Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Eco-idiots

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I just saw an inconvenient truth. And there is no surprise that climatologists didn't do their homework. This might surprise some, but for me it showed this AGW deal is an ideological argument. So, I just saw a graph, representing the greenland ice core samples and guess what it reveals? It reveals that the warming began two hundred years ago, in the early 19th century, before we started burning fossil fuels with industrialization. Imagine that!! Before we started to put co2 out, we see in those samples the beginnng of the warming. So someone did not do their homework, but I guess billions of bucks in grants can make one just a little lazy and skip the homework. LOL And the thing is, this evidence was there all along, and yet these men of science ignored it.

    So, the question is, and they cannot answer it, given the soft science nature of climatology, WHAT is the cause or causes of the start of the warming 200 years ago prior to humanity burning fossil fuels? Well, they do not have a clue, for they have convinced themselves it is man and his co2. But easy to convince when the gov't is paying you to find evidence that the IPCC was right when they claimed before the research that man is responsible for global warming. If only these men of science had noticed when the modern warming began! And then noticed it was before fossil fuel burning. And this was also the same time frame when we noticed glaciers were beginning to melt. So, ice core sample evidence and glacier melt... so what is the cause then for this warming which began 200 years ago? No need to find out of course, for it would not be solved by carbon taxes. LOL But more than likely the cause is cosmological driven. But spending all of our money on co2 grants means we are no closer to understanding it. If we are curious as to what cause or causes are involved in climate change.

    ?


    • #32
      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
      I just saw an inconvenient truth. And there is no surprise that climatologists didn't do their homework. This might surprise some, but for me it showed this AGW deal is an ideological argument. So, I just saw a graph, representing the greenland ice core samples and guess what it reveals? It reveals that the warming began two hundred years ago, in the early 19th century, before we started burning fossil fuels with industrialization. Imagine that!! Before we started to put co2 out, we see in those samples the beginnng of the warming. So someone did not do their homework, but I guess billions of bucks in grants can make one just a little lazy and skip the homework. LOL And the thing is, this evidence was there all along, and yet these men of science ignored it.

      So, the question is, and they cannot answer it, given the soft science nature of climatology, WHAT is the cause or causes of the start of the warming 200 years ago prior to humanity burning fossil fuels? Well, they do not have a clue, for they have convinced themselves it is man and his co2. But easy to convince when the gov't is paying you to find evidence that the IPCC was right when they claimed before the research that man is responsible for global warming. If only these men of science had noticed when the modern warming began! And then noticed it was before fossil fuel burning. And this was also the same time frame when we noticed glaciers were beginning to melt. So, ice core sample evidence and glacier melt... so what is the cause then for this warming which began 200 years ago? No need to find out of course, for it would not be solved by carbon taxes. LOL But more than likely the cause is cosmological driven. But spending all of our money on co2 grants means we are no closer to understanding it. If we are curious as to what cause or causes are involved in climate change.
      Don't forget the books and reports in the seventies and eighties of the supposed "coming ice age."

      These "men of science" don't know diddly squat. The few honest and decent ones will explain this, and gladly tell you what we do and don't know and point out the lies, inconsistencies and outright fraudulent nature of this man caused global warming scam.

      But politicians and media have so much invested in it and will continue pushing it as fact . . . because it benefits THEM.

      Money and power always the motive. . . hidden behind the line; "We're saving the planet for our children & grandchildren."

      ?


      • #33
        Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

        Don't forget the books and reports in the seventies and eighties of the supposed "coming ice age."

        These "men of science" don't know diddly squat. The few honest and decent ones will explain this, and gladly tell you what we do and don't know and point out the lies, inconsistencies and outright fraudulent nature of this man caused global warming scam.

        But politicians and media have so much invested in it and will continue pushing it as fact . . . because it benefits THEM.

        Money and power always the motive. . . hidden behind the line; "We're saving the planet for our children & grandchildren."
        After thinking about this later today, I am even more astounded with what those greenland ice core samples evidenced. Why has no one ever brought this up in the climate change debate I have seen in MSM? At least one of the so called deniers should have mentioned it. I ran across this data by accident when listening to randall carlson who was using data from ice core in researching the idea that the end of the last ice age which came suddenly because of a possible comet impact which has left a layer of nano diamonds in the soil level from that time frame. He was going over the graph they have, based upon the core samples and time, dating back hundreds of thousands of years on these particular core samples. He had pointed out changes in temp long before the onset of the last ice age, where it greatly exceeded todays global temp average. He then stated that after the ice sheets melted from the last ice age temps have been relatively stable, and that the current warming is within the range of natural variability over the last 10,000 years, and then pointing to the graph showed that the current warming trend began 200 years ago. Someone asked him why this is the first time they had heard this fact and he said apparently someone has not done their homework, perhaps because this climate change argument is ideological. And he isn't a person who pushes this data or gets into arguments with the AGW people for he isn't interested in it. He is interested in geology and what caused the end of the last ice age which happened suddenly. And has spent his life researching geological changes. His interest in the sudden end of the ice age is because he thinks much of the geology out west, was created by a huge flood of melting ice sheets which transformed the landscape. With the melt being caused by a comet impact on the ice sheet. Anyways that is how I came across the data showing this warming began 200 years ago before industrialization and the burning of fossil fuel. But he does not deny that co2 could contribute, but the warming had began before fossil fuels.

        One can see how some people would not mention this, right? Not even these climatologists. I bet there are some contrary voices in the field though, the ones MSM blacks out. I would just about bet money on it if I were a betting kind of guy. For this seems like a big inconvenient fact.

        ?


        • #34
          Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
          After thinking about this later today, I am even more astounded with what those greenland ice core samples evidenced. Why has no one ever brought this up in the climate change debate I have seen in MSM? At least one of the so called deniers should have mentioned it. I ran across this data by accident when listening to randall carlson who was using data from ice core in researching the idea that the end of the last ice age which came suddenly because of a possible comet impact which has left a layer of nano diamonds in the soil level from that time frame. He was going over the graph they have, based upon the core samples and time, dating back hundreds of thousands of years on these particular core samples. He had pointed out changes in temp long before the onset of the last ice age, where it greatly exceeded todays global temp average. He then stated that after the ice sheets melted from the last ice age temps have been relatively stable, and that the current warming is within the range of natural variability over the last 10,000 years, and then pointing to the graph showed that the current warming trend began 200 years ago. Someone asked him why this is the first time they had heard this fact and he said apparently someone has not done their homework, perhaps because this climate change argument is ideological. And he isn't a person who pushes this data or gets into arguments with the AGW people for he isn't interested in it. He is interested in geology and what caused the end of the last ice age which happened suddenly. And has spent his life researching geological changes. His interest in the sudden end of the ice age is because he thinks much of the geology out west, was created by a huge flood of melting ice sheets which transformed the landscape. With the melt being caused by a comet impact on the ice sheet. Anyways that is how I came across the data showing this warming began 200 years ago before industrialization and the burning of fossil fuel. But he does not deny that co2 could contribute, but the warming had began before fossil fuels.

          One can see how some people would not mention this, right? Not even these climatologists. I bet there are some contrary voices in the field though, the ones MSM blacks out. I would just about bet money on it if I were a betting kind of guy. For this seems like a big inconvenient fact.
          Nothing that shows the truth about this scam, will ever be released by our "mainstream media."

          Their tactic will depend on being able to dismiss real science and scientists who talk factually about this. They will dismiss & mock them since good information will ONLY be accessible on "alt-right" or "white nationalist" sources... that's how they will handle this.

          It will depend on how long and/or effective this tactic will be at discouraging people to learn and pursue facts.

          Truth always wins. The length of time to victory varies, so these liars KNOW their time is limited. How LONG depends on the general population really. When people reject this for what it is, it WILL end.

          Just like the few residual nazi idiots remaining, we'll always have some global warming fanatics out there, you can bet on it. But they will only be a curiosity to be laughed at, at that point.

          ?


          • #35
            Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

            Nothing that shows the truth about this scam, will ever be released by our "mainstream media."

            Their tactic will depend on being able to dismiss real science and scientists who talk factually about this. They will dismiss & mock them since good information will ONLY be accessible on "alt-right" or "white nationalist" sources... that's how they will handle this.

            It will depend on how long and/or effective this tactic will be at discouraging people to learn and pursue facts.

            Truth always wins. The length of time to victory varies, so these liars KNOW their time is limited. How LONG depends on the general population really. When people reject this for what it is, it WILL end.

            Just like the few residual nazi idiots remaining, we'll always have some global warming fanatics out there, you can bet on it. But they will only be a curiosity to be laughed at, at that point.

            Off topic, but what gripes my old arse is the knee jerk habit of these people left of center, far left in most cases, that equates economic nationalism, you know, what our founders put into place and which we lived under for most of our history with white nationalism which is then the same as neo nazism. If it were just simple stupidity, I could laugh and overlook it, but it isn't simple stupidity but a willful distortion of the facts, or lying through their teeth, thinking that lying is justifiable in attacking people who do not think as they think. It is the dishonesty, the lying, the derision of simple integrity that really gets under my old thinning skin. And this gripes my old arse regardless of which side it comes from. I may get some things wrong, from forgetfulness that comes with old age, or a perception clouded by values and such, but I never intentionally lie in order to make a point. And I despise those that do. And this dishonesty is so prolific, you see it in MSM, and on forums, not so much this one, but I have read on other really busy forums where it is the rule rather than the exception. It permeates our culture, or at least those that discuss politics. So political beliefs have the power and tendency to turn people into nothing but absolute non repentant liars. The truth is meaningless, and perhaps an inconvenience. Why is this? Sure human beings have always lied about some stuff, but never like one sees today. Does being a purist in an ideological belief demand lying, in order that it remain within the realm of common sense? To appear to be rational thinking? And it runs from hyperbole all the way into a studied deception that looks to take some practice.

            Who was it that said that in times of deceit, that telling the truth is a revolutionary act? Not sure where I heard it. Well we live in such times of deceit, and it happens from the top, with our ruling elites, who are well practiced professionals all the way through MSM and their so called learned pundits, all the way down to the poster who inhabit political forums. And as you mentioned, if one gets contrary info from some information site, that happens to be right of center, the knee jerk is, well its an alt neo nazi site and so anything they say is a lie. So your information is automatically false, even when it is actually a hard fact. This dove tails very well with the deception and lies required to believe in something which can be falsified rather easily but which must be embraced by an ideological belief held by one or the other tribe. And these people who must believe a deception can never admit they were wrong, and so concrete is poured around their deception and they will not be moved. Another form of dishonesty and a lack of intellectual integrity. And how can anyone ever discuss issues when one side is going to revert to this at some point? What is the value, the use of all of this?

            I would love to see an honest discussion between the opposing sides, the way one used to see it in Firing Line, that old Wm. F. Buckely program that I used to watch regularly so long ago. You just did not see the lies, the deciet when debating an issue. But today, such a program it is filled with it and a debate cannot be won, judged by the people viewing it, for you have to listen to a pack of lies and deception. This is surely a big sign of the implosion of american society, an inner decay and rot, a signal we are in such dangerous times, times of lies an deceit, with no earnest seriousness at all. Which leads to nowhere. Well, it's off my chest now. I just wish it had not happened during my life time and that my grandkids have to be enculturated to this disease of what can only be called tremendous immorality, an era of post truth, post facts. And it would be hard to convince me that this plunge into darkness does not have its causation in the demise of christianity in american culture. A society loses its way, its morality, its good and constructive values with the demise of a religion like christianity. The older I have become the more that this has become self evident. And I have had my problems with christianity. Yet what it once instilled in american culture is sorely missed and tells me once again of its tremendous value regardless of what its critics claim. What have they replaced it with? Whatever it is, it surely isnt working.

            ?


            • #36
              Originally posted by Brexx View Post

              There is a lot of BS being fed to people by the media. The latest is that Irma was the strongest Atlantic storm ever recorded. It wasn't. It was actually tied for second place with four other storms.

              Contrary to what the media keeps feeding us and people keep repeating, the IPCC stated in its last report that there is no evidence of an increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events.
              As a reward for the IPCC's service and scientific method, the US has zeroed-out it's funding for that organization. Link:
              In stark contrast to the leadership role the US has historically contributed to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the enacted 2017 U.S. Budget zeroes out funding for the institution.
              http://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda-ekwurz...t-ipcc-funding

              In it's latest (full?) report, IPCC didn't comment on Irma's record-breaking 37 hour grind thru the Caribbean for a good reason: The report pre-dated the extreme event. That organization discusses extreme tendencies in their 2007 report, here:
              https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...n/faq-3-3.html
              -Thanks for playing. Try again.

              ?


              • #37
                Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                I just saw an inconvenient truth. And there is no surprise that climatologists didn't do their homework. This might surprise some, but for me it showed this AGW deal is an ideological argument. So, I just saw a graph, representing the greenland ice core samples and guess what it reveals? It reveals that the warming began two hundred years ago, in the early 19th century, before we started burning fossil fuels with industrialization. Imagine that!! Before we started to put co2 out, we see in those samples the beginnng of the warming. So someone did not do their homework, but I guess billions of bucks in grants can make one just a little lazy and skip the homework. LOL And the thing is, this evidence was there all along, and yet these men of science ignored it.

                So, the question is, and they cannot answer it, given the soft science nature of climatology, WHAT is the cause or causes of the start of the warming 200 years ago prior to humanity burning fossil fuels? Well, they do not have a clue, for they have convinced themselves it is man and his co2. But easy to convince when the gov't is paying you to find evidence that the IPCC was right when they claimed before the research that man is responsible for global warming. If only these men of science had noticed when the modern warming began! And then noticed it was before fossil fuel burning. And this was also the same time frame when we noticed glaciers were beginning to melt. So, ice core sample evidence and glacier melt... so what is the cause then for this warming which began 200 years ago? No need to find out of course, for it would not be solved by carbon taxes. LOL But more than likely the cause is cosmological driven. But spending all of our money on co2 grants means we are no closer to understanding it. If we are curious as to what cause or causes are involved in climate change.
                One doesn't have to worry about the "man made" vs. "natural cycle" argument, BD. One needs to worry about the increasing violence of weather events and tighten up the screws on zoning and other ways to mitigate the human and material damage.

                While we wait for the enlightened oligarchy to pull their collective heads out of that rhetorical hole, the unwashed masses in developed countries have already figured out one solution: depopulation, aka, "collapsing population". An elegant solution to local assholes issuing permits to build in flood zones: Depop the city, until the "leadership" cleans the fecal matter from their eyes.

                ?


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                  Off topic, but what gripes my old arse is the knee jerk habit of these people left of center, far left in most cases, that equates economic nationalism, you know, what our founders put into place and which we lived under for most of our history with white nationalism which is then the same as neo nazism. If it were just simple stupidity, I could laugh and overlook it, but it isn't simple stupidity but a willful distortion of the facts, or lying through their teeth, thinking that lying is justifiable in attacking people who do not think as they think. It is the dishonesty, the lying, the derision of simple integrity that really gets under my old thinning skin.
                  The obvious lying is an irritation to many. These people lie in front of the whole world and think they can get away with it !

                  How does that work ? The bigger the lie and the more public you are when telling it, the more likely people will believe and accept it ??

                  Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                  And this gripes my old arse regardless of which side it comes from. I may get some things wrong, from forgetfulness that comes with old age, or a perception clouded by values and such, but I never intentionally lie in order to make a point. And I despise those that do. And this dishonesty is so prolific, you see it in MSM, and on forums, not so much this one, but I have read on other really busy forums where it is the rule rather than the exception. It permeates our culture, or at least those that discuss politics. So political beliefs have the power and tendency to turn people into nothing but absolute non repentant liars. The truth is meaningless, and perhaps an inconvenience. Why is this? Sure human beings have always lied about some stuff, but never like one sees today. Does being a purist in an ideological belief demand lying, in order that it remain within the realm of common sense? To appear to be rational thinking? And it runs from hyperbole all the way into a studied deception that looks to take some practice.
                  I think you're on to something. Like I said above;

                  "The bigger the lie and the more public you are when telling it, the more likely people will believe and accept it.."

                  We have seen this affect our society in big ways. It obviously works !

                  Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                  Who was it that said that in times of deceit, that telling the truth is a revolutionary act? Not sure where I heard it. Well we live in such times of deceit, and it happens from the top, with our ruling elites, who are well practiced professionals all the way through MSM and their so called learned pundits, all the way down to the poster who inhabit political forums. And as you mentioned, if one gets contrary info from some information site, that happens to be right of center, the knee jerk is, well its an alt neo nazi site and so anything they say is a lie. So your information is automatically false, even when it is actually a hard fact. This dove tails very well with the deception and lies required to believe in something which can be falsified rather easily but which must be embraced by an ideological belief held by one or the other tribe. And these people who must believe a deception can never admit they were wrong, and so concrete is poured around their deception and they will not be moved. Another form of dishonesty and a lack of intellectual integrity. And how can anyone ever discuss issues when one side is going to revert to this at some point? What is the value, the use of all of this?
                  Truth is mocked and rejected, lies are held up as truths, lies are used to support lies !

                  This is indicative an unhealthy and un-CIVILIZED population.

                  Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                  I would love to see an honest discussion between the opposing sides, the way one used to see it in Firing Line, that old Wm. F. Buckely program that I used to watch regularly so long ago. You just did not see the lies, the deciet when debating an issue. But today, such a program it is filled with it and a debate cannot be won, judged by the people viewing it, for you have to listen to a pack of lies and deception. This is surely a big sign of the implosion of american society, an inner decay and rot, a signal we are in such dangerous times, times of lies an deceit, with no earnest seriousness at all.
                  As a population, as a society, we're choosing to consume this garbage. We support it by our consumption.

                  Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                  Which leads to nowhere. Well, it's off my chest now. I just wish it had not happened during my life time and that my grandkids have to be enculturated to this disease of what can only be called tremendous immorality, an era of post truth, post facts. And it would be hard to convince me that this plunge into darkness does not have its causation in the demise of christianity in american culture.
                  That is exactly what is happening. We've rejected God, decided WE will be God, make our own "rules."

                  ... and we will get the same results humanity always has when this occurs. Those who do not learn from history ..."

                  Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                  A society loses its way, its morality, its good and constructive values with the demise of a religion like christianity. The older I have become the more that this has become self evident. And I have had my problems with christianity. Yet what it once instilled in american culture is sorely missed and tells me once again of its tremendous value regardless of what its critics claim. What have they replaced it with? Whatever it is, it surely isnt working.
                  I've had my problems with Christianity too. On closer examination, I learned that my problems with it we're a problem with Christians, a problem with PEOPLE. One can go to ANY denomination of ANY religion and run into hypocrites, opportunists, rip-off artists, freaks & liars, etc. This is what drives most people away from "going to church" or even deciding to be religious. Hypocrisy is seen not just in politics LOL .. I think it must be part of the human condition.

                  The more we deny God to be god, the more deeply we will involve ourselves with the people, places, pleasures, and intrigues that will surely kill us in the end. - Roy Masters

                  ?


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                    Who says smoking too much pot doesn't affect the brain?
                    Well, people who smoke too much pot for starters!

                    ?


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                      Giant weather events that would make the proverbial devil soil himself in fear, were rather uncommon during humanity's time on earth, at least up to now. As for righties doing little about it, I'll elaborate. Gummint can do something about it. Even for those who don't believe in man-made global warming (including earthquakes, thx for the link RR). What can gummint do? A few simple things:
                      -Don't issue building permits where it floods on a regular basis. It is an occasional lake or river, so use it for crops or a park for sporting events. Not permanent housing or business.
                      -Issue building permits only for reinforced dwellings in "hot zones". Buildings that can withstand heavy tidal surges, winds, earthquakes, etc., depending on zone.
                      -Keep FEMA well funded for "double-whammy" events. Why can't capitalists solve this problem? Because capitalists are not supposed to invest in first response. There isn't a profit in re-building for people that are mostly broke, nor can they make coin on recovering cadavers or providing paramedic service, rescue, etc. I'm sure some companies would like to convince the public that they can do all that good stuff, but the reality is that they do the re-build after the first rescue and cleanup is done. First response is non-profit, and it always was. Think of it this way, CT: If a for-profit company actually went in to clean up Houston from the get-go, they would go bankrupt. Sure, they could claim they were superheroes, but if they got some "subsidies" from the gummint to get the job done, it wouldn't be "capitalism", would it?
                      -Don't depend on Local or State gov't. to take care of the above items without federal audit, either. Look at your own zoning and building permit process, or just about anywhere in the US. One can safely bet there are at least 2 or 3 zoning codes that clearly whore out the public interest, in favor of real estate and other construction business interests. While local and state are critical in providing first response, they cannot pick up anything resembling the tab on a big natural disaster. However, if state/local are routinely whipped by the feds for visiting the real estate whore house, and align their zoning codes & enforcement to reality, we should be able to reduce human and material damage by a very large margin.

                      Lower cost, both human and financial, for everyone over the long haul. Should be an objective for lefties and righties alike.
                      You think that major weather events have only recently begun occuring? That is right up there with one of the stupidest things ever posted on this forum (and that is some seriously stiff competition).. First of all, even if it is true, there is absolutely NO way to prove it is true, we do not have sufficiently accurate records going back nearly far enough to make any objective assessment, let alone a statistically valid one (nothing irritated me more than idiot reporters declaring Irma was the "most powerful storm ever" -- as opposed to the most powerful storm on RECORD).

                      At best we have reasonably comparable records for comparison going back about 100 years. Making sweeping assertions about all of human history (going back several thousand years) based on only the last 100 years of data is like assessing the health of a human being over their entire lifetime based on their health between their 64th and 65th birthdays.

                      And here is a thought with regard to incentivizing better construction...STOP BAILING THEM OUT WHEN THEY DON'T!

                      As I have posted elsewhere, FEMA funding should be limited to immediate relief needs and the coordination thereof. There should be no appropriations for subsequent relief and rebuilding. What we should provide is long-term loans at the going rate of the 30-year treasury, with the option for interest only payments for the first five years for recovery. This way, the states that incur the most costs due to such events over the long-term, ultimately bear that costs.

                      ?


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by radcentr View Post

                        As a reward for the IPCC's service and scientific method, the US has zeroed-out it's funding for that organization. Link:
                        http://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda-ekwurz...t-ipcc-funding

                        In it's latest (full?) report, IPCC didn't comment on Irma's record-breaking 37 hour grind thru the Caribbean for a good reason: The report pre-dated the extreme event. That organization discusses extreme tendencies in their 2007 report, here:
                        https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and...n/faq-3-3.html
                        -Thanks for playing. Try again.
                        The IPCC should be defunded. Its a political organization that is well known for misrepresenting the science of ACC that they are supposed to be summarizing and reporting. An example of this is the fact that they had to back down from the alarmist 2007 report regarding extreme weather events that you referred to. It was based on nothing more than information from insurance companies which was misleading.

                        Here is a summary of what they said in their AR5 report of 2013 regarding extreme weather events:
                        • Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability"
                        • "There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century
                        • Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin
                        • In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale
                        • In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems
                        • In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950
                        • In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low

                        http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/201...-ipcc-ar5.html

                        Thank you for playing. Try again?

                        ?


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                          The IPCC should be defunded. Its a political organization that is well known for misrepresenting the science of ACC that they are supposed to be summarizing and reporting. An example of this is the fact that they had to back down from the alarmist 2007 report regarding extreme weather events that you referred to. It was based on nothing more than information from insurance companies which was misleading.

                          Here is a summary of what they said in their AR5 report of 2013 regarding extreme weather events:
                          • Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability"
                          • "There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century
                          • Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin
                          • In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale
                          • In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems
                          • In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950
                          • In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low

                          http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/201...-ipcc-ar5.html

                          Thank you for playing. Try again?
                          You state the IPCC should be defunded, then you use an IPCC report (quoted in an unrelated blog?) to back your argument that hurricane intensity isn't changing. Pick one or the other, but your two positions together fail to support your argument.

                          ?


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                            You think that major weather events have only recently begun occuring? That is right up there with one of the stupidest things ever posted on this forum (and that is some seriously stiff competition).. First of all, even if it is true, there is absolutely NO way to prove it is true, we do not have sufficiently accurate records going back nearly far enough to make any objective assessment, let alone a statistically valid one (nothing irritated me more than idiot reporters declaring Irma was the "most powerful storm ever" -- as opposed to the most powerful storm on RECORD).

                            At best we have reasonably comparable records for comparison going back about 100 years. Making sweeping assertions about all of human history (going back several thousand years) based on only the last 100 years of data is like assessing the health of a human being over their entire lifetime based on their health between their 64th and 65th birthdays.

                            And here is a thought with regard to incentivizing better construction...STOP BAILING THEM OUT WHEN THEY DON'T!

                            As I have posted elsewhere, FEMA funding should be limited to immediate relief needs and the coordination thereof. There should be no appropriations for subsequent relief and rebuilding. What we should provide is long-term loans at the going rate of the 30-year treasury, with the option for interest only payments for the first five years for recovery. This way, the states that incur the most costs due to such events over the long-term, ultimately bear that costs.
                            Let's try again, so you might have other resources to better form your understanding of climate change. Here's another link:
                            Elsner found weaker hurricanes showed little to no trend while stronger hurricanes showed a greater upward trend. In other words, stronger hurricanes are getting stronger. This means that as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase. More on Elsner's paper...
                            https://www.skepticalscience.com/hur...termediate.htm

                            I'm certain that in the caveman days, there were monster storms. For those who believe modern humans have been around for at least 50,000 years, the likelihood that one group experienced a hurricane season like this one is pretty high. What I'm talking about is storm intensity, not frequency, as noted in the skeptical science link above. Should the intensity of (strong) hurricanes increase, that puts a lot more pressure on how zoning is handled.

                            Your "the locals borrowing or busting over 30 years" strategy won't happen. The borrowing allows them to kick the can down the road, since any local leadership (political and economic) will insist that re-building that lovely resort on the beach is critical to the local economy. The federal punishment of poor/corrupt local zoning codes is mostly political, but can be accomplished immediately and at minimal cost. If, and only if, engineers run the zoning codes to prohibit inadequate building in flood zones/hurricane exposed sites. When that is done, much suffering and material damage is simply prevented. Borrowing one's way out of it, on the hope that bankruptcy from poor administration will change the voter's mind, is unrealistic. The politician running the crap-shoot for a monster storm, 20 years after the previous storm, will blame the politician and developers who screwed up 20 years prior. Even if the current leadership were willing to correct the mistakes made 20 years prior, they will have to deal with a large public debt and a mess that will add too much burden to that debt. Why so much money? Much cheaper if the feds threaten local/state support when the state allows corrupt zoning practices.

                            ?


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by radcentr View Post

                              You state the IPCC should be defunded, then you use an IPCC report (quoted in an unrelated blog?) to back your argument that hurricane intensity isn't changing. Pick one or the other, but your two positions together fail to support your argument.
                              If their own information ( the ippcc ) doesn't support what they're arguing in favor of, why should they be funded or 'supported ?'

                              That seems to be what he's saying... maybe I'm missing something ? I don't know ?

                              If an organization makes a claim, then turns around and presents information that negates their own claim..... seems to me that people that do such a thing may not be the best people to be making claims of anything LOL .... which would be a good argument for pulling funds away from such a group.

                              ?


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by radcentr View Post

                                You state the IPCC should be defunded, then you use an IPCC report (quoted in an unrelated blog?) to back your argument that hurricane intensity isn't changing. Pick one or the other, but your two positions together fail to support your argument.
                                What I think of the IPCC should not matter to you. You have faith in them. You don't want them defunded, and you quote them to back your argument that extreme weather events are getting worse. Now, when I point out that they changed their tune on that in 2013 are you saying you don't accept that because I posted it? They back-tracked on what they said in 2007 which is what you were using to back your argument.

                                I accept their (IPCC) correction of their mistake in 2007, but I still think they should be abolished. In fact, all of the billions of dollars being spent on man made climate change research should be ended. Aren't we constantly being told the science is settled? When you throw great gobs of money at scientists to study human effects on climate they are going to keep coming up with stuff, and the scarier the better. No crisis=no funding, that's why there is such an effort to discredit and silence those scientists who don't go along with the alarmist narrative.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X