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

  • An MIT scientist points out the lies & radicalized nature of those incessently telling us how man caused global warming is an unquestionable fact supported by all of science.

    It isn't and never has been. There is no, never has been a "consensus."

    ----------------------------------------------

    MIT SCIENTIST: RANTING SENATOR A 'MORON' ON GLOBAL WARMING

    A scientist with expertise in climate change is lambasting a U.S. senator for casting people who question the theory of man-caused global warming as evil voices.

    Thomas Sheahen, an MIT-educated physicist and author of An Introduction to High-Temperature Supreconductivity, was reacting in an interview with Marc Morano at Climate Depot to comments by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.

    I am really getting sick and tired of this blowhard Sheldon Whitehouse lecturing us for being sinners, said Sheahen, who has earned a Ph.D.

    Sen. Whitehouse is a complete moron, scientifically, he said Friday. He doesnt know any real science at all. He believes mythology initiated a generation ago by Al Gore, where CO2 emitted by mankind is entirely to blame.

    There is no such thing as a climate denier. That category doesnt exist. There are certain facts that we all agree on: 1) the climate is always changing; b) the globe is warming; c) there is a finite human contribution (e.g., the urban heat island effect).

    Where disagreement begins is on the role of CO2 in the heating the planet. There is great scientific controversy about that point, because of factors such as how molecules absorb and re-radiate photons at various altitudes in the atmosphere, because of flow via convection of warm air from the surface to the upper atmosphere; and more. Its a really complicated field of science.

    CNS News reported earlier this week on Whitehouses speech on the floor of the Senate.

    The senator claimed those who stand in the way of regulations targeting climate change are guilty of three sins.

    It is an evil mess we are in, and if there is any justice in this world, there will one day be a terrible price to pay if we keep listening to evil voices, Whitehouse said.

    Sheahen said enough was enough.

    Sheldon Whitehouse has no intention whatsoever to engage in any scientific debate at all. Instead, he quotes the entirely false and manufactured statistic that 97 percent of scientists agree and goes from there to further faulty steps: 1) he asserts that he knows the truth perfectly; 2) he asserts that anybody who disagrees with him is a sinner.

    Sheahen concluded: No way is Whitehouse capable of defining some action as a sin. His scientific acumen is so weak that he cannot even defend the position he holds but instead resorts to the argument from authority to brush off any scientific disagreement.


    http://www.wnd.com/2018/03/mit-scien...lobal-warming/

    ?


    • Seems like the whole global warming balony has kind of died out. People lost interest in it, they're more involved with other things now.

      Which is understandable. It wasn't true from the beginning, more and more things about it became well known. ie - there never was any "consensus," it was all based on theory and supposition and computer models etc etc..

      Some of us will dismiss this because it's found on breitbart.

      But, in case we're interested, it IS interesting what the latest data and findings are giving us. A period of cooling !

      ---------------------------------------------------------------

      Our planet has just experienced the most extreme two-year cooling event in a century. But where have you seen this reported anywhere in the mainstream media?

      You havent, even though the figures are pretty spectacular.

      From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47Calso during the global warming era. All the data in this essay come from GISTEMP Team, 2018: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (dataset accessed 2018-04-11 at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/). This is the standard source used in most journalistic reporting of global average temperatures.

      The 2016-18 Big Chill was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average. February 2018 was colder than February 1998.

      Since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1880s, the planet has warmed by about 0.8 degrees C. You might think that was not a particularly drastic rate of warming to worry about. You might also note that such a rate of warming is well precedented in periods throughout history, such as during the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods. Nonetheless this 0.8 degrees C rise 0.9 degrees C, at a push is the terrible climatic event the alarmist establishment has been assuring these last few decades is the worst thing ever and something that should worry us awfully.

      ...you cant extrapolate trends from such a short time scale. Well, not unless youre a climate alarmist As we know from long experience, if it had been the other way round if the planet had warmed by 0.56 degrees C rather than cooled, the media would have been all over it.

      My point is that statistical cooling outliers garner no media attention. The global average temperature numbers come out monthly. If they show a new hottest year on record, thats a big story. If they show a big increase over the previous month, or the same month in the previous year, thats a story. If they represent a sequence of warming months or years, thats a story. When they show cooling of any sortand there have been more cooling months than warming months since anthropogenic warming begantheres no story.


      [ it's not the "story" certain elites want you to believe ! They want you to buy into the story THEY'RE telling ]

      Meanwhile a study by Judith Curry and Nic Lewis also largely unreported by the mainstream media confirms what skeptics have been saying for years: that the computer models used by the alarmist establishment to predict global warming are running too hot.

      -
      not to mention the fact that there isn't a scientific consensus and never has been

      https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com...7_accepted.pdf

      In the study, authors Nic Lewis and Judith Curry looked at actual temperature records and compared them with climate change computer models. What they found is that the planet has shown itself to be far less sensitive to increases in CO2 than the climate models say. As a result, they say, the planet will warm less than the models predict, even if we continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

      As Lewis explains: Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and highly unlikely to exceed that level.

      This brings projected global warming from being potentially dangerous to being easily manageable. Which is why, of course, it is unlikely to get much attention from a scientific establishment and a complicit media that much prefers to ramp up the global warming scare even when the evidence doesnt support it.


      http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm..._medium=social

      ?


      • Clearly a dead issue no one believes, or is interested in any longer.

        But hey, Al Gore made a bundle ... good for him I guess.

        ?


        • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
          Seems like the whole global warming balony has kind of died out. People lost interest in it, they're more involved with other things now.

          Which is understandable. It wasn't true from the beginning, more and more things about it became well known. ie - there never was any "consensus," it was all based on theory and supposition and computer models etc etc..

          Some of us will dismiss this because it's found on breitbart.

          But, in case we're interested, it IS interesting what the latest data and findings are giving us. A period of cooling !

          ---------------------------------------------------------------

          Our planet has just experienced the most extreme two-year cooling event in a century. But where have you seen this reported anywhere in the mainstream media?

          You havent, even though the figures are pretty spectacular.

          From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47Calso during the global warming era. All the data in this essay come from GISTEMP Team, 2018: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (dataset accessed 2018-04-11 at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/). This is the standard source used in most journalistic reporting of global average temperatures.

          The 2016-18 Big Chill was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average. February 2018 was colder than February 1998.

          Since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1880s, the planet has warmed by about 0.8 degrees C. You might think that was not a particularly drastic rate of warming to worry about. You might also note that such a rate of warming is well precedented in periods throughout history, such as during the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods. Nonetheless this 0.8 degrees C rise 0.9 degrees C, at a push is the terrible climatic event the alarmist establishment has been assuring these last few decades is the worst thing ever and something that should worry us awfully.

          ...you cant extrapolate trends from such a short time scale. Well, not unless youre a climate alarmist As we know from long experience, if it had been the other way round if the planet had warmed by 0.56 degrees C rather than cooled, the media would have been all over it.

          My point is that statistical cooling outliers garner no media attention. The global average temperature numbers come out monthly. If they show a new hottest year on record, thats a big story. If they show a big increase over the previous month, or the same month in the previous year, thats a story. If they represent a sequence of warming months or years, thats a story. When they show cooling of any sortand there have been more cooling months than warming months since anthropogenic warming begantheres no story.


          [ it's not the "story" certain elites want you to believe ! They want you to buy into the story THEY'RE telling ]

          Meanwhile a study by Judith Curry and Nic Lewis also largely unreported by the mainstream media confirms what skeptics have been saying for years: that the computer models used by the alarmist establishment to predict global warming are running too hot.

          -
          not to mention the fact that there isn't a scientific consensus and never has been

          https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com...7_accepted.pdf

          In the study, authors Nic Lewis and Judith Curry looked at actual temperature records and compared them with climate change computer models. What they found is that the planet has shown itself to be far less sensitive to increases in CO2 than the climate models say. As a result, they say, the planet will warm less than the models predict, even if we continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

          As Lewis explains: Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and highly unlikely to exceed that level.

          This brings projected global warming from being potentially dangerous to being easily manageable. Which is why, of course, it is unlikely to get much attention from a scientific establishment and a complicit media that much prefers to ramp up the global warming scare even when the evidence doesnt support it.


          http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm..._medium=social
          The progressive thing to do would be to address the problem before it reaches the crisis stage. Den deny only works so long. Reality has a way of catching up to you. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.4934e2bb3822

          ?


          • Originally posted by redrover View Post
            The progressive thing to do would be to address the problem before it reaches the crisis stage. Den deny only works so long. Reality has a way of catching up to you. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.4934e2bb3822
            Yes, reality does do that.

            The reality that the global warming story is a scam, is now widely known.

            The bright folks you cite have - ... found that humanitys remaining emissions allowance may be significantly larger than previous calculations.

            Now we have an "emissions allowance" according to some, and aren't in danger currently LOL ... but it's coming, there will be hell to pay if we don't start riding bikes !!

            It goes on to offer a lie encouraging us to dismiss scientists who point out the lies and inconsistencies found in the hyperventilating "science" crowd who believed Al Gores goof-ball movie.

            That radical dissenting literature is not published in reputable journals says more about the intellectual rigor of extreme climate doubters than it does about the honesty of those who conduct and publish legitimate scientific research.

            Wonderful word games here.

            radical dissenting literature - That would be all writings that don't support the global warming scam of course.

            reputable journals - Those would only be those that do support the global warming scam.

            intellectual rigor - That "rigor" only being found IF it supports what our global scammers want us to believe.

            legitimate scientific research - That being only research that doesn't undermine in any way, the belief that man-kind is causing the planet to warm up.

            ?


            • Originally posted by redrover View Post

              The progressive thing to do would be to address the problem before it reaches the crisis stage. Den deny only works so long. Reality has a way of catching up to you. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.4934e2bb3822
              The intelligent thing to do would be not to blow trillions of dollars on a problem that may not even exist. We don't know that global warming is ever going to reach a crisis stage.
              The solution to this problem,that may not exist, that is being pushed is to cut back severely on CO2 emissions globally. This is an immensely difficult and costly thing to do. There have already been trillions spent on this effort, and global CO2 emissions are still rising. Even if CO2 emissions are reduced somewhat eventually after unbelievable expense there is no evidence it will make any difference to climate.
              We need to be smart, not "progressive".

              ?


              • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                The intelligent thing to do would be not to blow trillions of dollars on a problem that may not even exist. We don't know that global warming is ever going to reach a crisis stage.
                The solution to this problem,that may not exist, that is being pushed is to cut back severely on CO2 emissions globally. This is an immensely difficult and costly thing to do. There have already been trillions spent on this effort, and global CO2 emissions are still rising. Even if CO2 emissions are reduced somewhat eventually after unbelievable expense there is no evidence it will make any difference to climate.
                We need to be smart, not "progressive".
                Thirty years from now will you be one of those guys who will be crying why didn't the democrats do something about this?

                ?


                • Originally posted by redrover View Post
                  Thirty years from now will you be one of those guys who will be crying why didn't the democrats do something about this?

                  The less democrats "do," the better off we'll all be.

                  ?


                  • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                    Thirty years from now will you be one of those guys who will be crying why didn't the democrats do something about this?
                    LOL, you can't get away from partisan politics can you?

                    I don't care if its Rs or Ds, I don't want any govt blowing billions of taxpayer $$ on a solution that won't work to a problem that doesn't exist.

                    ?


                    • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                      LOL, you can't get away from partisan politics can you?

                      I don't care if its Rs or Ds, I don't want any govt blowing billions of taxpayer $$ on a solution that won't work to a problem that doesn't exist.
                      The problem doesn't exist? Tell that to people who live in coastal cities.http://www.businessinsider.com/sea-l...-cities-2018-4

                      ?


                      • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                        The problem doesn't exist? Tell that to people who live in coastal cities.http://www.businessinsider.com/sea-l...-cities-2018-4
                        Sea levels have been rising for centuries. We are not going to reverse that by riding bikes and covering the landscape with wind turbines. Flooding in coastal cities has to be dealt with directly by building levees and other flood control measures.

                        ?


                        • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                          LOL, you can't get away from partisan politics can you?

                          I don't care if its Rs or Ds, I don't want any govt blowing billions of taxpayer $$ on a solution that won't work to a problem that doesn't exist.
                          I'd like to rant more in response to the post above (#686), but this quote (post #684) almost counters that better than I could. I would only add that my riding a bicycle actually could solve this problem, assuming enuf people followed the same strategy: Reduce cost along with personal income, thereby reducing the size of gov't (IOW, less car = less cost = lower income = less revenue for gov't.) Combine this by riding one's bicycle away from the coastal cities (IOW, abandoning much of the area) instead of spending huge amounts of money -from any source- to save them.

                          ?


                          • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                            I'd like to rant more in response to the post above (#686), but this quote (post #684) almost counters that better than I could. I would only add that my riding a bicycle actually could solve this problem, assuming enuf people followed the same strategy: Reduce cost along with personal income, thereby reducing the size of gov't (IOW, less car = less cost = lower income = less revenue for gov't.) Combine this by riding one's bicycle away from the coastal cities (IOW, abandoning much of the area) instead of spending huge amounts of money -from any source- to save them.
                            Reduce the size of government by riding bicycles. I assume that is meant facetiously.

                            It reminds me of Obama saying he would stop the sea levels from rising. His method was to throw money at solar companies who gladly gobbled up the money and then went bankrupt. That was funny at first, but not so funny to see all that money go down the drain.

                            ?


                            • Yes, it was an attempt at humor, but it points to the method humans used for millennia, when faced with fading coastlines: Leave that area, and settle elsewhere. Why should we bail out a crumbling old urban area -especially a port city? This makes little sense, especially when we are entering a phase when we maintain prosperity while actually shrinking our population.

                              As for solar energy, Obama made two mistakes: Throwing money at a problem, which is now barely getting out of it's "beta phase". Failures are guaranteed in the industry, and are best handled by those engineering and producing within the market, and those academics studying the new science at the various universities and technical schools. Between the research and development in the US, and master plans in "democratically challenged" countries like China, solar energy will supply a much bigger portion of energy than it does today.

                              ?


                              • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                                Yes, it was an attempt at humor, but it points to the method humans used for millennia, when faced with fading coastlines: Leave that area, and settle elsewhere. Why should we bail out a crumbling old urban area -especially a port city? This makes little sense, especially when we are entering a phase when we maintain prosperity while actually shrinking our population.

                                As for solar energy, Obama made two mistakes: Throwing money at a problem, which is now barely getting out of it's "beta phase". Failures are guaranteed in the industry, and are best handled by those engineering and producing within the market, and those academics studying the new science at the various universities and technical schools. Between the research and development in the US, and master plans in "democratically challenged" countries like China, solar energy will supply a much bigger portion of energy than it does today.
                                Can't you already hear Trump when he has to take a gondola to get to Trump tower? The democrats knew about this problem for years why didn't Obama do something about it?

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X