brenthutch

Yes I agree with you, I am the only one on this thread who denies anti-science. I prefer actual science.

But that is what I clean my guns with. http://liberaltears.net/

Yeah, because that is how science works

The 14 inches of snow and 18 degree temperatures outside my window is weather. The cause of this storm is global warming aka climate change......yep got it

Nothing new about any of that, especially when taken in a military context. Paragraph one of an operations order (OPORD): "Situation: Provides information essential to subordinate leader's understanding of the situation. A. Enemy Forces 1. Weather and light data general forecast for the length of the operation: temperature (high & low), sunrise, sunset, moonrise, moonset, moon phase, % illumination, wind speed, wind direction, BMNT, EENT." Notice how weather is top-line under "Enemy Forces"?

Meh, she faked it. Nothing to see here folks. He made a 150 million in 2005 and paid 38 million in taxes. The rest is all just sensationalized conjecture and more speculation. . . So he paid at a lower rate than my wife and I. For shame. I'd have to see the schedule A for deductions and the $103 million write down from line 21. Accounting for those two figures puts his tax rate at close to 100%. Yes, most people aren't in a position to write down $103 Million. A privilege for the privileged. Yes, most people aren't in a position to pay $35 million+ in income tax in a year. A privilege for the privileged indeed.

Rachel Maddow + Trump's taxes = Geraldo Ravera + Al Capone's vault OMG Trump only paid $35 million in federal income tax in 2005. Stop the presses.

Time for someone to go to jail. Did you know it's illegal to publish somebody's tax returns? It is illegal to leak ones tax returns, it is not illegal to publish them.

Why are you asking billvon? Airdvr is who brought it up. Jerry Baumchen Hi jerry, It was a rhetorical question.

It took six pages to go from lovable molecule to "insufferable arrogant narcissistic dicks". I thought this was Speakers Corner, what took so long?

Too bad you so often ally yourself with the anti-science side of politics, then. Let me remind you that you often ally yourself on the anti vaccination, and anti GMO (AKA anti-science) side of politics.

Forgive me if I don't give much credence to polls. Polls said the earth was the center of the universe, polls said whites were the superior race, polls said the earth is 5000 years old, polls elected Obama, polls elected Trump. Thank you very much but I would rather use the scientific method as my North Star. Oh and BTW, when Michael Mann was introduced to me as "Mr. Global Warming" my biasometer went to eleven. A lifetime of advocacy for a position is a cause for incredulity not blind acceptance.

I really could not care less about what people think, I am only concerned with policy and where the dollars are or are not going and in that regard, I am very happy!

1st article I love how they lump renewables in with natural gas. LOL Frack baby frack! 2nd article More people believe in ghosts then believe they will personally be affected by climate change. Sounds about right.

It didn't say affected, it said threatens, big difference. From my standpoint I have already won. The government is getting out of the control the weather business. NASA is going back to space exploration, the EPA is being reigned in, taxpayer money will no longer be squandered on "alternative" energy boondoggles, instead we will develop our cheap and dependable traditional energy sources and to top it off, the fate of electric cars will be left to the tender mercies of the market. Oh and at the North Pole??? More polar bears than ever.

Coolest.

What part of "the net increase in fossil fuel consumption was 2.6 times the overall increase in the consumption of renewables." do you not understand? What part of rate of growth do you have trouble with? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels The trend is clear. Despite the absolute numbers which do not indicate trends. Spoken like a true warmist.

What part of "the net increase in fossil fuel consumption was 2.6 times the overall increase in the consumption of renewables." do you not understand?

Really? "Climate change threatens America’s economy, national security, and public health and safety"

Meanwhile back in the real world..... "While global coal consumption did decline by 1% in 2015, the world set new consumption records for petroleum and natural gas. The net impact was a total increase in the world's fossil fuel consumption of about 0.6%. That may not seem like much, but the net increase in fossil fuel consumption -- the equivalent of 127 million metric tons of petroleum -- was 2.6 times the overall increase in the consumption of renewables (48 million metric tons of oil equivalent)." https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/06/08/world-sets-record-for-fossil-fuel-consumption/

If the current trend holds, our place in the world won't be as good, it will be much much better.

Yes, ensuring that asbestos fibres are no longer inhaled would be extremely urgent, even though potential severe health effects would not show until much later. Once the effects show, it is long too late to stop the inhaling of the fibres. The damage has been done. Smoking is much the same way. Something can be an urgent threat, even if the effect isn't until later. Maybe something more related to skydiving might help: If a jumper is about to leave the plane without a parachute, one would call that an urgent threat to their life. Even though death will be a few minutes after leaving the plane. Does that help you see how urgent doesn't have to be tied to quick or immediate? This really is grade 1 type of stuff. So when exactly will the death and destruction stuff manifest? So far we have record food production, more polar bears and fewer people in poverty than ever. No drought in California, fewer tornadoes, hurricanes, and wildfires etc etc. Why are you guys so negative? You reject the very notion that the world is is not coming to an end, despite the evidence that is right before your eyes. What a sad pathetic existence. You have my pity.

I guess we have to talk about smoking, asbestos, ships, icebergs and elevated levels of distress because y'all can't discuss the failed predictions of climate change alarmists. Anyway who likes the title of my thread?

Yes. The lead time required to turn the ship around is measured in decades. It's a very large ship. Do you understand now? Lead time for what? What are we turning around?

You need to bone up on the concept of "urgent"