DJL

Are we still talking about snow? Your source (correct link here: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/18/uk-gales-fell-trees-and-disrupt-travel) appears to show remarkably little snow in the video and pictures associated with the article. To be fair, it did describe snow fall in various parts affected by the storm. So, how about average snowfall in the UK? Also, to point it out, Kallend is asking why you're using weather in the UK to prove something about weather in Chicago. And also, have we covered the difference between weather and climate?

Because it's the 2010 to 2018 data you think is hiding the dark secret? The elephant in the room: You keep saying that this is all nonsense but you can't provide any data or analysis of existing data showing otherwise. All you can say is "No it's not" or point out some detail that wasn't perfectly predicted. This isn't a tiny debatable detail, it's a gigantic highly studied issue. So where is the gigantic highly studied data that supports your counterpoint? From energy giants to the Heritage Foundation there is a ton of money being thrown into contradicting the global scientific body so where is their data and where are their results?

I remember that one. Anyway, here's the text: By Devlin Barrett and Matt Zapotosky April 29 at 8:16 PM Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein — whose tumultuous two years as the No. 2 Justice Department official were marked by battles over the special-counsel probe of President Trump — submitted a resignation letter Monday indicating he will leave the job in two weeks. Rosenstein’s departure had been expected since the beginning of the year, but the date was repeatedly pushed back as special counsel Robert S. Mueller III wound down his investigation and compiled a report detailing his findings. [‘I can land the plane’: How Rosenstein tried to mollify Trump, protect Mueller and save his job] Since his first days on the job, Rosenstein’s role in the Trump administration was controversial, from the firing of FBI Director James B. Comey in May 2017 to the conclusion by Rosenstein and Attorney General William P. Barr that there was not sufficient evidence for an obstruction-of-justice case against the president. In his resignation letter to Trump, Rosenstein praised the president for his personal charm and policy goals. “As I submit my resignation effective on May 11, I am grateful to you for the opportunity to serve; for the courtesy and humor you often display in our personal conversations; and for the goals you set in your inaugural address: patriotism, unity, safety, education, and prosperity, because ‘a nation exists to serve its citizens,’ ” Rosenstein wrote. He ended his letter with a sentence that asserted the Justice Department’s independence, before closing with a phrase from Trump’s campaign: “We keep the faith, we follow the rules, and we always put America first.” The resignation letter was first reported by the Wall Street Journal. The new attorney general praised Rosenstein’s long career in federal law enforcement. “Over the course of his distinguished government career, he has navigated many challenging situations with strength, grace, and good humor,” Barr said in a statement. “Rod has been an invaluable partner to me during my return to the Department, and I have relied heavily on his leadership and judgment over the past several months.” Earlier this year, Trump nominated Rosenstein’s replacement, Deputy Transportation Secretary Jeffrey Rosen, who still must be confirmed by the Senate. The Judiciary Committee said Monday it will consider Rosen’s nomination on Thursday, which means he could be confirmed by early May. Rosenstein’s resignation letter comes days after The Washington Post reported that he had assured Trump in a call last year that he was on his team and that the special counsel’s investigation would treat the president fairly. The September conversation, according to people familiar with it, followed an explosive New York Times report that Rosenstein had suggested wearing a wire to surreptitiously monitor the president, or using the 25th Amendment to oust him from office — reporting that Rosenstein disputes. “I give the investigation credibility,” Rosenstein told Trump, according to an administration official with knowledge of what was said during the call. “I can land the plane.” While it is difficult to interpret Rosenstein’s remarks, he was apparently trying to mollify Trump and save his own job, or at least his reputation. “I can go. I’m ready to go. I can resign. But I don’t want to go out with a tweet,” the deputy attorney general said in a meeting with Trump’s chief of staff before the call, according to one person’s account. Trump routinely makes significant personnel announcements via Twitter. In his resignation letter, Rosenstein extolled the Justice Department’s accomplishments during the Trump administration. “We enforce the law without fear or favor because credible evidence is not partisan, and truth is not determined by opinion polls,” Rosenstein wrote. “We ignore fleeting distractions and focus our attention on the things that matter, because a republic that endures is not governed by the news cycle.” He also defended the department’s handling of the Russia probe, writing that the country “is safer, our elections are more secure, and our citizens are better informed about covert foreign influence efforts.” Rosenstein went on to cite the kinds of cases in which the president has expressed a personal interest. “We also pursued illegal leaks, investigated credible allegations of employee misconduct, and accommodated congressional oversight without compromising law enforcement interests,” he wrote. Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman in the Obama administration, said he found particularly odd the “over-the-top praise for the president who has spent his entire tenure attacking the Department of Justice. . . . When one of the most consistent themes of the president’s tenure has been attacking the career men and women at the Department of Justice, it’s just inappropriate for a deputy attorney general to heap all of this unalloyed praise on him.” On Thursday, in one of his last public speeches as the deputy attorney general, Rosenstein lashed out at politicians and the media, denouncing what he called “mercenary critics who get paid to express passionate opinions about any topic, often with little or no information. . . . They make threats, spread fake stories and even attack your relatives.” In recent weeks, Rosenstein has faced criticism for how the Justice Department released the findings of Mueller’s investigation. Rosenstein signed on to Barr’s conclusion — which went further than Mueller had been willing to go — that there was insufficient evidence to accuse Trump of obstructing justice, and he stood behind Barr when the attorney general repeatedly declared at a news conference that Mueller had concluded there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Democrats and legal analysts have asserted that Barr was casting Mueller’s report in a way that was overly favorable to Trump, with public support from Rosenstein. Rosenstein was long viewed as one of the last bastions insulating the Mueller probe from political interference. But Rosenstein’s role was always deeply controversial, since it was a memo he wrote criticizing Comey that formed the public justification for firing him as FBI director — a move that led Rosenstein, days later, to appoint Mueller as special counsel to carry on the Russia investigation.

The guy quoting the one person who got a detail wrong, meaning you. Here's a pdf of the article you're referring to in which Viner makes that statement: https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-the-independent.pdf Here's another describing that he's right about snow becoming less prevalent: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/12/often-does-snow-fall-uk-getting-rarer/ And the data: https://nerc.ukri.org/research/partnerships/ride/lwec/report-cards/watersource11/ And another about how it's different in different areas because of regional geography: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43158532 B-Hutch, you act like you're an independent thinking guy but you're pedaling the same BS as the rest of the conspiracy right-wingers. At least show your sources. Also, still waiting on that elephant in the room answer, where is the analysis of the data that debunks the global body of independent research?

Dude. You're imposing on their circle jerk.

Well, we probably don't need to hold our breath.

I agree it's funny that the Onion doesn't even need to make it up anymore, they can just publish the straight news that what we knew in 1994 is still being ignored. Also on par with our recent conversations: Tesla Posts Massive First Quarter Loss After Self-Driving Car Absconds With $702 Million in Cash https://www.theonion.com/tesla-posts-massive-first-quarter-loss-after-self-drivi-1834310890 Don't see a '96 Honda stealing from mankind, do you?

Agreed. That's a different issue, they can't actually stop another law enforcement body from doing their work.

And that kicks it back to giving local police the leeway to enforce according to their discretion. Many interactions with police involve minor infractions for which a person is immediately released once they're either fined or found to not have been involved. The next interaction is people going to the police to report a crime. If you're really interested in stopping gang violence then these people need to be able to go to the police. If Jose got cuffed for being in fight, got released pending adjudication and now he knows he'll get deported if a cop ever identifies him you've created someone who is both desperate and can't go to the police (and is now a perfect candidate for gang recruitment). It's not Beaver-fuckin-Cleaver living in the hood who saw someone get shot or knows who did it. That marginalized person is exactly who we need helping police. Blind enforcement has never worked, just look at the history of black communities in America.

Fake news. Totally transparent, under audit actually, which means they're transparent.

DHS/ICE says that most are U.S. citizens based upon arrests in Project Wildfire (Feb. 23 to March 31, 2015) and Project Shadowfire (Feb 15 to March 21, 2016) Project Wildfire (Feb. 23 to March 31, 2015) https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-arrests-976-gang-members-and-associates-during-project-wildfire-surge#wcm-survey-target-id "Most of the individuals arrested during Project Wildfire were U.S. citizens, but 199 foreign nationals were also arrested, from 18 countries in South and Central America, Asia, Africa, Europe and the Caribbean. Of the individuals arrested, 976 were gang members and associates. HSI agents also arrested – or assisted in the arrest – of 231 other individuals on federal and/or state criminal violations and administrative immigration violations, for a total of 1,207 arrests. Of the total 1,207 arrested, 1,057 were males and 150 were females." Project Shadowfire (Feb 15 to March 21, 2016) https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-arrests-more-1100-operation-targeting-gangs "Most of the individuals arrested during Project Shadowfire were U.S. citizens, but 239 foreign nationals from 13 countries in Central America, Asia, Europe and the Caribbean were also arrested. Of the 1,133 arrests, 915 were gang members and associates, 1,001 were charged with criminal offenses and 132 were arrested administratively for immigration violations." EDIT: And to take this back to where the conversation started, it's from your statement: "Whom is it that you think is mostly in those gangs that are doing the killing and murdering?" They are not "mostly" illegals, they are according to actual data from ICE "mostly" US citizens.

Psssst....throw a Lambo into the hypothetical race, that'll shut his libtard ass up. We also need to move the goalposts to not obey the speed limit since the Model S wins off the line and the Lambo doesn't catch up until you hit the Model S 155mph top speed. Anyway, I think we can summarize that just about any old ICE car beats an old EV and even most new EVs but the top end EV wins a hypothetically constructed scenario in which you have to obey the speed limit and the EV can get ahead on the start from one stop light to the next enough to make up for the difference in time to refuel. So BAM! CASE CLOSED!

Maybe you can help me out, you linked to a point in the article that talks about a tendency of Hispanic victims to not report their crimes to the police. This sounds more like you agree that a better relationship with the police would help police find criminals.

Well, it's true in some senses, it just wasn't by choice.

Also, you never answered my question from above. Do you think there's any validity to the video you posted that an article about the observations of an expedition in Norway in 1922 and readings of about 900 ppm CO2 in a conference room are relevant to our current study of global warming and CO2 levels?

No, it's not a surprise that an energy grid that uses coal plants will create CO2. What's your point?

The others have already responded above but who do YOU think are in US based gangs? Next question, if you're so concerned about gangs then do you want illegal immigrants working with the police or working with the gangs to solve their problems?

But that's like saying the De Havilland Comet proved that jetliners were a failure. Let me know if you get that. The Comet, like Tesla was the first major jetliner and it took a lot of money and exposed a lot of issues with new technology. The other companies simply learned from their engineering mistakes and jetliners have been the standard for about 50 years now. As for electric cars the top rated models are in the exact same price range as their ICE counterparts (yes with moderate tax credits) and are cheaper to operate. Where do you think we'll be in 50 years if the only issue you can point out is who might win a fictional race across the US Southwest?

The sad truth is that if we think the racial issues surrounding immigration are bad now just think about when entire continents empty. They will be poor, dark skinned and desperate.

This is more of a continuation of my post from yesterday that your denier sources lack data, the elephant in the room. From the above posted "scary" article. Here are the three ways in which they not only measure ice thickness but are able to apply those methods to data previously collected to make assessments from decades ago. Again, this is raw data as in it's math and your guys from the Heritage Foundation can look at this as easily as any scientist on the planet. Yet they don't. In fact what they DO post (Rush's 3-scientist panel video) is something I can disprove just by reaching back to the OSHA manual behind my desk about acceptable levels of CO2 to demonstrate that they have no idea what they're talking about. Seriously man, be smarter than this bullshit they're shoveling at you and stand up for what your own brain is telling you. Ice melting six times faster Glaciologists use three methods to measure ice melting. Firstly, satellites measure altitude with a laser: if a glacier melts, the satellite picks up its reduced height. A second technique involves measuring variations in gravity, as ice loss can be detected through a decrease in gravitational pull. This method has been available since 2002 using NASA satellites. Thirdly, scientists have developed so-called mass balance models, which compare mass accumulated (rain and snow) with mass lost (ice river discharges) to calculate what is left. These models, confirmed with field measurements, have become very reliable since the 2000s, according to Rignot—boasting a five to seven percent margin of error, compared to 100 percent a few decades ago. The research team used these models to "go back in time" and reconstruct Greenland's ice levels in the 1970s and 1980s. The limited data available for this period—medium-quality satellite photos, aerial photos, ice cores and other observations—helped refine them. "We added a little bit of history that did not exist," said Rignot. The results: during the 1970s, Greenland accumulated 47 gigatonnes of ice per year, on average. Then, it lost an equivalent volume in the 1980s.

How's this, from the same article: "Ice melting six times faster" What word would you use to describe that so we can advise our hyperbolic scientists?

I'm not sure if you're trying to make a valid point with this statement. Would you like to compare that to areas in which people ARE being forced to leave coastal areas, areas in which the US Navy is ACTUALLY preparing for higher sea levels and areas where property value IS dropping because of increased flooding?

I would like to be the first to voice my displeasure that you're replacing us with the mainstream media.

There are many situations in which one law enforcement will not do the work of another. Sometimes a police officer won't take action on a drug use issue even though they may witness drug use or possession. You could say that they're refusing to enforce federal laws and you're right about that but the reality is that they have bigger fish to fry. Local police need the help of the local population in many instances and a lot of the time they come into contact with those people in the course of basic law enforcement. They need witnesses in murder and gang activity cases and if the immigrant community is hiding from the law then those issues will only get worse and worse. In the grand scheme being illegal isn't a big deal and they need their jail space and resources to protect the population against real threats.

And in all your time on these boards you have yet to show credible evidence to back this up. Here's a challenge for you. You're familiar with the phrase "the elephant in the room", right, that there's something unspoken that should be big and glaring but everyone is ignoring it. The next time you're in a conversation with your friends about climate change I'd like you to see what happens when you ask "Where is the data that shows at least an equal argument against a causal link between CO2 and climate change?" Not a single website where some guy just says it's not true or someone has a little bit of data but that big fucking elephant in the room that on one side is the entire globe of independent research that is coming to the same conclusion while on the other side that IF THERE IS CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT THERE'S NOT CORRELATION THEN THERE SHOULD ALSO BE A VERY LARGE SCIENTIFIC BODY WHO CAN BACK UP THIS CLAIM.