DJL

Which will not actually save enough money to cover the difference anyway.

Removal from office is not the automatic penalty for impeachment.

OMG and look at 2018! It was colder than 1988 (if you look at the lowest point in 2018 compared to the highest in 1988). Anyway, those libtards are trying to pull one over on us and we should ignore the obvious as fuck upward slope of the entire graph and the fact that all the best data shows 2019 to be the second warmest year in recorded history.

It should be clarified that the issue wasn't taking money from the veterans, it did get to them. It was that he used the Foundation's name but had his campaign collect and distribute the money. He therefore illegally used his foundation to boost his campaign.

Nobody said that. They've functionally exited the Paris Accord and are forging new energy relationships with Putin. They are also finalizing agreements on the quantity of gas and other energy agreements with Russia. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3013483/russia-and-china-sign-deals-worth-us20bn-xi-jinping-and https://www.bbc.com/news/av/business-11422022/russia-and-china-sign-series-of-energy-agreements And this last one is generally about the already built pipeline and established relationship and about how they're growing closer. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/a-huge-siberian-gas-pipeline-binds-russia-and-china-as-gas-flows-for-the-first-time/2019/12/02/35250ff8-14f7-11ea-80d6-d0ca7007273f_story.html

Fortunately you're not relevant to the decision making process.

0.3C per decade with an accuracy range of 0.2 to 0.5 and the actual increase was 0.2. You'll do better to say that in 1990 they simply were saying that they couldn't make an accurate prediction rather than that they got it wrong. Also, does that difference of 0.1 (rounded) mean anything in terms of what we need to do?

Because your wattsup website provides deliberately misleading information. It's as simple as that. I'd rather not start with deliberately misleading information. Let's do an example run: "1. Warming rate predictions 1990 IPCC FAR: “Under the IPCC ‘Business as Usual’ emissions of greenhouse gases the average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C – 0.5°C).” See here, page xi. Reality check: Since 1990 the warming rate has been from 0.12 to 0.19°C per decade depending on the database used, outside the uncertainty range of 1990. CO2 emissions have tracked the “Business as Usual” scenario. An interesting discussion of the 1990 FAR report warming predictions and an analysis of them through April of 2015 can be seen here. A list of official warming rates from various datasets and for various time spans can be seen here." The IPCC link from wattsup doesn't work but that's OK, here it is: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_wg_I_spm.pdf Watts posted only one of the three scenarios from the IPCC (See page 63, first page), the one that models the largest change but also shows a margin of error outside of the actual increase they state. That means they're saying that scenario is wildly inaccurate as in the change could even be a negative value. There are three others, one which says +0.2C and the other two +0.1C, these show no margin of error. Watts chose the worst data to support his point. In the rebutall "Reality Check" The first link is to a denier website called "The Hockey Schtick" which references all data to the author of the second link. The second link is to an opinion article called "Temperature Record Chicanery" by a climate change denier named Ronald Bailey who has a B.A. in Philosophy and Economics. They both point to the same thing, which is all material created by Ronald Bailey which is pages and pages of gobbly gook from someone who is not in the field of climate science. THE ACTUAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE RISE PER DECADE HAS BEEN 0.2C PER DECADE. This is both within the error of margins in the IPCC example provided by WattsUP, is higher than two scenarios and is equal to the one. Source: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_Chapter1_Low_Res.pdf Page 81, 82 Further references can be found on page 83 and onwards. Do you see why WattsUP is bullshit?

Polar bears. Since we've restricted hunting in 1976 their population has risen from 12000 to about 24000. However, of the 11 populations under observation 4 are declining, 2 are increasing and 5 are stable. 8 other populations have no data. Their growth is a function of restrictions on hunting. Where their population is observed to be shrinking it is in direct correlation to the habitat (Ice) loss of their quarry. Future polar bear numbers will directly correlate with sea ice and the remaining population will be those who adapt to living on land year round. https://www.fws.gov/r7/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pdf/FWS_PB_Annual_Report_2016.pdf Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening. From your link: " While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events. The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.” " Watts Up Link. You're right. Anything from that site is a waste of my time. If you have some independent points to make then go ahead.

Agreed, but it's like knowing we're going to hit the ice berg and saying it's OK because it won't kill everyone. Right now we're just arguing about how quickly to slow down to mitigate how quickly we need to get to the life boat.

Don't see any sources there. Again Memento.

His effort is to find the small thing that people got wrong instead of looking at the big picture too. 16 years ago scientists hypothesized things like various islands being affected. It hasn't happened to those specific islands YET but it IS happening all along the Gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay, the Mekong Delta. Next is the game of what you can see with your own eyes. If we want to play that game them I'll show the progression of sea rise at my girlfriend's property on the Chesapeake. I'm in the process of trying to establish oyster reef around it to stop erosion but that doesn't do much for the salt water seepage that's making the trees die. Next is "but it's good for someone somewhere". In the example of the Maldives it's good for some of the reefs because with more deep water in the very flat and shallow sea bed there's more opportunity for reefs to build if acidification and temp rise doesn't get them first.

Ok, get specific if you're claiming their specifics were wrong. What was the exact claim and what has happened in each of those examples you provided?

I have this condition....

We're in a big ole' circle back to where the discussion was about a year ago. At this point it's like Memento but I'm all out of post-it notes and tattoos.

I was North of Pittsburg for the Thanksgiving weekend. Cold where you are doesn't mean cold for the world. Here's October, showing both high and low records in the US, Nov will be out in about two weeks. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/201910/supplemental/page-1 Here's the global average to date. We're in the midst of the second hottest land and sea year on record and the highest global land temps on record. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201910/supplemental/page-1 You should be familiar with this as you posted the same graph earlier this year in an effort to claim that the year was not actually the hottest ever. Edit: The predictions ARE coming true. Glaciers melting, Arctic Sea ice melting, permafrost melting, incidents of extreme weather increasing. I spent two pages of this very thread showing you exact examples of these these predictions coming true. All you have for your proof is that the most knee jerk reactionary crazed dingbats got it wrong when they said things like that the arctic ice would all be gone by now.

I do get that. Much of news, while informative, still needs to get ratings and there IS money to be made in pandering to those who want to hear affirmation of their beliefs. Some channels are more guilty than others, in my opinion CNN and NPR are the worst. Even then it's not an issue of the information being wrong but that they lay it on so thick.

Putin got his money's worth. The weaker our relationships are, the better are his.

Ok. We were on track to have their involvement under Obama and that took a lot of diplomacy. China's concern was spending capital on this just to get undercut by third world countries who would not get on board. Part of the US and EU agreement was that we would help them and developing countries to switch to low emission power production so that everyone was on an even playing field. Those agreements are now gone and China is even more short-sighted than we are so they're using whatever is cheapest but doesn't lead to the smog issues they had for so long in their cities. That means natural gas and Russia has just cut an agreement to provide it. So, because of our America First diplomacy we've lost the most important partner in combating global warming and are putting money it Russia's pocket.

His penalties are also not for murdering a prisoner. You get a little more than reduction in rank and four months commuted for that. Edit to clarify. His full penalty was demotion to E-1 and time served, when it became political it was changed to demotion in one rank. When Trump got involved he was granted full clemency and will retire with no penalty.

What were their tactics? What made the administration leave is that it made people cheer at Trump campaign rallies. It's seen as the anti-libtard thing to do.

There's no reason to wait for the other countries but our exit from the Paris Accord lost the diplomatic involvement needed to make this happen. China was on board until we left.

And they lobby VERY HARD for gov't subsidies. They're the biggest crock of shit in the entire debate. There's nothing about a monoculture agricultural process that ends up emitting exactly as much greenhouse gases as gasoline that's helping the environment.

You live in a country that does not function with a purely capitalist/free market concept and your 43% is aware of that. You're probably talking about a gallup poll conducted a few months ago and it wasn't about whether people want the US to be a socialist country but about whether they want social programs. As you can see in this article it was only 10% of people who flat out "like" socialism. https://www.newsweek.com/socialism-america-gallup-poll-1431266