I was glad for the experience.

In fact, after I paid and the man handed me my jumbo corn dog, I left a dollar in the tip jar. He smiled and thanked me, and I did the same."
http://www.fee.or...-corndog

he people here interested in *SCIENCE* news to their *SCIENCE*.

Too bad the AGWites chose politics over science.
Data show socialism is not the same as anti-socialism.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2014
Too bad the AGWites chose politics over science
only in YOUR delusional world
I CHOOSE empirical data and science over politics. period
Data show socialism is not the same as anti-socialism
WTF? really? and black is not white either!

I suggest for the rest of us we just summarize by saying that Rygg2 is a batshit anarchist
@Thermo
why not! he doesn't know the MEANING of the words he uses, especially the difference between socialist and communist (he is USUALLY posting against COMMUNISM but calling it socialism... because he is retarded and bat-guano crazy)
if that is how it still is where you live than HANG on to that place.... Not too many places like that still around. If I had the money I would love to move someplace close by there myself
@24Volts
I plan to! I love solitude. I am NOT a people person
There are places like this in MO, WY, AK, AR, OR, WA, that I know of...
AR, WY is the cheapest to live

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2014
I start out making a science based comment:
"Utah and Nevada used to be covered by a large sea.
Now it's not.
Climates change."

Then this: "@ryggeswatever - That's not climate, it's geology and plate techtonics fuckstain. Protip - you're an idiot, stop proving it."

I link to papers describing how plate tectonics change climate.

Then the short one starts ranting about empirical data, but refused to accept empirical data showing the failure of socialism.
So shorty only accepts empirical data he likes. How is this science? I know that's what AGWites, physorg, and the MSM do, ignore data that doesn't support their agenda.
Did you all know a sitting MT senator has admitted to plagiarizing his Master's thesis at the Army War College? He is up for re-election this year and the two top papers in MT say he should step down.
Those who claim to really like science should stop coming to physorg as they only repost the 'science' that fits their agenda.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2014
For the doe eyed:

" In reality, the world of science can be cutthroat and isolating, with little oversight. Stem cell research is certainly not the only research field with a fraud problem, but it has all the right elements to motivate dishonesty: It's a cutting-edge field with the potential to discover treatments for human diseases; it attracts highly competitive people who are all scrambling to make the next big discovery; and that discovery must be made, written, and published before any competitors can catch up."
{sounds like climate science}
http://www.slate....ide.html
supamark23
5 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2014
ryggesogn2 said - "I start out making a science based comment:
"Utah and Nevada used to be covered by a large sea."


A comment that has absolutely nothing to do with the article. Your comment was about as useful as saying, "the Earth used to be a ball of molten lava, then nearly 4 billion years later it was almost entirely covered by ice - hey, climates change!"

You are here strictly because of your politics, then claim the rest of us are bringing politics into it - that Karl Rove shit doesn't work against intelligent people, and just cements our impression of you as a politically driven anti-science troll.
howhot2
5 / 5 (3) Aug 07, 2014
The @R2 says this in his big dodge to spin the debate; "Did you all know a sitting MT senator has admitted to plagiarizing his Master's thesis at the Army War College? He is up for re-election this year and the two top papers in MT say he should step down"
Then the toad bitches about science; "Those who claim to really like science should stop coming to physorg as they only repost the 'science' that fits their agenda."

If your so damned concerned with the plagiarizing issue; your should look into the Jr. Senator from Ky's background. That pussy is known to plagiarize from Wikipedia among others, and he self certified is optometrist license. He's not even a real Dr. He never passed the real board, he created his own certification board, legal but pretty shitty.
Google it. He hasn't done anything for Kentucky and he ranks up there with snapping turtles for the things he's done for (to) Kentucky.

Oh I forgot the other turtle who is going to loose.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2014
A comment that has absolutely nothing to do with the article.


Of course it did.
Here is the head line: "Climate change will make some tropical regions wetter – then dry them out"

NV and UT were once wetter. Now they are dry. The Sahara was once wetter, not it is dry.

What's new?

If your so damned concerned with the plagiarizing issue;

No.
The point was the 'liberals' in the media, media like physorg, were not concerned and were not reporting that a sitting US Senator plagiarized his thesis.
'Liberal' media,like physorg, won't report on stories that don't fit into their agenda. How is that good science?
'Liberals' don't care as long as it advances their agenda:

"Biden Admits Plagiarism in School But Says It Was Not 'Malevolent' "
http://www.nytime...ent.html
Vietvet
5 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2014
@ryggy
Why in the hell would a SCIENCE site report an unrelated POLITICAL story?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2014
@ryggy
Why in the hell would a SCIENCE site report an unrelated POLITICAL story?


VietVet: Don't forget it is Rygg2. He is a delusional anarchist and has zero scientific background. All he can do is rail against the "socialists" he sees in his delusions.

Keep up the good fight, but don't let Rygg2 (or CantDrive, or Uba, or Alche, KDK, or AntiEm...) get under your skin. They cannot be reasoned with but reasoning is good for the neutral readers so my thanks for your effort in tilting at these windmills.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2014
@ryggy
Why in the hell would a SCIENCE site report an unrelated POLITICAL story?


I don't know, why?

The point is the same media that hype AGWism refuse to cover a story about a sitting US Senator, a 'liberal', who has now dropped out of his re-election bid due to plagiarism.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2014
@ryggy
Why in the hell would a SCIENCE site report an unrelated POLITICAL story?


I don't know, why?

The point is the same media that hype AGWism refuse to cover a story about a sitting US Senator, a 'liberal', who has now dropped out of his re-election bid due to plagiarism.

John Walsh's plagiarism and dropping out of the Senate race as been all over the medea, including the front page of the "liberal" New York times. Are you that stupid or is it another example of your lying?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2014
"On Thursday, July 24, the New York Times revealed that Senator John Walsh (D-Mont.) plagiarized his Master's thesis at the United States Army War College and that at least 25 percent of his paper "was either taken without attribution from other authors' works or improperly sourced."

Despite the embarrassing revelation, CBS This Morning was the only network morning news show to report on the plagiarism scandal whereas NBC's Today and ABC's Good Morning America ignored the story. "
http://www.mrc.or...s-thesis
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2014
They cannot be reasoned with

Is that why so many of you resort to insults and vulgarity instead of responding to the question at hand?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2014
"I sincerely believe some people become insulting because they're unable to compose a convincing argument and so they end up embarrassing themselves by becoming belligerent. - See more at: http://positivewr...Qx.dpuf"
Vietvet
5 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2014
"I sincerely believe some people become insulting because they're unable to compose a convincing argument and so they end up embarrassing themselves by becoming belligerent. - See more at: http://positivewr...Qx.dpuf"


What is insulting is your branding anyone who disagrees with you as a socialist.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2014
What is insulting is your branding anyone who disagrees with you as a socialist.
@VietVet
especially when he is describing COMMUNIST actions/behaviours etc...

Let him have his delusion.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2014
What is insulting is your branding anyone who disagrees with you as a socialist.

Socialism is as socialism does.
If one supports socialism, one is a socialist.
vet and stump have both indicated their support of socialist acts by the US govt on many occasions.
Maybe you should reevaluate your support of socialist actions by the state.
shorty likes to call it communism. That's one flavor of socialism he must not like, but there seem to be many other flavors he does like.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
vet and stump have both indicated their support of socialist acts by the US govt on many occasions
@retard
actually, no we have not... YOU are the only one supporting socialist behaviour by ANYONE... try looking back over your OWN posts! LOL
shorty likes to call it communism
actually, I call it like it is. YOU DESCRIBE communism and falsely call it socialism...
That's one flavor of socialism he must not like, but there seem to be many other flavors he does like
I don't like ANY gov't, moron!

therefore, by what we see above- we can truthfully state:
1- You are a liar
2- you are stupid and not able to google definitions
3- you like to obfuscate the truth

ALL painfully obvious by your posts above!

like it or not, you support communism by obfuscation of REALITY and truth
(propaganda... maybe you should move to Russia?)

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
Stumpy: "just because there are socialist style programs does not mean a country is socialist..."

How can there be socialist programs, that you seem to support, without a socialist govt to create and administer that program?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
Socialist program: 'progressive' income tax:
"Looking backward on the evolution of income tax rates from the beginning of the Federal income tax in 1913 until the present day, one can hardly expect that the tax will not one day absorb 100 percent of all surplus above the income of the average voter. It is this that Marx and Engels had in mind when in the Communist Manifesto they recommended "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.""
"The philosophy underlying the system of progressive taxation is that the income and the wealth of the well-to-do classes can be freely tapped. What the advocates of these tax rates fail to realize is that the greater part of the income taxes away would not have been consumed but saved and invested. In fact, this fiscal policy does not only prevent the further accumulation of new capital. It brings about capital decumulation. This is certainly today the state of affairs in Great Britain."
http://mises.org/...mr10.asp
howhot2
5 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2014
Here is a quotation that @R2 didn't expect;

"A commonly stated consequence of climate change is that most wet areas will get wetter, while most dry areas will get drier. But as scientists learn more about climate change at regional levels, and over longer timescales, we are finding that the picture is more complicated: the more the world warms, the more the potential there is for surprising changes, with serious consequences for both people and the fragile natural ecosystems that exist in this region."
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2014
Stumpy: "just because there are socialist style programs does not mean a country is socialist..."
How can there be socialist programs, that you seem to support, without a socialist govt to create and administer that program?
where in this post does it say I SUPPORT them? Where do I EVER say that I support ANY socialist program?
... I only ACKNOWLEDGE that there are programs that are socialist, like medicine in countries like Germany or Britain... which are not considered SOCIALIST
There is also SS and like programs in the US, but the US is NOT considered SOCIALIST

so again, what we have here PROVEN BY OBSERVATION is Rygtard showing AGAIN that:
you can't use google
you are too stupid to utilize a FREE on-line dictionary
you are not capable of comprehending basic ENGLISH
AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT

any more proof you would like to add to this, ryg?
the more you post, the worse you look...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2014
we are finding that the picture is more complicated: the more the world warms, the more the potential there is for surprising changes,


Even more reasons to be prepared, to adapt.

Germany or Britain... which are not considered SOCIALIST

Yes, they are. Ever hear of the National Health Service? In Germany, parents are FORCED to sent their children to govt schools. Parents are not allowed to home school. Children belong to the state in Germany
but the US is NOT considered SOCIALIST

Yes, it is. How can the US have 'progressive' income taxes and not be socialist?
Crony 'capitalism' is socialism. The opposition to 'inversion' is socialism. Forced unionization is socialism. Forced govt schools is socialist. Bloomberg's soda ban was socialism. Rent control is socialism. Subsidies and tariffs are socialism.
the more you post, the worse you look...

Why does stump deny reality?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2014
Why does stump deny reality?
why did you ignore the request for proof?

Why do you ignore my request that you PROVE yourself and your comments about me? why are you NOT giving me PROOF that I support socialism?

BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY

and ANY country can have socialist programs (like SS or Rent Control)
the difference here is that YOU HAVE A CHOICE NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THEM
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE RENT CONTROL etc

so you are AGAIN proving your delusional and TROLL state of posting

Sorry, until you get some meds or at least function on a normal adult level of comprehension, then you are simply the WORST kind of TROLL

a TRUE BELIEVER RADICAL much like the religious extremist
you are an idiot that was caught up in conspiracy and believes it
Even with as much as I know behind the scenes, I am no looney-bot like you

There are MEDS that can help you
until then... your continued posts only support my conclusions above

especially since you have NO PROOF

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2014
why are you NOT giving me PROOF that I support socialism?

I have, your words.
Asserting that socialist policies of the USA don't make the USA a socialist state means you must be irrational or a socialist. (Irrational and socialist is redundant))
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2014
A US socialist institution, the Federal Reserve, is discovering they have the same problem the Soviets had. No central planning can predict or control the market. Price is the only indication and if that price is not determined in a free trading environment, the distorted price distorts markets. The price is not just for goods and services, but also for labor.

""The difficulty in disentangling demand and supply factors makes the job of the monetary policy maker especially hard since it complicates the assessment of the amount of slack, or underutilised productive capacity, in the economy," he added."
http://www.ft.com...dc0.html

People have no choice with the Federal Reserve. The US govt allows no competitor for its money.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.