|
|
Post by matt on Jul 4, 2017 17:18:22 GMT -5
I've said it over and over. America will fall, it's already begun, it's not an if anymore, the fall of America is upon us. It's unstoppable. Enjoy the ride friends... Would you like to join my right wing death squad?! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2017 20:40:15 GMT -5
I've said it over and over. America will fall, it's already begun, it's not an if anymore, the fall of America is upon us. It's unstoppable. Enjoy the ride friends... On the plus side, the likely outcome is basically America 2.0 based on a constitution that forces secularity, Missouri-style ground up type of legal system, and more democracy-based rather than republic based. There is a reason we are a Republic and the founding fathers were smart enough to know it... |
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jul 4, 2017 21:40:21 GMT -5
On the plus side, the likely outcome is basically America 2.0 based on a constitution that forces secularity, Missouri-style ground up type of legal system, and more democracy-based rather than republic based. There is a reason we are a Republic and the founding fathers were smart enough to know it... Oh I agree there was a reason for it. However in the current age we live in, a republic makes less and less sense, especially when reined in by a system forced to be secular. Republic made sense when information wasn't made accessible, decisions were made quick compared to how many people could weigh in. Technology combined with social awareness puts us in a place where a democracy makes more sense. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 5, 2017 10:32:20 GMT -5
Remember that time that Hilary sold saudi Arabia some anti-aircraft missile launchers? And then saudi Arabia gave them to Isis and Isis used the missiles to shoot down some commercial planes as well as US military aircrafts?!?! So Hilary sent ambassador Stevens along with a small team into benghazi to buy back the surface to air anti-aircaft missiles that she armed Isis with? Ambassador Stevens would tell you all about it, but, he's dead now.  |
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jul 5, 2017 11:31:55 GMT -5
Omar Khadr
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 5, 2017 12:12:01 GMT -5
Maybe he will share some of that cheddar with Otto warmbier... |
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jul 5, 2017 14:40:40 GMT -5
Can you imagine how confusing our actions are to ISIS?  We're sorry, pls take some riches, love you bye.  |
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jul 6, 2017 10:57:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jul 6, 2017 15:12:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 6, 2017 15:49:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jul 6, 2017 15:58:50 GMT -5
^^^^
May want to check your math on that one. Just because it in meme form doesn't make it true. Falling into the same trap as the Democrats.
Especially considering we have around 200k? and we just had a new one last year that was a big deal and a new one is forming now that could raise sea level quite a bit given the size of the crack
|
|
|
|
Post by MMAJim on Jul 6, 2017 16:07:32 GMT -5
^^^^ May want to check your math on that one. Just because it in meme form doesn't make it true. Falling into the same trap as the Democrats. Especially considering we have around 200k? and we just had a new one last year that was a big deal and a new one is forming now that could raise sea level quite a bit given the size of the crack Are you talking icebergs or glaciers? I just ask because you mentioned the size of the crack (heyoooo) and I know that there is a new iceberg, 1/3 the square mileage of Wales that is about to slip off of Antarctica. BBC article somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by kristhegreasedpig on Jul 6, 2017 16:28:19 GMT -5
I like to ask doomsday climate change proponents what model they used to determine what temperatures are best for overall earths health (hint, there are no universal models), and if there is a chance, because we are still in a glacial epoch, not an interglacial (ice age vs not), could it not be possible that we are headed towards temperatures that are MORE conducive to flora and fauna flourishing, as it was when the natural hydrocarbons were laid down into what is now the oil layers.....
The only honest answer I've ever received was that increased temperatures can increase sea levels which threatens costal settlements. I'll give them that, but seeing as we naturally will warm as we reach an interglacial epoch, then won't these places still be endangered??
I like bringing science into the economy/market if climate change. Follow the bucks, and look at the big pictures, and see how market driven "climate change" is!
|
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jul 6, 2017 16:29:38 GMT -5
^^^^ May want to check your math on that one. Just because it in meme form doesn't make it true. Falling into the same trap as the Democrats. Especially considering we have around 200k? and we just had a new one last year that was a big deal and a new one is forming now that could raise sea level quite a bit given the size of the crack Are you talking icebergs or glaciers? I just ask because you mentioned the size of the crack (heyoooo) and I know that there is a new iceberg, 1/3 the square mileage of Wales that is about to slip off of Antarctica. BBC article somewhere. Yeah it'll be an iceberg once it breaks off but given its location isn't it likely to be re-classified as a new glacier after a couple years? Regardless I double checked, thanks to the landsat program, at least 198k that we know of, potentially over 400k glaciers based on samples of ones that are too small to be measured by the program. What's interesting is they thought they were losing mass given the shrinking dimensions, but turns out while shrinking in dimensions, they were actually gaining mass with the amount they were filling up where they were hollow. Could raise the immediate sea level by several inches, be interesting to see what affect that has there. |
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jul 6, 2017 16:51:40 GMT -5
I like to ask doomsday climate change proponents what model they used to determine what temperatures are best for overall earths health (hint, there are no universal models), and if there is a chance, because we are still in a glacial epoch, not an interglacial (ice age vs not), could it not be possible that we are headed towards temperatures that are MORE conducive to flora and fauna flourishing, as it was when the natural hydrocarbons were laid down into what is now the oil layers..... The only honest answer I've ever received was that increased temperatures can increase sea levels which threatens costal settlements. I'll give them that, but seeing as we naturally will warm as we reach an interglacial epoch, then won't these places still be endangered?? I like bringing science into the economy/market if climate change. Follow the bucks, and look at the big pictures, and see how market driven "climate change" is! They pretty much determined in the 70s we are on our way to an ice age. However it isn't some normal sine-wave like graph. There are peaks and valleys along the way to the highest peak to the lowest valley (ice age). The debate is more along the lines of are we forcing our peaks higher and faster due to human activity. The answer is an unequivocal yes.... but only technically so. While we are doing that, we are doing so, so minisculely, that it doesn't matter if we were here or not the end result gonna be the same. Now however, forgetting temperatures, there is a huge reason to promote green tech. Legit green tech, much of it is still a scam or pointless. Waterways. They are essential to our survival. Just look at our spread across the world. Our evolution. Our food supply. We rely on water. And we are poisoning it. We are gonna become a soylent green reliant world because of what we are doing to our food supply and water before we have to worry about the direct effects of global warming brought on by us or not. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 17:50:45 GMT -5
I suggest all of you guys go to YouTube and watch Potholer's videos on climate change. It is a fair and balanced view. He shits on Al Gore and other alarmists but also shows the very sound science behind anthropomorphic climate change.
If you actually want a fair and balanced view and not something that tows the political party line, that is where you will find it and it turns out, it is real, it is happening, climate models have been made and are actually quite accurate, people claiming an upcoming ice age were actually in the minority, and the ice sheets are melting. All of the sources are cited and he breaks down a lot of studies to show you the reality of climate change.
Do yourselves a favor and watch them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 18:09:20 GMT -5
I suggest all of you guys go to YouTube and watch Potholer's videos on climate change. It is a fair and balanced view. He shits on Al Gore and other alarmists but also shows the very sound science behind anthropomorphic climate change. If you actually want a fair and balanced view and not something that tows the political party line, that is where you will find it and it turns out, it is real, it is happening, climate models have been made and are actually quite accurate, people claiming an upcoming ice age were actually in the minority, and the ice sheets are melting. All of the sources are cited and he breaks down a lot of studies to show you the reality of climate change. Do yourselves a favor and watch them. How do you know his models are accurate? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 18:27:24 GMT -5
I suggest all of you guys go to YouTube and watch Potholer's videos on climate change. It is a fair and balanced view. He shits on Al Gore and other alarmists but also shows the very sound science behind anthropomorphic climate change. If you actually want a fair and balanced view and not something that tows the political party line, that is where you will find it and it turns out, it is real, it is happening, climate models have been made and are actually quite accurate, people claiming an upcoming ice age were actually in the minority, and the ice sheets are melting. All of the sources are cited and he breaks down a lot of studies to show you the reality of climate change. Do yourselves a favor and watch them. How do you know his models are accurate? He doesn't have models. He shows you models earlier scientists had made and they have been quite accurate. The whole "nobody has made an accurate models is false. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 18:41:23 GMT -5
How do you know his models are accurate? He doesn't have models. He shows you models earlier scientists had made and they have been quite accurate. The whole "nobody has made an accurate models is false. I will check it out. I am not against the idea of needing to make radical changes to save the environment, however I have never seen anyone with an unbiased and legitimate track record be correct in their predictions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 21:02:21 GMT -5
He doesn't have models. He shows you models earlier scientists had made and they have been quite accurate. The whole "nobody has made an accurate models is false. I will check it out. I am not against the idea of needing to make radical changes to save the environment, however I have never seen anyone with an unbiased and legitimate track record be correct in their predictions. I am with you. I don't agree with the Al Gore and Bill Nye alarmist approach and I believe in a free market solution but it is hard to get buy in when there is so much misinformation being spread around. That is why I recommend this guy, he is just interested in the science and he calls Gore and Nye out on their bullshit. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 6, 2017 21:18:33 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 21:50:45 GMT -5
I don't care about your anecdotes or YouTube videos. We are talking about the actual science of climate change. Where are your studies? Lemme guess, all of the science is biased and it is a huge conspiracy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2017 21:53:39 GMT -5
That was the media, not the scientists talking. Six times more studies were published worried about warming than cooling in the 70s. You would learn that of you watched the videos instead of blindly following what the right says.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Jul 6, 2017 23:01:21 GMT -5
People who do these studies are funded by grants. Grants are selected from the government. There's a deeply-embedded narrative here that, even subconsciously, can tilt funding, research, and interests in the field toward pro-warming models. If your thesis is that warming is inconclusive, a result of solar flares, orbital fluctuations, magnetic pole activity, or changes in temperature measurement standards, you're very unlikely to receive funding for your work. If you toe the party line, however . . .
Personally, I think the CFC science looks compelling and the sheer volume of human population and industry is likely having some impact. The extent to which that is driving warming is not completely clear to me, nor that warming is in an of itself a bad thing. The last time the Earth went through a warming phase the entire planet looked like a Jurassic Eden with an explosion of diverse and enormous life forms, jungle, and vegetation.
That said, a billion Chinese and a billion Indiana driving shitty cars and pumping smog into the atmosphere can't be good. It just can't.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 6, 2017 23:45:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 6, 2017 23:53:01 GMT -5
That was the media, not the scientists talking. Six times more studies were published worried about warming than cooling in the 70s. You would learn that of you watched the videos instead of blindly following what the right says. Check my link, dick breath. And the irony will be so awesome! |
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Jul 7, 2017 0:17:38 GMT -5
That was the media, not the scientists talking. Six times more studies were published worried about warming than cooling in the 70s. You would learn that of you watched the videos instead of blindly following what the right says. Check my link, dick breath. And the irony will be so awesome! or you could just ask him to click it and see what his opinion is on it and how it changes his view of his youtube video... no need for the hostility when trying to educate. |
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Jul 7, 2017 6:35:44 GMT -5
I like to ask doomsday climate change proponents what model they used to determine what temperatures are best for overall earths health (hint, there are no universal models), and if there is a chance, because we are still in a glacial epoch, not an interglacial (ice age vs not), could it not be possible that we are headed towards temperatures that are MORE conducive to flora and fauna flourishing, as it was when the natural hydrocarbons were laid down into what is now the oil layers..... The only honest answer I've ever received was that increased temperatures can increase sea levels which threatens costal settlements. I'll give them that, but seeing as we naturally will warm as we reach an interglacial epoch, then won't these places still be endangered?? I like bringing science into the economy/market if climate change. Follow the bucks, and look at the big pictures, and see how market driven "climate change" is! You say that as if it's some small concession you're making. If that was to ever actually happen, stop and really think of what that would mean Now, this isn't me saying it definitely will, or that if it is coming we can even stop it. I'm saying that is no small thing, having the sea levels rise and coast lines swallowed. And people far too often flippantly throw that out there, usually in a reductive sense, before moving on to arguing against other aspects of climate change If a byproduct of dumb people melodramatically crying doomsday is nigh over climate change is that more attention and money gets put towards smart people figuring out if, why and potentially how to curb rising sea levels, I say, let 'em bitch |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 7:37:39 GMT -5
I don't give two shits about what Breitbart says which is why I pointed out Potholer has a less biased view. He us focused on the science and in the 70s there were many more scientists calling for a warming rather than a cooling. The cool thing is this, you can still go back and look at the papers dickface. You cant fake it and you could look it up yourself if you wanted but you will let Breitbart be your mouthpiece instead. Do it yourself. Go to a search engine that looks specifically at peer-reviewed papers, put in your keywords, and the time frame. Potholer does it and he shows all the articles but keep believing Breitbart, the site that provided ZERO evidence for their claim. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 7:41:44 GMT -5
Check my link, dick breath. And the irony will be so awesome! or you could just ask him to click it and see what his opinion is on it and how it changes his view of his youtube video... no need for the hostility when trying to educate. Oh, and fuck you with trying to educate, lol. The YouTube videos were mainstream media and the link is fucking Breitbart which references a fucking blog so who gives a fuck. You can parrot what Breitbart says or you can look it up for yourself but nobody wants to do the latter because they are lazy and unwilling to change their view. I don't care about the politics, it is the science. |
|
