Saying it's "Man made" makes for convenient excuse to rob people of their money (through taxes) and freedom (regulating activities).
eta: sorry if that wasn't what you were referring to... I just assumed it was since "mad-made climate change" is debatable. I'm not denying "climate change" in general... I just think there's nothing we (as humanity) can do about it. I believe it's just a natural cycle.
That sounds like a right wing oversimplification and distortion or something. The sun? That's all of climate change's problem to you? You're smarter than scientists too? I don't really understand what you are saying to be honest.
Some regulations are more stupid than anything else and need to be readdressed, like charging a tobacco company a million dollars when they come up with a new blend. Raising the end price to deter use because it's unhealthy? The way I see it people have the right to kill themselves with something everyone has known gives cancer for decades. Regulations protecting the environment are a different story altogether though. Certainly a simple "carbon tax" isn't going to fix the problems and nor has it been put forward as the end all solution so I don't know your point.
97% of scientists, as far as I have heard, agree climate change is real and man-made so again, I don't know what you mean, if you are saying you are smarter than 97% of scientists then this is a silly argument.
> That sounds like a right wing oversimplification and distortion or something. The > sun? That's all of climate change's problem to you? You're smarter than scientists > too? I don't really understand what you are saying to be honest. > > Some regulations are more stupid than anything else and need to be readdressed, like > charging a tobacco company a million dollars when they come up with a new blend. > Raising the end price to deter use because it's unhealthy? The way I see it people > have the right to kill themselves with something everyone has known gives cancer for > decades. Regulations protecting the environment are a different story altogether > though. Certainly a simple "carbon tax" isn't going to fix the problems and nor has > it been put forward as the end all solution so I don't know your point. > > 97% of scientists, as far as I have heard, agree climate change is real and man-made > so again, I don't know what you mean, if you are saying you are smarter than 97% of > scientists then this is a silly argument.
If it's not Sun activity, then volcanic activity, and the ash released into the atmosphere (I forgot about that one).
And funny you brought up smoking... 'Cause my thought of these "scientists" that say climate change is due to humans (is it global cooling, global warming, extreme weather? I wish they'd make up their minds), is liken to doctors back in the 50's or whenever that said smoking was healthy. And that was bull-shit too.... Big tobacco paid off doctors to say one thing, now the UN or whoever is funding scientists to say one thing so they'll have an excuse to get money.
Do I really believe that? I lean towards that notion (yes, it's my opinion) since I am certain almost everything is run by sick fucks. I do believe that since we are here (on Earth) we have everything to sustain us, and there's hardly anything we can do (outside of using anything like nuclear weapons, etc.) to destroy this place.
Regardless, Humans can adapt to changes in temperature, sea levels, etc. Trying to pin what can't be helped or stopped on people.... Again. 'Just seems like a convenient excuse.
> Now we're going to war with Russia because they swayed the election in Trump's favor.
If so, why would that be a reason to go to war? Butt-hurt Democrats want kill some Russians because they didn't get their way? Sounds like the SJW movement as of late.
Then again, that was another reason to vote for Trump. Like I said in my other post, Hillary winning = we go to war with Russia.
And, you said "swayed", which doesn't mean rigging or hacking election results. So, Trump still won fair and square.
I don't mean literal war like that, I mean the cold war is reopened. Congress is launching a bipartisan investigation and electors are talking about plans to block Trump when they have to vote in a few days because they don't have all the information.
Your definition of fair and square is different from mine. Last minute voter laws to stop the poor which turned away more voters in states than Trump won by is not fair. Fake news attacking Clinton that Republicans are stupid enough to believe is not fair. Republican Comey dropping last minute horseshit bomb on Clinton days before the election is not fair. I'm not saying she was a good candidate, and the DNC is in the gutter with what they did to Bernie but she barely lost in battlegound states and these things were more than enough to sway them by the little amounts he won by. The worst is the Republicans blocking people from voting and blocking recount efforts and dismissing the Russian interference because it helped them win.
> I don't mean literal war like that, I mean the cold war is reopened. Congress is > launching a bipartisan investigation and electors are talking about plans to block > Trump when they have to vote in a few days because they don't have all the > information. > > Your definition of fair and square is different from mine. Last minute voter laws to > stop the poor which turned away more voters in states than Trump won by is not fair.
I'm curious as to what methods they used to weed out lower income voters, especially when polls are usually just lines of people getting there when they get there, rich or poor. Were they asked to show their W-2s, and if it was lower than some amount, told to move to the end of the line?... Or given fake ballots? Closing polls early in bad neighborhoods?
> Fake news attacking Clinton that Republicans are stupid enough to believe is not > fair.
Like, how she's corrupt?....
> Republican Comey dropping last minute horseshit bomb on Clinton days before the > election is not fair. I'm not saying she was a good candidate, and the DNC is in the > gutter with what they did to Bernie
because she, even "the system", is corrupt.
> but she barely lost in battlegound states and > these things were more than enough to sway them by the little amounts he won by.
> The > worst is the Republicans blocking people from voting and blocking recount efforts and > dismissing the Russian interference because it helped them win.
From what I understand, there have been a number of recounts... And the outcome wasn't any different, or came up with just a few more votes for Trump anyway.
And... Sorry to post this (since I'm sure you won't want to watch it, but that's up to you).
> > I don't mean literal war like that, I mean the cold war is reopened. Congress is > > launching a bipartisan investigation and electors are talking about plans to block > > Trump when they have to vote in a few days because they don't have all the > > information. > > > > Your definition of fair and square is different from mine. Last minute voter laws > to > > stop the poor which turned away more voters in states than Trump won by is not > fair. > > > I'm curious as to what methods they used to weed out lower income voters, especially > when polls are usually just lines of people getting there when they get there, rich > or poor. Were they asked to show their W-2s, and if it was lower than some amount, > told to move to the end of the line?... Or given fake ballots? Closing polls early in > bad neighborhoods? >
Most of the voter blocking to my understanding is requiring a state driver license instead of other forms of ID, but truth be told, I'm not an expert on the small details of it. The laws are made by Republicans though so do the math. I read that 600,000 were estimated to have been turned away in one state alone, it was either MI or WI, I don't remember. There is also Republicans like the bald freak governor of Florida fighting against voter time extensions due to weather that are disgusting. Ask yourself, is it ok to stop people from voting in any case?
> > Fake news attacking Clinton that Republicans are stupid enough to believe is not > > fair. > > Like, how she's corrupt?.... >
But he's actually far more corrupt, doing it right in front of your face, the people getting positions were either Trump donors or people who want to literally destroy the departments they will head. The guy in charge of the energy department said he wanted to shut it down. The moron for HUD has spoken against public housing. The guy heading the environmental protection agency is a climate denier who is suing them. It's the worst thing I've ever seen. Jeff Sessions says people who smoke weed aren't good people. Bannon is the alt right king of hell. It's a worse shitshow than the RNC convention.
The Russians hacked both sides and only released the dirt on the Democrats to sway the election to Trump. Who knows what dirt they have on Trump, but looking at his lawsuits, hell just the one Trump U lawsuit is worse than all of Clinton's corruption put together. Clinton is simply playing the money game that Washington has run on for decades, one small step away from lobbying or the PACs that help Trump, while Trump's U scandal alone, well, you can make up your own mind after reading about it. If you think it was ok then I guess it's your opinion. If you think there is a chance he's an innocent victim in the other pending lawsuits again, think whatever you want. After all we are living in the post-truth world now. Trump won the popular vote and so on.
> > Republican Comey dropping last minute horseshit bomb on Clinton days before the > > election is not fair. I'm not saying she was a good candidate, and the DNC is in > the > > gutter with what they did to Bernie > > because she, even "the system", is corrupt. >
The DNC can't seem to do anything right.
> > but she barely lost in battlegound states and > > these things were more than enough to sway them by the little amounts he won by. > > > The > > worst is the Republicans blocking people from voting and blocking recount efforts > and > > dismissing the Russian interference because it helped them win. > > > From what I understand, there have been a number of recounts... And the outcome > wasn't any different, or came up with just a few more votes for Trump anyway. >
Jill Stein filed for recount in 3 states. Only in 1 did she actually get the hand count done, and Trump still won it. But the fact that Trump and Republicans fought the efforts to recount and blocked most of it is scary. If that doesn't trouble you then I guess it will be a comfortable 4 years of skinhead authoritarian heaven for you. Good for you.
> > > Right wing retards > > > > We fucking warned you. > > > Well if Hillary won then we'd be going to war with Russia.
If Hil had won, the only reason we'd go to war with Russia would be to stop them from invading other countries (via NATO.)
Trump has said that he wants America out of NATO. So if Russia invades other countries, America wouldn't intervene.
It was in Russia's interest to have Trump win. Hil, Bernie, or literally any other Republican would've stuck with NATO. Trump and whoever is pulling his strings obviously do not.
And before you start with the whole HIL IS KORUPT shit, tell me you believe Trump's choices for his cabinet - almost all military and business people - does not scream corrupt to you. He's hiring the same kind of people he said he'd kick out of government.
I'm not a liberal. But I'm not a Republican either.
My understanding is that while you might be right that technically we won't destroy the earth short of nuclear weapons, that's a dangerous line to cling to because we can still make it uninhabitable for humans. So it could (and probably eventually will because we are so stupid) get to the point of wiping out humans, then the earth would heal itself without us over the next million years and become inhabitable again. It's already getting up to 126 degrees in spots in the middle east, they say being outside in it feels like your lungs are on fire. Parts of north Africa are supposedly soon to be uninhabitable by humans.
Either way you can't really believe that you're smarter and more insightful than 97% of scientists and your looking-back theory doesn't hold any water. I mean keep going another 100 years and drill holes in heads, and by that train of thought you might as well never believe anything at all. We really are in the post-truth era. 2000-2015 was the information age. 2016-? post-truth. Also the climate changes are unfolding exactly how it was predicted by scientists in the 1980s, and when they said it would happen. So maybe they know what they are talking about more than the Breitbart nihilist trolls and Alex Jones.
> > The > > worst is the Republicans blocking people from voting and blocking recount efforts > and > > dismissing the Russian interference because it helped them win. >
Regarding vote hacking, etc. or whatever happened, something just isn't right.
> If it's not Sun activity, then volcanic activity, and the ash released into the > atmosphere (I forgot about that one).
Volcanic activity releases ash which reflects heat back into space and sulfur dioxoide which also acts as a heat shield. Increased volcanic activity would cause global cooling. Try again.
What? As opposed to Hillary who's trying to start a war with Russia without even being president-elect? If trump starts WW3 it'll be by accident - he's too inept to orchestrate something like that. Hillary's such an interventionist warmonger she may start WW3 intentionally.
> > I'm curious as to what methods they used to weed out lower income voters, > especially > > when polls are usually just lines of people getting there when they get there, rich > > or poor. Were they asked to show their W-2s, and if it was lower than some amount, > > told to move to the end of the line?... Or given fake ballots? Closing polls early > in > > bad neighborhoods? > > > > Most of the voter blocking to my understanding is requiring a state driver license > instead of other forms of ID, but truth be told, I'm not an expert on the small > details of it. The laws are made by Republicans though so do the math. I read that > 600,000 were estimated to have been turned away in one state alone, it was either MI > or WI, I don't remember. There is also Republicans like the bald freak governor of > Florida fighting against voter time extensions due to weather that are disgusting. > Ask yourself, is it ok to stop people from voting in any case?
Requiring a driver's license is a problem in big cities where many people (of all economic backgrounds) don't own cars and don't drive because they can walk or use public transportation for everything. There's far more people without driver's licenses than people think. If you were born and raised in a big city and your family didn't own a car or drive, why would you bother taking a driver's test and getting a license? How would you practice driving with your permit even if you wanted to get a license if you didn't have access to a car?
Regardless, even though it has some impact, I think the driver's license requirement thing was a bit of a red herring. The most common way to suppress lower income voters is to have insufficient voting opportunity in poor areas. This can be done by closing some polling locations, reducing the number of physical voting booths, switching to paper ballots (which are slower to fill out), reducing hours at early voting locations, reducing early voting days, stopping early voting on the weekends, locating polling places where there is insufficient parking and/or no public transportation. These techniques (and others) lead to really long lines with waits of 4 or more hours. People who work in low-wage retail and fast food jobs usually can't afford to (or aren't allowed to) take off work to stand in a voting line all day. This is especially true if they're working multiple low-wage jobs to make ends meet. If Republicans make voting enough of a hassle, a lot of people just won't bother.
Your information about people in cities not driving brings up another reason the Republicans do it, poor or rich, most people in cities tend to lean left (just look at any election maps, the cities are blue), so it's the votes they want to suppress. I guess it would seem when people live close to each other in cities they start to care about each other and as they move out in the middle of rural nowhere they devolve into right wing me me me Republican sacks of goddamn shit.
> Volcanic activity releases ash which reflects heat back into space and sulfur dioxoide which also acts as a heat shield. Increased volcanic activity would cause global cooling. Try again.
Yeah, years ago Gregory Benford worked up a method of regulating the climate by placing carbon balls or something at a particular altitude. Would've cost a few hundred thousand.
> > Volcanic activity releases ash which reflects heat back into space and sulfur > dioxoide which also acts as a heat shield. Increased volcanic activity would cause > global cooling. Try again. > >
Hm. Well, thank you Vas.
> Yeah, years ago Gregory Benford worked up a method of regulating the climate by > placing carbon balls or something at a particular altitude. Would've cost a few > hundred thousand.
Sounds like geoengineering.... aka "Chemtrails"... Or, chemicals, "nano-particles" released in the contrails of jets.
I was going to comment on here, but seen ^this... Anyway, when people make a huge deal out of (what I feel is) something that can't be helped, regardless of opinion (e.g. thought police), it just reeks of something being up... or, as the old saying goes; "Something is rotten in Denmark."
This is the main reason why I'm skeptical... or a "denier" -if one feels I deserve such a label.
eta: I could say that I believe it's immoral to be deceptive. But in the case of "climate change" then I have no moral objections to lying about (what I feel is) a lie.
> that engineering the climate should be a top priority. Every little flood is a state > emergency. Prevention, yo.
I don't normally agree with you, but I agree with you on this.
I can't find the exact comic, but there's this one which is perfect. It's a scientist giving a lecture on how to combat global warming, and a skeptic is standing up in the audience, and he asks, "But what if it's a myth? What if we clean up our oceans, purify our atmosphere, and create jobs, all for nothing?"
> eta: I could say that I believe it's immoral to be deceptive. But in the case of "climate change" then I have no moral objections to lying about (what I feel is) a lie.
You're just totally missing the point, and what Benford remarked about in his proprosal: doing nothing means something bad could very likely happen; doing something means it more likely won't.
This is why people need to be looked after. (Jeez, I was just thinking this yesterday, and wondered where here I would find to use it - obviously this thread, as I was again prescienting.) So they don't harm themselves.
Chemtrails are fuel airations. They're toxic to life, and they don't reduce albedo. They increase heat retention on the planet.
> > that engineering the climate should be a top priority. Every little flood is a state emergency. Prevention, yo.
> I don't normally agree with you, but I agree with you on this.
> I can't find the exact comic, but there's this one which is perfect. It's a scientist giving a lecture on how to combat global warming, and a skeptic is standing up in the audience, and he asks, "But what if it's a myth? What if we clean up our oceans, purify our atmosphere, and create jobs, all for nothing?"
Index 
Threaded 
An internet troll thinks he's smarter than 97% of scientists then he gets elected president and rapes the environment
Reply
[Re: 
