How about our great President!!!

[BLITZKRIEG]

Ehhhh idk, the sheer number of scientists who agree about global warming is pretty hard to ignore. I am on the fence only because I haven't looked at any literature on the topic. I've been too busy studying drugs to pass my boards

Where did you learn that Cheech drug school?
In contrast, look at the timeline of our "discovered" history, modern historians/archaeologists all have common consensus that: the pyramids were built in....., easter island statues were built by ...... in the year ..... and on and on. But anytime new evidence is found that questions/discredits what the group(and its REPUTATIONS) believes the timeline or builders to be well they are quickly discredited/cast out of the club. Same in the global warming community of scientists, you think we are in a cycle where the earths orbit is closer to the sun and that we will cycle out, blastomy!!!!!! Besides, anytime money is involved with anyhing numbers get fudged for an agenda.

 

[BLITZKRIEG]

And what have you read about this, and what expertise do you have?
Because when I don't have the expertise to understand something, I read what I can, and unless given a good reason not to, trust the people that do have expertise in that area.
We have had a measurable impact on the composition of the atmosphere.
A layperson's ignorance is not equivalent to an expert's knowledge.
Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Holy joseph smith, as a mod you need to chill out and not attack someone for their opinion, your leftists attacks for a simple opinion are unwarranted. All of us can see you have a vendetta against mafesto for questioning what you believe to be facts and in this case partly agreeing with you????..!!!.

Look dillweed, stuff like this affects how you vote, and that affects the rest of us.

We all have a feel for how you vote.

 

[Mafesto]

But how would you know that, if you hadn't done any reading on the subject?

Therefore, by definition, ignorant on the subject.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

You and I have a different mindset regarding this.
I have an opinion, and because it's an opinion I don't know if I am correct, incorrect or partially correct.
You on the other hand are certain that your view is correct.

Many will see my stance as more rational.

 

[BLITZKRIEG]

Yea, talk radio hosts know waaaay more about this then 97% of scientists for sure... I ride in an area with a lot of coastal low elevation glaciers, and the amount of glacial recession we have seen in recent years is crazy. That combined with a good look at the available information is enough info for me to put 2+2 together and see who is pushing BS.
You might not notice a slight difference in the heartland but we can see it clear as day in the coast range.

Im no expert in coastal regions but in this situation i defer to someone much wiser than me like Al Gore.
But he did buy a mansion in Monticetto, on the coast, where the water is supposed to rise, or the ground is supposed to sink, or something, so it must not be all that bad...

 

[Mafesto]

Ahhhh, Al Gore.
Perhaps the best example for my willingness to consider alternatives to what "experts" are selling as facts.

 

[James T Kirk]

I absolutely believe you and your first-hand experience.
But I also believe what you are seeing could very well be cyclical.
Again, just stating my opinion. (but dillweed seems to think I'm ignorant for having an opinion that he doesn't understand)

Climate cycles are measured in centuries or eons, not years or decades. It's really simple physics if you look past all the partisan BS and the fact that the right wing in the US is really the only faction in the educated world that denies human effect on climate. More CO 2 in the atmosphere equals more heat. The concentration of CO 2 has risen dramatically since 1850. What did humans start burning lots more of in 1850? What do the glaciers I see most days in the winter tell me? If I'm gonna be a skeptic it's pretty easy to know what side to be skeptical of.

Are sleds a fart in a windstorm in the whole thing? Yes. Are coal burning power plants? No.

 

[Bacon]

Ehhhh idk, the sheer number of scientists who agree about global warming is pretty hard to ignore. I am on the fence only because I haven't looked at any literature on the topic. I've been too busy studying drugs to pass my boards

Those scientists all agree because their funding all depends on it. Follow the money, you will find the answers.

 

[Bacon]

And what have you read about this, and what expertise do you have?

Because when I don't have the expertise to understand something, I read what I can, and unless given a good reason not to, trust the people that do have expertise in that area.

We have had a measurable impact on the composition of the atmosphere.

A layperson's ignorance is not equivalent to an expert's knowledge.
Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

I have a question and don't take this as a bad thing, but what liberal leaning four year college did you attend and what is your occupation? I've always said if you are liberal and under 40 and were brainwashed in college, I will give a bit of a pass. If your over 40 and still liberal you must be a politician

 

[Idcatman3]

I have a question and don't take this as a bad thing, but what liberal leaning four year college did you attend and what is your occupation? I've always said if you are liberal and under 40 and were brainwashed in college, I will give a bit of a pass. If your over 40 and still liberal you must be a politician

Good old liberal University of Idaho for Mechanical Engineering.
You?

I'm a little baffled at the low opinion of education. Without it, We wouldn't be communicating like we can now. We wouldn't be riding the sleds we are, or driving the tow rigs.

There are many people a lot smarter than me, while have done a lot of work on so many subjects. I'm far from an expert in many things, but I understand that simpler explanations for things are often correct. if 97% of experts in a subject agree on something, there's a good chance that they are largely right. They may not be 100% right, but they're going to be a lot more right than me, sitting at my desk working on power plants.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

[polaris dude]

Where did you learn that Cheech drug school?
In contrast, look at the timeline of our "discovered" history, modern historians/archaeologists all have common consensus that: the pyramids were built in....., easter island statues were built by ...... in the year ..... and on and on. But anytime new evidence is found that questions/discredits what the group(and its REPUTATIONS) believes the timeline or builders to be well they are quickly discredited/cast out of the club. Same in the global warming community of scientists, you think we are in a cycle where the earths orbit is closer to the sun and that we will cycle out, blastomy!!!!!! Besides, anytime money is involved with anyhing numbers get fudged for an agenda.

Haha school of hard knocks

And whenever someone says scientists are never wrong must not be too keen for history. I've heard enough about various scientists who had correct theories, but only after they died did anyone else validate their findings. Things like the sun being the center of the solar system or global cooling (83% of published papers agreed cooling was the trend). It is a lot easier to recommend more money to study the climate when you incite a little panic/concern.

Again, not that I think global warming isn't real, but perhaps the impact of CO2 on temperatures isn't fully understood yet.

 

[James T Kirk]

Those scientists all agree because their funding all depends on it. Follow the money, you will find the answers.

And the fossil fuel industry among others makes a lot more money if there are no regulations. I'd say they have several orders of magnitude more money on the line than any scientist. Climate science will always be studied whether it's changing not, it's just another conspiracy theory pushed by the far right that scientists stick to the whole climate change to preserve their funding. Follow the money indeed, right to the companies that profit most from the release of CO2.

85 million barrels of oil are burned every day along with who knows how much coal, every year, and at this rate for decades to come. To think that has no effect on the atmosphere is the height of human arrogance. You might not see much concentration in the middle of 'Murcia, but look at a place like Beijing and honestly tell yourself that it has no effect. Or areas on the coast that we can rarely ride thru anymore because glaciers that took thousands of years to form have receded huge in the last 10 years.

But we all know Donny said a few thousand coal mining jobs are waaay more important, even though several times more people are employed in the renewable energy sector that he wants to cripple. Guess it wouldnt make any sense at all to re-train any of them to be able to be productive members of society in a practical 21st century occupation...

 

[Bacon]

And the fossil fuel industry among others makes a lot more money if there are no regulations. I'd say they have several orders of magnitude more money on the line than any scientist. Climate science will always be studied whether it's changing not, it's just another conspiracy theory pushed by the far right that scientists stick to the whole climate change to preserve their funding. Follow the money indeed, right to the companies that profit most from the release of CO2.

85 million barrels of oil are burned every day along with who knows how much coal, every year, and at this rate for decades to come. To think that has no effect on the atmosphere is the height of human arrogance. You might not see much concentration in the middle of 'Murcia, but look at a place like Beijing and honestly tell yourself that it has no effect. Or areas on the coast that we can rarely ride thru anymore because glaciers that took thousands of years to form have receded huge in the last 10 years.

But we all know Donny said a few thousand coal mining jobs are waaay more important, even though several times more people are employed in the renewable energy sector that he wants to cripple. Guess it wouldnt make any sense at all to re-train any of them to be able to be productive members of society in a practical 21st century occupation...

Yet according to these same scientists, there was more CO2 in the atmosphere when the dinosaurs were around. I don't know why coal and oil is such a horrible thing to the lefties. It's organic and comes from the earth. I thought they all liked that. Mother Nature has a way of getting rid of many things some think is a disaster. Remember the gulf oil spill. The lefties were all saying that the ecosystem was ruined and it would take 50 yrs to get back to normal. The fishing will be devastated. Guess what, the next year you never would have know there was an oil spill other than finding a couple tiny oil balls on the beach.

 

[Bacon]

Good old liberal University of Idaho for Mechanical Engineering.
You?

I'm a little baffled at the low opinion of education. Without it, We wouldn't be communicating like we can now. We wouldn't be riding the sleds we are, or driving the tow rigs.

There are many people a lot smarter than me, while have done a lot of work on so many subjects. I'm far from an expert in many things, but I understand that simpler explanations for things are often correct. if 97% of experts in a subject agree on something, there's a good chance that they are largely right. They may not be 100% right, but they're going to be a lot more right than me, sitting at my desk working on power plants.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

What kind of power plant do you work at. And I don't have anything against getting an education. I do have an issue with the far left professors in some colleges having the students believe they can save the world being a liberal.

 

[Wheel House Motorsports]

You guys want to talk about following the money are very right. Except you are talking about 97% of the scientific community colluding together to lie to try to keep their trivial(in the grand scheme of things) budgets alive... Seems plausible.

Now lets look at some REAL money flow. And the flow of money back into politics probably has nothing to do with protecting an industry that is the proverbial "money tree".

If I've ever seen a reason to suppress the scientific community and their research in the name of profits.... well, again, follow the money.

Big Oil’s Big Profits, In 24 Hours

*The five biggest oil companies earned a combined profit of $375 million per day, or a record $137 billion profit for the year, in 2011, despite reducing their oil production.

*In 60 seconds, these five companies earned $261,000 — more than 96 percent of American households make in one year.

*These five oil companies received $6.6 million in federal tax breaks every day.

*In 2011, the three largest domestic public oil companies spent $100 million of their profits each day, or over 50 percent, buying back their own stock to enrich their board, senior managers, and largest share holders.

*The entire oil and gas industry spent on average $400,000 each day lobbying senators and representatives, totaling nearly $150 million.

This info is from the 2011 and 2012. I wasn't able to locate as comprehensive info that was newer at the moment.

 

[Idcatman3]

Yet according to these same scientists, there was more CO2 in the atmosphere when the dinosaurs were around. I don't know why coal and oil is such a horrible thing to the lefties. It's organic and comes from the earth. I thought they all liked that. Mother Nature has a way of getting rid of many things some think is a disaster. Remember the gulf oil spill. The lefties were all saying that the ecosystem was ruined and it would take 50 yrs to get back to normal. The fishing will be devastated. Guess what, the next year you never would have know there was an oil spill other than finding a couple tiny oil balls on the beach.

CO2 levels were higher in prehistoric times. Temperature was also... that doesn't disprove anything.
http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

The dose makes the poison. The earth does have significant storage and adaption capabilities. But they are not limitless.

The gulf oil spill is still having effects:
http://www.npr.org/2015/04/20/40037...oil-spill-effects-linger-and-recovery-is-slow

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/27/us/gulf-disaster-fishing-industry/

What kind of power plant do you work at. And I don't have anything against getting an education. I do have an issue with the far left professors in some colleges having the students believe they can save the world being a liberal.

I work with all types of power plants. The company I work for produces performance monitoring software, increasing the efficiency of power plants. I've done models for Nukes, Coal, Oil, & Gas steam plants, as well as Gas Turbines, and combined cycle plants. We also monitor equipment reliability for all those, as well as some wind farms.

I have issues with people thinking they know better than the experts in a field. If a truck driver tells me he knows how to drive a truck better than me, I'd say he's very likely right. If a plumber tells me my pipes are clogged or I need some other repair, he probably knows more about it than I do. If a climate scientist tells me that more CO2 emissions = more volatile and generally warmer climate, he probably knows more about it than I do.

A couple guys might be wrong, or paid off, or any number of other motivations, but when the VAST majority agree on something, there's likely to be some truth to it. What other scientific consensuses shall we doubt today?

 

[BLITZKRIEG]

You guys want to talk about following the money are very right. Except you are talking about 97% of the scientific community colluding together to lie to try to keep their trivial(in the grand scheme of things) budgets alive... Seems plausible.
Now lets look at some REAL money flow. And the flow of money back into politics probably has nothing to do with protecting an industry that is the proverbial "money tree".
If I've ever seen a reason to suppress the scientific community and their research in the name of profits.... well, again, follow the money.
*In 2011, the three largest domestic public oil companies spent $100 million of their profits each day, or over 50 percent, buying back their own stock to enrich their board, senior managers, and largest share holders.
*The entire oil and gas industry spent on average $400,000 each day lobbying senators and representatives, totaling nearly $150 million.
This info is from the 2011 and 2012. I wasn't able to locate as comprehensive info that was newer at the moment.

~ 2011 ~ Some highlights from forbes.
Truth is, recent earnings aren’t the result of international conspiracy or corporate malfeasance or unbridled avarice–they spring from the basic fact that crude oil costs, and thus gasoline prices, have risen dramatically in recent months.
Industry profit margins are cyclical too. But on average, between 2006 and 2010, the largest oil companies averaged a profit margin of around 6.5%. This pales in comparison to profit margins in just about every other industry. The pharmaceutical industry, for example, routinely averages a profit margin of about 16%. The soft drink market is even more lucrative.
As the revenues of oil companies improve, so do their stock prices. In turn, teachers, firefighters, policemen and millions of other public servants see their retirement accounts expand. And as most states are struggling to keep their pension programs solvent, oil stocks can help ease that pressure and stave off fiscal woes.
And the economic ripple effects don’t stop there. Oil and natural gas companies support more than 9.2 million U.S. jobs and have invested nearly $2 trillion in domestic capital projects over the last decade. Higher earnings mean more cash to plow into new projects and jobs.
And remember: freely choosing consumers—not government mandates–are driving industry margins and growth.
https://www.forbes.com/2011/05/10/oil-company-earnings.html

 

[Wheel House Motorsports]

~ 2011 ~ Some highlights from forbes.
Truth is, recent earnings aren’t the result of international conspiracy or corporate malfeasance or unbridled avarice–they spring from the basic fact that crude oil costs, and thus gasoline prices, have risen dramatically in recent months.
Industry profit margins are cyclical too. But on average, between 2006 and 2010, the largest oil companies averaged a profit margin of around 6.5%. This pales in comparison to profit margins in just about every other industry. The pharmaceutical industry, for example, routinely averages a profit margin of about 16%. The soft drink market is even more lucrative.
As the revenues of oil companies improve, so do their stock prices. In turn, teachers, firefighters, policemen and millions of other public servants see their retirement accounts expand. And as most states are struggling to keep their pension programs solvent, oil stocks can help ease that pressure and stave off fiscal woes.
And the economic ripple effects don’t stop there. Oil and natural gas companies support more than 9.2 million U.S. jobs and have invested nearly $2 trillion in domestic capital projects over the last decade. Higher earnings mean more cash to plow into new projects and jobs.
And remember: freely choosing consumers—not government mandates–are driving industry margins and growth.
https://www.forbes.com/2011/05/10/oil-company-earnings.html

I was not saying it was more or less lucrative then any other industry by percentage. I am merely saying that When hundreds of thousands of dollars PER DAY funnel into lobbying, the citizens best interests are PROBABLY not at heart.

And yes, I love what a strong oil industry does for the economy, trust me, I feel it. I work in the sled industry, when oil money is flowing, so is mine. BUT, I am also trying to be a little less short sighted here. I would rather take a hit now to ensure my children, grand children, etc (see benefit of species) enjoy the same amazing planet we are all enjoying right now.

 

[bholmlate]

How bout that President who is talking peace after sitting with the POPE Who would have thunk it!!! The guy who wanted a tank parade at his swearing in is now talking peace. This guy is amazing. Oh did anyone read, while all this fake news on Russia and healthcare was going on, the restrictions that were put in place by Dood-Frank to keep Wall Street in check were quietly scrapped You can put another gold star in achievement column for this guy. Since he did say on the campaign trail that he was going to help Wall Street become great again and the first step was to get rid of the those pesky restriction put in place GO TEAM!!!.

 

[Wheel House Motorsports]

One of the ways Donald Trump’s budget claims to balance the budget over a decade, without cutting defense or retirement spending, is to assume a $2 trillion increase in revenue through economic growth. This is the magic of the still-to-be-designed Trump tax cuts. But wait—if you recall, the magic of the Trump tax cuts is also supposed to pay for the Trump tax cuts. So the $2 trillion is a double-counting error.

Trump has promised to enact “the biggest tax cut in history.” Trump’s administration has insisted, however, that the largest tax cut in history will not reduce revenue, because it will unleash growth. That is itself a wildly fanciful assumption. But that assumption has already become a baseline of the administration’s budget math. Trump’s budget assumes the historically yuge tax cuts will not lose any revenue for this reason—the added growth it will supposedly generate will make up for all the lost revenue.

But then the budget assumes $2 trillion in higher revenue from growth in order to achieve balance after ten years. So the $2 trillion from higher growth is a double-count. It pays for the Trump cuts, and then it pays again for balancing the budget. Or, alternatively, Trump could be assuming that his tax cuts will not only pay for themselves but generate $2 trillion in higher revenue. But Trump has not claimed his tax cuts will recoup more than 100 percent of their lost revenue, so it’s simply an embarrassing mistake.

Well, at least our "balanced" budget isn't based on incoherent math...

Glad to see our country divesting in healthcare and education. Those are some of the least important things we should be focused on. Or wait..

 

[black z]

Where does the overwhelming majority of "man made CO2" production come from? Paved areas or non-paved areas?

Less than 1% of the earth's surface is paved. This is all you need to know. The "science" behind the global warming wealth redistribution machine is far from scientific. The believers aren't able to fathom the vastness of our planet and it's atmosphere. The publishers are being paid.

Our problem is overpopulation and water diversion. The earth's elements can not be created nor destroyed, as consumption increases exponentially, earth's natural processes will compensate.