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:

 

[verbster]

Cap and Trade refers to Man Made Global Warming, NOT Global Warming itself... The latter is debatable, MMGW on the other hand is simply a fraud, it's been proven as such Scientifically and by physical evidence that exposed the fraud for what it is, why do you think the White House and Liberals no longer use the term?

Although most people use the terms synonymously, they aren't. Global warming is "the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature." Climate change refers to "the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature."

While some people like yourself may call global warming debatable, it's not. What's debatable is why the temperature is rising, not if it is. Whether you believe global warming is a natural phenomena or at least partially man-made, doesn't matter. If you choose not to believe in global warming or climate change, that's your choice. I honestly hope you are correct. However, I believe the majority of scientists involved in CC, GW and MMGW research who have conclusions unlike yours. Beyond that, it seems to me, if there is a chance that the current global warming is partly man-made, why would you not take measures to slow it down in case it is real? Because corporations will want to raise the cost of energy for citizens to preserve their profits?

I would enjoy reading your legitimate peer-reviewed scientific sources disproving mankind's contribution to global warming. (If you cite from reports submitted to the White House in the early Bush years, please make sure to post the original versions, not the abridged versions edited by George's staff.)

Why is climate change used more now? Glad you asked. Credit for its use goes to Frank Luntz, a Republican consultant who wrote a lengthy memo in 2002 to the Republican Party on how the use of words and terms could help them gain environmental credibility with the public. Here's the section from page 146 of his memo that addresses the terminology:

***********************
We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects. The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with “global warming’’ and ending with “environmentalism,’’ It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of “global warming” and “conservation ” instead of “preservation.”

1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global waming.” As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

2. We should be “conservationists,” not “preservationists” or “environmentalists.” The term “conservationist” has far more positive connotations than either of the other two terms. It conveys a moderate, reasoned, common sense position between replenishing the earth’s natural resources and the human need to make use of those resources.
******************
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

 

[verbster]

Still an amusing thread to drop in once in a while.
Just to see one side pathetically try to advance the lies put out by the main stream media and the white house.

if you think this is amusing, you're taking it too seriously.

 

[iowadawg]

Believe me, I take nothing you say seriously.
Even your funny posts.

 

[RaiderGirl]

The last evidence I recall you posted actually contradicted your views ... do we have updated resources to back up your claim now?

Credible scientific papers and journals would be appropriate. Any climate modeling with substantive reasonable margins for error would be good.

No contradiction at all DU, I've always held the position that MMGW is a fraud, a hoax for the purpose of taxation, 10 Trillion dollars worth... As for Global Warming itself, were talking about less than a 1 degree increase, but even this is flawed since the measurements recorded were taken in heated locations, such as near asphalt and condensing units., But even if the 1 degree increase is true and lets assume it is, who's to say it's not natural? many independent scientists claim the increase is from solar variation, but you cant tax the people on that can you? their would be no money in it, no legislation, and the Al Gores of the world would have to find something else to lie about.

Government only funds scientists who agree with their position, and Scientist who disagree has had their funding cut, Agree with our theory or your fired" This is the science that Democrats rely on as "proof"

As for climate models, I'm surprised you would accept any climate model as evidence, models are merely predictions, like the prediction that sea levels would rise up to 20 feet in the 21st century, flawed data that was later proven to be more like 3 feet.. Flawed and corrupt climate modeling like this has assisted in perpetrating the fraud, Like NASA Scientist and Alarmist James Hansen who was not just profiting from hundreds of thousands of dollars from climate advocacy groups, but was caught fudging the numbers that delivered exaggerated models, gee I wonder if the money had anything to do with it?.

The most credible proof is by disproving the theory that Temperature follows C02, it's what the whole MMGW "theory" hinges on, it's what Al Gore LIES about in his film "The Inconvenient Truth" seems that Gore and all the other "bought and paid for" scientists cant seem to find an answer for the ice cores taken at Vostok, which clearly prove that C02 follows temperature and not the other way around.

 

[johname]

 

[Domainace]

The stuff you make up is astounding

Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't dream of calling someone I've never met a liar in regards to something that I know nothing about.

 

[JB Lions]

Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't dream of calling someone I've never met a liar in regards to something that I know nothing about.

Well, you didn't actually address any of the points he brought up:

"Please tell me again how no permissions, permits, licenses, or inspections are needed, especially from the local prefectures. Have you read the Food Sanitation Law of Japan?"

So this doesn't really exist - http://www8.ocn.ne.jp/~risk21/license.htm#Restaurant

What a scary place to live the US must be.

There you go again. Food safety is scary to you? Scary because some restaurant that has roaches and rats crawling on the food might get shut down. In Japan, maybe that's a topping? Maybe that's ok for you?

And yet, food poisoning cases from poor hygiene are quite rare here.

More bs.

 

[RogueWriter]

No contradiction at all DU, I've always held the position that MMGW is a fraud, a hoax for the purpose of taxation, 10 Trillion dollars worth... As for Global Warming itself, were talking about less than a 1 degree increase, but even this is flawed since the measurements recorded were taken in heated locations, such as near asphalt and condensing units., But even if the 1 degree increase is true and lets assume it is, who's to say it's not natural? many independent scientists claim the increase is from solar variation, but you cant tax the people on that can you? their would be no money in it, no legislation, and the Al Gores of the world would have to find something else to lie about.

Very accurate response, imo.

 

[DU]

No contradiction at all DU, I've always held the position that MMGW is a fraud, a hoax for the purpose of taxation, 10 Trillion dollars worth...

The contradiction I referred to was that your argument included a reference to a scientific set of papers related to Vostok which actually did not agree with your argument. I see you refer to the whole CO2 follows temperature argument again.

As for climate models, I'm surprised you would accept any climate model as evidence, models are merely predictions, like the prediction that sea levels would rise up to 20 feet in the 21st century, flawed data that was later proven to be more like 3 feet..

I accept mathematical models every day as predictors of events. Climate is particularly complex which is why I asked for models with substantive reasonable margins for error. It's appropriate to understand where the approximations are made to be able to understand the variance in results. Most models are run multiple times with multiple factors - there's no "single model".

They're not evidence but by modeling climate, by modeling ocean flows, by modeling wind patters, and various other factors etc. it is perfectly reasonable to make educated predictions on trends - more so if the model fits previous data points. It is appropriate to use models as predictors - otherwise what's the point of doing anything? It's how drugs are created, it's how cars are designed, it's how a lot is done....

This is why people look at things like hurricane paths and pay attention - we don't just assume the path is correct; however, if you're in the cone of a predicted storm you usually make sure you are prepared you don't just ignore the forecast on the basis that it's a model.

The most credible proof is by disproving the theory that Temperature follows C02, it's what the whole MMGW "theory" hinges on, it's what Al Gore LIES about in his film "The Inconvenient Truth" seems that Gore and all the other "bought and paid for" scientists cant seem to find an answer for the ice cores taken at Vostok, which clearly prove that C02 follows temperature and not the other way around.

That's not the case. There is general consensus that CO2 correlates strongly with temperature - what most scientific sceptics believe is that man hasn't caused the current warming (it's part of a cycle) and moreover for some, there's nothing that can be done.

The evidence is also in the form of fossils (if you believe that the world is more than 6000 years old)

Me? I could not care less if the world ends in 2050. I don't care one way or the other whether it's natural or man-made - what difference does it make? It really only matters if you care about the future of mankind and I don't.

There is a belief that mankind cannot and will not become extinct because there is no documented evidence of it. The question I have is why people who do care about the future of the human race put money before that concern or limit their concern to their first world suburban lifestyles.

Even if you don't believe in climate change as a science you still need to work with the changing climate so what should we do? Chalk everything up to cap and trade tax and do nothing? Pretend there is no drought in California? Or do things? I say drink up, swim and make more golf courses in the desert because things will work out... the oceans are full of water we can drink.

 

[RogueWriter]

This is why people look at things like hurricane paths and pay attention - we don't just assume the path is correct; however, if you're in the cone of a predicted storm you usually make sure you are prepared you don't just ignore the forecast on the basis that it's a model.

That is not an accurate analogy. In order to make it accurate, you would have to add that, in order for the United States to 'prepare' for the hurricane, the United States will have to essentially end itself as a national entity by spending more money on the preparations than the United States will ever generate in revenue for hundreds of years. Simultaneously, the rest of the globe must continue to develop without the restraints of intrusive climate based regulations designed to enrich democrat supporters, and without the limitations of freedom-depriving taxation, leading to massive unemployment and a depression in the United States that will encompass multiple generations, at least until the country is over run by an emerging superpower.

And, the hurricane may actually be a tropical storm. Or sunshine. Because -no one- has an accurate model.

 

[GILSAN]

Here we go again; 'Jihadi John' threatens to behead a Brit next: Terrifying challenge to Cameron after ISIS executioner murders second US journalist in new video

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...heads-second-US-journalist.html#ixzz3CB20Pn1r

All those Islamic EU citizens and residents that are fighting for ISIS or any terrorist organization should be refused entry back into the EU and even more important, they should have their EU citizenship removed and expelled, even if they were born there. ZERO tolerance for these bastards.

 

[RogueWriter]

Here we go again; 'Jihadi John' threatens to behead a Brit next: Terrifying challenge to Cameron after ISIS executioner murders second US journalist in new video

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...heads-second-US-journalist.html#ixzz3CB20Pn1r

All those Islamic EU citizens and residents that are fighting for ISIS or any terrorist organization should be refused entry back into the EU and even more important, they should have their EU citizenship removed and expelled, even if they were born there. ZERO tolerance for these bastards.

I would make a terrible President. I am all for nuking the territory claimed by ISIS. They have 12,000 fighters there, well not anymore. Salt the earth with radioactive slag.

I know, terrible, like I said, I would make an awful President.

 

[iowadawg]

Hahahahaha...what I have said on twitter for ages.
Nuke a few areas and countries, jihadists would stay in their mosques and just pray they do not get nuked.

 

[DU]

That is not an accurate analogy. In order to make it accurate, you would have to add that, in order for the United States to 'prepare' for the hurricane, the United States will have to essentially end itself as a national entity by spending more money on the preparations than the United States will ever generate in revenue for hundreds of years. Simultaneously, the rest of the globe must continue to develop without the restraints of intrusive climate based regulations designed to enrich democrat supporters, and without the limitations of freedom-depriving taxation, leading to massive unemployment and a depression in the United States that will encompass multiple generations, at least until the country is over run by an emerging superpower.

And, the hurricane may actually be a tropical storm. Or sunshine. Because -no one- has an accurate model.

The model predicts trends and allows for variable adjustments to determine the benefits of various actions or non-actions. Most models would actually serve us best as a cost benefit analysis tools. You've put the cart before the horse by putting political policy ahead of the science. I understand that is the nature of what politicians are doing but that's not how it's supposed to work.

You use the models to effectively understand the ramifications of policy decisions.

Consider fisheries management as an example - there are stocks of fish and they have been depleted to the extend where they are no longer self sustaining. You can further restrict fishing (which puts fisherman out of work) or you can continue to allow fishing (which puts fisherman out of work but more permanently)... but within the extremes there are approaches that can be made. You can't listen to fisherman and you can't just rely on politicians. The models can help guide each to a place that makes sense.

Similarly, you have understand globally what decisions are being made. The US has been hyper critical of Japan's handling of Fukushima... decisions on energy are global. It wasn't just Chernobyl that suffered... you can look at the impact of pollutants in France on the forests of Germany... the polution from China washes up on Californian beaches.. water mismanagement in India impacts rice yields on the world.

it's not just about the US but as the self-proclaimed greatest country in the world shouldn't it be a world leader in the delivery of clean energy, proper resource management, and preservation? Should we not be asking Germany, France and the developed Western worlds help to make things globally better? Or should we just worry about us?

 

[iowadawg]

I do believe that when it comes to the oceans of the world?
There should be a law that says...
No freaking fishing of anything for 8 years minimum.
Look at the North Atlantic.
WWII meant no fishing and when the war was over, there were more fish than in the previous 50 years or so.

 

[RogueWriter]

Or should we just worry about us?

Oh, absolutely we should just worry about us. Energy management has to be realistic. We do not base our energy expenditures on the desires of countries that, at best, are working against our interest in self-preservation. We base our energy management on the principles of need. We need energy, and we need a relatively clean environment. We do not need policies that turn our country into a second or third world nation.

 

[verbster]

Simultaneously, the rest of the globe must continue to develop without the restraints of intrusive climate based regulations designed to enrich democrat supporters, and without the limitations of freedom-depriving taxation, leading to massive unemployment and a depression in the United States that will encompass multiple generations, at least until the country is over run by an emerging superpower.

That's pretty funny.

 

[verbster]

Oh, absolutely we should just worry about us. Energy management has to be realistic. We do not base our energy expenditures on the desires of countries that, at best, are working against our interest in self-preservation. We base our energy management on the principles of need. We need energy, and we need a relatively clean environment.

What is a "relatively clean environment"?

We do not need policies that turn our country into a second or third world nation.

What policies are you talking about?

 

[verbster]

Hahahahaha...what I have said on twitter for ages.
Nuke a few areas and countries, jihadists would stay in their mosques and just pray they do not get nuked.

Hahahaha. Yeah, that's pretty funny.

 

[RogueWriter]

it's not just about the US but as the self-proclaimed greatest country in the world shouldn't it be a world leader in the delivery of clean energy, proper resource management, and preservation? Should we not be asking Germany, France and the developed Western worlds help to make things globally better? Or should we just worry about us?

First, again I would say no models are accurate. Here's yet another report suggesting that the last 55 years of data that scientists are basing their models on may be incorrect...

http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/02/study-the-lower-troposphere-has-not-warmed-in-the-last-26-years/

Second, if you are suggesting that as a leader of the free world we should spend ourselves into oblivion to minimalize our footprint, then, by using that same line of logic, you would also think we should invade every nation that is not as 'free' as our standards require, since we proclaim ourselves to be the leader of the free world. A leap, sure, but using the same logic you are trying to use within the energy niche. So why do you want to invade dozens of countries? :P