thc6795 Posted June 2, 2017 Report Share Posted June 2, 2017 25 minutes ago, World Citizen said: How you doing brother? I see this as vastly different. I understand that Presidents do not make decisions in a vacuum. They should take in as much info to make a more informed decision. Presidents so it, the EPA does it (from people like you and me if you can imagine that ?). That imo is smart. Now none of this was right before you go make a major policy decision. Maybe the situations are identical. Not worth losing sleep over. As for climate change- I ask, what if your wrong? Lets say you are right and 97% of scientist and the majority of the world are wrong, why not embrace the $$ that the renewable industry will bring. That will happen in our lifetime. Our country is missing the bus on this and the only apparent reason is that our President doesn't understand how things work. Everything is a deal and we are getting screwed on every one because he didn't do the deal. Some agreements are good even if Trump says otherwise. You know I dont hate Trump for this. Trump is going to do what he does because he doesnt have a choice. He is a narcissist and lies more than he speaks the truth. Its like hating on a person who has autism or something, it doesn't make sense to me. Bro you keep missing the fact the Trump never said he disputes the science so we are out of the Paris deal. Yes I know what he has said in the past abt global warming. He said the Paris accord is a bad economic deal for America. I agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World Citizen Posted June 2, 2017 Report Share Posted June 2, 2017 15 minutes ago, concha said: I don't deny anthropogenic effects on the environment. That it exists is simple logic. What I do question is the honesty of the climate change community and the ability of scientists to accurately predict and measure the change and thus predict and measure what can be done about it. Scientists have been caught colluding and tampering. They can't even come up with accurate models to simulate historical weather patterns, let alone predict what will happen in a century. I believe it was in their 2013 published report that the IPCC had to admit that compared to their 2007 prediction, actual warming was only 1/4 of expected. Ice is predicted to disappear and then we have record expansions. Polar bear populations are up. Global crop yields are up due to higher CO2... But in this situation we are expected to burden our economy with trillions in costs and give away trillions to the kleptocracies of the world? Have you looked at a list of the countries who have signed on to the accords? You trust Russia all of the sudden? You think a rapidly growing totalitarian state like China is going to be an honest participator? The opposite of what you say is What will happen imo. By not leading we are giving away trillions and avoiding an insignificant investment (certainly not trillions) compared to the ROI and we will now be relegated to an ex-world power who leads in nothing. There is a reason that all but 2 countries, 3 now who think it's a good thing. It doesn't require us to trust any country. Its agreed upon because the science and consensus is that strong. I understand that scientist have a way of trying to take over the world but in this case I believe them. Its is such a complex problem with more variables than I can name so having a mathmatical model that would satisfy your standards might not be possible. There are models though and I'm not sure but I don't think any of them show positive outcomes. There is a tipping point. We are well on our way of achieving the goals we set in the Paris agreement, we are lowering our footprint. It does make a difference, even little efforts taken collectively add up to a lot. Think transaction fees. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRealCAJ Posted June 2, 2017 Report Share Posted June 2, 2017 6 minutes ago, World Citizen said: The opposite of what you say is What will happen imo. By not leading we are giving away trillions and avoiding an insignificant investment (certainly not trillions) compared to the ROI and we will now be relegated to an ex-world power who leads in nothing. There is a reason that all but 2 countries, 3 now who think it's a good thing. It doesn't require us to trust any country. Its agreed upon because the science and consensus is that strong. I understand that scientist have a way of trying to take over the world but in this case I believe them. Its is such a complex problem with more variables than I can name so having a mathmatical model that would satisfy your standards might not be possible. There are models though and I'm not sure but I don't think any of them show positive outcomes. There is a tipping point. We are well on our way of achieving the goals we set in the Paris agreement, we are lowering our footprint. It does make a difference, even little efforts taken collectively add up to a lot. Think transaction fees. these wingnuts look an inch tall right now...why trouble yourself, man? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World Citizen Posted June 2, 2017 Report Share Posted June 2, 2017 27 minutes ago, thc6795 said: Bro you keep missing the fact the Trump never said he disputes the science so we are out of the Paris deal. Yes I know what he has said in the past abt global warming. He said the Paris accord is a bad economic deal for America. I agree I respect your opinion. Although, because it's not a deal where there is negotiations on what we do, what Trump is saying is "I don't want to pay any money for that because I can use that money for tax cuts". ? He did say it's a Chinese hoax. Truly, I don't think it matters to him because he sees a deal He didn't do and he said it on the campaign. That's the thing about campaigns, they end and then you work for all of us and not just those who voted for him. The majority Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 30 minutes ago, World Citizen said: I respect your opinion. Although, because it's not a deal where there is negotiations on what we do, what Trump is saying is "I don't want to pay any money for that because I can use that money for tax cuts". ? He did say it's a Chinese hoax. Truly, I don't think it matters to him because he sees a deal He didn't do and he said it on the campaign. That's the thing about campaigns, they end and then you work for all of us and not just those who voted for him. The majority Those days are long gone bro. Right down the toilet with the "United" part of the United States. If we had all of the democrats living in particular states and all of the republicans living in others these United States would have already split by now. No one is or has been governing for everyone in quite a while. There was times when most major legislation was usually hammered out in a bipartisan manner, but those times are well behind us now and don't appear to be returning any time soon at all. These days, we get a president chanting "Go for the nuclear option!" on every thing. These are times when folks think a guy with a steady under 40% approval will win in a landslide in the next election. These are times when, in the face of mountains of evidence of a warming planet, people prefer saying fuck it and light their hair on fire in public forums rather than even attempt to do something to curb the warming. They point to the short term results rather than that of the long term predictions that are widely accepted as fact by every government on the planet. These are times when "we" the people elected a known and proven conspiracy theory proliferator to be the leader of the "free world". These are the times when they will swear others need a safe space then look for their own when faced by Kathy Griffin. When they accepted the president mocking and joking on all of his opponents in the election but cry like lil bitches when they don't like a joke against the guy. When they hate on one group for organizing and forcing action against someone and then pile on all together and try to force action themselves and then pretend like they are the righteous ones in it all alone. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World Citizen Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 ^^^^^^^^^^ Excellent post and well said Don't want to add to that, except that is Damn depressing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat_Scratch Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 On 6/1/2017 at 8:20 PM, thc6795 said: Have you read any of the agreement? Or are you just upset as usual with Trump? How can any sane person see it being ok that China doesn't have to do shit with greenhouse gases while in the same time we have to reduce ours by 26%. Do you understand that we pledged to give these countries including China 100 BILLION dollars to help with their energy? You know China is our economic enemy? Trump doesn't disput the damn science he disputes the deal. And if all u frigging libs cared so much about global warming why the fuck didn't you try to pass this in congress when you had control instead of having Obama sign an executive order? We both know why, because you democrats wouldn't pass it. Blame yourselves not Trump Look, I'm a green peace guy straight up. What thc said is the truth. We need to work together to fix the energy impasse. And for the record, Iceland is the leader in renewable (clean, but not always environmental friendly) energy. The sooner the USA is totally committed the better for the USA. The sooner the World is on board, the better for the Planet. We really don't need to be helping countries like China with billion dollar payouts when we owe China trillions already. We need to take some of that debt we owe and put it toward the clean air deal at the very least. Same with some of the other nations... https://makewealthhistory.org/2012/07/09/countries-with-100-renewable-energy/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 I almost forgot to add... These are times when the current president chastised the previous president for failing to use the words "Islamic Terrorist" but fails to use the words "White Supremecist Terrorism" in the face of the Oregon attack. Will he ever say it or will he always just refer to them as violent attacks?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bormio Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 The Left for years has demonized the other side - called them every name in the books, accused them of wanting to kill people and the like. Most of the time there is no pushback, GOP politicians routinely turtle when attacked. Trump did not - he gave as good as he got. Hence the hate - it is the Left that can't handle it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 4 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said: Those days are long gone bro. Right down the toilet with the "United" part of the United States. If we had all of the democrats living in particular states and all of the republicans living in others these United States would have already split by now. No one is or has been governing for everyone in quite a while. There was times when most major legislation was usually hammered out in a bipartisan manner, but those times are well behind us now and don't appear to be returning any time soon at all. These days, we get a president chanting "Go for the nuclear option!" on every thing. [Mostly accurate] These are times when folks think a guy with a steady under 40% approval will win in a landslide in the next election. [These are times when a man was elected who people laughed at when he declared his candidacy. These are the times when such a man defeated a candidate who was expected to be coronated, a candidate who had a far larger organization and who outspent him hugely] These are times when, in the face of mountains of evidence of a warming planet, people prefer saying fuck it and light their hair on fire in public forums rather than even attempt to do something to curb the warming. They point to the short term results rather than that of the long term predictions that are widely accepted as fact by every government on the planet. [These are the times when rational people can question the "solution" presented to them.] These are times when "we" the people elected a known and proven conspiracy theory proliferator to be the leader of the "free world". [These are the times when the alternative was an arrogant, elitist serial liar who had no excuses for losing after having her own primary rigged for her.] These are the times when they will swear others need a safe space then look for their own when faced by Kathy Griffin. [These are the times when what Kathy Griffin did is compared to things like simply mentioning someones's name causes people to assume the fetal position and suck their thumbs.] When they accepted the president mocking and joking on all of his opponents in the election but cry like lil bitches when they don't like a joke against the guy. [These are times when some jackasses consider the decapitated, bloody head of our sitting president to be "a joke" when they would have lost their tiny fucking minds if such a thing had been done to the last guy.] When they hate on one group for organizing and forcing action against someone and then pile on all together and try to force action themselves and then pretend like they are the righteous ones in it all alone. [These are the times when people make shit up, since nobody "forced" action against anybody and, in fact, one of the most liberal senators in Congress cancelled a gig with the no-class piece of shit. ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aZjimbo Posted June 3, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 6 hours ago, Cat_Scratch said: Look, I'm a green peace guy straight up. What thc said is the truth. We need to work together to fix the energy impasse. And for the record, Iceland is the leader in renewable (clean, but not always environmental friendly) energy. The sooner the USA is totally committed the better for the USA. The sooner the World is on board, the better for the Planet. We really don't need to be helping countries like China with billion dollar payouts when we owe China trillions already. We need to take some of that debt we owe and put it toward the clean air deal at the very least. Same with some of the other nations... https://makewealthhistory.org/2012/07/09/countries-with-100-renewable-energy/ Bottom line Cat, that debt will never get paid and eventually will become a much bigger and present problem than this climate change talk. But that is a discussion for another day as the can keeps getting kicked down the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 8 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said: I almost forgot to add... These are times when the current president chastised the previous president for failing to use the words "Islamic Terrorist" but fails to use the words "White Supremecist Terrorism" in the face of the Oregon attack. Will he ever say it or will he always just refer to them as violent attacks?? BINGO!!...only certain acts of terrorism get get the special "Islamic" label....or if the guy was as a Christian why isn't it called "radical Christian terrorism"??...humm...the right seems to need to give all acts of terror a label....rather than call it just a "terrorist act"....then it wouldn't fit the script their trying to write...and then when Donny was in the land of "radical Islamic terrorists" he didn't have the balls to say or use that magic phrase him and the right couldn't and still can't say enough of.......hummm.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aZjimbo Posted June 3, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 2 hours ago, DBP66 said: BINGO!!...only certain acts of terrorism get get the special "Islamic" label....or if the guy was as a Christian why isn't it called "radical Christian terrorism"??...humm...the right seems to need to give all acts of terror a label....rather than call it just a "terrorist act"....then it wouldn't fit the script their trying to write...and then when Donny was in the land of "radical Islamic terrorists" he didn't have the balls to say or use that magic phrase him and the right couldn't and still can't say enough of.......hummm.... Stop the bull georgie. Who commits most of the terrorism in the world? It's just that pussy liberals like you refuse to face the facts about what is happening before our very eyes. The biggest problem is muslims have not called out their own for these barbaric acts. For instance look at how many people called out the Catholic church for the sex abuse scandals. Wrong is wrong. To cover it up or say nothing is also wrong. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 If I'm such a pussy and Donny is such a tough guy why didn't he say those magic words dopes like you love to hear and think it makes some sort of difference when he was in the mid-east?!?...ground zero for "radical islamic terrorism:....did he pussy out??..he sure did.....the biggest problem is people like you need to play these name games which divide people... speaking of refusing to see whats happening before your eyes???...really....your an expert at that these days pal... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 22 hours ago, concha said: Did the US arguably benefit? overall, no not at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thc6795 Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 36 minutes ago, DBP66 said: If I'm such a pussy and Donny is such a tough guy why didn't he say those magic words dopes like you love to hear and think it makes some sort of difference when he was in the mid-east?!?...ground zero for "radical islamic terrorism:....did he pussy out??..he sure did.....the biggest problem is people like you need to play these name games which divide people... speaking of refusing to see whats happening before your eyes???...really....your an expert at that these days pal... There is no "if" you're a pussy. This was confirmed long ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRealCAJ Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 The country said..."fuck you, Orange" and, wingnut still thinks they won something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 12 hours ago, HawgGoneIt said: I almost forgot to add... These are times when the current president chastised the previous president for failing to use the words "Islamic Terrorist" but fails to use the words "White Supremecist Terrorism" in the face of the Oregon attack. Will he ever say it or will he always just refer to them as violent attacks?? The guy was apparently a Jill Stein and Bernie supporter, so maybe they should step up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 16 minutes ago, concha said: The guy was apparently a Jill Stein and Bernie supporter, so maybe they should step up. I am thinking to talk politics down the road at the local micro brewery today. Trump country here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 1 minute ago, noonereal said: I am thinking to talk politics down the road at the local micro brewery today. Trump country here. Wear men's clothing. It will help. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 15 hours ago, World Citizen said: The opposite of what you say is What will happen imo. By not leading we are giving away trillions [what trillions are we giving away?] and avoiding an insignificant investment (certainly not trillions) compared to the ROI [Depends on who you ask. Do you honestly think achieving the goal of slashing emissions by 25% or so over the next 8 years would not devastate our economy?] and we will now be relegated to an ex-world power who leads in nothing [huh? wtf are you talking here?]. There is a reason that all but 2 countries, 3 now who think it's a good thing. It doesn't require us to trust any country. Its agreed upon because the science and consensus is that strong. I understand that scientist have a way of trying to take over the world but in this case I believe them. [Given their record on predictions to date and inability to get weather forecasts right for the next week, let's just say your trust arguably borders on delusion.] Its is such a complex problem with more variables than I can name so having a mathmatical model that would satisfy your standards might not be possible. There are models though [And how have they performed? For example, The IPCC 2013 report apparently shows actual warming predicted by the 2007 report was 4x the actual.] and I'm not sure but I don't think any of them show positive outcomes. There is a tipping point. We are well on our way of achieving the goals we set in the Paris agreement, we are lowering our footprint. [Been happening for over 3 decades without the Accords.] It does make a difference, even little efforts taken collectively add up to a lot. Think transaction fees. ... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 2 hours ago, thc6795 said: There is no "if" you're a pussy. This was confirmed long ago go get those tumble weeds Tex...f*in moron.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 1 hour ago, concha said: The guy was apparently a Jill Stein and Bernie supporter, so maybe they should step up. the way the game is played is you have state their religion...not their political party...you should know that by now!...and if you want to attribute acts of terrorism to political parties here in the U.S.??.. you guys on the right are winning that game...bigly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 1 minute ago, DBP66 said: the way the game is played is you have state their religion...not their political party...you should know that by now!...and if you want to attribute acts of terrorism to political parties here in the U.S.??.. you guys on the right are winning that game...bigly... What is his religion? Was he yelling the name of his preferred deity at the time? Is he a member of a large global movement killing folks all over the world? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted June 3, 2017 Report Share Posted June 3, 2017 lol.. because republican minds want to know...who cares and does it matter??...it's a terrorist act..he's a nut job like the rest of them...no matter what he said or didn't say..his skin color...religion..exc...doesn't matter.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.