Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, JimNtexas said:

Obama owns two waterfront mansions.  Biden owns one.  The Bush family owns one.  I bet Kerry owns one.

All of them travel via Gulfstream.

I’ll believe I have to give up fossil fuels when these people start living like climate change is real.

We both know you wouldn't believe even then. Your arguments have always focused on entirely unrelated appeals to emotion and virtually never on evidence or facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bfargin said:

What a complete BS claim.

Brandolini's law explains how that feces was published in spite of the ridiculous claim shown in quotes in your post.

There are way too many variables, each with significant variance in climate change models, to come even close to showing a causal effect (even a "relative causal" effect). I know a Senior Editor who should be replaced.

@bfarginThat is a quote from the article the previous person posted. Looks like you don't read either.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

I don't think any of your guys' comments about how the science isn't settled match up with, y'know, the science and/or reality. Would love if you would even look at 2 of the references on this article. Maybe some of the NASA, NOAA, or IPCC reports.

If it makes you feel better, when I voted for Bush, I also thought climate change was fake. Because, you know, I was told to think that. Was good enough at the time: Go republicans, beat demtards!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Negatory said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

I don't think any of your guys' comments about how the science isn't settled match up with, y'know, the science and/or reality. Would love if you would even look at 2 of the references on this article. Maybe some of the NASA, NOAA, or IPCC reports.

If it makes you feel better, when I voted for Bush, I also thought climate change was fake. Because, you know, I was told to think that. Was good enough at the time: Go republicans, beat demtards!

nice straw man ... nobody is saying the climate hasn't/doesn't change.

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

53 minutes ago, Negatory said:

We both know you wouldn't believe even then. Your arguments have always focused on entirely unrelated appeals to emotion and virtually never on evidence or facts.

I’ll just judge the climate alarmists by their actions…so yeah, I’m not too worried.

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

7 hours ago, kaputt said:

This is exactly what I was talking about in my last post when it comes to the absolute vacuum of leadership ability in the current administration. The lefty advisors sitting around thinking of their next move can't even help themselves when it comes to their hatred of the oil industry. So they draft up a letter from Biden that simply attacks the oil industry vs trying to be part of a solution.

Like I had said before, the administration could stick to their public goal of trying to move away from fossil fuels while also actually working to help the American public today. There is absolutely no reason the President's letter couldn't have been an olive branch reaching out to the oil industry seeing how the federal government could work with and help the oil industry to increase supply and production. "To the American people, today I sent a letter to America's oil executives expressing my office's desire to sit down and come to real solutions on how to increase oil supply in this country. Make no mistake, my administration is still committed to furthering America's movement towards green energy, a process I feel the oil industry can be a part of as well; but this is a long process that will take time. American's are hurting now though, I feel that pain, and we are going to work together with America's oil and gas industry to make things better."

But instead we get more of the "oil is evil talk". This administration is just simply inept.

That kind of adult language wouldn’t appeal to zealots like AOC. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Negatory said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

I don't think any of your guys' comments about how the science isn't settled match up with, y'know, the science and/or reality. Would love if you would even look at 2 of the references on this article. Maybe some of the NASA, NOAA, or IPCC reports.

If it makes you feel better, when I voted for Bush, I also thought climate change was fake. Because, you know, I was told to think that. Was good enough at the time: Go republicans, beat demtards!

I don’t know anybody who thinks the climate does not change; the degree to which human behavior impacts the process and what behavior we should modify to create a deliberate changes without unintended consequences seems to be the point of contention.  

However my entire life I have been fed alarmist climate propaganda which failed to materialize.  In 1991 my 6th grade science teacher taught that by 2010 ozone holes would make going to the beach impossible in the summertime.  Thats just one example, and what my kids bring home now are equally dire and silly prophecies.


From acid rain to ozone holes to global heating global cooling polar ice cap melting, etc. climate change activists would be more convincing if they embraced humility and acknowledged their many incorrect predictions…. and quit feeding junk science to children who cannot present a logical argument. Hyperbole feels good in the moment, but does long-term damage to credibility.  

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bfargin said:

What a complete BS claim.

Brandolini's law explains how that feces was published in spite of the ridiculous claim shown in quotes in your post.

There are way too many variables, each with significant variance in climate change models, to come even close to showing a causal effect (even a "relative causal" effect). I know a Senior Editor who should be replaced.

Amen.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Negatory said:

Case in point. I don't know if you even read the source. Second paragraph:

"We can clearly show the causal link between carbon dioxide emissions from human activity and the 1.28 degree Celsius (and rising) global temperature increase since pre-industrial times." Then he goes on to tell you about other things that have affected the climate in the past, but that article in no way backs up your point. Also, just to be clear, the scientific community is not even slightly split on this. 99-100% consensus on humans causing anthropogenic climate change.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

Brandolini's law strikes again. "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it"

The one thing my quoted article does do truthfully is infer that global warming and cooling is far greater affected by cosmic/solar powers, plate tectonics, volcanic activity, and ocean currents...amoung other things other than human activity.

There are far greater powers at play than humans.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing my quoted article does do truthfully is infer that global warming and cooling is far greater affected by cosmic/solar powers, plate tectonics, volcanic activity, and ocean currents...amoung other things other than human activity.
There are far greater powers at play than humans.

If it wasn’t for the massive hidden profit schemes and selective acceptance to a lot of the mitigation ideas, most of the argument for change made by climate activists could gain much wider marketability in how presented.

You could sell it much better as wider species adaptation and resource husbandry. Something that is really necessary regardless of what the climate is doing as more people and countries gain wealth and industrialize.

Instead it’s BS like “drive an electric car if you don’t want all the Seals and Pilar Bears to die!” Or what them wholesale sell the necessities of reducing carbon, and lobby for a massive movement of government money toward a given populist industry like wind power and simultaneously lambast any investment in Nuclear which generates far shorter timelines for effect at curbing carbon emission.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Negatory said:

I think the fundamental disconnect of this forum to American society is that the majority of you don’t believe global warming is either real or a real issue.

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/

This thread was producing a lot of good discussion, and then the Climate Change grenade got thrown into the room, sending us into a whole page of nonsense back and forth.

Don't feed the troll.

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

15 hours ago, Negatory said:

I think the fundamental disconnect of this forum to American society is that the majority of you don’t believe global warming is either real or a real issue.

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/

Of course it is real, the question is how do you deal with it?  Do you crush the American economy in an empty effort to send a message when China, India and others thumb their nose at the issue?  The numbers from the past two years are skewed given COVID and shutdowns, but in general U.S. emissions have been declining while China and India were increasing.  And please tell me how crushing production within the U.S. then begging Saudi, Venezuela and Iran to increase production is solving the problem?  Come on Man!

I would rather see us be energy independent, keep our economy strong and use the taxes and lease payments to fund a Manhattan Project style approach to capturing, limiting, removing carbon from the atmosphere.  One of the great things about capitalism and the free market is it drives efficiency and problem solving.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, bfargin said:

There are way too many variables, each with significant variance in climate change models, to come even close to showing a causal effect (even a "relative causal" effect).

I sat with a few scientists down in Antarctica while doing the Deep Freeze mission on days I wasn’t flying.  They were there studying the climate.  I asked them what the deal is with this whole climate change thing and listened for a while as they talked about it.  There were a couple big take aways.  First, was the amount of variables involved in their work.  They didn’t even have consistent climate measurements going back 50-100 years.  Where were the measurements taken?   When were they taken?   With what equipment?   By who?   How was the data stored and what data has been shared, etc.   Second, they all absolutely agreed that the climate is changing.  It always has.  They study the environment and climate to better understand it.  That doesn’t mean they were trying to validate future climate catastrophes.  They were simply trying to understand it without predetermined findings.  Lastly, they said it’s another example of something being used for political gain.  Everybody has an angle and everybody has a different set of goals and motivation.  

I believe the climate changes.  I don’t believe it’s something to be scared of. “Climate change” is a source of power and money.  Fear is a tactic.  It’s really no different than the 2 years of Covid shenanigans.  Gotta get people scared so we can spend endless piles of new money.  

Edited by lloyd christmas
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, lloyd christmas said:

I sat with a few scientists down in Antarctica while doing the Deep Freeze mission on days I wasn’t flying.  They were there studying the climate.  I asked them what the deal is with this whole climate change thing and listened for a while as they talked about it.  There were a couple big take aways.  First, was the amount of variables involved in their work.  They didn’t even have consistent climate measurements going back 50-100 years.  Where were the measurements taken?   When were they taken?   With what equipment?   By who?   How was the data stored and what data has been shared, etc.   Second, they all absolutely agreed that the climate is changing.  It always has.  They study the environment and climate to better understand it.  That doesn’t mean they were trying to validate future climate catastrophes.  They were simply trying to understand it without predetermined findings.  Lastly, they said it’s another example of something being used for political gain.  Everybody has an angle and everybody has a different set of goals and motivation.  

I believe the climate changes.  I don’t believe it’s something to be scared of. “Climate change” is a source of power and money.  Fear is a tactic.  It’s really no different than the 2 years of Covid shenanigans.  Gotta get people scared so we can spend endless piles of new money.  

I read something years ago stating durign the cold war, specifically when we had the DEW line we had more weather monitoring stations in the Arctic than we do now.  This helped shape the climate is cooling message.  

I also remember in the early 90's when the rain forest were being wipe out they would be gone within 20-30years?  That message eventually faded away.  There were even movies about it.

But with most of the global population increasing in 3rd world areas like Africa and south Asia.....they need cheap energy and land to feed themselves....but yeah go buy a Tesla and save the planet.  I think 1 car battery needs like a swimming pool of water to create.

 

Oh and the Dow is down 900 pts today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lloyd christmas said:

First, was the amount of variables involved in their work.  They didn’t even have consistent climate measurements going back 50-100 years.  Where were the measurements taken?   When were they taken?   With what equipment?   By who?   How was the data stored and what data has been shared, etc.   Second, they all absolutely agreed that the climate is changing.  It always has.  They study the environment and climate to better understand it.  That doesn’t mean they were trying to validate future climate catastrophes.  They were simply trying to understand it without predetermined findings.  Lastly, they said it’s another example of something being used for political gain.  Everybody has an angle and everybody has a different set of goals and motivation.

Climate is not my area of expertise, but someone I trust puts a lot of effort towards climate study. This sums up some solid baseline assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2022 at 9:58 PM, Prozac said:

Honestly don’t know all that much about DeSantis and running Florida certainly isn’t the same as running the country. I wouldn’t commit to making that call until I see his presidential platform IF he runs. I’m willing to listen with an open mind though. 

Based on that logic, how in the hell was Biden ever elected?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, ecugringo said:

I also remember in the early 90's when the rain forest were being wipe out they would be gone within 20-30years?  That message eventually faded away.  There were even movies about it.

Don't forget in 2009 Al Gore--the hero of the DNC--"loosely" cited researchers and said there was a “75% chance” the polar ice could be gone during at least some summer months within five to seven years.   

Gore made similar statements about Arctic ice in his 2007 Nobel prize acceptance speech, and in 2008 a video of the opening of a German museum captured Gore saying that "the entire North polar ice cap may well be completely gone in five years." 

Of course, like every other false claim the Democrats have spouted over the years, they conveniently chose to ignore ever stating that!

Im Off Al Gore GIF - Im Off Al Gore South Park - Discover & Share GIFs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some recent rumblings about Biden being too old to run in 2024.  The cynic in me thinks that these stories aren't simply plain old journalism, rather they've been timed appropriately to "test the waters" and gauge the public's reaction.

From the NYT last week:

Should Biden Run in 2024? Democratic Whispers of ‘No’ Start to Rise.

In interviews, dozens of frustrated Democratic officials, members of Congress and voters expressed doubts about the president’s ability to rescue his reeling party and take the fight to Republicans.

Related article in The Atlantic from yesterday:

“It’s not the 82 that’s the problem. It’s the 86,” one swing voter said in a recent focus group, referring to the hypothetical age Biden would be at the end of that (very) hypothetical second term.

The Chicago Tribune is going so far as to speculate that IL Governor JB Pritzker's recent trip to New Hampshire is signaling a "soft launch" of his presidential campaign.  The guy has a net worth close to $4 billion, so would be interesting to see the impact of his money on the race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, M2 said:

Based on that logic, how in the hell was Biden ever elected?

Well, he campaigned for, and articulated his platform for the office. DeSantis has yet to even announce he is running, and I think it’s very likely he will be upstaged by the Donald and won’t run. When and if he does announce his campaign, I’ll make an evaluation then. How can I say I’d vote for him or not vote for him when I have no idea what his (currently nonexistent) presidential platform entails? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, M2 said:

Don't forget in 2009 Al Gore--the hero of the DNC--"loosely" cited researchers and said there was a “75% chance” the polar ice could be gone during at least some summer months within five to seven years.   

Gore made similar statements about Arctic ice in his 2007 Nobel prize acceptance speech, and in 2008 a video of the opening of a German museum captured Gore saying that "the entire North polar ice cap may well be completely gone in five years." 

Of course, like every other false claim the Democrats have spouted over the years, they conveniently chose to ignore ever stating that!

Im Off Al Gore GIF - Im Off Al Gore South Park - Discover & Share GIFs

Yeah, but don’t forget: he was right about Manbearpig!

image.jpeg.aa8567826b195823a7fe5b27e1d10d48.jpeg image.jpeg.fecc4bae656df38b10d9e1fe88e4fd12.jpeg

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

$10 Trillion is net worth WIPED out.

8.6% "transitory" inflation.

$5+ National Average for a gallon of gas.

No mean tweets.

CH I get it and I'm mostly with you but I wouldn't want Trump as my SQ, GP, WG/CC, etc. Leadership matters.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...