"The economy does better under Democrats." says Trump

[tytlyf]

So is the president lying again or what? I think he told the truth for once.

 

[Mindmaster]

If you're talking about an 80's or 90's idea of Democrat, yes. The modern incarnation with the climate change nonsense and the critical race theory? Pass.

 

[robocop (actually)]

If you're talking about an 80's or 90's idea of Democrat, yes. The modern incarnation with the climate change nonsense and the critical race theory? Pass.

I want those 2 things.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you're talking about an 80's or 90's idea of Democrat, yes. The modern incarnation with the climate change nonsense and the critical race theory? Pass.

Obama not Trump was clearly responsible for most of the recovery after the Bush Depression as cited by @Willamena.

 

[Father Heathen]

the climate change nonsense and the critical race theory?

Regarding the former, lobbyists can dupe dopes all day long but science is science. As for the later, another tired straw man that the yokel chorus regurgitates all over each other.

 

[Windwalker]

The modern incarnation with the climate change nonsense and the critical race theory? Pass.

Yeah! And all this nonsense about health concerns for pregnant women not drinking booze and doing hard drugs while pregnant, supposedly putting the health of their child at risk! Foolishness. Healthy diets and exercise? There is no evidence that obesity will kill us! It's just nonsense.

All of these things science teach us, are just the haughty taughty opinions of these so-called "educated" people. What do they really know about anything? Trump knows what the real truth is. He is smarter than scientists.

Let's add all this nonsense about slower speed limits on side streets saving lives. That's gotta go to. My personal liberty should not be curtailed because of supposed "concerns" over the safety of others. 100 miles per hour through residential streets does not really put people at risk. Again, what do these "educated" people really know about these things? Right?

 

[metis]

The modern incarnation with the climate change nonsense

You don't read or watch the news much, or so it appears. Nor the actual peer-reviewed scientific studies on climate change apparently.

IOW, it's real, and this is not an opinion-- it's a fact.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yeah! And all this nonsense about health concerns for pregnant women not drinking booze and doing hard drugs while pregnant, supposedly putting the health of their child at risk! Foolishness. Healthy diets and exercise? There is no evidence that obesity will kill us! It's just nonsense.

All of these things science teach us, are just the haughty taughty opinions of these so-called "educated" people. What do they really know about anything? Trump knows what the real truth is. He is smarter than scientists.

Let's add all this nonsense about slower speed limits on side streets saving lives. That's gotta go to. My personal liberty should not be curtailed because of supposed "concerns" over the safety of others. 100 miles per hour through residential streets does not really put people at risk. Again, what do these "educated" people really know about these things? Right?

A lot of times those honest/sensible rules and regulations are manipulated and abused in corrupt ways, which turns into nonsense when its employed under different intentions and purposes.

Question is how can you tell the difference?

Answer: By how its used.

 

[tytlyf]

If you're talking about an 80's or 90's idea of Democrat, yes.

Wrong, same was true for Obama.

The modern incarnation with the climate change nonsense and the critical race theory? Pass.

What agenda do you have to ignore the overwhelming science concerning climate change?
Critical race theory? Smells like some manufactured RW talking point.

 

[Mindmaster]

You don't read or watch the news much, or so it appears. Nor the actual peer-reviewed scientific studies on climate change apparently.

IOW, it's real, and this is not an opinion-- it's a fact.

Peer reviewed for idiots, by idiots...

It's your facts. You're entitled to your belief in the climate change apocalypse, please excuse me while I finish my popcorn.

 

[shunyadragon]

Peer reviewed for idiots, by idiots...

It's your facts. You're entitled to your belief in the climate change apocalypse, please excuse me while I finish my popcorn.

Failure to respond.

 

[tytlyf]

Peer reviewed for idiots, by idiots...

It's your facts. You're entitled to your belief in the climate change apocalypse, please excuse me while I finish my popcorn.

Your opinion of the problem doesn't change anything. All you're doing is parroting Big Oil/Coal propaganda.
Do you know why Big Oil/Coal is vehemently opposed to the science? Why Big Oil/Coal are the loudest opposition to the problem?

 

[metis]

Peer reviewed for idiots, by idiots...

Gee, what can I say?

It's your facts. You're entitled to your belief in the climate change apocalypse, please excuse me while I finish my popcorn.

As for myself, I've suddenly lost interest in what you have to say on this, but let me just say in closing that I do hope someday that you actually maybe do some research on this from actual scientific sources instead of partisan politicians and their media.

 

[Mindmaster]

Your opinion of the problem doesn't change anything. All you're doing is parroting Big Oil/Coal propaganda.
Do you know why Big Oil/Coal is vehemently opposed to the science? Why Big Oil/Coal are the loudest opposition to the problem?

Big oil is naturally pro-"their own business" like anyone else. That's despite the point... Historically, we've been warmer and cooler, but we're gonna be a lot warmer with stronger storms because we've just come off a solar maximum.

My problem with 'climate change' science is it arbitrarily stops at certain thresholds of time to justify it's 'findings'. I have no doubt that certain things are occurring or whatever, but in the life of the Earth a couple of thousands of years is a few minutes. Most of the commentary in this regard is simply confirming the science bias and not really reflective of the entirety of the data. I mean what's a 'warming trend" a decimal point of a degree in average temp or something more significant? Even this isn't really agreed upon... So, rather than panic my opinion is 'wait and see' because it's the only justified position. Everything else is a 'knee-jerk' reaction and I wouldn't support acting in that manner regardless of who has the opinion. That's not the same as 'denying' climate change, but rather the position of being mindful of it in the context of normal variations.

Likewise, I don't put 'faith' in models because those are simulations not reality. We can't predict the weather with much accuracy past 3 days. (Though that never stopped the weatherpersons, lol.) For periods past that, they are using models and historical data to guesstimate. But, also look at it as a scale issue... Imagine how much is devoted to coming up with your 3 day accuracy and then realize the amount of computer time dedicated to climate science is maybe a tenth of that. (Due to the fact that it's much more profitable to produce weather reports rather than extremely long range models that no one much cares about.) Accuracy, in this regard, is often a product of money but there is diminishing returns at work here... Spend all the money you can spend and you'll get maybe double the accuracy... AKA maybe your forecasting is successful out to a few more days... That's hardly a useful investment.

 

[metis]

In regards to climate change, plus some other factors, doesn't it make sense all around to go more "green"? It would help to reduce air and water pollution, for example. It better would preserve what fossil fuels we do have left. Green energy is now creating more jobs here in the States and in western Europe than with the fossil fuel industry.

IOW, it's really a win/win strategy.

 

[shunyadragon]

Big oil is naturally pro-"their own business" like anyone else. That's despite the point... Historically, we've been warmer and cooler, but we're gonna be a lot warmer with stronger storms because we've just come off a solar maximum.

My problem with 'climate change' science is it arbitrarily stops at certain thresholds of time to justify it's 'findings'. I have no doubt that certain things are occurring or whatever, but in the life of the Earth a couple of thousands of years is a few minutes. Most of the commentary in this regard is simply confirming the science bias and not really reflective of the entirety of the data. I mean what's a 'warming trend" a decimal point of a degree in average temp or something more significant? Even this isn't really agreed upon... So, rather than panic my opinion is 'wait and see' because it's the only justified position. Everything else is a 'knee-jerk' reaction and I wouldn't support acting in that manner regardless of who has the opinion. That's not the same as 'denying' climate change, but rather the position of being mindful of it in the context of normal variations.

Likewise, I don't put 'faith' in models because those are simulations not reality. We can't predict the weather with much accuracy past 3 days. (Though that never stopped the weatherpersons, lol.) For periods past that, they are using models and historical data to guesstimate. But, also look at it as a scale issue... Imagine how much is devoted to coming up with your 3 day accuracy and then realize the amount of computer time dedicated to climate science is maybe a tenth of that. (Due to the fact that it's much more profitable to produce weather reports rather than extremely long range models that no one much cares about.) Accuracy, in this regard, is often a product of money but there is diminishing returns at work here... Spend all the money you can spend and you'll get maybe double the accuracy... AKA maybe your forecasting is successful out to a few more days... That's hardly a useful investment.

You have to document your unwarranted accusation that 'science is arbitrarily stops at thresholds of time to justify its 'findings'. Actually science uses 60 million years of climate history to determine the history of climate and compare it to the recent history of the recent rise in CO2, increase in temperature and desertification of the mesic region of the world. The opponents of Climate Change use every anti-science argument they can come up with to justify their agenda.

 

[Mindmaster]

You have to document your unwarranted accusation that 'science is arbitrarily stops at thresholds of time to justify its 'findings'. Actually science uses 60 million years of climate history to determine the history of climate and compare it to the recent history of the recent rise in CO2, increase in temperature and desertification of the mesic region of the world. The opponents of Climate Change use every anti-science argument they can come up with to justify their agenda.

Science is so much more simple... It says whatever it has to say to get the money, but anyway..,

I'm not an opponent of the idea the climate changes as that's rather obvious. But, as far as why it changes and whether all of those changes are negative it's rather presumptuous. Deserts historically have been expanding since forever even long before human emissions were a factor. It would be more surprising to me if they ever shrank, lol.

As far as human emissions of CO2, they are really nothing compared to what biological (plant and animal decay) cause, volcanoes and so on... And, even then... CO2 is like 3% of 1% of the atmosphere. The man-made portion is about 3% of that. So, if we stopped making any CO2 at all, we'd in whatever number of years it takes for that to come out of the atmosphere, probably only decline somewhere near a degree in global temps for each 1% we managed to cut.

The fact remains that this much cutting is impossible without basically destroying the entire modern world. Power generation causes most of it and that's not going anywhere. In all of this effort we'd probably only reduce it by 1%, but have to give up everything to obtain it. In essence, it's nonsensical and impractical to pursue and the net reward is basically nothing. We're far likely to make a CO2 scrubbing technology before it actually mattered and that innovation would dwarf the impact of 'carbon thrifty' miserly efforts proceeding it. All it really would accomplish is stifling survival, comfort, or economic growth in the meanwhile.

Of course, that isn't the same 'presentation' of ideas that indicate that we shouldn't do reasonable things to control or limit emissions but we should be far from panicked on them either. The 'cold turkey' CO2 situation where we just stop emitting it at all would be the only way to drastically reduce the total, but with present day technology that's nearly impossible.

So, given that climate change at this point is quite literally only answerable by a genocidal scenario why are so many people wound up in the aim of supporting the narrative? Truly, I'll never know.... But, unless you can figure out how to get half of the world to suicide themselves you really aren't going to make significant gains in this regard.

 

[shunyadragon]

Science is so much more simple... It says whatever it has to say to get the money, but anyway..,

Not true, I am scientist of over 50 years in geology, environmental geology and climate sciences, and I know better.

I'm not an opponent of the idea the climate changes as that's rather obvious. But, as far as why it changes and whether all of those changes are negative it's rather presumptuous. Deserts historically have been expanding since forever even long before human emissions were a factor. It would be more surprising to me if they ever shrank, lol.

I am not arguing positive or negative. Just the facts of human influence on climate change since the Industrial Revolution.

As far as human emissions of CO2, they are really nothing compared to what biological (plant and animal decay) cause, volcanoes and so on... And, even then... CO2 is like 3% of 1% of the atmosphere. The man-made portion is about 3% of that. So, if we stopped making any CO2 at all, we'd in whatever number of years it takes for that to come out of the atmosphere, probably only decline somewhere near a degree in global temps for each 1% we managed to cut.

All the research and measurement of human influence on the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere factors in all of the above.

The fact remains that this much cutting is impossible without basically destroying the entire modern world. Power generation causes most of it and that's not going anywhere. In all of this effort we'd probably only reduce it by 1%, but have to give up everything to obtain it. In essence, it's nonsensical and impractical to pursue and the net reward is basically nothing. We're far likely to make a CO2 scrubbing technology before it actually mattered and that innovation would dwarf the impact of 'carbon thrifty' miserly efforts proceeding it. All it really would accomplish is stifling survival, comfort, or economic growth in the meanwhile.

Of course, that isn't the same 'presentation' of ideas that indicate that we shouldn't do reasonable things to control or limit emissions but we should be far from panicked on them either. The 'cold turkey' CO2 situation where we just stop emitting it at all would be the only way to drastically reduce the total, but with present day technology that's nearly impossible.

So, given that climate change at this point is quite literally only answerable by a genocidal scenario why are so many people wound up in the aim of supporting the narrative? Truly, I'll never know.... But, unless you can figure out how to get half of the world to suicide themselves you really aren't going to make significant gains in this regard.

Note at present part of my argument.