brenthutch

There are so many false premises in that video it is hard to count but I will try to list a few. 1. The stock market loves high job numbers (the market often reacts negatively on a positive job numbers report as it raises the specter of higher interest rates) 2. Holding multiple jobs is an indication of financial stress. (Most people take on a side gig for EXTRA money, not just to get by) 3. A second job in one’s area of expertise is a further indication of financial stress. (Both my wife and I have had consulting gigs in addition to our full time careers) In order to compare today’s economic reality with other periods, our benchmarks have to remain consistent for a valid apples-to-apples comparison. The video was a hot mess of misinformation and faulty logic.

Here’s a fact for you https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/02/11/Survey-Americans-optimism-about-personal-finances-at-16-year-high/9351549904488/

60% don’t And that 40% is better off now than they were three years ago. 200,000+ jobs created in June and real wages increased as well. Not to mention what the record stock market has done for the 401Ks of ordinary working Americans

Hey, they still have Northern Ireland

And the continuation and acceleration of that recovery into record breaking territory under Trump. Being a thoughtful fellow, I’m sure you will remain intellectually consistent and give the current administration credit for the record breaking sustained growth in GDP, low unemployment (especially for minorities) rising wages, and a record breaking stock market.

Tesla is NOT making money, it is loosing money. Now that the subsidies have been cut, I anticipate a huge drop in demand, just like the first quarter.

If the Democrats nominate a “spread the wealth around” candidate I predict another crash, as hard working Americans sequester their $$$ in anticipation of the new socialist policies.

Let me explain in a format that you may find easier to understand. Tax cuts + deregulation = record economic expansion

Trickledown is STILL working! Longest economic expansion in US history!

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Who on this forum disagrees with him and on what point/s.

Does anyone disagree with any of his points?

You don’t know generals very well then.

Nice!

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/08/22/gmos-double-standards-union-concerned-scientists/#.XQzQXvZFyUk Better?

Legitimate source??? Union of Concerned Scientists?? These guys??? https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/union-concerned-scientists-advocacy-group-promotes-unscientific-views-gmos/

You didn't check very carefully. The article I posted is from 2019 not 2017. If more heat means more drought, where is the global increase in drought?

I made no such statement. I asked a question, a rhetorical one at that. To think otherwise is willful ignorance.

Why does that not surprise me. I had a feeling that you would be at least tangentially associated with the Union of Concerned Socialists, uh I mean Scientists.

You must have missed the part about 2019. BTW your simplistic view of heat = drought is appropriate for a high school level of education. In the real world, humidity, wind and cloud cover also play a role. Not to mention warmer conditions can and often do = longer growing season. You are also ignoring the beneficial effect that elevated levels of CO2 have on plants that live on the margins. Not to mention the simple fact that despite slightly elevated global temperatures we are not witnessing an increase in global drought conditions.

Do you doubt the veracity of my post? Would you feel better if I told you it was from the Union of Concerned Scientists?

Apparently the science is NOT settled "In the first 5½ months of 2019, over 200 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and ²²²²mainstream media sources. 200+ new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled. More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question climate alarm. N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined. N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability. N(3) The computer climate models are neither reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system. N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields)." It can be a bit lonely for me on SC but its nice to know that the scientific community has my back.

I think you meant to say a few hundredths of a degree warmer Lack of water NOT higher temps cause droughts. Basic earth science. (BTW Higher levels of CO2 in the air allow plants to absorb the same amount of carbon whilst opening their stomata for much shorter periods, thus losing less water due to evaporation.)

You keep posting graphs of lower arctic sea ice...apparently you are unaware that there was less ice 6000 years ago (long before SUVs)

"Let me explain, no there is too much let me sum up" 1 CO2 does not now nor has ever controlled global temperatures 2 Higher temperatures have NOT resulted in an statically significant increase in floods, droughts, cyclonic storms or wildfires 3 Historically high levels of CO2 have been beneficial to life on this planet 4 No CO2 mitigation regime can pass a simple cost/benefit analysis