The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[wormfood]

There are lots of people, including scientist that doubt the cause.

"The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia."

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

how could anyone look at charts like that and think it makes sense to be skeptical of the role of industrialization

seeing that trend, what are the chances that our pollution isn't the driving force?

 

[lennco]

Sounds like you and others want my opinions out of this thread...

Hey if you don't want to make your opinions truly relevant in the world of politics then you are more then welcome to continue posting here in this tiny little obscure thread

 

[Kate]

And guess what, while Trump is posting the usual garbage on Twitter, not a word on Russia and Ukraine, not a word to condemn the aggression. Just what Putin needs. A nod of approval. Weakest president ever.

 

[johname]

Lennco I long said there only about 8 people that reads this thread daily



******
Pentagon says report of active shooter at Walter Reed medical center was a drill

 

[mr-x]

Well Johnny, we are @GILSAN and I. If I was using the royal we, I would have capitalized the "W".

Who is we? You and your multiple personalities? The we in your sentence are anti-science, uneducated types. Again, the fact is most agree people have played a major part. Look at Trump in that video. That looks like an educated response?



How does that happen with anti-science types? What will happen is we'll put a Dem back in the WH and get back on track. Put somebody in the EPA who actually cares about the environment, somebody not working for the fossil fuel industry.

------------------------------
Very disappointed with General Motors and their CEO, Mary Barra, for closing plants in Ohio, Michigan and Maryland. Nothing being closed in Mexico & China. The U.S. saved General Motors, and this is the THANKS we get! We are now looking at cutting all @GM subsidies, including....

....for electric cars. General Motors made a big China bet years ago when they built plants there (and in Mexico) - don’t think that bet is going to pay off. I am here to protect America’s Workers!
Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 3m

Acosta/Sarah - no issues today, they made it thru a question/follow up.

 

[lennco]

Lennco I long said there only about 8 people that reads this thread daily

Here I thought it was a dozen, I was way off.
Thank you johname

Pentagon says report of active shooter at Walter Reed medical center was a drill

Thank God!

 

[mr-x]

Per WH press secretary; President Trump was talking about the predicted financial cost / ruin.

Which of course, is horrible considering Al Gore's beach house, most of NY city have been under water for a decade.

** I hope Al's private jet is OK.

Trump says he doesn't believe in the report at all, but obviously didn't read it. Just for fun, could somebody ask him which part he disagrees with and why ?

There are people who don't believe in climate change. But they probably believe in pollution and they should, since it is killing millions of people every year. For example, living in town is like smoking a few (or more) cigarettes per day. In fact, I have never met someone disputing this, and questioning how serious the situation is. It's been a concern even before global warming. Throw in depletion of natural resources, biodiversity loss. Well-documented and acknowledged trends.

The point is, we are destroying our environment, humans are suffering, nature is suffering. Pollution is having very tangible effects, in this light there no reason to doubt that climate could be affected as well. Doesn't sound unreasonable at all.

So even if you are climate skeptic you could still be concerned with the other issues.
But this administration has made it clear that business and private interests must prevail over our future. The US is the only country not part of the Paris accords. Here again, going against the tide, at war against science, against the rest of the world.
The bad news: owing to its huge size and geography, the US is going to be impacted a lot.

 

[mr-x]

how could anyone look at charts like that and think it makes sense to be skeptical of the role of industrialization

seeing that trend, what are the chances that our pollution isn't the driving force?

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/

https://co2islife.wordpress.com/201...ick-rules-out-co2-as-cause-of-global-warming/

A few problems I have with the climate Zealots.

1) Scientist have faked, edited climate data. They've been exposed conspiring to commit fraud in email.

2) None of their models, predictions are accurate. NONE.

3) Why do they resist practical and incremental conservation and restoration?

 

[mr-x]

I didn't know that windmills only have a 20 year service life.

 

[JB Lions]

Per WH press secretary; President Trump was talking about the predicted financial cost / ruin.

Which of course, is horrible considering Al Gore's beach house, most of NY city have been under water for a decade.

** I hope Al's private jet is OK.

You're still trying and failing. It's not about one study or one person. Again, go read what I posted. Stop being ignorant all the time. We're pushing 2019, and still this stupid stuff.

The New Scientist article is 11 years old, try his Twitter - https://twitter.com/mjflepage?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

He's retweeting stuff like:

 

[wormfood]

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ident-about-global-warming-50-years-ago-today

His model only included the effects of carbon dioxide and his best estimates of natural climate cycles. It didn’t include the warming effects of other greenhouse gases, or the cooling effects of human aerosol pollution, but fortunately for Broecker those two effects have roughly canceled each other out over the past 40 years.

Broecker’s model predicted the global warming anticipated by 2015 both from carbon pollution alone, and when including his best estimate of natural climate cycles. In the figure below, the carbon-caused warming is shown in blue, and in combination with natural cycles (which Broecker turns out not to have represented very accurately) in green, as compared to the observed global surface temperatures from NOAA in red. As you can see, the climate model predictions from over 40 years ago turned out to be remarkably accurate.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

 

[enlytend]

Not ALL republicans, but apparently several currently in government, especially those in the Oval Office ..

 

[lennco]

Show attachment 103387

Not ALL republicans, but apparently several currently in government, especially those in the Oval Office ..

It's funny because it's true to how they really see things.

 

[mr-x]

I posted two articles; one very recent that goes into great detail how CO2 is not the bogey man you think it is. Call it a contrarian interpretation of the data if you like.

Yesterday I was called a bigot for posting about people being censored for facts about biology. Today I'm ignorant for posting a contrary interpretation of climate data.

Despite every climate model and prediction you support has been wrong, you still promote the dogma you've been told. But I'm stupid.

You're still trying and failing. It's not about one study or one person. Again, go read what I posted. Stop being ignorant all the time. We're pushing 2019, and still this stupid stuff.

The New Scientist article is 11 years old, try his Twitter - https://twitter.com/mjflepage?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

He's retweeting stuff like:

 

[mr-x]

That's about as accurate as every climate prediction you've repeated.

Show attachment 103387

Not ALL republicans, but apparently several currently in government, especially those in the Oval Office ..

 

[mr-x]

It's funny because it's true to how they really see things.

 

[JB Lions]

I posted two articles; one very recent that goes into great detail how CO2 is not the bogey man you think it is.

Again, your ongoing problem with sources. One was 11 years old, and I posted the authors current Twitter and what he's reposting. Then you grabbed some random wordpress.com site with the title - "The Definitive Source for Exposing the Global Warming Hoax". But act like the NASA data is bad, random wordpress site much better. So yes, it's still stupid. Your issue, not mine.

 

[lennco]

Show attachment 103388

 

[mr-x]

You: I don't like our source so you're dumb.

Me: List one climate model / prediction that has been right. If you say CA fires, I'll drive to Florida, build a fire in your front yard and use a leaf blower to shoot sparks through your front door.


https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Chronicles-Inconvenient-Revelations-Gore/dp/1983509388

Again, your ongoing problem with sources. One was 11 years old, and I posted the authors current Twitter and what he's reposting. Then you grabbed some random wordpress.com site with the title - "The Definitive Source for Exposing the Global Warming Hoax". But act like the NASA data is bad, random wordpress site much better. So yes, it's still stupid. Your issue, not mine.

 

[mr-x]

 

[mr-x]

Increased Water Vapor, Not CO2, Most Likely Reason for Recent Warm Septembers

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/5914...most-likely-reason-for-recent-warm-septembers

 

[JB Lions]

Me: List one climate model / prediction that has been right. If you say CA fires, I'll drive to Florida, set fire in your front yard and use a leaf blower to shoot sparks through your front door.

"Conclusion
Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account."

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

-------------
Then you follow up with an article from.............Patriot Post, lol. Again, proving my point.

 

[mr-x]

 

[mr-x]

Right. In 1973 these dummies were claiming the earth was cooling and warned of a mini-ice age.

"Conclusion
Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account."

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

-------------

Then you follow up with an article from.............Patriot Post, lol. Again, proving my point.

Written by Joe Bastardi · Oct. 29, 2018. Once again, your more interested in arguing that the truth.

 

[JB Lions]

Right. In 1973 these dummies were claiming the earth was cooling and warned of a mini-ice age.

I don't see ice-age on the page, can you quote it.

And you didn't touch the conclusion.

"they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred,"