Royreader8812

I believe you are the one over simplifying it. Though it is good to see you are starting to accept that this is relevant. Yes ocean fauna produces carbon dioxide through respiration, but they sequester much more than they produce through the formation of calcium carbonate, and the consumption of their follow beings creating it. All the limestone you have ever seen in your life and that includes a portion of the concrete you see in the cities, is sequestered carbon dioxide. Removing a significant proportion of ocean fauna will have a much more profound effect on the natural carbon sequestration cycle, than you seem willing to accept. Marine life does play a vital role in storing deep carbon. The author is just oversimplifying the issue; overfishing does not have the effect she thinks it does.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/making-sense-of-the-russian-hacks-trump-clinton-wikileaks_us_58575286e4b0d5f48e165113?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003 Something for the liberal cry babies to ponder. There is a lot to be said for integrity. The only people the democrats can blame for losing, is themselves.

Lol So I guess the term biological pump was just made by the author for shits and giggles, and marine life playing a vital role in storing carbon deep in the ocean is an unfounded assumption. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_pump

Unlike the anti oil activists? When you just look at the decline of sharks alone, somewhere in the realm of 90% in just a few decades, it is actually frightening. The shift from species to species as they disappear, for commercial fisheries, is a good indication of the state of the ocean. I believe there would be very few people other than those working in the fishing industry that would oppose the notion that this is a serious problem. We were all told that the trees were the main thing to provide us with oxygen but it only makes sense that the ocean would play a greater role when you think about it and learn about it.

If you read the below link, you will see that the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is more closely related to the reduction of biomass in the ocean, than the increase of the use of fossil fuels. Not to say fossil fuels are not a problem, just pointing out but there are other factors that may have a stronger effect and fit the model more closely. I am guessing you are a strong proponent of carbon dioxide creating climate change and have looked at a number of graphs on the subject. Take one reliable graph that begins at least 100 years ago, you will find that there is a dip in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during World War II. this is a time of increased fossil fuel usage on a large scale but also a time that saw a massive reduction in fishing vessels on the ocean. This theory also explains well, the increase in CO2 pre dating the industrial revolution. Most of our oxygen comes from the ocean and much of the CO2 has been stored there. http://www.fisherycrisis.com/strangelove.html

I am pretty sure Trump campaigned on working with Russia on defeating fundamental Islamists... I am also pretty sure those comments received Cheers from thousands... Therefore one can deduct that Russia swayed the US election by taking action on Syria... Bit you can go on form your gender neutral safe place and cuddly blanket and suggest otherwise.

https://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/00-vitaly-podvitsky-the-russians-did-it-all-2016.jpg?w=2100&h=1560 No surprises here, we have come full circle and this is exactly why Trump got elected. People don't believe it anymore as much as you want to cling onto your propaganda, it is all bullshit. The most powerful military in the world and cannot win a war. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ebE3GJfGhfA http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/revealed-the-real-fake-news-list Need I go on. Yes I watch state department briefings. They lie enough as it is, why wait for several middle men to get their hands on the nformation. Chinese whispers, would expect a good description of many reports. When American aircraft hit doctors without boarders hospitals it is a mistake. When American aircraft strike Syrian military positions allowing ISIS to advance and occupy a region, it is a mistake. When American military supplies fall in the lap of ISIS, it is a mistake. Well all these mistakes and the funding,training and arming of fundamental Islamists with the US military budget all go to waste and Russia wins. Is it not a suprise that there is some butthurt going on. Seriously. Need I even bring up the slaughter in Yemen?

Four hospitals being targeted, does not mean it was Russian aircraft doing it. There is a war going on. You can call me a troll all you wish. But you will find the western lie is falling to pieces. And there are millions out there that don't believe a word the establishment media says anymore. The election of Trump reiterates that perfectly and gets us back on topic. I am looking forward to seeing the embarrassment of the spokesperson speaking at the state department breifing on Monday. I get my information from many sources including them. Those briefings become entertainment when you have a bigger picture. They just wasted billions of dollars and killed thousands more people in yet another failure. But you just carry on soaking up the spin.

Ok I'll bite. You are suggesting it is definitive that Russia carried out these airstrikes purposefully on hospitals. Can you provide evidence of that please. Not a statement but evidence. If the Syrian observatory for human rights are mentioned, you can go slap yourself in face for being foolish.. Please realise there 'was' a war going on in eastern Aleppo and that war had two sides. One side was being equipped by the western coalition as proxies to get rid of Assad and were firing mortars and other heavy weapons constantly. They were also fundamental Islamists, the bad guys elsewhere. I guess none of these hit any civilians or infrastructure, simply because the western media failed to say they did. It was all those sneaky Russians. And I guess the old saying ' the first casualty of war is the truth' does not apply in your books, in this instance. It is said time and time again, that Assad is 'indiscriminately bombing civilians' yet this only seems to be taking place where there are forces trying to take him over using military force... why does he not do it in western Aleppo, do you think? The fact remains that Eastern Aleppo is now under government control, the fighting has stopped and aid is given now to all concerned and that includes the rebels that have surrendered. I don't want to harp on about this, nor hijack the thread by changing the subject, but don't believe anything you read at face value. Look at both sides of the story and learn from history. For 5 years a coalition of western countries were trying to fight ISIS, aparently, and they only got stronger and took more territory... in steps Russia and in 12 months they are all but defeated and the only thing keeping them going is money and weapons from Western allies that are openly trying to topple Assad. And they are failing miserably. Russia and Syria are winning because they are actually fighting for stability. If they were indiscriminately killing civilians, why would they stop now? If you wish to continue on this subject, please make another thread. I was using it as an example of the bullshit lies, lies you seem to take hook line and sinker. When Syria is completely liberated in less than a year, and protected with Russian SAM's. I believe the indiscriminate killing will be long gone into history and Assad will be elected again. Only time will tell there.

I have had 1 in about 4500 tandems. My current DZ does well over 30,000 tandems a year and I have only seen a few here in the 3 years I have been here. I think only one in the last year. If people are having more than a few in under 1000 jumps, there must be something wrong.

I would venture to guess that this will be gone from the media come January 20th. But it will not be gone from this forum. If you want to test the validity of the intelligence community, just take what is happening in Syria, or more specifically Aleppo. On one hand you have John Kerry and all those around and below him saying there is a blood bath going on, and in reality there are independent journalists walking down the said streets that are eerily silent and meanwhile thousands of militants that have surrendered (our proxy boys) are being humanely bussed off to another region by the Syrian and Russian governments. I will refrain from commenting further on this subject because it is clear that the 'fake news' is the corporate media and they are reporting from illegitimate statements from government officials. If it is maintainEd that Russia hacked the election after January 20th. Then I might take it seriously. But I assume you lot will say, "but of course when Trump is president they will deny it", but that in itself would render the current stance just as bullshit, because it is essentially admitting the intelligence community puts the protection of the current regime ahead of integrity.

You say that as if it is certain they are hacks. What we are actually talking about is the emails that wikileaks published. There is no evidence of Russians hacking the elections, just claims that they have. The suggestion of Russians hacking is precisely a tactic to move the subject away from the content of the emails, to another topic that is pure speculation. No evidence will be forthcoming. If you listen to Clapper, there is very little confidence that the hacks took place. But I think I have proven my point. You Hillary supporters don't care about the truth. Just trying to come across as correct when you know you are wrong. And for the record I don't support either candidate. I do however believe the outcome of the election is a slap in the face to everyone and a huge win for democracy. Hillary was a disaster as secretary of state, and was going to be an even bigger disaster as president. You sir are a cop out. Good day to you all.

You didn't answer my question. What are your thoughts on the conduct. It is yet to be determined whether these were hacks or leaks. 'The law of the land ' assumes one is innocent until proven guilty. So please do not assume these were hacase when Clapper himself suggest they don't have any good insight. Please tell us what you youself, think about Hillary knowing in advance the debate questions and personally and privately taking millions of $$ off foreign entities to have immediate access to the state department? Do you think that is acceptable? This is what I am trying to understand from my first post, but as expected the question is being dodged.

Ok, point taken. But what you have admitted is that many can be verified. And these show that the Clinton foundation was being paid by foreign entities for access to the state department, that Hillary was given debate questions in advance among many other things. Do you condemn these actions. Do you believe it is in the public's best interests to know such things? Or were we better off not knowing them? Regardless of whether it was the Russians (which it clearly wasn't) or not, this information is true. Truth is aparently rare in politics and press these days, so how can one ethically condemn the release of such information?

If you actually listen to Julien, whether he is on Fox, CNN, RT other even infowars, it is him speaking, so the Avenue is irrelevant. Wikileaks have an impeccable record of completely verified information for the last decade. Not one one false document. The CIA however? If the CIA or anyone are saying they have evidence that the hacks came from Russia, and he is still adamant they didn't; Don't you think he would be confident in saying so, knowing that if it were not the case, the CIA releasing the evidence would discredit a decade of hard work. Think about his personal predicament, who stands to lose the most from being wrong. The CIA that are consistently wrong and don't seem to care, or a man in exile with an impeccable record? Think about that for a minute.

An interesting topic but not much actual debate here. Do those that beleive the 'Russians hacked the election', understand that there has never been an example of wikileaks documents being proven false? Julien Assange and wikileaks are adamant these did not come from Russia. I would also be interested to know if those that support the notion of Russia hacking the elections, as it is being touted as, condemn the actions of Clinton and Podesta. Or do they think the information is false. It seems illogical to suggest the information was hacked on one hand, yet not consider the content to be 'enlightening' on the other. All of these emails can be validated relatively easily, with readily available software. Which is it. Hacked or falsified?