Big Donald doest it again

So the world can't have 2 major threats to world security? Perhaps we should keep having terrorists then so Armageddon doesn't happen...

 

Heck, there are even parallels between human hospitality and where conflicts start. Wouldn't like to enlargen the fishing pool for extremists even further.

So the world can't have 2 major threats to world security? Perhaps we should keep having terrorists then so Armageddon doesn't happen...

 

Heck, there are even parallels between human hospitality and where conflicts start. Wouldn't like to enlargen the fishing pool for extremists even further.

"Nothing goes over my head... my reflexes are too fast... I will catch it"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svtLfoGH19c

Well atleast you don't seem to misunderstand climate change, better then those dweeps who see a snowflake and think they just disproved everything.

Well atleast you don't seem to misunderstand climate change, better then those dweeps who see a snowflake and think they just disproved everything.

None of this has anything to do with Trump and Comey, but while we're on the subject we might as well address it.

 

My view on the whole climate change thing comes down to rational thinking. I know the climate changes. It changes all the time. Is it caused by humans? I don't know, and I really don't care. The reason I don't care is I can't do anything about it, and no one else can do anything about it either. There are billions of people on this planet... it wasn't always like that. So if humans are causing climate change... and climate change will kill us all... then we have three choices. The first choice is to die with our changing climate. The second choice is to exterminate half the worlds population. The third choice is to find a way for the human race to survive off this dying planet... and it will eventually die, there is no way to stop that from happening.

 

Any fool that believes that we can just throw money at this and it will go away deserves to be the first to be exterminated, and anyone who believes we should exterminate half the population should be exterminated as well. So that leaves a combination of living happy lives while we prepare for a distant future elsewhere. That has my full support.

Well, right wing solution to most of the world problems are "Eliminate X group/number of people".  Not shocking. 

 

Also not shocking is lack of believe in science.  

Well, right wing solution to most of the world problems are "Eliminate X group/number of people".  Not shocking. 

 

Also not shocking is lack of believe in science.  

Currently the scientific method of curing cancer is to remove the corruption and kill the cells. It will remain this way until a more effective scientific method is developed. Is this the "right wing" solution to the problem? I guess the "left wing" solution would be spending millions on organic foods and therapy. I will continue to support the scientific methods that make the most sense.

 

So where do you guys get the idea to just say that we don't "believe in science"? It's not that we don't believe in science... we don't believe in your solution. There is no way that taking money from wealthy countries and shifting the wealth to underdeveloped countries will change the climate. It only makes everyone poor, and when that happens, we're all screwed. The real motive behind the entire climate change bullshit is to redistribute the wealth and create a one world government. Hear me clearly... NO!

 

When you say we don't believe in science, it's just another one of those cards you play when you can't win the debate. You say there is a problem. The first thing that you need to do is identify the problem, understand the cause, and present a solution that makes sense. They have never been able to nail down the problem. Your climate zealots have failed to do that, so they resort to playing the "you don't believe in science" card. Tell me once again... who is deflecting?

Here it is in simple terms: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Which means it makes the surface of the planet warmer. The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere the warmer the surface. If you put less CO2 in the air, it will not be as hot. We need to find a way to put less CO2 in the air. Continuing as we do now puts more CO2 in the air. This is bad.

 

Surely we can agree on at least this?

Here it is in simple terms: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Which means it makes the surface of the planet warmer. The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere the warmer the surface. If you put less CO2 in the air, it will not be as hot. We need to find a way to put less CO2 in the air. Continuing as we do now puts more CO2 in the air. This is bad.

 

Surely we can agree on at least this?

I am 58 years old. I've lived through a lot of theories and doomsday scenarios... they all turn out to be nothing. They once compiled tons of information to prove we would all die of global cooling... a new ice age. Didn't happen. Back in the 70's they caused mass hysteria about aerosol cans with fluorocarbons... hairspray and spray paint was burning a hole in the ozone layer and we're all gonna die of radiation exposure. They banned aerosols... did it do anything? No... are we dead yet? No. In the 80's they said if we didn't stop using nuclear power and get rid of nuclear weapons... we're all gonna die. We didn't, and we are still alive. Wow.

 

We are humans. We breathe in oxygen, and exhale CO2. If CO2 will kill us, which I don't believe for a second will, then there is not much we can do about it. There are comparable studies that actually show that increased greenhouse gas will cause increased vegetation, that creates oxygen... which is good. If humans are causing the planet to die faster, and you want to stop that from happening, the best course of action would be to limit population, maybe we should all just sacrifice living for the new religion of climate change... I'm not in favor of that solution, and the science is all over the place... nothing is concrete... and you will need much more evidence of disaster, and a realistic, proven, solution... and the Paris Accord was not it.

 

Show me death, destruction, and doom. Then show me a realistic solution to the problem. Remember that I don't care about the polar bears because they can take care of themselves, and I'm not sharing my house with anyone. I will never allow anyone to tell me what to believe, so it better be pretty convincing. If you can do that, I will support it.

I agree the Paris agreement was useless, but that doesn't change the fact that the problem exists. A solution will have to be found, and it has to be a technological one, because it's unrealistic to expect humans will drastically change their behavior.

 

BTW, Aerosols did punch a hole in the Ozone Layer, but ever since they were replaced by other solutions (technological advancement) the Ozone Layer has largely recovered. The point is, there was common, real action. Not some sham like the Paris climate deal, but also not apathy and "come what may" mentality.

 

Well atleast you don't seem to misunderstand climate change, better then those dweeps who see a snowflake and think they just disproved everything.

None of this has anything to do with Trump and Comey, but while we're on the subject we might as well address it.

 

My view on the whole climate change thing comes down to rational thinking. I know the climate changes. It changes all the time. Is it caused by humans? I don't know, and I really don't care. The reason I don't care is I can't do anything about it, and no one else can do anything about it either. There are billions of people on this planet... it wasn't always like that. So if humans are causing climate change... and climate change will kill us all... then we have three choices. The first choice is to die with our changing climate. The second choice is to exterminate half the worlds population. The third choice is to find a way for the human race to survive off this dying planet... and it will eventually die, there is no way to stop that from happening.

 

Any fool that believes that we can just throw money at this and it will go away deserves to be the first to be exterminated, and anyone who believes we should exterminate half the population should be exterminated as well. So that leaves a combination of living happy lives while we prepare for a distant future elsewhere. That has my full support.

 

 

Well you voiced the climate thing, which I then pulled into the larger thing you like to voice about: terrorism and immigration.

 

Sure the climate changes, what is happening is that it is changing at a faster pace then history and it is accelerating even further! What is the only change to the Earth to find the reason for this pace => humans.

 

Who said we need to throw money at it to make it go away, we are throwing money at it to keep the Earth hospitable for humans! Basically your #3, extending our tenure on this planet by trying to counter our own pollution. Your idea of solution to #3 is as idealistic as thinking "money saves all", heck you still need science to make way fur such an "off-planet" scenario, so perhaps stop defunding NASA? >_>

 

Well, right wing solution to most of the world problems are "Eliminate X group/number of people".  Not shocking. 

 

Also not shocking is lack of believe in science.  

 

Make that any "extreme wing", nutjobs are everywhere and any "common ground" is immedeatly scrutinized for treason.

 

 

Well, right wing solution to most of the world problems are "Eliminate X group/number of people".  Not shocking. 

 

Also not shocking is lack of believe in science.  

Currently the scientific method of curing cancer is to remove the corruption and kill the cells. It will remain this way until a more effective scientific method is developed. Is this the "right wing" solution to the problem? I guess the "left wing" solution would be spending millions on organic foods and therapy. I will continue to support the scientific methods that make the most sense.

 

So where do you guys get the idea to just say that we don't "believe in science"? It's not that we don't believe in science... we don't believe in your solution. There is no way that taking money from wealthy countries and shifting the wealth to underdeveloped countries will change the climate. It only makes everyone poor, and when that happens, we're all screwed. The real motive behind the entire climate change bullshit is to redistribute the wealth and create a one world government. Hear me clearly... NO!

 

When you say we don't believe in science, it's just another one of those cards you play when you can't win the debate. You say there is a problem. The first thing that you need to do is identify the problem, understand the cause, and present a solution that makes sense. They have never been able to nail down the problem. Your climate zealots have failed to do that, so they resort to playing the "you don't believe in science" card. Tell me once again... who is deflecting?

 

 

Curing the cancer can be viewed as "right wing" sure, the "left wing" is then actually trying to stop it from occuring in the first place. The "nutjob wing" is the one going for hocus pocus, like some African president thinking HIV can be cleansed with a shower...

 

But then to follow your analogy again, the current "right wing" idea to cancer is to nuke the body from orbit, while I would consider a more surgical strike against just the cancer cells to be more pleasant cure no?

 

The "problem" nailed down is pollution, any and all pollution which is altering the status quo of the enviroment we call Earth. And nearly all of the more "nasty" pollutions are manmade, both is scale as in severity. As such with a "problem => cause => solution" idea you would go and eliminate said pollution no?

 

 

 

Here it is in simple terms: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Which means it makes the surface of the planet warmer. The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere the warmer the surface. If you put less CO2 in the air, it will not be as hot. We need to find a way to put less CO2 in the air. Continuing as we do now puts more CO2 in the air. This is bad.

 

Surely we can agree on at least this?

I am 58 years old. I've lived through a lot of theories and doomsday scenarios... they all turn out to be nothing. They once compiled tons of information to prove we would all die of global cooling... a new ice age. Didn't happen. Back in the 70's they caused mass hysteria about aerosol cans with fluorocarbons... hairspray and spray paint was burning a hole in the ozone layer and we're all gonna die of radiation exposure. They banned aerosols... did it do anything? No... are we dead yet? No. In the 80's they said if we didn't stop using nuclear power and get rid of nuclear weapons... we're all gonna die. We didn't, and we are still alive. Wow.

 

We are humans. We breathe in oxygen, and exhale CO2. If CO2 will kill us, which I don't believe for a second will, then there is not much we can do about it. There are comparable studies that actually show that increased greenhouse gas will cause increased vegetation, that creates oxygen... which is good. If humans are causing the planet to die faster, and you want to stop that from happening, the best course of action would be to limit population, maybe we should all just sacrifice living for the new religion of climate change... I'm not in favor of that solution, and the science is all over the place... nothing is concrete... and you will need much more evidence of disaster, and a realistic, proven, solution... and the Paris Accord was not it.

 

Show me death, destruction, and doom. Then show me a realistic solution to the problem. Remember that I don't care about the polar bears because they can take care of themselves, and I'm not sharing my house with anyone. I will never allow anyone to tell me what to believe, so it better be pretty convincing. If you can do that, I will support it.

 

 

The global cooling did happen, one of the reasons we aren't yet hoping for less then 4°C rise. It showed scientists that indeed there is more at play then initial found, it made them correct and strenghten their theory and predictions.

 

You don't think CO₂ can kill you just cause you exhale it? Why not breath into a plastic bag for 10 min, see if you still enjoy that afterwards.

 

What is happening is a shift in equilibrium, which doesn't mean the extinction of humanity from the Earth. It does mean that there will be an increase in inhospitable places on this planet.

 

You desire short-term issues for short-term answers. Wanna start by throwing out every baby born cause the little runt couldn't do 2+2 after 2 months? Thinking longterm does not mean to restrict yourself to a persons lifetime, it means to think beyond, to not only your direct descendants lifetime but even beyond. Any parent puts his offspirngs life before his own, why can't a society not put its future before its present?

 

Want to know a good reason to just send over $$ to higher risk regions (inside US) or nations? A simple one is so they can build higher levies for the increase in ocean waterlevels, so they don't have to come life on your descendants porch when half of Florida get flooded!

 

 

I agree the Paris agreement was useless, but that doesn't change the fact that the problem exists. A solution will have to be found, and it has to be a technological one, because it's unrealistic to expect humans will drastically change their behavior.

 

BTW, Aerosols did punch a hole in the Ozone Layer, but ever since they were replaced by other solutions (technological advancement) the Ozone Layer has largely recovered. The point is, there was common, real action. Not some sham like the Paris climate deal, but also not apathy and "come what may" mentality.

 

The Paris agreement was like the Kyoto protocol, a fancy meeting so leaders could pat themselfes on the back while promising advances towards our enviromental challanges. As some people pointed out, they are the means to publically shame nations into cooperations, not unlike a society would shame someone that is viewed harmfull to the society.

 

Did they invent fusion power? No. Will they continue to push their nations forward ahead of "last-place-shame-place"? Yes, and that is what we need!

You still do not understand. You are jumping to the conclusion that you have this thing all figured out, and we must implement your drastic, draconian, life altering solutions or face impending, unmerciful, painful death... and I believe you are full of shit. On the other hand... I do believe it is criminal to incite mass fear to achieve a personal agenda. So if I had my way, you and your disciples would be preaching your climate change Armageddon religion to each other in prison.

 

I do not believe you have this thing all figured out, and I believe we can keep living our lives in the most economical, efficient, and comfortable means possible... like we always have. If you want a better way of living you have to create a better way to live... and then sell it like everything else. There are some of us that do not want, and will never accept, a global, one world, society.

No radical changes are either demanded nor required, heck most people want steadfast but thoughtfull changes meant to not just take the issues head on but to also keep everyone on board as radical only feeds radical.

 

Doomsday scenario's are only meant to show "worst case scenario's", coupled with them happening on a much larger timescale then you give them. Stop believing "the lefts" doomsday scenario's in your "the right" doomsday scenario propaganda. No sane scientist said we would be heatrayed in under a year if we didn't stop all aerosols, no sane scientist believed the atmosphere would ignite due to an atomic bomb, no sane scientist believes the world will be a molten wasteland next year if we even just kept exhaling CO₂.

 

Stop being affraid of doomsdays the right keeps painting the left of imagining. You are wallowing in the extreme part of the right wing that considers "the other side" to be as extreme (but opposing) as they are themselfes.

 

 

 

PS. for your nature feeding itself more CO ₂ , you are correct. The CO₂ capacity per square mile of for instance t he tropical forrests is increasing, sadly we are dropping the square mile of actual tropical forrests faster to actually make use of this phenomena. Hence the global CO₂ levels are still rising and not stiffled by natural carbon sinks (which excist). What should be done is try to keep these carbon sinks active and healthy, someone we are clearly failing at when watching the bleaching of reefs or the ocean at large.

 

 

----

 

 

Anyway, Trump. You folks got an FBI nominee. A quick check into him for the obvious "who is he?" and "who found him?" questions gave me a funny answer to both: Chris Christie and Bridgegate. Seems this guy is the lawyer for CC on his Bridgegate fiasco. This just writes its own jokes now, for instance that Trump is lawyering up AND he asked mindless ghoul CC for help.

 

Ignoring that, seems the other credentionals (9/11 investigator, corporate fraud investigations under Comey) aren't to shabby, coupled with a distinct lack of obvious Trump connection really makes me wonder where they found him.

Now now he's a good man, can we keep this under the cloud.