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

About That Global Warming...

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

  • Flashback 1976: Scientists Blamed California Drought On Global Cooling

    California was stuck in a deep drought during Gov. Jerry Browns first term, much like the one the state is currently going through. The only difference is that global cooling, not warming, was blamed for causing drought in the late 1970s.
    In 1976, the New York Times reported that California was so dry, brush fires have started several weeks early and that water is being rationed. But in the 1970s, scientists blamed this drought on global cooling.


    http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/fl...lobal-cooling/

    ?


    • Today Is The Deadline To Stop Global Warming, Or Climate Change, Or Whatever Were Calling It This Week

      The report said global emissions must peak by 2015 for the world to have any chance of limiting the expected temperature rise to 2C, which would still leave billions of people short of water by 2050.

      http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/to...-it-this-week/

      ?


      • 25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming Tipping Point

        http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/04/25...tipping-point/

        ?




        • The California drought has had a pronounced effect on the animal kingdom — salmon are getting stuck up dry riverbeds, bears are wandering farther in search of food and water, and newts have stayed in hibernation longer, perhaps because it’s not wet enough to come out.

          Now, there may be another critter to add to the list of the drought-afflicted: kittens.

          Animal shelter officials in Oakland made a public plea for donations Monday after announcing at a news conference that warm, dry weather had put love in the air in the East Bay, at least in the feline world. Cats appear to be mating more — and producing more offspring than they can care for.

          “We get a lot of kittens every year, but it has started early this year,” said Rebecca Katz, director of Oakland Animal Services, as a quartet of month-old cats that had been lost or abandoned joined her in front of television cameras.
          Obviously cats don't like to fornicate in the rain.

          I don't think the cats have a problem raising their offspring to adulthood, I just think the humans don't want to be responsible for them.
          Last edited by Commodore; 05-05-2015, 03:23 PM.

          ?


          • Cat reproduction being altered by the drought shows the drought is something completely natural that life can deal with. Something in cat biology tells them it's hard times so to make sure cats survive the hard times they have more offspring so cats as a species Have a better shot of survivng the drought in numbers.

            ?


            • Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
              Cat reproduction being altered by the drought shows the drought is something completely natural that life can deal with. Something in cat biology tells them it's hard times so to make sure cats survive the hard times they have more offspring so cats as a species Have a better shot of survivng the drought in numbers.
              In nature, I'm not sure if making more cats makes it more likely that cats will survive hard times. More mouths to feed puts more stress on prey, which is already stressed by a lack of vegetation. Unless the plan is to eat your starved litter mates.

              Of course, the contemporary cat knows that, particularly in California, while there might be a shortage of water, there is no shortage of bleeding hearts willing to pay to import pelletized horse meat from out of state. Knowing cats as I do, they may just be beefing up their numbers for an invasion.

              ?


              • Cats aren't planning an invasion they domesticated us succssfully thousands of years ago.

                ?


                • Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                  Cats aren't planning an invasion they domesticated us succssfully thousands of years ago.
                  Yeah, but taking out the dogs requires a team effort.

                  ?


                  • CLIMATE-CHANGE ADVOCATES COLLECT BIG MONEY FROM INTERESTED PARTIES

                    There is actually far more money behind the Church of Global Warming than any of its skeptics. The difference is that global-warming cabbage is not portrayed as unclean or suspected of influencing the outcome of scientific studies, because it comes from media-approved good guy organizations presumed 100 percent selfless and altruistic.
                    The biggest media-beloved, honorable, compassionate organization is, of course, the government.


                    http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ested-parties/

                    ?


                    • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                      CLIMATE-CHANGE ADVOCATES COLLECT BIG MONEY FROM INTERESTED PARTIES


                      http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ested-parties/[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
                      Can't argue with what he say's. I alway believed the scientists should be the ones addressing the climate change issue with the public. All scientists, individually with no support from the gov't, (financial or verbal), that is unequal during research, claiming one side or the other. To put hardship on the economy based on a theory that is not supported by at least 80% of the scientific studies, is a crime. If science is based on theory created form fact, then I find it hard to believe that 80%, or more, of the studies done by scientists of proven intellect, would not agree. Anyone out there have the stats on what percent of the studies, lean one way or the other?

                      ?


                      • If scientists 50 years ago, had come out, and presented the arguments they do today, most of the American people would have trusted them. I think that is a fact.

                        But today, far too many people just do not trust science, the consensus that we are told about. But there are huge reasons for this, and it isn't just the fact that pro oligarchy republicans deny it because the Koch's don't want to suffer not making billions more in their fossil fuel interests.

                        No indeed. It is because the American people do not trust much of anything that comes from their gov't. Oh, they will trust the tales about radical islamists, for this relies upon appealing to fears from a group that might chop our heads off, with a dull butcher knife But overall, much of America, especially the half of us who have given up and do not vote, simply does not trust their gov't, for they know it doesn't represent their interests, regardless of who gets into office, with the latest example being Obama, who talked the talk but will not walk the walk. He too is owned by the Plutocracy.

                        So why should these people trust what the science is saying? That is my own position, which drives my own feelings toward climate change, and I think this is where much of America is. And not because they want the Kochs to make billions more, and not because they agree with the dems and the UN taking money away from working and middle America and giving it to the poor in Africa, which then ends up in the hands of the mncs, after the elites dip their pelican sized beaks in that flow of money from America.

                        So this question of trust, even trusting science runs deep, and much deeper than we are astute enough to see. IMO.

                        ?


                        • It doesn't help when you have such a sizeable chunk of people who don't even trust scientists on something with the deluge of evidence to support it as evolution.

                          ?


                          • Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                            It doesn't help when you have such a sizeable chunk of people who don't even trust scientists on something with the deluge of evidence to support it as evolution.
                            If you study evolution, you will realize it takes a lot more faith than religion?

                            ?


                            • Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                              It doesn't help when you have such a sizeable chunk of people who don't even trust scientists on something with the deluge of evidence to support it as evolution.
                              But it's not just the Koch republicans denying science, it's average americans, even educated americans. And the average americans have gotten to the point that they have been lied to so often and so tremendously, that they do not trust the scientists either, for they also know of the scheme of the UN and democrats to redistribute the wealth of working and middle class people to Africa, which ends up in the hands of MNCs. And then you have some scientists who say the study financed by billions is flawed, contrived. And given the mistrust in America, you cannot expect all americans to believe in this doomsday scenario. Especially when real educated people understand the lack of climate change knowledge, and the tendency of science to have to change when the theory doesn't work out to be valid. The certainty involved is very troubling to people who understand science. And it doesn't help when until this co2 deal came up, the major driver of cyclical warming has always been our heat source, the sun.

                              ?


                              • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                                If scientists 50 years ago, had come out, and presented the arguments they do today, most of the American people would have trusted them. I think that is a fact.

                                But today, far too many people just do not trust science, the consensus that we are told about. But there are huge reasons for this, and it isn't just the fact that pro oligarchy republicans deny it because the Koch's don't want to suffer not making billions more in their fossil fuel interests.

                                No indeed. It is because the American people do not trust much of anything that comes from their gov't. Oh, they will trust the tales about radical islamists, for this relies upon appealing to fears from a group that might chop our heads off, with a dull butcher knife But overall, much of America, especially the half of us who have given up and do not vote, simply does not trust their gov't, for they know it doesn't represent their interests, regardless of who gets into office, with the latest example being Obama, who talked the talk but will not walk the walk. He too is owned by the Plutocracy.

                                So why should these people trust what the science is saying? That is my own position, which drives my own feelings toward climate change, and I think this is where much of America is. And not because they want the Kochs to make billions more, and not because they agree with the dems and the UN taking money away from working and middle America and giving it to the poor in Africa, which then ends up in the hands of the mncs, after the elites dip their pelican sized beaks in that flow of money from America.

                                So this question of trust, even trusting science runs deep, and much deeper than we are astute enough to see. IMO.
                                Scientists have conflicting theories. How do you explain which scientist has the accurate data? So 1 scientist in a group of 100 believes climate change is man made, and people choose to believe the one, I would surely believe it is the 1, with the Ulterior motive, that is not telling entire truth. The 1 that is selecting data to fit the narrative that will work in his/her best interest. Perhaps liars by omission. Do you have the stats on how many scientists believe man is changing the climate vs. how many scientists believe there is no proof of that?

                                So you would have to believe that All the scientists who have concluded that their is no evidence that climate change is at mans doing, do not trust science. Silly. No scientists are denying climate change. There are NO climate change deniers. That is a false title meant to persuade people. Climate has changed throughout the existence of the earth. The ice age did not occur due to man.

                                The climate will change and there is nothing that Obama or any environmentalists can do about it. The corrupt agenda of the gov't is utilizing a possible unproven theory to gain gov't control. Surely you understand that. Gov't putting out propaganda as usual. You know "fear mongering" for a political agenda.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X