A poll for climate change deniers.

[Father Heathen]

I'm just curious about how much overlap we might have in these areas.

 

[exchemist]

I'm just curious about how much overlap we might have in these areas.

I burst out laughing to read your poll options.

Though in truth this could be considered something of a Skwim-style flamebait thread.

P.S. I notice you left out "Trump behaved with perfect propriety in his dealings with Ukraine."

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm just curious about how much overlap we might have in these areas.

Well if India would just stop farting.

 

[Salvador]

I burst out laughing to read your poll options.

Though in truth this could be considered something of a Skwim-style flamebait thread.

P.S. I notice you left out "Trump behaved with perfect propriety in his dealings with Ukraine."

Well, the transcripts of calls between President Trump and Ukraine do show these calls were done perfectly fine by our P.O.T.U.S. On these calls, Trump never said quid pro quo.

 

[Salvador]

I'm just curious about how much overlap we might have in these areas.

A previous analysis Temperatures According to Climate Models showed that only one of 42 CMIP5 models was close to hind-casting past temperature fluctuations. That model was INMCM4, which also projected an unalarming 1.4C warming to the end of the century."

https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/10/22/...el-inmcm5/

Global warming of a mere 1.4 degrees over the next 80 years should be rather quite "unalarming".

One degree of global warming might be somewhat of a concern on behalf of those who'd live near the ocean or in warmer regions. I suppose all these people would want to migrate, which I as a right-wing populist American nationalist would be opposed to the mass influx of migrants from poor banana republic nations to our wealthy American Constitutional Republic.

We'd have to build a border wall with a gator and snake filled moat to stop them in their tracks. ...

 

[exchemist]

Well, the transcripts of calls between President Trump and Ukraine do show these calls were done perfectly fine by our P.O.T.U.S. On these calls, Trump never said quid pro quo.

Every time a coconut!

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Well if India would just stop farting.

It's all those Sacred Cows, don'cha know.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I'm just curious about how much overlap we might have in these areas.

I did vote-- even though I strongly object to the use of the word "believe".

I actually have no need to believe in any of those things-- I have compelling evidence that gives very strong support that they are each true-- so I have knowledge, not belief.

But I took your poll in the spirit it was intended, and voted anyway.

 

[Father Heathen]

I did vote-- even though I strongly object to the use of the word "believe".

I actually have no need to believe in any of those things-- I have compelling evidence that gives very strong support that they are each true-- so I have knowledge, not belief.

But I took your poll in the spirit it was intended, and voted anyway.

I don't think you understood the poll. It was asking what else those who deny climate change might happen to also deny. If you do believe in any of those, you wouldn't vote for them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm just curious about how much overlap we might have in these areas.

I'm not a climate denier, so I didn't take the poll. I accept the truth of every item in your list except the report on 9/11 by the US government. I don't say that it is wrong, just that I don't accept that it is right. Consider the source. We wouldn't expect an honest answer, so there is no value in the official report. It's what we would expect whatever the truth.

So, for me, both conspiracy theories are still on the table, both the one advocated by the government, which is an all-Arab conspiracy, and the one that includes Westerners. I don't have a way to rule either in or out.

But that's fine. I should also add that I am beyond caring who was responsible. Nothing changes if the answer is one or the other. Likewise with the Kennedy assassination. After awhile, it no longer matters what really happened.

Well, the transcripts of calls between President Trump and Ukraine do show these calls were done perfectly fine by our P.O.T.U.S. On these calls, Trump never said quid pro quo.

You seem to be acknowledging that a quid pro quo arrangement would be an impeachable offense had one occurred, but that this is not that. Is that correct?

A previous analysis Temperatures According to Climate Models showed that only one of 42 CMIP5 models was close to hind-casting past temperature fluctuations. That model was INMCM4, which also projected an unalarming 1.4C warming to the end of the century."

The proper response to this threat is pretty clear. It comes out of risk management, which basically frames problems in terms of the relative cost of being wrong one way, such as the cost of taking precautions to reduce carbon emissions that turned out to be unnecessary, versus the cost of failing to act and being wrong the other way.

The cost of the latter - failing to act when action would have been helpful - is expected to be enormous in terms of human and animal suffering, and dollars. And the cost of taking precaution unnecessarily? We went solar in 2011 to do our part. Our carbon footprint is now less than zero even though we burn some gasoline and kerosene, because the excess power that we harvest goes to the local power company, allowing them to provide some of their power without burning fossil fuels.

Suppose that was unnecessary - that there really never was a threat to begin with. How much are we out? Actually, the system paid for itself in six years, and now our power is free, so we're actually profiting from the conversion.

And there would be no extra cost to the world to convert to clean energy sources, since that will eventually be necessary once the fuel reserves are depleted. And then that power will also be for free once the panels and windmills have paid for themselves.

So, I see this as a no-brainer.

Also, why are you calling a 1.4C rise in world temperature unalarming? "In its most recent report, the IPCC concludes that the average temperature of the earth's surface has risen by 0.6 °C since the late 1800s. It is expected to increase by another 1.4–5.8 °C by the year 2100 – a rapid and profound change." WHO | Climate change

Are you willing to roll those dice for almost no possibility of gain against a the very real possibility of significant loss? Why would you?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

.....
And there would be no extra cost to the world to convert to clean energy sources, since that will eventually be necessary once the fuel reserves are depleted. And then that power will also be for free once the panels and windmills have paid for themselves.

So, I see this as a no-brainer.

......

 

[Salvador]

You seem to be acknowledging that a quid pro quo arrangement would be an impeachable offense had one occurred, but that this is not that. Is that correct?

Imo, a quid pro quo would have been inappropriate, but not impeachable.

 

[Salvador]

Also, why are you calling a 1.4C rise in world temperature unalarming? "In its most recent report, the IPCC concludes that the average temperature of the earth's surface has risen by 0.6 °C since the late 1800s. It is expected to increase by another 1.4–5.8 °C by the year 2100 – a rapid and profound change." WHO | Climate change

Are you willing to roll those dice for almost no possibility of gain against a the very real possibility of significant loss? Why would you?

I think some regions would gain by a degree of global warming; i.e.- the greening of Greenland; a good reason for America or Americans to buy Greenland from Denmark.

 

[metis]

Johnson and Clinton were impeached for far less than what Trump has clearly done, and even Nixon's behavior was far less morally repulsive.

The fact that Trump's #1 favorite former president was Andrew Jackson, who has the historic reputation as being the most morally bankrupt president we ever had [at least prior to Trump] is quite telling. When Trump was meeting with Native Americans at the White House, he had a large picture of Jackson on the wall behind them, and anyone familiar with that history knows just how insulting that was to them.

 

[ChristineM]

I think some regions would gain by a degree of global warming; i.e.- the greening of Greenland; a good reason for America or Americans to buy Greenland from Denmark.

While killing millions of people and untold numbers of animals, while causing extinction, cool way to gain

Did you not hear? Greenland is not for sale

 

[Salvador]

While killing millions of people and untold numbers of animals, while causing extinction, cool way to gain

Did you not hear? Greenland is not for sale

Climate shifts happen, Unfortunately, there's only so much we can do about big climate changers like India and China. If Denmark refuses to sale Greenland, then perhaps there could be a trade. i.e.- Puerto Rico in exchange for Greenland.

 

[ChristineM]

Climate shifts happen, Unfortunately, there's only so much we can do about big climate changers like India and China. If Denmark refuses to sale Greenland, then perhaps there could be a trade. i.e.- Puerto Rico in exchange for Greenland.

So not much you can do makes it all OK?

America is second biggest producer of CO2, i see you didn't mention that

Again Greenland is not for sale or swap, why is that so hard to understand?

 

[Salvador]

America is second biggest producer of CO2, i see you didn't mention that

"The science is clear, under President Trump greenhouse gas emissions are down."
— Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday, June 13th, 2018 in a statement to Bloomberg

Again Greenland is not for sale or swap, why is that so hard to understand?

A random sample of ca. 360 properties with a combined land size of ca. 5,100 acres in Puerto Rico listed for sale on Zillow at an aggregate price of ca. $310 million; this equals a value of ca. $60,785 per acre.

https://www.zillow.com/pr/land/

Puerto Rico has ca. 1.8 million acres of non-mountainous or non-heavily forested terrain; so then this would put the property valuation of Puerto Rico at ca. ( 1.8 million acres * $60, 785/acre ) $108 billion, which is nearly 40 times the value of Greenland's annual economic output; so this would be a good deal for Denmark in the short-term; climate change along with American land development and resource management skills might double Greenland's economic output every decade, which would be a good deal for America in the long-term. Hence, a Greenland in exchange for Puerto Rico deal would be a win-win situation for Americans, Green-lander Eskimos, and Denmark.

 

[ChristineM]

"The science is clear, under President Trump greenhouse gas emissions are down."
— Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday, June 13th, 2018 in a statement to Bloomberg



A random sample of ca. 360 properties with a combined land size of ca. 5,100 acres in Puerto Rico listed for sale on Zillow at an aggregate price of ca. $310 million; this equals a value of ca. $60,785 per acre.

https://www.zillow.com/pr/land/

Puerto Rico has ca. 1.8 million acres of non-mountainous or non-heavily forested terrain; so then this would put the property valuation of Puerto Rico at ca. ( 1.8 million acres * $60, 785/acre ) $108 billion, which is nearly 40 times the value of Greenland's annual economic output; so this would be a good deal for Denmark in the short-term; climate change along with American land development and resource management skills might double Greenland's economic output every decade, which would be a good deal for America in the long-term. Hence, a Greenland in exchange for Puerto Rico deal would be a win-win situation for Americans, Green-lander Eskimos, and Denmark.

Yet still the second largest producer of greenhouse gases. And of course now on the rise again
Talking of Bloomberg
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Who cares? Greenland is not in the table so get over it

 

[metis]

"The science is clear, under President Trump greenhouse gas emissions are down."
— Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday, June 13th, 2018 in a statement to Bloomberg

But that's not because of anything Trump did as this trend has been going on for decades now. Instead, Trump has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't care what the EPA concludes, nor is he interested in funding them.