politics thread

[Stymietee]

How many climate scientists exist in the world?
Were these participants chosen at random? This is a key question because to have a 100% consensus is likely to be biased.
To what extent are humans causing the warming trend?
Would the Earth be warming without humans?
Why has not one prediction of theirs actually come true?

1. Do your own homework

2. Yes, but not to the extent that it currently is changing. BTW: Frequency and intensity of current weather related events has no parallel in recorded history.

3. #2 response answers this question. More frequent events in combination with increased intensity is one of the major predictions This cannot be denied unless you don't believe any reporting during and after weather related events.

Hurricanes Likely to Get Stronger & More Frequent: Study ...
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-projects-more-frequent-and-stronger...

Major Report: Some Extreme Weather Can Only Be Blamed on ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-report-some-extreme-weather-can-only...

Storm Warnings: Extreme Weather Is a Product of Climate ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/extreme-weather-caused-by-climate-change

 

[Stymietee]

You know some will say that it is a politically timed hit job and an attempted COUP!!

ITS A COUP DAMN IT!!

 

[gkekoa]

Lets see, they have predicted the polar ice caps melting and sea levels rising. GUess what?? Both are coming to pass. They have predicted more severe weather. Half of Arkansas is flooded and its only June. 500 tornados in a 30 day period.

They predicted the polar ice caps would melt, but have been completely wrong on when. The ice caps have been melting since the last ice age. If ice melts, sea levels rise.

They predict more severe weather but again get things incorrect.


Worst Floods in American History

The 11 strongest hurricanes ever to form in the Atlantic Ocean, ranked by wind speed

Historical Records and Trends | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

 

[gkekoa]

1. Do your own homework

2. Yes, but not to the extent that it currently is changing. BTW: Frequency and intensity of current weather related events has no parallel in recorded history.

3. #2 response answers this question. More frequent events in combination with increased intensity is one of the major predictions This cannot be denied unless you don't believe any reporting during and after weather related events.

Hurricanes Likely to Get Stronger & More Frequent: Study ...
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-projects-more-frequent-and-stronger...

Major Report: Some Extreme Weather Can Only Be Blamed on ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/major-report-some-extreme-weather-can-only...

Storm Warnings: Extreme Weather Is a Product of Climate ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/extreme-weather-caused-by-climate-change

1- so you have no clue...got it.

2- you skipped question 2 completely because you didn’t want to answer it...check.

3- has no parallel...could it simply be because recording is better and easier today. I just showed a couple of articles that make this claim complete bullshit.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhener...on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#3225487c1157

 

[Stymietee]

Mueller must testify publicly to answer three critical questions

Please allow me to answer them. Keep in mind that I too read a lot of the stuff from "The Hill."

1. Refusal to identify grand jury material

True or false, Rosenstein and Barr were alternatively Mueller's boss correct? Did either HAVE to accept the report as given...NO! Clearly they each had their own motivation(s) for both the public announcements that it was done and accepting it then releasing it to the public as it was, or originally submitted.


2. Surprise letter sent to the attorney general

Again, Barr was his boss, and phones work both ways. If the Boss is generally unhappy with some sort of accounting, then as a general rule, the boss taken necessary and appropriate actions to rectify his concerns. Beyond that, if there's a betrayal of trust by either party, there very little wiggle room for retraction once things go public. Barr created the public discourse when he voluntarily and inexplicably exonerated Trump on the day that the report was released. In effect, the Mueller letter was in response to this mischaracterization of the report by Barr. He (Barr) lied about what was in the report publicly and Mueller with his letter responded in kind.


3. Refusal to reach an obstruction conclusion

I'll admit, he could have, but that's like saying that I could have won the lottery. or more succinctly the American public could have read the Mueller report. Yes he had a choice, I don't think that anyone is denying that, however, he did have his own reasoning and that too can not be disputed. The DOJ memo, was his guiding principle from the beginning and was his justification for not formally charging the president. "Should" he have reached a conclusion? perhaps, in more direct language, but make no mistake, an obstructive conclusion was made, although not formally charged, when he said, "if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

 

[Stymietee]

Interesting , and look at CA now , ouch !

Perhaps, despite all protests here, the people of S.F. aren't ready to disband and rid this country of it's socialist institutions. There is another thought on this as well, perhaps there are huge parts of the country that's ready to create other American made socialist things such as universal healthcare, some plan against climate changes, significant reversal of the longtime attack on public education, shoring up social security, along with more public involvement in policing and politics or a host of other socialistic norms in this country.

 

[Stymietee]

1- so you have no clue...got it.

2- you skipped question 2 completely because you didn’t want to answer it...check.

3- has no parallel...could it simply be because recording is better and easier today. I just showed a couple of articles that make this claim complete bullshit.


Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

1. You asked, so it's clear that you don't have a clue!

2. I had previously given you information that answered #2. Do try to keep up!

3. Could be, but then you would be arguing against yourself. I did check out the responses that you gave to @Shark which were complete bullshit in light of the current climate propositions noted earlier (Frequency and intensity)

 

[Stymietee]

This is a neat trick. The IAEA report described in the story said Iran busted through limits on advanced centrifuges set by the nuclear deal. So how did Reuters do this tweet? They apparently decided those don't count as "key" limits. On what basis?

Perhaps the premise is wrong.

Let's not get fooled into another war with Iran!

 

[Stymietee]

Read this whole thread , troubling what FB did . Shouldn’t happen

Facebook, Twitter et al. admitted to being co-conspirators in the Russian voting meddling that didn't happen.

Personally, I don't understand why anyone still use these platforms, they constantly have personal information leaks, are ultra time consuming, manipulative venues. Most of what happens on these sites are sad, ego driven, attempts to draw likes, following, and other assorted bullshit.

The first one is a video:

Russian meddling on Facebook: What we learned this week
https://money.cnn.com/2017/11/02/technology/business/facebook-russia-meddling/index.html

Facebook admits being warned of alleged Russian meddling ...
www.arabnews.com/node/1412106

 

[j_y19]

This is from his acting chief of staff . Do with it what you please

I actually believe that he may not have known about the specific act, but he sets the tone and sure as shit his aides knew that he would lose it on them (and others) if he saw the ship. Otherwise why would they take such an odd action?

 

[skinsdad62]

I actually believe that he may not have known about the specific act, but he sets the tone and sure as shit his aides knew that he would lose it on them (and others) if he saw the ship. Otherwise why would they take such an odd action?

look i am not going to tell you it isnt petty or it didnt go down like you said

 

[skinsdad62]

True

 

[skinsdad62]

Illegals Get Minimum Sentences for Killing Couple, Raping 12-Year-Old

Wow just wow

 

[skinsdad62]

I guess John James would be a senator then ?

 

[skinsdad62]

NRA is a non-profit & does *not* sell guns


-People opposed banning people who were on the terror watch list from buying guns because it would strip people of their rights without due process


-Violent criminals & grave mentally ill people are already banned from owning guns

 

[gkekoa]

1. You asked, so it's clear that you don't have a clue!

2. I had previously given you information that answered #2. Do try to keep up!

3. Could be, but then you would be arguing against yourself. I did check out the responses that you gave to @Shark which were complete bullshit in light of the current climate propositions noted earlier (Frequency and intensity)

1- I openly admit to not knowing how many climate scientists exist in the world. You want to claim 97% of scientists make the same claim. I am pointing out your flawed argument.

2- You have never answered if there was a random sampling to com up with that number.

3- So showing the most intense storms in history are not the ones currently going on is showing me the intensity is worse? Showing the frequency today is not larger than the intensity throughout US history is showing me that frequency is increasing? I actually gave references with numbers and not feelings.

 

[skinsdad62]

1- I openly admit to not knowing how many climate scientists exist in the world. You want to claim 97% of scientists make the same claim. I am pointing out your flawed argument.

2- You have never answered if there was a random sampling to com up with that number.

3- So showing the most intense storms in history are not the ones currently going on is showing me the intensity is worse? Showing the frequency today is not larger than the intensity throughout US history is showing me that frequency is increasing? I actually gave references with numbers and not feelings.

i posted a site about 6 months ago or so that talked about the 97% figure . its based off of one study and they basically signed off on it

if i run across it again i will repost it but every counter claim i have posted comes from a respected scientist at a respected university

science isnt a bunch of computer models with certain data put in .

 

[skinsdad62]

 

[skinsdad62]

More games afoot

 

[skinsdad62]

Another lie exposed