Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

You wanna go with source?  Only think I found on a "Gandhi rape" search was from a Vice article by someone claiming to be the grandson of a guy that was in jail with Gandhi.  It doesn't mention rape, that he just slept naked next to young girls (ew).

Same for "Mahatma Gandhi rape."

Admittedly, I didn't click on page 2.

I used the world probably for a reason. Noone is really certsin. Here are the facts: Ghandi admitted that he routinely slept naked with young girls in what he called Chasity or virtue checks. One of the girls included his niece who talked about it in an interview years later. Whether he had sex with them or not, nothing about this behavior is moral or ok. 

Gilded Heroes comes to mind. Martin Luther King Jr is another charismatic leader who had serious (depending on your outlook) character flaws. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, let me say, this debate was ridiculous and both performed horribly, or probably failed to move the needle for anyone. Even Bernie Sanders, on Jimmy Kimmel, said it wasn’t a good night for America.

I am too lazy to go back and find it, but one of the Trump fans said they liked his answers on climate change. I let it go at the time because I wanted more people to answer, but I would like to hear some reasons now for that specific callout. What about “we have to do whatever it takes to have ‘immaculate air and water” makes any sense or squares with any actions/policies coming out of this administration? That’s basically what he said, I summarized. Not only do the actions of his administration scream the exact opposite, but those words don’t lay out anything in terms of policy/future actions.

So, are you just saying you’re happy with his answers because you feel climate change (something the DoD continues to list as one of the biggest threats to National Security) isn’t real, or did I miss something more specific when the two old guys were yelling at each other. Maybe Chris Wallace or Joe Biden spoke over him...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mark1 said:

It doesn't.  I thought I was clear that it's not an all-encompassing metric.  However, at the moment we're lofting 2 incompetant idiots that are also human cesspools to the top of the two-party system with nearly perfect accuracy.  Wouldn't it be a good start if we just went with 2 incompetant idiots that were mildly respectable human beings instead?

Last time we tried that was 2012.  He lost to hostile media propagandists, a false narrative,  and due to an accurate remark that was taken out of context. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slackline said:

Again, let me say, this debate was ridiculous and both performed horribly, or probably failed to move the needle for anyone. Even Bernie Sanders, on Jimmy Kimmel, said it wasn’t a good night for America.

I am too lazy to go back and find it, but one of the Trump fans said they liked his answers on climate change. I let it go at the time because I wanted more people to answer, but I would like to hear some reasons now for that specific callout. What about “we have to do whatever it takes to have ‘immaculate air and water” makes any sense or squares with any actions/policies coming out of this administration? That’s basically what he said, I summarized. Not only do the actions of his administration scream the exact opposite, but those words don’t lay out anything in terms of policy/future actions.

So, are you just saying you’re happy with his answers because you feel climate change (something the DoD continues to list as one of the biggest threats to National Security) isn’t real, or did I miss something more specific when the two old guys were yelling at each other. Maybe Chris Wallace or Joe Biden spoke over him...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm not sure what point your referring to specifically, but regarding just air and water the US already has nearly the cleanest air and water on earth. Like, ridiculously clean. We are consistently top 10 on both and the difference between us and #1 is almost always negligible. 

Most educated conservatives don't deny climate change. You really need to grasp that if you want to have an effective argument on the subject. Its an observable/measurable phenomenon. If you don't understand the detail of their platform you wont effectively persuade them to see your side. 

Edited by FLEA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Most educated conservatives don't deny climate change. 

Despite this, unfortunately the conservative political class do deny that humans are a significant factor in climate change. Tucker Carlson, PragerU, Charlie Kirk via TPUSA, and most republican congressmen now acknowledge it is real but claim it is a natural phenomenon that we have no hopes of controlling. 

Can't say whether it's just typical partisan bs in the modern culture war, oil lobbying power, or some combination of both, but it's an unfortunate reality. Best evidence of this is former Republican congressman Jim Bridenstine (who's done a fantastic job btw), acknowledging human caused climate change only after he became NASA administrator, ostensibly because he was freed from the political shackles that come with being a Republican congressman. Another interpretation is he sold out to the Deep State or needed to do so for political support for NASA, so I guess that will depend on your politics. 

Before I get smacked with the whataboutism, yes the Green New Deal was an alarmist and horribly written crapshoot, but one party has recently pulled us out of Paris Climate Accords and is pushing for deregulation of coal. 

Clean water and air fall more under environmentalist policy than climate change policy (though they are of course somewhat entangled), the global carbon footprint is the biggest issue at hand. What we need is a carbon tax and nuclear investment, both in building fission reactors and researching fusion. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm, if the Paris Accords were such a good thing, why didn't Obama submit it to the Senate as a legally binding agreement between the US and the other signatories?  If it was such a good thing, the Senate should've approved it, or those voting it down should've suffered at the next election.  It's how the rules are made and we play by those.  Anything, except DACA apparently, that one President does, another President can undo.  I also believe that we are more than meeting those expectations regarding emissions without having to pay literally billions to other countries.  Pretty good results for us, and a sad for those grifters.

Ummm, weren't we supposed to be underwater by now?  Or all the polar bears waterlogged by now?  Follow the money, who benefits from your carbon tax?  Who gets the money?

Ummm, weren't the "experts" calling for a new Ice Age about now back in the 1970s?

Ummm, how did the Earth get out of the various Ice Ages?  Waaaay back when the Earth was a literal iceball, how did it get past that?  How did the climate cool to get into those states anyway?

Climate change?  Yep, the climate changes.  Earth is gonna earth.  To think that it cares one iota about the current life forms is pretty arrogant.  

But a great payday for somebody if we want to be suckers and pay "the price" to save the earth.  

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Ummm, if the Paris Accords were such a good thing, why didn't Obama submit it to the Senate as a legally binding agreement between the US and the other signatories?  If it was such a good thing, the Senate should've approved it, or those voting it down should've suffered at the next election.  It's how the rules are made and we play by those.  Anything, except DACA apparently, that one President does, another President can undo.  I also believe that we are more than meeting those expectations regarding emissions without having to pay literally billions to other countries.  Pretty good results for us, and a sad for those grifters.

Ummm, weren't we supposed to be underwater by now?  Or all the polar bears waterlogged by now?  Follow the money, who benefits from your carbon tax?  Who gets the money?

Ummm, weren't the "experts" calling for a new Ice Age about now back in the 1970s?

Ummm, how did the Earth get out of the various Ice Ages?  Waaaay back when the Earth was a literal iceball, how did it get past that?  How did the climate cool to get into those states anyway?

Climate change?  Yep, the climate changes.  Earth is gonna earth.  To think that it cares one iota about the current life forms is pretty arrogant.  

But a great payday for somebody if we want to be suckers and pay "the price" to save the earth.  

 

Quote

Despite this, unfortunately the conservative political class do deny that humans are a significant factor in climate change.

Thanks for proving the point.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DosXX said:

Despite this, unfortunately the conservative political class do deny that humans are a significant factor in climate change. Tucker Carlson, PragerU, Charlie Kirk via TPUSA, and most republican congressmen now acknowledge it is real but claim it is a natural phenomenon that we have no hopes of controlling. 

Can't say whether it's just typical partisan bs in the modern culture war, oil lobbying power, or some combination of both, but it's an unfortunate reality. Best evidence of this is former Republican congressman Jim Bridenstine (who's done a fantastic job btw), acknowledging human caused climate change only after he became NASA administrator, ostensibly because he was freed from the political shackles that come with being a Republican congressman. Another interpretation is he sold out to the Deep State or needed to do so for political support for NASA, so I guess that will depend on your politics. 

Before I get smacked with the whataboutism, yes the Green New Deal was an alarmist and horribly written crapshoot, but one party has recently pulled us out of Paris Climate Accords and is pushing for deregulation of coal. 

Clean water and air fall more under environmentalist policy than climate change policy (though they are of course somewhat entangled), the global carbon footprint is the biggest issue at hand. What we need is a carbon tax and nuclear investment, both in building fission reactors and researching fusion. 

3 hours ago, slackline said:

Again, let me say, this debate was ridiculous and both performed horribly, or probably failed to move the needle for anyone. Even Bernie Sanders, on Jimmy Kimmel, said it wasn’t a good night for America.

I am too lazy to go back and find it, but one of the Trump fans said they liked his answers on climate change. I let it go at the time because I wanted more people to answer, but I would like to hear some reasons now for that specific callout. What about “we have to do whatever it takes to have ‘immaculate air and water” makes any sense or squares with any actions/policies coming out of this administration? That’s basically what he said, I summarized. Not only do the actions of his administration scream the exact opposite, but those words don’t lay out anything in terms of policy/future actions.

So, are you just saying you’re happy with his answers because you feel climate change (something the DoD continues to list as one of the biggest threats to National Security) isn’t real, or did I miss something more specific when the two old guys were yelling at each other. Maybe Chris Wallace or Joe Biden spoke over him...

Well, much as the left’s views fall on a spectrum, so does the right. Personally, I think climate change is another bait and switch, in that like many movements (BLM for example) if you say that you’re against it, you’re “wrong” because “Who could say the climate isn’t changing?/Who thinks black lives don’t matter?”

It’s also worth pointing out the history of social movements that brought us to “climate change.” We had global cooling, then global warming, and after both of those kind of failed, they reached “climate change.” I blame Al Gore for killing the global warming moniker, btw.

As for the science, excess CO2=bad. That’s pretty universally understood. However, these models being used to project temperatures into the future are a whole other thing. As with any projection, you’ll be fairly accurate in the near term if the model is good. However, farther into the future the durability of its info becomes significantly worse, because no equation can have all future variables included (they couldn’t have seen COVID, as an example). It’s even worse when data is being omitted (see Canada removing nearly 100 years of data) that just happens to result in higher “temperatures” that benefit scientists seeking grant funding.

The GAO found a while back that funding for climate change “has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.” I couldn’t find a more recent quote quickly, so that will have to do.

Yes, increased funding doesn’t mean it’s bad data. I understand that. However, it does give a potential conflict of interest that we should consider before spending ourselves into oblivion to chase a fraction of a degree in cooling that may or may not impact the future in drastic terms.

As for Trump’s policies, he’s been working to increase natural gas production in the US, which has dropped the price to a point that power companies are shutting down their coal-fired operations and using NG, which is drastically more efficient and environmentally friendly. We’re actually providing our own energy for once, and that’s good for the economy and national security... while also removing things like coal ash ponds and slurry fields that polluted rivers and water tables. 

The Paris Agreement was a bad deal. Obama signed us up for $100 billion a year to a “green fund” that we didn’t control, mandated CO2 restrictions that would have killed jobs, and put us into an unaccountable system where there’s no real way to make an impact, even with that kind of money. The largest polluters are China and India by a massive margin. The Paris deal would have done nothing by contrast.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

Ummm, if the Paris Accords were such a good thing, why didn't Obama submit it to the Senate as a legally binding agreement between the US and the other signatories?  If it was such a good thing, the Senate should've approved it, or those voting it down should've suffered at the next election.  It's how the rules are made and we play by those.  Anything, except DACA apparently, that one President does, another President can undo.  I also believe that we are more than meeting those expectations regarding emissions without having to pay literally billions to other countries.  Pretty good results for us, and a sad for those grifters.

Ummm, weren't we supposed to be underwater by now?  Or all the polar bears waterlogged by now?  Follow the money, who benefits from your carbon tax?  Who gets the money?

Ummm, weren't the "experts" calling for a new Ice Age about now back in the 1970s?

Ummm, how did the Earth get out of the various Ice Ages?  Waaaay back when the Earth was a literal iceball, how did it get past that?  How did the climate cool to get into those states anyway?

Climate change?  Yep, the climate changes.  Earth is gonna earth.  To think that it cares one iota about the current life forms is pretty arrogant.  

But a great payday for somebody if we want to be suckers and pay "the price" to save the earth.  

Is it a treaty? Was he obligated to do so by the Constitution? Here, let’s have a look.

The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2).”

Ah, guess that applies to treaties, not accords or agreements. Obama taught Constitutional Law at one of the best law schools in the U.S. (U of Chicago). I bet he knew the difference, just like the reason why the Iran nuke deal was an agreement. Which the irony is since it was an agreement, it allowed Trump to revoke with without the consent of the Senate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kiloalpha said:

The Paris Agreement was a bad deal. Obama signed us up for $100 billion a year to a “green fund” that we didn’t control, mandated CO2 restrictions that would have killed jobs, and put us into an unaccountable system where there’s no real way to make an impact, even with that kind of money. The largest polluters are China and India by a massive margin. The Paris deal would have done nothing by contrast.

yep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Is it a treaty? Was he obligated to do so by the Constitution? Here, let’s have a look.

The Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2).”

Ah, guess that applies to treaties, not accords or agreements. Obama taught Constitutional Law at one of the best law schools in the U.S. (U of Chicago). I bet he knew the difference, just like the reason why the Iran nuke deal was an agreement. Which the irony is since it was an agreement, it allowed Trump to revoke with without the consent of the Senate.

It did make him an expert at skirting the constitution by trying to use executive powers only on a bunch of things, somehow gambling his party would never be out of power. Short term strategy, just like all the poor AF leaders. 
 

Also made him an expert at using emotions to convince people climate correlation is the same thing as causation. Lots of people on board with that one. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DosXX said:

Despite this, unfortunately the conservative political class do deny that humans are a significant factor in climate change.

"Deny" is a loaded term in political arguments as often when it is used, it is used in the same context as Holocaust Deniers, thus giving the moral upper hand to the party that places the label.  It is an irresponsible term to use for this reason as well as to say that I am "denying" something also implies that it has been proven.  People who make a positive claim in an argument are the ones responsible for proving it.  If I say Bigfoot exists and you say he doesn't, it is not your responsibility in the argument to search every square inch of the planet to prove he doesn't exist.  It's my responsibility to prove he exists.  As has been said above, the best possible argument is a loose correlation.  Instead, people who believe humans are the cause assume that it is true based on the "science" when it is absolutely not science.  The scientific method is the heart of science and it is impossible to apply to global warming.  Additionally, every attempt to apply just a part of the scientific method by making predictions based on observations has failed every time.  Remember Al Gore after Katrina when he said that Katrina was the start of a huge wave of super storms that will destroy our coasts over the next decade?  The next decade had almost no significant hurricanes in the US.  Same with professional scientists predicting the disappearance of glaciers in Glacier National Park.  There were signs in the park predicting the disappearance of the glaciers by 2020.  Those signs were quietly taken down last year and the glaciers are still there.  This isn't science, this is politics pretending to be science.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

It did make him an expert at skirting the constitution by trying to use executive powers only on a bunch of things, somehow gambling his party would never be out of power. Short term strategy, just like all the poor AF leaders. 
 

Also made him an expert at using emotions to convince people climate correlation is the same thing as causation. Lots of people on board with that one. 

By skirting the Constitution, you mean “racing the rule book?” Show me a politician that doesn’t do that. It’s foolish to think that a party would “never be out of power.” Hell, Lindsay Graham just stepped over his dick recently by backtracking on this 2016 statement about nominating someone to a SCOTUS vacancy right before an presidential election. But he’s also a retired Guard O-6 JAG, which probably explains his two-face leadership skills.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

 

Thanks for proving the point.

The implication is/was that "conservatives" doesn't recognize "facts" or conduct critical thinking.

So, besides the "othering," it is very possible to study observed phenomena and ask questions and reach different conclusions.

None of which have been answered.  Instead, it's "you are a climate denier and therefore unworthy."

Convenient strategy that doesn't seem to be working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, slackline said:

Again, let me say, this debate was ridiculous and both performed horribly, or probably failed to move the needle for anyone. Even Bernie Sanders, on Jimmy Kimmel, said it wasn’t a good night for America.

I am too lazy to go back and find it, but one of the Trump fans said they liked his answers on climate change. I let it go at the time because I wanted more people to answer, but I would like to hear some reasons now for that specific callout. What about “we have to do whatever it takes to have ‘immaculate air and water” makes any sense or squares with any actions/policies coming out of this administration? That’s basically what he said, I summarized. Not only do the actions of his administration scream the exact opposite, but those words don’t lay out anything in terms of policy/future actions.

So, are you just saying you’re happy with his answers because you feel climate change (something the DoD continues to list as one of the biggest threats to National Security) isn’t real, or did I miss something more specific when the two old guys were yelling at each other. Maybe Chris Wallace or Joe Biden spoke over him...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

For decades the government pushed the notion that, to be healthy and slim, we needed to avoid fat and intake carbs. Decades and an entire epidemic of obesity before we are finally starting, only now, to realize how wrong they were. 

 

Clean air ≠ Carbon dioxide reduction. The science of climate change, and all the incredibly complex measurements, studies, and theories about the effects, boils down to a single theory. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas of small impact, but it increases the major greenhouse gas (water vapor) such that we are seeing and will continue to see a temperature runaway directly caused by humans increasing the CO2. 

There is all sorts of research showing that the Earth is warming. Granted a lot of that research is not nearly as concrete as the narrative would have you believe. Take a look at the satellite data and compare it to the theory. Digging into the various generations of temperature records and seeing how lopsided the adjustments are is another eye-opening chore.

 

But even if you take the historical temperature data, as presented by the proponents of the theory at face value, the most critical component, that mankind has caused it, is dependent entirely on a theory of carbon dioxide that is not supported by the long-range historical data (ice ages during periods of much higher CO2), and is almost impossible to test on any sort of scale that would prove it one way or the other.

 

And on this shaky ground, the United States is supposed to reduce its carbon footprint in a manner that would utterly devastate our economy, and only have a single digit percent impact on the overall change in temperature. So even if you accept the temperature data at face value, and you accept the theory of carbon dioxide as an impactful greenhouse gas at face value, you also have to accept that the rest of the world, including the largest polluter (China), is going to follow our lead in a manner that will have an actual meaningful impact on the rate of warming.

 

That's a terrible bet, and the billions and trillions of dollars that we put towards this endeavor are much better spent on protecting forests, cleaning the plastic island out of the ocean, reducing known pollutants from being put into the atmosphere (like the smog plague of the 70s), defending endangered species, or any other number of measurable and worthwhile environmental endeavors.

 

That's the short version.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Smokin said:

"Deny" is a loaded term in political arguments as often when it is used, it is used in the same context as Holocaust Deniers, thus giving the moral upper hand to the party that places the label.  It is an irresponsible term to use for this reason as well as to say that I am "denying" something also implies that it has been proven.  People who make a positive claim in an argument are the ones responsible for proving it.  If I say Bigfoot exists and you say he doesn't, it is not your responsibility in the argument to search every square inch of the planet to prove he doesn't exist.  It's my responsibility to prove he exists.  

You're being pedantic, but if you wish to play the semantics game I am more than willing to call you a climate change skeptic. The implication in "denialism" is a significant deviation from the status quo as agreed upon by experts. If you tell me the Sun will rise tomorrow and I say it isn't, it would not be a stretch to call me a Sunrise denier, despite there being absurd but logically sound arguments I could make that challenge the sunrise. For example, I could claim you are assuming the invariability of the laws of physics in time, which have so far held true but are "unproven" to continue to the future. Science never claims the certainty of anything with 100%, there are always baked in assumptions that you could challenge ad nauseum. When science claims something is a fact, it is choosing not to consider breaks in underlying assumptions from extremely low probable events (such as a break in the immutability of the laws of modern physics). Bigfoot and climate change are a false equivalence in terms of probability of being truth given certain assumptions, as are the sun rising tomorrow and climate change, so I hope it's clear why your claim regarding responsibility of proof (while true in a general sense) does not apply to established scientific claims. It would not be useful to sit here and go through the science that "proves" humans are the primary factor in climate change, in the same way it wouldn't be for me to explain general relativity and stellar physics to "prove" that the Sun will rise tomorrow, so I encourage you to read the research beyond reactionary commentary on cherry picked predictive failures in previous decades. Again, you could always argue something hasn't been proved, but at some point science says we will accept the assumptions and claim it as being true, always being open to the possibility that it is falsified in the future. So no, science will never prove anything definitively, but human influence on climate change is past the point where it is debatable in a scientifically productive sense.

5 hours ago, Smokin said:

 As has been said above, the best possible argument is a loose correlation.  Instead, people who believe humans are the cause assume that it is true based on the "science" when it is absolutely not science.  The scientific method is the heart of science and it is impossible to apply to global warming.  Additionally, every attempt to apply just a part of the scientific method by making predictions based on observations has failed every time.  Remember Al Gore after Katrina when he said that Katrina was the start of a huge wave of super storms that will destroy our coasts over the next decade?  The next decade had almost no significant hurricanes in the US. 

Going back to the earlier example, the scientific method as taught in high school (which you seem to be referring to here) is also impossible to apply to definitively proving the rising of the Sun. The climate is a chaotic, but deterministic, system which is theoretically computable to perfect accuracy given enough information. At any point in the last 800,000 years you could have predicted a rise or fall in temperature following a rise/fall in C02 within 2 degrees 99% of the time with only this data. You could challenge this and say that it could be that the causal link is backwards and that it's temperature which affects C02 levels, so again I'll refer you to actually read the research to see how scientists isolate the causal link.

Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change | National Centers for  Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data  Center (NCDC)

5 hours ago, Smokin said:

 This isn't science, this is politics pretending to be science.

The science is clear enough to make a statement on the primary influence of humans on climate change. The politics are what we choose to do about it. Maybe we are just a drop in the bucket and have no reason to do anything when China and India pollute so much more. Maybe the economic costs of the Paris Accords do not justify the future costs in damage. I am more than willing to engage with those arguments on a policy level, but fundamentally there is still a rejection of the notion that humans cause climate change which cannot be overlooked if we want to debate the politics of it.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DosXX said:

. The climate is a chaotic, but deterministic, system which is theoretically computable to perfect accuracy given enough information. At any point in the last 800,000 years you could have predicted a rise or fall in temperature following a rise/fall in C02 within 2 degrees 99% of the time with only this data. You could challenge this and say that it could be that the causal link is backwards and that it's temperature which affects C02 levels, so again I'll refer you to actually read the research to see how scientists isolate the causal link.

Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change | National Centers for  Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data  Center (NCDC)

The science is clear enough to make a statement on the primary influence of humans on climate change.

Charts can be funny like that.

image.png.5ebd3334fe23292d14a9569e62e647b0.png

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

 

Even if I knew nothing about the theory, models, or underlying data, the overwhelming and religious-like commitment to the cause by a whole bunch of politicians, actors, other non-scientists is enough to make me skeptical. But I do know more, and dang near every time a supporter of the theory posts a chart, there's something the chart is misrepresenting.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skeptic is better and I don't think it is pedantic.  I think "denier" was very carefully and intentionally chosen.

The chart posted shows a correlation, but not causation, and is actual evidence against your thesis that man is the cause of global cooling/warming/climate change/whatever-it-is-this-week-so-that-we're-not-wrong.  If man were the chief cause of global climate change, it shouldn't have changed much before our industrial revolution.

My point with the scientific method is simply that climate change cannot be truly tested and that virtually all predictions have been wrong.  If I come up with a hypothesis , make a prediction, and that prediction does not come to pass, I have to re-evaluate either my data, methods, or my entire theory.  Instead, climate scientists make predictions, are proven wrong, and then pretend their prediction never happened or just push the dates a couple years down the road.  Yet they still want to cripple our economy and lifestyle to 'fix the problem'.

IF climate change is primarily man-made, which I'm not convinced, then technology advances got us into this problem and technology advances will get us out.  The way we advance is to continue a robust economy.  Look at England prior to electricity.  Moths were changing color because there was so much coal soot in the air.  It was an environmental nightmare.  Was it fixed by governmental regulations that you can't use your coal fired pot belly stove to cook and heat your house?  No, it was fixed by electricity not governmental regulations.  Like beer, a free capitalistic economy advancing technology is the cause of (if you are correct), and the solution to, our problems.

 

On a related note, correlation is not causation:  https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2020 at 10:26 PM, drewpey said:

And who are these actual proper journalists I should be following?  Who are these amazing journalists who have better investigative resources than the entire US government at the behest of the Senate that resulted in an intelligence report with said "fake news findings" written by republican senators?  Please I must know!

For you - rachel maddow given that you refuse to come out of your bubble. Keep thinking that Putin is running USA through POTUS and that behind every corner exists oppressed minority that must be saved. 

If you want to find an exit  - J Peterson is a good start. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DosXX said:

The climate is a chaotic, but deterministic, system which is theoretically computable to perfect accuracy given enough information. At any point in the last 800,000 years you could have predicted a rise or fall in temperature following a rise/fall in C02 within 2 degrees 99% of the time with only this data.

I remember speaking to climate scientists during non flying days while supporting Deep Freeze missions in Antarctica.  I wanted to go directly to the source and pick their brains.  I even visited a couple of their labs and offices to see exactly what they were doing down at McMurdo over the couple months that I was there.  One of the things they said that stuck out most to me was how inaccurate their historical data was in regards to temperature readings and CO2 levels.  Where on the planet were the readings taken?  What specific type of instrument was used to take the readings?  What time of the year were the readings taken?  How was the data recorded decades ago?  Who took the measurements and what are their motives?  Frequency and consistency were the biggest concerns.  These scientists were talking about data from just the last 5-7 decades...  

Edited by lloyd christmas
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, lloyd christmas said:

I remember speaking to climate scientists during non flying days while supporting Deep Freeze missions in Antarctica.  I wanted to go directly to the source and pick their brains.  I even visited a couple of their labs and offices to see exactly what they were doing down at McMurdo over the couple months that I was there.  One of the things they said that stuck out most to me was how inaccurate their historical data was in regards to temperature readings and CO2 levels.  Where on the planet were the readings taken?  What specific type of instrument was used to take the readings?  What time of the year were the readings taken?  How was the data recorded decades ago?  Who took the measurements and what are their motives?  These scientists were talking about data from just the last 5-7 decades...  

Exactly. The only people who are certain of this movement are the people with no direct connection to the science. It's just another team position to be certain about because the other team disagrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

Reagan was the last charismatic leader America has had and that was a long time ago. I am in agreeance with you, I think it's an absolute disgrace that with all the great minds/people in this country, these are the two nutjobs we decided should represent American. I believe we're going to have our equivalent of the French Revolution in a not so future time. Wealth gap keeps widening, socialistic ideas becoming increasingly popular, racial tension... There is so much anarchy and unrest and Americans have become completely us vs them in the two party system. 

I 100% guarantee you everything will go back to normal after the election.  French Revolution? America is doing just fine.  Yeah socialist views are on the rise and racial tensions/riots are an issue but America will survive it.  It was built to survive this kind of crap.  I’d like to think we live in a country where the outcome of the President should not matter.  I don’t want one individual having that much power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sim said:

For you - rachel maddow given that you refuse to come out of your bubble. Keep thinking that Putin is running USA through POTUS and that behind every corner exists oppressed minority that must be saved. 

If you want to find an exit  - J Peterson is a good start. 

Thank you for proving the point that most people cannot differentiate between actual journalism and entertainment.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...