brenthutch

https://freebeacon.com/blog/obama-beach-mansion/ Obama must know something you don’t CATROSTROPHY note to self, don’t drink and SC.

No, I don't see a (small) trend in rising temperatures as a problem. Historically the planet has fared much better in times of warmth than in times of cold. You mentioned a guess of future crop failure, I show proof of current record crop production, (thanks not only to increased CO2 levels but to CO2 intensive modern agriculture and longer growing seasons). The retreat of some glaciers uncovering 1000 year old forests that thrived when it was warmer than it is today should inform your thinking. Please show me some EVIDENCE of the CATROSTROPHY that you claim is underway.

In the countries I’m talking about the educated women knows she has no choice.

In much of the world nobody cares what a woman thinks educated or not. Take a look at how educated women fare in Afghanistan

You have it backwards Bill, emancipation comes first. A ten year old girl, no matter how educated, doesn’t have a choice on whether or not she be wed to a 45 year old man. Education doesn’t lead to choice, choice opens the door to education.

Education, overall emancipation and control of their reproductive destiny. It’s easier to develop when your entire population participates.

Developed countries have either stable or declining native born populations. If you want less people you should advocate for more development.

Did you read your own words? If so, do you understand what “narrative” means? Sorry, my spelling may have been off, but I was juggling the wife’s coffee needs with the kids pancake requests while trying to make it to the DZ on time. You seem to claim that we have an existential threat of imminent catastrophe due to climate change, then backpedal because I misspelled a word. Yes I know that there are a multitude of reasons why global food production is increasing (BTW modern agriculture is very CO2 intensive) my point is that there is NO evidence that higher levels of CO2 are resulting in crop failures, or any of the other boogeyman’s prognostications.

And you apparently “Looks like reasonable definitions. Yes, they are imminent since some have already happened and more are expected. Yes, they are catastrophic because they cause great damage and suffering. “ BillVon but don’t feel bad, you have lots of company, just google climate change and “imminent existential catastrophe“ and you will be entertained for hours.

No, I don’t claim to have a crystal ball, unlike the warmists. Not only do I look at food production, I also look at the aforementioned metrics of lifespan, climate related deaths and the trend (or lack there of) in climate related disasters. Given the preponderance of the evidence, I see nothing to support the imminent existential catastrophe narrative. Sorry but I just don’t.

From your article: bla bla bla potentially bla bla bla could bla bla Michael Mann's baseless assertions....I stopped reading. Again I am showing PROOF that global food production has skyrocketed during the last two decades (the hottest ever according to some) you point to an article about a guess of what may happen in the future.

I take a look at CO2 levels and the historical trends in food production, deaths from natural disasters, life expectancy as well as the frequency, intensity and duration of climate related natural disasters and extrapolate the trend to arrive at my position. How do you do it?

Yes, there are some leading indicators the there may be some softening of our economy but CURRENTLY my stats stand. Just like the global warming thing you guys point to guesses about the future and I point to cold hard facts.

There is no evidence of that, those are just guesses. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 has INCREASED our crop yields and has NOT resulted in crop failure. Not just in the cooler zones, here is India's corn production during the HOTTEST YEARS EVER!!!!!!! Obviously some needs to let the corn know about global warming. 2001 13160 (1000 MT) 9.28 % 2002 11152 (1000 MT) -15.26 % 2003 14984 (1000 MT) 34.36 % 2004 14172 (1000 MT) -5.42 % 2005 14710 (1000 MT) 3.80 % 2006 15097 (1000 MT) 2.63 % 2007 18955 (1000 MT) 25.55 % 2008 19731 (1000 MT) 4.09 % 2009 16719 (1000 MT) -15.27 % 2010 21726 (1000 MT) 29.95 % 2011 21759 (1000 MT) 0.15 % 2012 22258 (1000 MT) 2.29 % 2013 24259 (1000 MT) 8.99 % 2014 24173 (1000 MT) -0.35 % 2015 22567 (1000 MT) -6.64 % 2016 25900 (1000 MT) 14.77 % 2017 28753 (1000 MT) 11.02 % 2018 27800 (1000 MT) -3.31 % 2019 29000 (1000 MT) 4.32 %

I am all for helping the people at the bottom becoming productive citizens and contributing to the whole, that is why I was for tax breaks and deregulation. This has resulted in a record breaking economic expansion, low unemployment (especially for minorities) and real wage growth. You may want to join the conversation on my Trickle Down Works thread.

What damage are you talking about? It has been well established that as fossil fuel use has increased death tolls from natural disasters have plummeted and that the increase in the cost of natural disasters is a direct function of economic growth and population growth, NOT an increase in the number, duration or magnitude of natural disasters. Google my wacky claims and debunk them yourself it should be easy

So we didn't give anybody anything, we just took less. Given the top 10% pay 70% of the federal income tax and the bottom 50% pay 3%, that seems fair to me. If you cut taxes, the tax cut will only go to the people who pay taxes.

I must have missed something, just when did we GIVE billions to rich people? (other than Elon Musk and co)

On track for what? Economic collapse?

That is EXACTLY what Trump does.

LOL, as if wind and solar companies contribute anything substantial to the tax base. BTW, what do you think of Bernie’s Green Newer Deal? There seems to be crickets on my “Green New Deal equals magical thinking” thread.

Wind and solar income? LOL. To be clear I am conflating income with profits. (Not the same but close enough for arguments sake) I know they didn’t teach you this in engineering school, but income/profit confiscation IS taxation.

You mean the billions in subsidies the oil and gas industry provide to federal, state and local governments in the form of confiscated income?

Apples to apples, roll the numbers ahead one year and the results are the same, Obama had larger deficits during his first term. You may wish to make excuses but we all know what they say about excuses. In no way does this constitute an endorsement of Trump's spending as if he were a democrat. It is just a simple statement of fact.

Well here it is, the Green Newer Deal https://earther.gizmodo.com/bernie-sanders-climate-plan-is-nothing-short-of-a-revol-1837456120 no longer a vague list of aspersions, this is a real meat-on-the-bones policy. Who’s on board? Roll call!