Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
A crime is a crime. Police have a meaningless job if,
The law is worthless if some people are held to different standards.
Is just the cost of doing business. Wait businesses are people????? More trick laws.
No wonder the rest of the world thinks our word is a joke.
Its a shame the only fairness would be if Obama did another executive order.
Yet 90% of the peoples opion is ignored,corrupt corrupt corrupt.
There should not be fines, if a company is being run illegally it should be absolved.
Game over Thats the cost of running any other illegal business.
@Chuckle8
You ask for a fact, yet mention no facts yourself? Just something about standard deviation from the norm via sigma variations? 3 sigma, okay - but 10?!
A fact, then - CO2 concentrations have gone up in the atmosphere in the past couple of hundred years as a direct and indirect result of Man's actions. In fact they have gone up in the last couple of thousand from less that 200ppm to the current 400ppm. Prior to that they declined dramatically. Prior to that they increased dramatically. prior to that..... and so on.
Currently we are seeing levels at over 400ppm which is not unprecedented in geological timescales, but is becoming so in terms of recent millennia.
(I don't think you can make assumptions on CO2 content since man appeared on the planet in terms of man's contributions as the content has risen and fallen and for the majority of that time man lacked the ability to cause effects on a global scale. For most of Man's time on the planet - let's limit it to the last 200, 000 years for modern man - CO2 concentrations have been mostly in decline with rapid spikes).
I would suggest Man has had some impact on CO2 levels for quite some time - from earlier slash and burn and cultivation, to increasingly large scale deforestation, agriculture and livestock raising over the past couple of thousand years. The recent trend has seen an increasing rate of change.
I do not contest any of this, but what is your point?
You want another fact? In the last 20 years of increasing anthropogenic CO2 emmissions global temperatures have not risen. CO2 emmissions are not the sole driver of temperature, something the geological record shows us. Something the scientists tell us. The blame cannot be laid on multi-decadal oceanic oscillations, either.
But how is any of this countering the initial comments I made?
In terms of industries paying to have their waste cleared up after them - I merely pointed out the error in saying that the fossil fuel industry was 'the only one...'.
I heard that the government was going to fine Citigroup 10 billion dollars but Citigroup refused to pay more than 5 billion. They negotiated a 7 billion dollar settlement. Who's in charge here? Just like Social Security. You pay into it and the money gets diverted. We lose every time. Even when justice is supposedly served.
Chuckle8 - Facts are always nice.
Like the fact that the IPCC state there is no proven correlation between extreme weather events and global warming, or that there has been no significant warming in nearly 18 years.
Or that there has been no increase in droughts or heatwaves or extreme weather events in the last couple of decades - admittedly, coverage of such events would seem to imply they are increasing, but the data says otherwise and anecdotal evidence is always trumped by data.
Or perhaps the facts and numbers of the NOAA UNCRN dataset which shows not only no warming in the contiguous US states in the last decade, but a cooling trend.
Or the UK HADCET data set that shows a cooling trend in winter temps in the last 20 years?
Or the fact that total body of ice in the Antartic is not actually decreasing, but is increasing?
Or the fact that the reduction of Arctic sea ice we have seen is not unprecedented as past records show - given that the NW passage has been open a number of times previously?
Or the fact that the 97% consensus has been debunked, but it still accepted by the media and promoted as if it were true.
Of the fact that the comments I made in my original comment on Thom's piece were factually correct?
I am not simply arguing for argument's sake, but am pointing out obvious issues in the climate change discussion. No benefit is gained by ignoring such issues or errata and the debate can only advance when such open discussion is permitted. Entrenched viewpoints need to be challenegd. Factual errors need to be addressed. Science is never settled. Debate is never over.
As you can no doubt see, I come at the topic from a sceptical viewpoint as that seems to me to be the most obvious stand to take, yet I am always looking to balance my viewpoint with others which is why I do not simply lurk around sceptic sites. Only reading opinions and discussions from one side of an argument merely propagandizes.
However, when I see BS - from either side - I call BS.
Such as the claim that the climate is not changing - for those very few who think it is and always has been stable only pointing out the facts of the variation we have seen can persuade. Or the claim that the environment is not an issue at all and that growth and the economy and national interests are all that is important.
Such as claims I have seen on these forums of us all facing our demise, or that we are all doomed, or a comment I have seen today lamenting that we cannot have a fix for the atmosphere that removes CO2 and replaces it with oxygen (a quite barmy and loony a comment as I have seen anywhere).
Open debate and honest discussion - when that is given a chance then much nonsense can be dispensed with.
Until such time as -the- =people= running these banks, that is, the ones making these decisions, are =personally= held accountable for these crimes, by personally paying staggering fines =and= spending many years in prison (and that does -not- mean =any= type of "Club Fed"), until that happens on a regular basis, =nothing= will change, period, full stop. These people are deliberately making these decisions and hiding behind the fiction of corporate 'personhood'. When they start wearing "prison orange", the public and their peers in the industries will start paying attention. But =until= then .. .. this entire issue is considered a joke by the banks and the =people= =who= =run= =them=!
Mr. Mills, I used your own words to exemplify what I have interpreted to be an effort to minimize and deny human causes of climate change. Not being a scientist myself, I have no interest in getting caught up in a detailed, tedious, ongoing debate with you over global warming and its causes. When it comes to any subject where I lack expertise, I have to rely on experts to interpret the facts for me. I have listened to and read enough climatologists' reports on this issue to be convinced that human-caused climate damage is real. If you are going to insist it is nonsense, and are hellbent on convincing everyone else that it is nonsense, you've come to the wrong forum.
The fossil fuel industry pays people to infiltrate these kinds of forums and lie to the public all the time. These are the industry shills we speak of. There are obvious financial incentives behind climate denial. You can call this assertion "lazy" and "lame" or whatever, but it doesn't change a damn thing. What do those on the opposite side of this debate have to gain, Mr. Mills? There's no corporate money lining their pockets. Therefore I remain highly distrustful of the motives behind any claims to the contrary. Just follow the money. It doesn't take a climate expert to do that.
Sorry to break it to ya Mr. Mills, but you're barking up the wrong tree. - Aliceinwonderland
Banking deregulation is the root crime here.
We need just one state to go completely Democratic Socialist and the rest will certainly follow. Only then will the root crime never be allowed to happen again and again.
I have yet to hear any discussion from anyone about what happens to homeowners in foreclosure or a short sale when it comes to the IRS. The mortgage company issues 1099's to these homeowners that reflect the difference for what the company gets for the home and what the mortgage balance is. By the time a house goes into foreclose their morgage balance could increase by $15 or $20K so if you originally owed $165K (now perhaps 185K) and the the bank sells it for $130K they will issue a 1099 for the $55K difference. The homeowner did not make any money on the transaction but the IRS treats it as income - yet another kick in the gut to the homeowner. This is wrong!!! Yet another no win situation for an already down homeowner.
And then many companies have "Dead Peasants" life insurance policies on their employees. So, they have a very strong interest in making sure they work their employees to death. Only the companies reap the payoffs on these insurance policies...the families of the deceased get nada.
DAnneMarc: Wow, "pure evil children"..I have seen a few that some might have thought were "possessed". Just glad I never had any. I had a nephew (an uncle's kid's kid), though, that got killed while playing on the train tracks...train hit him. I never knew the kid...barely knew the parents (my uncle's kid and his wife). I never even knew about it until I found out while searching the internet.
Reminds me of the billionaire who orders his chauffeur to drive 100 miles per hour down the highway listed at 70. He is stopped by the highway patrolman who takes the chauffeur to the local judge who fines him $400 and removes his driver license for 6 months. The billionaire just hires another chauffeur and drives on at 100 mph! The fines don't mean anything to those with that kind of money.
Chuck, thanks for the compliment. Very nice.
I agree about the need to rid ourselves of Reagan's & Nixon's policies. I think we can add Bushes #1 & #2 and Clinton to that list. All these presidents' policies have been enormously destructive to our country as well as our individual lives. - AIW
Palindromedary ~ Thanks for answering that question with the direct quote. I actually read it the other night; but, it took two night to sink in. Indeed, I had nightmares about it last night. One thing is for certain, the mind can block out almost anything that makes it uncomfortable.
I went through several stages when I verified that quote. First stage was trying to rationalize it. The first rationalization was that Jesus didn't say a child should be put to death, just that they "must surely die." Then, after a lot of thought, I came to the conclusion that there was no difference. Secondly, I reflected upon my experience with some really bad children I had the displeasure to know. These children were pure evil. It was in their hearts. If they were playing on a railroad track when the train was coming I would not have uttered a word. However, pure evil in the heart is not what is in the quote. It specifically states, "whoever reviles father or mother..." Then, after a lot of thought, I came to realize that everyone at some time or another reviles their mother or father. It is a natural thing to do in any circumstance. Children don't know any better. If they did, they would all be tried as adults for any crime in a modern court. However, courts realize that children just don't know any better and proceed accordingly. I cannot for the life of me fathom that this quote is a part of the Gospels--yet it is. It essentially, justifies the murder of almost any child. This isn't even an abortion, this is the murder of children who have already been born; and, for all practical purposes, over the mere hearsay of the parents.
All I can say Palidromedary is that you have opened my eyes and caused me great personal conflict. Don't take it the wrong way, I appreciate that very much. (See how a little knowledge of the Bible can go a long way?) Please accept my gratitude for providing the truth; and, please keep up the good work!!
What should happen is that the people who perpetrated the crime should do time for the crime. AND the company should pay a very stiff penalty. PLUS the perps should have all of their possessions sold to offset the penalty.....no hiding in your husband's/wife's/children's name. Oh dear.....the perp's family is now living in a cardboard box under a freeway?! I guess that perp should have thought of that. The perp's family should then be glad there is assistance that hasn't YET been gutted by the republicOns.
Most companies like Walmart bully their employees. They have all these safety rules in effect to protect their employees. So they say. This employee got caught up in the effort of trying to keep up. Everyone has to bend the rules to keep up with everyone else. To follow the rules is to fall behind. To look bad. If you're the only one that can't keep up, it's probibaly because you're following all the rules. Then you're reprimanded for poor performance. Everyone else makes better time than you. Now that he got caught doing what he had to do to keep up, Walmart will drag out the rule book and wave it in his face. All those safety rules are in place to protect the company. Not the employees. Walmart knows what's going on. The employees are being played.
AIW -- I like everything you say, and you say it so well. I think Switzerland is the country that had a guaranteed minimum income on the ballot. It did not pass.
Once again, I want to point out the policies of the New Deal and the Great Society were working very well. Previously, I forgot to point out these policies provided the fertile ground from which the Civil Rights and the Feminist movement grew. These policies did not include a min or max (no more billionaires) income. However, they were accomplishing those goals indirectly. They were able to enlist the marketplace to attain those goals.
We just need to get rid of all the policies of reaganomics. Palin has pointed out that Nixon policies need to be eliminated, as well as Reagans.
MMmm -- You use stats; then, I reply with stats and you say screw the stats.
Entropy, I think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is involved. Entropy is always increasing. When I was studying such things, I always liked to think of it as free energy which is always decreasing.
However, instead of sitting back, I would like to capture the free energy of the sun and use it for my own personal interest in keeping the human species existing. I will admit my plan is going to come to a screeching halt in 4 billion years.
Regarding today's second hour, may I suggest that religion is the world's greatest example of the placebo effect.
PAL -- Once again I agree with what you say, but maybe not what you maybe are implying. I think NIxon starting the most favored nation (MNF) status had everything to do with the trade deficit. I do not think his monetary actions (going off silver?) had much to do with it.
Pal -- One thing I hang my hope on is that FDR when running in 1932 could have been viewed as a blue dog. Do you think there is any chance that hillary could be converted to progressive ways,in the same manner as FDR was?
agelbert -- Thanks for the chart. How do I know if I already signed your petition?
Ian -- Thom often has Ravi Batra, an economist from SMU, on his program. Ravi has ofter mentioned 2016 as the year of the crash. I think Thom relies on the expertise of Ravi for Thom's prediction.
Sven -- Facts would be nice. The best version of facts is numbers. Of course, the facts need to be interpreted and analyzed again and again. For example, "total sea ice cover". seems you are hoping that no one knows that more snow is happening in the antartic due to the warming of the sea. The total body of ice in the antartic is decreasing, but the thin layer of new snow increases the total sea cover.
With regard to the Walmart accident, although the driver may not have been driving more than 24 hours both the cops and the court documents clearly say the driver had been awake more than 24 hours which means he was operating the vehicle as if he was leaglly intoxicated with a alcohol impairment eequal to .15% over the legal limit. When he rear ended the limo, (which was caught on video), killing and serioiusly injuring those people, even if he wasn't impaired, which he clearly was, he is still legally responsible, as is Walmart, as rear ending makes him responsible, according to the law. Further, several reports claim he was operating the truck for 15 hours and the legal limit for doing so, is 11 hours.
Quoting Fox News is ridiculous. Instead people should read the court and police reports. This driver and Walmart are clearly responsible and will be held accountable for these deaths and serious injuries.
Most of us know the fundamentalist true-believers (tea party) are pushing the Republican Party into many lunatic fringe positions much to the detriment of our federal/state governance. However, not so many know that a similar theme runs through an ultraconservative segment of the Catholic Church. Four of the five Catholic men on the Supreme Court miss the good old days of the Middle Ages when the Church ruled 'civil' society. As when Galileo was placed under house arrest, forbidden to publish and Bruno had his jaw nailed shut before he was burned at the stake. To these men, forcing their religious/economic positions on others is a perk due to their status at the top of the legal hierarchy. Democracy does not fit into their world view because they believe the powerful should rule in any capricious fashion they have the power to enforce.