Gary M Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 Global warming/climate change in action. http://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/06/11/39894-2/
Nanker Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 Global warming/climate change in action. http://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/06/11/39894-2/ Damned Neanderthals and their campfires!
B-Man Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 GLOBAL WARMING: IS THERE NOTHING IT CAN’T DO? Shot: Hillary Clinton & Leftists: Urban Riots Caused by Environmental Racism. Chaser: Zika Reminds Us That Climate Change Is a Women’s Rights Issue. Hangover: As Americans Tire of Eco-Panic, Hillary Quietly Drops ‘Climate Change’ Rhetoric. That’s odd – just a couple of years ago, the former Secretary of State, who flew 956,733 miles during her stint at Foggy Bottom in part to allegedly fight terrorism, claimed in 2014, “Climate change is the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face.”
B-Man Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 Tuesday........3:00 PM Too soon? NEVER! Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project knows how #HurricaneMatthew COULD have been prevented A potentially devastating hurricane is bearing down on Haiti as well as other parts of the Caribbean, and might affect the eastern coast of the U.S. In other words, it’s time to do some “clean energy” business! Climate Reality ✔ @ClimateReality Our thoughts are with those bracing for #HurricaneMatthew. We must #ActOnClimate to protect our communities http://bit.ly/2dLph1d “Fueled in part by global warming.” The only remaining question is if Al Gore approved that tweet from aboard a private jet.
Azalin Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 Tuesday........3:00 PM Too soon? NEVER! Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project knows how #HurricaneMatthew COULD have been prevented A potentially devastating hurricane is bearing down on Haiti as well as other parts of the Caribbean, and might affect the eastern coast of the U.S. In other words, it’s time to do some “clean energy” business! “Fueled in part by global warming.” The only remaining question is if Al Gore approved that tweet from aboard a private jet. Al Gore would be better served devoting all of his time to hunting manbearpig.
OCinBuffalo Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) Tony Baloney you don't read very well and neither do your posts but keep up with your CAN-DO-DO ideas and I will devote to them the energy they deserve. yap. That's all you have. Yap. Not science, certainly not physics, and absolutely not: math. Math. The single greatest threat to leftists everywhere. For all the emoting, and blustering, and virtue signaling....the math always catches up with you in the end. You don't want actually try and argue the math/science? Fine, I'll do yap with you instead: Here's some math yap. Try to follow along: what is 202 + 31? 233. The # of House seats the Ds won in 2006, marking the beginning of the "Global Warming as major Political Issue" era. What is 236 + 21? 257. The # of Hosue seats the Ds won in 2008, which is the pinnacle of the "Global Warming" era...but...anybody remember Cap & Trade? Sure you do. Wait: does anybody remember that it couldn't get passed by an 100% D-controlled government, to include a hugely popular president, 60 Senate seats and a 79 seat majority in the House? So...why didn't it get passed, ...lybob? Answer: Math. Like I said, the math always catches up. When all those Ds saw their political lives in enough trouble due to Obamacare...they didn't want to go full retard on Cap & Trade. They did the math. Well, actually somebody did it for them: The way down deep, policy wonks in the basement dwellings of power told them: "Global Warming's math doesn't add up. Say whatever you want, but don't vote for it." {Pause} So, who are the true "deniers" of Global Warming? Answer: The 2009-10 Democratic House and Senate. They denied it. They denied it because they knew it was garbage, and their denial? The only denial that matters. {/Pause} Turns out they were dead right. They were right about not moving on Cap and Trade, because Obamacare had hurt their credibility. They were dead, because Obamacare had actually destroyed it. I think you know how the rest of this turns out. Just in case you don't: here we are, with the Rs controlling the Senate, and 247 seats in the House. Only 10 behind the D majority, when Obama began his epic quest to stop the water from rising in 2009 , and, finally, more math: (247-232=)15 more R House seats now than the Rs had when this entire Global Warming mess began back in 2006. There's no end in sight for an R majority, for at least the next 4 years, perhaps as many as 14. Unless you take back the 30+ state houses you lost because of all this nonsense, get ready to get Gerrymandered in 2020 as well. Math. Catching. Up. What an appalling waste. All that time and energy, and not only are you wrong: you're worse off than when you started. Edited October 5, 2016 by OCinBuffalo
TH3 Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 yap. That's all you have. Yap. Not science, certainly not physics, and absolutely not: math. Math. The single greatest threat to leftists everywhere. For all the emoting, and blustering, and virtue signaling....the math always catches up with you in the end. You don't want actually try and argue the math/science? Fine, I'll do yap with you instead: Here's some math yap. Try to follow along: what is 202 + 31? 233. The # of House seats the Ds won in 2006, marking the beginning of the "Global Warming as major Political Issue" era. What is 236 + 21? 257. The # of Hosue seats the Ds won in 2008, which is the pinnacle of the "Global Warming" era...but...anybody remember Cap & Trade? Sure you do. Wait: does anybody remember that it couldn't get passed by an 100% D-controlled government, to include a hugely popular president, 60 Senate seats and a 79 seat majority in the House? So...why didn't it get passed, ...lybob? Answer: Math. Like I said, the math always catches up. When all those Ds saw their political lives in enough trouble due to Obamacare...they didn't want to go full retard on Cap & Trade. They did the math. Well, actually somebody did it for them: The way down deep, policy wonks in the basement dwellings of power told them: "Global Warming's math doesn't add up. Say whatever you want, but don't vote for it." {Pause} So, who are the true "deniers" of Global Warming? Answer: The 2009-10 Democratic House and Senate. They denied it. They denied it because they knew it was garbage, and their denial? The only denial that matters. {/Pause} Turns out they were dead right. They were right about not moving on Cap and Trade, because Obamacare had hurt their credibility. They were dead, because Obamacare had actually destroyed it. I think you know how the rest of this turns out. Just in case you don't: here we are, with the Rs controlling the Senate, and 247 seats in the House. Only 10 behind the D majority, when Obama began his epic quest to stop the water from rising in 2009 , and, finally, more math: (247-232=)15 more R House seats now than the Rs had when this entire Global Warming mess began back in 2006. There's no end in sight for an R majority, for at least the next 4 years, perhaps as many as 14. Unless you take back the 30+ state houses you lost because of all this nonsense, get ready to get Gerrymandered in 2020 as well. Math. Catching. Up. What an appalling waste. All that time and energy, and not only are you wrong: you're worse off than when you started. So....Global Warming is a hoax because math is math and you can't argue with it and your math to discredit Global Warming is......politics in the US House?
B-Man Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 Another Environmental Epic Fail As everyone who follows the dreary world of environmental politics knows, the great concern these days is with “environmental justice,” which is exactly what you think it is—an attempted fusing of the Edmund Pettis Bridge with the Cuyahoga River fire. So it is with a great deal of amusement that I see a new report from USC, UC Berkeley and Occidental College casts doubt on the effectiveness of California’s cap and trade program that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The report, summarized at the Energy Collective, concludes that the whole thing is backfiring on every level, including the all important “equity” for people of color: “The [cap-and-trade] system is not delivering local emission reductions, public health, or air quality benefits to residents in low-income communities and communities of color,” said Amy Vanderwarker, co-director of the California Environmental Justice Alliance, in a press conference. While overall greenhouse gas emissions in California have dropped from their peak in 2001, many industry sectors covered under cap-and-trade have actually increased localized in-state greenhouse gas emissions since the program came into effect in 2013. Those increases are concentrated in neighborhoods with higher proportions of disadvantaged residents. . . And what of the “offsets” that were supposed to compensate for continued polluting? The report found that those offsets were primarily linked to projects — such as tree-planting efforts — outside California. “We are basically exporting climate benefits to other states,” said Vanderwarker. Turns out the only reductions accomplished so far have come from buying more power from out of state, and the “offsets” consist mostly of planting trees in other states. So, great—California not only exporting middle class people; it’s just shipping money to other states, gratis.
IDBillzFan Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 Saw this today and it kinda cracked me up. Know what this is? An algorithm.
OCinBuffalo Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 (edited) So....Global Warming is a hoax because math is math and you can't argue with it and your math to discredit Global Warming is......politics in the US House? Re-read my post, or my post before that. Math is math. And I can't help but notice that neither ...lybob, or you with your sanitation engineering skills, have seen fit to discuss the math on obvious display in the paper I posted. All you have done is yap. So, I went with yap, and made a point with it: it's been 10 years since the Global Warming political canard was given legs, and today, not only has it accomplished nothing electorally, you are now worse off than where you started in 2006. And here is where the yap ends: this was your last chance to implement socialism. Globalism is in full decline. Bond Villian George Soros' money? It just doesn't matter anymore. Media Matters? The media now has a 32-35% approval rating, and that's within 1 standard deviation based on many polls. The media's behavior on Global Warming and Obamacare are definitive causes of that rating, as evidenced by the internal questions of those polls. Face it: Global Warming was your last chance to avoid taking unpopular leftist positions, and losing elections as a result, on a host of major, very real, political issues such as Entitlement Reform, Tax Reform, Inner City Warfare, Education Reform, and our overall strategic position in the world. Your college professors want us to do all sorts of stupid things. Your useful idiots want to follow. But, they only represent 25-30% of the American people. Without a major, life-changing fear, like Global Warming, you now have to deal with these losing issues, with no defenses, distractions, etc. You're going to lose, but not just because the demographics argument is BS, also because your "ideas" are old and schitty, because they have now been tried over the last 10 years, and they have all failed. Global Warming was your silver bullet. It was how you were going to prevent the math from catching up everywhere else. Unfortunately, for you, it is isn't even a bullet, never mind silver. Edited October 7, 2016 by OCinBuffalo
OCinBuffalo Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 (edited) Another Environmental Epic Fail As everyone who follows the dreary world of environmental politics knows, the great concern these days is with “environmental justice,” which is exactly what you think it is—an attempted fusing of the Edmund Pettis Bridge with the Cuyahoga River fire. So it is with a great deal of amusement that I see a new report from USC, UC Berkeley and Occidental College casts doubt on the effectiveness of California’s cap and trade program that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The report, summarized at the Energy Collective, concludes that the whole thing is backfiring on every level, including the all important “equity” for people of color: “The [cap-and-trade] system is not delivering local emission reductions, public health, or air quality benefits to residents in low-income communities and communities of color,” said Amy Vanderwarker, co-director of the California Environmental Justice Alliance, in a press conference. While overall greenhouse gas emissions in California have dropped from their peak in 2001, many industry sectors covered under cap-and-trade have actually increased localized in-state greenhouse gas emissions since the program came into effect in 2013. Those increases are concentrated in neighborhoods with higher proportions of disadvantaged residents. . . And what of the “offsets” that were supposed to compensate for continued polluting? The report found that those offsets were primarily linked to projects — such as tree-planting efforts — outside California. “We are basically exporting climate benefits to other states,” said Vanderwarker. Turns out the only reductions accomplished so far have come from buying more power from out of state, and the “offsets” consist mostly of planting trees in other states. So, great—California not only exporting middle class people; it’s just shipping money to other states, gratis. Two things: 1. Many people, including me, have arrived at the same conclusion in various ways, but they all sum up as: Justice needs no modifier. Something is just, or it is not. If one adds a modifier to justice, that instantly transforms the meaning of justice into injustice...and they demand that we not only accept injustice, but also demand that we pretend that their newly defined justice == actual justice. Justice is justice. Period. Think about it. Consider the word love. Then consider adding any modifier to it that doesn't merely define it's scale(Great love, big love, huge love, deep love). For example: conditional love. Platonic love. Do either of these last two = love's actual definition? No they do not. (And don't start with the 7 types of love crap...the word love has it's own definition, just like justice. Nobody means or says "I love you, the 6th way, but less so the 1st way." ) Thus, Environmental Justice : Justice :: Half-pregnant : pregnant. Any soft of "modified justice" is, by definition, injustice, just like half-pregnant means not pregnant. 2. I love it when one liberal virtue-goal gets so over-blown that it starts to eat another, or even, in this case, expose itself as destroying another virtue-goal. How about this headline "Global Warming efforts are racist!" There's a concept in psychology that I've often seen in real life. It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect, and we've witnessed it here on this board many times(Member Berry Asks: "Member 'talking to janitors at Dennys?'"). If we take this basic theory, and not only expand it to groups, but also add the constant appeal to emotion over reason? It's not hard to figure out how millions of people were caught up in Global Warming. "Scientists say, therefore..." does not equal "I understand what Scientists say, therefore..." What I often find myself doing here? Well, the 4th step in Dunning-Kruger is: recognize and acknowledge their own lack of skill only after they are exposed to training for that skillThus, I find myself doing a hell of a lot of training for skills. Edited October 7, 2016 by OCinBuffalo
Joe Miner Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 Hillary blames "Mankind" That's one rough trip to Hawaii.
B-Man Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 Why Environmentalism Became Both a Religion and a Con Game American Thinker, by Chet Richards Original Article
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 (edited) I blame Matt Drudge: http://www.popsci.com/dont-take-weather-advice-from-matt-drudge Ah... What's 20-30mph between friends when your house is built to withstand 140. And yes... I am NOT a denier, but I am not on left or right on this. I actually lean more right. Yet, what Matt Drudge is doing is very dangerous. So you leave, Matt... And then you return home to find out it wasn't that bad. Who effing cares! Even better, great win-win situation in an individual's life. It's these polarizing political figures on both sides getting people to make high risk choices. But this is just me... Carry on. "Shana, It's a warm ocean out there, they knew where they were living, I say let 'em deal with it!" Edited October 7, 2016 by ExiledInIllinois
B-Man Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 Exiled again does exactly what he accuses others of. "What Matt Drudge is doing is dangerous" So.......pointing out that some of the warnings are being way overhyped is "dangerous', but actually making statements to scare people is just common sense. Hilarious stuff EII, as usual and NO this doesn't meam warnings should be ignored, or that people should not have been evacuated. (My own daughter moved 30 miles west to be with friends and I'm glad of it. BUT......are these statements REALLY helpful Hurricane specialist Bryan Norcorss has also warned Hurricane Matthew is "like no storm in the record books." SHEP SMITH: Your kids will die! Americans are smarter than you (people who lean right ?) give them credit for NO ONE is taking weather advise from Matt Drudge..............that is a false premise, but having someone question how the media reports things is ALWAYS important.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 Newsflash Mr. PotatoHead. MR. POTATOHEAD! I am MORE on YOUR side, even if you are a PotatoHead! What Drudge is doing is dangerous from a public safety side! Same thing others do, like say BLM! It's you B-Man that is partisan.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 (edited) I am gonna tie a few thing in here. You can phuck off if you can't wrap your small brains around them. What's wrong w/media using a little "Kentucky windage" (again as usually I do, applied in a creative way) to prod people in the right direction in order for Gov't dealing w/these natural calamities to hit their target and keep as many people safe and out of harm's way. Best of all: limit the mess in the aftermath. This all from a purely public safety POV. Maybe they should force them @ gunpoint... Would that make feel you better? The methods the left (& maybe the media, science, & academia) use are pretty innocuous compared to other public safety issues we have on going right now! Yet, some act like they are stealing their first born brat. I get it... B-Man is smart and don't need no stinking anybody to tell them what to do. The same prob is happening in a certain community that is feeling the squeeze of police presence. I understand my stance there too and how it isn't hypocritical... But anyway... Carry on all you on the "Left" & "Right" of this debate. And if you don't know the def: "Kentucky windage (plural Kentucky windages) (US, slang) An adjustment made by a shooter to correct for wind (or motion of the target) by aiming at a point horizontal to the target's position in the sight rather than by adjusting the sight to compensate." P.S. I am still a Lib... I have a compassionate heart and will always do my best to clean up whatever mess an idiot lays in front of me! Edited October 7, 2016 by ExiledInIllinois
Recommended Posts