DJL

Please don't bring the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air into this, we're having a serious discussion. Speaking of Pennsylvania, stop fucking up my Oysters. No new spat on my oyster beds for two years now. https://www.cbf.org/about-cbf/locations/pennsylvania/issues/stormwater/rethinking-stormwater-runoff-in-pennsylvania.html Anyway, the link was a about property value loss and revenue loss, not only about damage. Also, we're talking about now, not 100 years ago, not 500 million years ago and not 150 years ago. Yes, tides are natural, they're affected by the moon and I don't think anyone is saying that CO2 affects the moon. What HAS changed is the sea level and there has been a profound difference in the rate of change since we started dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/2000-years-of-sea-level/ See, again a fact of observed recordings just like you said you're hanging your hat on regarding an increase in crop yield. Do you see what I'm doing here, I'm not making predictions of the future, I'm showing you ACTUAL things that have changed.

Uh huh, and they've evolved a little bit since 500 million years ago. You've gone from pulling an example from 100 years ago to pulling your example from 500 million years ago. That's around 5,000,000 times less relevant. Next up: Sea Level Rise Property value losses on the East Coast through Mississippi account for $15.8 billion since 2005. https://assets.floodiq.com/2019/02/9ddfda5c3f7295fd97d60332bb14c042-firststreet-floodiq-mid-atlantc-release.pdf On a smaller scale an example study found revenue loss in one year found to be between $85k to $175k for the subject 8 square mile waterside town because of sunny day (Not caused by typical natural flooding event) per year. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/2/eaau2736

Your logic just went from "show me a catastrophe" to "catastrophes are normal". Next up: Coral bleaching https://www.marineconservation.org.au/coral-bleaching/ The fisheries in the affected areas have collapsed along with the tourism industry. The Australian tourism industry represents which operates because of the Great Barrier Reef represents 70,000 jobs and $7bn revenue annually.

He has all that George Soros money, doesn't care about losing a mansion here or there.

Hahahahahaha "CATROSTOPHY". Sorry, can't let that one slide. Edit: Anyway: https://qz.com/1631469/midwest-floods-linked-to-climate-change-are-devastating-us-farms/

And on further reflection this statement is ridiculous and not just because you consistently post rubbish that claims to use scientific data to predict the future that doesn't stand even a basic test of facts. You're stating as fact that a trend of improved food production in the last two decades is proof that one thing yet refuse to acknowledge that the fact of a trend of rising temperatures is proof of another.

This speaks to the conversation my girlfriend and I had last weekend, that one of the reasons an abortion is an attractive alternative is because as a society we are not supportive of pregnant women. We used to kick them out of school if they became pregnant, we barely support them if they become pregnant while employed and we've created an evil caricature of a woman who receives social services because she's given birth and doesn't have the means to support herself.

Great, I'm not contesting global food production and the relationship that CO2 has on yield. Are you saying that a historical trend brings you to the conclusion that an event will occur in the future?

I understand why you believe what you do in today's political climate. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/23/agriculture-department-climate-change-1376413

To continue, "damage" in the context of my post refers to the elevated air and ocean temperatures that are harming our ecosystem. Simply put, there will be more cases of crop failure and coastal flooding than there will be benefits from the Sahara desert seeing more greenery.

I'm going to say you're 100% right that there will be fewer collisions with sea ice in the future. CONSENSUS!!!!

Do you think there will be a better outcome if we make zero effort? Currently we're in damage control mode and the faster we move the less damage is done. I'm banking on your fear of Bernie or anyone's plan going too far so that you'll agree to a workable middle ground? I see it purely as a bargaining chip to get Republicans off their asses to get there. There are many things between any version of these GND pipe dream writeups and something written as a proposed law but I think you know which direction we're going. Either get involved in something workable or you'll be left with something you don't like. Edit: But this is all lip service because I'm sure you'll be back next week with some kind of chart lifted from another easily dismissible quack.

That was another thing a "founder" wrote in his reasoning, that individuals should not be stripped of their arms even if they own them independently of their involvement in a military or militia. My issue is that none of those definitions of the why serve to dictate the how so I see no point in debating it as an issue of whether we should or should not have certain types of firearms when we need to discuss the way to purchase and own them that keeps the most people the safest. The portion "...shall not be infringed upon" in no functional way can mean that there should not be restrictions and that is the crux of the entire debate as within any reasonable application of law there ARE restrictions in the interest of public safety.

That's why I think it can be ridiculous to look to the law's original intent as a the reasoning behind it. We've gotten pretty silly with the literalisms like that you can only own a flintlock but that example goes to show that the world is vastly different now than it was then. What I've come to understand is that when this Amendment was written it was almost as contentious as it is now. The country was trying to figure out how to fund a federal military, some didn't want a federal military and wanted state militaries, some wanted state militias only but it had already been shown that state militias didn't win wars. There was an equal concern that regional squabbles could develop and states were concerned that they could be disarmed by the region that hosted the federal government. This is why when you look at what various figures say they can be confusing and contradictory because in one text they'll write that it was for something they wanted and then in another write how it was to appease an issue for another group. So just like a camel is a horse designed by a committee here we are with the 2nd Amendment, written in a way to appease various groups with various concerns and full of all the vagaries that would allow those various interpretations.

Agreed.

This one isn't really getting on my radar. It's not exactly explosive news that people who are wealthy, from the same religion and working in the same government will interact and attempt to influence things to their own benefit.

Completely on board for pushing it 100%. That way the compromised and watered down version that actually goes into effect might actually put us on track.

So if you're content with NOAA as a source then why do you disagree with their conclusions?

To clarify, he was talking about the trade wars and that America chose him to do this and he's therefore "The Chosen One". He wasn't calling himself a religious God.

No. If you're going to make a claim like that you need to back it up, not allude to some vague reference I'm supposed to go look up.

Wait, really. Because earlier today he announce that he's the "Chosen One". I didn't know it was possible for him to have a bigger head.

That is semi-correct. It's called a feedback loop. Look it up.You are getting crankier and crankier as your specious arguments fall apart. GND is not a policy, it is a series of ideas some of which could become policy in some modified form. Relax a little, you are being alarmist. I missed that he said that. Bhutch, please show your work for how it's actually a natural cycle of global warming that has caused the rise in CO2 and not CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases) causing a rise in global temperatures beyond that of the rate of temperature change from the natural cycle. Something tells me you'll have trouble with legitimate sources.

And I've already shown you how the things that caused those natural cycles are not currently present and that at those times civilization did not exist as it does now. See Holocene Climatic Optimum. I also notice that you're picking the things that occur in some places but not others and the events that so far have the lowest provable track record yet you're leaving out the examples of things that have changed and will change the most. Russia will finally have the north sea naval bases it's craved for the last 200 years, their food production will improve and they'll finally be able to plant corn on the scale that more southern countries do now. So, for them and Canada it's pretty great. Unfortunately, for most of the Ocean and the rest of the inhabited land mass it's not so great.

So it sounds like you'll go with what works and my agreement is that with environmental subsidies and regulations it needs to be paired with a long term plan that we follow through with and has measurable results. We've been able to do that in the past with the work we've done as a country to clean up our waterways, reduce acid rain, reduce issues with the Ozone layer, remove DDT from agricultural run-off just to name a few. Next up, our national and global effort to reduce the CO2 emissions that we've PROVEN has a direct correlation with global temperatures increasing at a rate beyond that of natural cycles and threatens our long term national economic viability. If GND isn't what you like then you'd better find something to get behind or else it'll be what you'll have to live with.

Bingo. Do you like them or hate them?