The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Global Warming Reality Options
Romany
Posted: Sunday, January 6, 2019 12:10:30 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 15,393
Neurons: 48,360
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Ruth, I know that you, like Hope, may be anxious to provide truth in the face of arrant nonsense; for the sake of other readers.

But how many people - apart from Foundit - come up with this kind of stuff and feeds them out from every right-wing b.s. site which, absolutely seriously, they cite as truth? He's the only one. So he's obviously not spearheading some enormous mob.

And...you're a woman. That's all it takes to attract his most serious attention and allows him to address us as if we were slightly dense 6 year olds.

What does one call it when a person who has obviously not had much exposure to academic rigour, who demonstrates nothing further than a secondary school understanding of Science; and who has no idea how truth is arrived at; condescends, dismisses, discounts and rejects empiricism?

"Stupid" is the word, from any side of any fence, which first springs to mind, I should think. But no-one is accusing Foundit of being stupid.

So what about "eye-wateringly arrogant"? "disrespectfull?" "impolite"?

While the idea we three women have "rubbed off" on each other - in this context - is just so condescending as to take one's breath away. Three minds with but a single thought...

The concept that these are 3 different minds, representing 3 different countries, 3 wildly different lives, experiences, (academic) disciplines, politics, has no relevence if we are women.

The fact is that you so obviously are an academic - and your education and fields of knowledge are perfectly demonstrated to anyone reading this thread (Apart from Foundit). We now know that Trumpeters, with affirmation from the "leader of the free world",have been shown that a person of slightly lower than average intelligence can rise to be a president - don't need education to get there. So what's the point of education? Scientists are always getting things wrong...

I really hate seeing you being treated this way, Ruth. Each of our posts stands testament to the people we are. What's on this thread already stands and is eloquent about all who took part. Whatever anyone says from now on is just going to provide another opportunity to prolongue this opportunity for more malignant talk. Let's just go make a cuppa, look out the window and join in on another thread.

This one seems to have outlived any possible function it may have had initially; and it has even become a little embarrassing watching an adult person expose themself this way.
will
Posted: Sunday, January 6, 2019 5:00:32 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,167
Neurons: 4,830
RuthP wrote:
You are using "hypothesis" incorrectly. You are pretending "hypothesis" means "somebody's wild hair". That is incorrect, as I think you already know. A hypothesis is a proposed, falsifiable mechanism to explain factual observations. Accurate observations are facts. Facts either support or falsify a hypothesis. You cannot say "it's a hypothesis not a fact": that is senseless, meaningless. It confounds two very different things: facts (observations), and a mechanism to explain the facts (hypothesis).

RuthP, I was going to correct you on the part I’ve highlighted in bold, but FounDit beat me to it with his reply. I can assure you his ignorance of scientific procedure and terminology is quite genuine. I, and others, have tried to explain… as baffling as it seems, he’s not pretending. d'oh!

Romany is right; although I personally have no qualms about accusing Foundit of being stupid. The patronising “I’m disappointed in you..” personal attack on RuthP’s intelligence and motives, in place of any considered response at all, says it all.

Of course, pointing this out will completely overturn almost two centuries of climate science, and expose the Leftist conspiracy for what it is, but that’s a risk I’m prepared to take. Eh?


.
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 2:08:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 11,167
Neurons: 56,794
I’m b-a —a-c-k.

A day or so of not thinking about this topic and the near panicked responses to my disagreement on the subject has given me an opportunity to step back a bit and look at the situation overall.

Doing so has provided me a bit of perspective. Progpen’s irrational attitude of refusing to even permit, or tolerate, a difference of opinion stands as testament to the general attitude on the subject.

Hope’s dependency on Yahoo and CBS (who certainly aren’t scientists), and everyone else’s dependency on the IPCC as the final authority on the subject (even after the flaws in their AR5 were revealed), is much akin to using the Bible to prove the existence of God to an atheist.

Will wants to talk about circular logic, but that is exactly what is demonstrated each time we get on this subject with everyone circling back to their favorite talking points and engaging in no critical questioning at all.

Further, that fact that the greatest polluters on the planet are being completely ignored speaks volumes. The failure to even speak of it put a lie to the claim that believers care about the planet and the people on it. How can anyone claim to be so concerned, yet ignore the worst polluters on the planet?

All this causes me to wonder if I’m dealing with rational people when it comes to the topics of the political Left, one of their favorites being that of climate change. I’m convinced that now, especially on this topic, I am not; what I’m seeing is fear – irrational emotional fear; a blinding, paroxysm of fear brought on by total acceptance of a successful propaganda campaign over several decades; a campaign that brooks no challenge; a campaign that seeks to blot out any disagreement with its core belief and purpose — which is now being admitted openly by one of our new congress persons — total control and elimination of the country’s energy sector in favor of replacing it with a Utopian fantasy.

So I’ll look over the last few posts again and probably post something later in the day for anyone interested in it.


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 3:32:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,704
Neurons: 49,892
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada



"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 5:34:52 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 11,167
Neurons: 56,794
Ah, as noted, I returned to find that those on the political Left have once again returned to their favorite place-holding positions of insult and accusations when they can’t argue logically, or reasonably, the ideas under discussion.

So now it’s hinted that I’m “stupid”, and apparently I don’t disagree on the topic, or the facts, but disagree simply because the other person is a woman, (wink, wink, a misogynist) and fail to understand how science works according to will [another vote for “stupid”, wink, wink].

Hm. Well, okay. Like AGW ((Anthropogenic Global Warming, a.k.a., climate change), saying it makes it true for a Leftist, and the more you repeat it, the more true it becomes. Btw, at one point I said will didn’t argue logically. Do I now hate men because I disagree with him, too? Am I now also considered a misandrist? Inquiring minds want to know.

I also notice that we have garnered over 1,700 views on this topic. It would appear we have a lot of people interested in this conversation, or a few people who have read it many times. So for any of those people who may be interested in more than insults and aspersions, I would like to point out some interesting details from the link Hope provided that lend credence to the idea of thinking critically, and questioning logically, what one is being told on AGW. (She thinks I don’t read her links, but I do look at them. Most often, they aren’t worth the time to read as they simply confirm her bias. So to be fair, I did read all of this one) To respond to much of it will necessarily take up some time, as will reading what I have to say about it. I’m not sure how many will want to do that, but I’m willing to slog through it if you all are.


http://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/climate-change-the-science.aspx

From the article:

“The greenhouse effect occurs naturally, providing a habitable climate.”
Whew! That’s a relief! Now I don’t have to panic every time someone says those words: “Greenhouse effect!” I can respond with, “Oh, you mean the ability to live on the Earth. Okay.”

“The "greenhouse effect" is the term used to describe the retention of heat in the Earth's lower atmosphere (troposphere) due to concentrations of certain trace gases and water vapour in the atmosphere. These gases are generally known as greenhouse gases*. Concentrations of some of them have increased steadily during the 20th century and into the 21st, with CO2 rising from under 300 ppm to 400 ppm. A large part of the increase in all greenhouse gases is attributed to human sources, i.e. it is anthropogenic, hence the term ‘anthropogenic global warming’ (AGW).”
* or more specifically as radiative gases.

Wow, 300 ppm to 400 ppm. That sounds like a lot. Not being a scientist, I have to guess that 300 ppm to 400 ppm means that there are that many molecules of CO2 for every one million molecules of atmosphere. Compared to a million, that doesn’t seem like a lot, but we have to remember that there is a lot of atmosphere. Still, it’s a good number to keep in mind as we read on.

“The greenhouse effect itself occurs when short-wave solar radiation (which is not impeded by the greenhouse gases) heats the surface of the Earth, and the energy is radiated back through the Earth's atmosphere as heat.”

“... this thermal radiation is absorbed by water vapour and carbon dioxide, which in turn radiate it, thus heating the atmosphere and land and ocean surface. This is natural and what keeps the Earth habitable. Without the greenhouse effect overnight temperatures would plunge and the average surface temperature would be about minus 18°C, about the same as on the moon, which lacks the shroud of our atmosphere.”

Next we read:

“A number of indicators suggest that atmospheric warming due to increased levels of greenhouse gases is indeed observable since 1970, despite some masking by aerosols (see below). Global air temperatures do appear to have risen about 0.6oC over the last century, though this has been irregular rather than steady, and does not correlate well with the steady increase in greenhouse gas – notably CO2 – concentrations.”

Hmm, so even though temps have risen a bit over one half a degree C during the last century (a time, btw, of ever increasing output of CO2 from the use of automobiles and industry), the rise isn’t regular or steady and does NOT increase with the steady increase in CO2 concentrations. I seem to recall someone saying just that. Oh, yeah, it was me. Interesting; it would seem then that something else is at work to reduce CO2.

And here we are told what that is:
“However, the climate is a complex system and other factors influence global temperatures.
One of these is water vapour, and climate models have assumed that the direct warming effect of CO2 is amplified by water vapour. However, there is doubt about whether in practice this occurs to the extent previously thought.
The oceans have also warmed slightly, affecting climate.”


[Emphasis is mine] “Assumed? Doubt?” I thought the science was settled on this. Apparently, there is still a lot of guesswork going on with “assuming” and “doubts”; but moving on.

“Balancing Factors
“The major role of water vapour in absorbing thermal radiation is in some respects balanced by the fact that when condensed it causes an albedo effect which reflects about one third of the incoming sunlight back into space. This effect is enhanced by atmospheric sulfate aerosols and dust…Global sulphate emissions peaked in the early 1970s and decreased until 2000, with an increase since due mainly to increased emissions in China and from international shipping. Volcanoes have contributed substantially to dust and acid aerosol levels high in the atmosphere.”
So over the last 30 years, China has contributed substantially to the increase in dust and acid aerosol levels high in the atmosphere. Volcanos have also contributed these substances substantially, such as the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991, which increases “the amount of sunlight which is reflected away. Hence there is, for the time being, a balancing cooling effect on the earth's surface. In the northern hemisphere the sulfate aerosols are estimated to counter nearly half the heating effect due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases [thus cooling the planet - FD].

But sulfur dioxide causes acid rain. Panic from the environmentalists! So reducing sulfur dioxide was ordered. This, in turn, caused less sulfur in the atmosphere, which increased the temperature; a case of good intentions having a negative effect on planet warming.


“Global Warming and Climate Change

There is clear evidence of changes in the composition of the greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere, with CO2 in particular steadily increasing to its present level of about 400 ppm. In May 2013 the daily mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, the primary global benchmark site, surpassed 400 ppm for the first time since measurements began there in 1958.”
Wow, imagine that. Measuring CO2 next to a volcano gives you a high level of CO2; a level of 400 ppm. There’s that scary number again. And the volcano is the global benchmark site. We aren’t told why this particular volcano has been selected to be the global benchmark. Perhaps there is
something special about it, or perhaps it was just a good excuse for scientists to go to Hawaii; maybe get in a little surfing and sight-seeing while they ponder the fate of the planet. Who knows?

It seems to me that taking measurements at the end of the exhaust pipe of an automobile would have been easier, but then, I’m not a scientist, surfer or sightseer.

We are then told that CO2 “…has increased by one-third in the last 200 years, and half of that in the last 30 years. In 2016 it rose 3.3 ppm (0.8%), the largest annual increase yet observed. Ice core samples show that both carbon dioxide and methane levels are higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years – CO2 there being 170-270 ppm*.
* CO2 is essential to plant life, and needs to be at least 150 ppm to sustain it. At higher levels, plant growth is enhanced – by some accounts doubling CO2 levels increases plant growth by about one-third (www.CO2science.org). It cannot sensibly be called ‘pollution’ at any envisaged atmospheric levels.

Now that increase would sound quite scary if taken at face value, but if you read the footnoted part, and go to the website (www.CO2science.org) you will find a lot of benefits listed for the increase in CO2. This is another case of listening to both sides before deciding something; a practice worth remembering the next time you encounter a climate change extremist.

Then something very curious is said.

“Although water vapour has a major influence on absorbing long-wave thermal radiation, its GWP is not calculated since its concentration in the atmosphere varies widely and mainly depends on air temperature. Also its residence time is only about nine days, compared with years for CO2 and methane. It is classed a positive feedback, not a forcing agent for the troposphere.”

Did you notice that water vapor, a major influence on absorbing thermal radiation, is ignored because it only lasts in the atmosphere for nine days? Now, not being a scientist, that statement really leaves me confused because I could swear I’ve seen it rain more often than nine days, and have seen clouds develop more often than nine days. In fact, I seem to recall way back in school, a science book saying water was evaporated into the atmosphere continually. But if they want to ignore it, there isn’t much we can do about that.

Here is another interesting tidbit:

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific body under the auspices of the UN, set up in 1988 to review and assess scientific and other information on human contributions to climate change.”

So the IPCC is a scientific body that doesn’t actually DO anything other than to accept whatever it is given and say it is correct. Btw, what is that “other information on human conditions [related] to climate change”? We aren’t told. Perhaps it’s the previously mentioned poverty. Being poor apparently makes the planet hot; interesting. Then we get to “sinks” which take CO2 out of the atmosphere.


“Finally, in relating emissions to atmospheric concentrations, there is the question of sinks, or natural processes for breaking down or removing individual gases, particularly carbon dioxide. While the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations is remarkable, and the rate of anthropogenic emissions considerable (some 35 billion tonnes per year in 2011), even this is only about four percent of the natural flux between the atmosphere and the land and oceans.”

“In fact, study of the atmospheric carbon cycle shows that less than half of the anthropogenic emissions show up as increased carbon dioxide levels. Both oceans and some terrestrial ecosystems provide sinks which function as a negative feedback, that is to say they have increased their uptake as the atmospheric concentration has increased.”

Here we learn that humans are responsible for only about 4% of the CO2 being exchanged between the atmosphere, the land and the oceans. 96% comes from natural sources other than us. I suppose these would be the natural cycles that RuthP is unaware of. At any rate, Extremists would have you thinking we are responsible for ALL of the CO2, because they never quantify it.

Not only that, but we see that nature compensates when an increase is detected, increasing its uptake of CO2. Odd how climate change extremists never mention that.

Where does the heat end up?
Most of the focus has been on the atmosphere, but the oceans have recently become the target of attention. That’s because the the thermal capacity of the oceans is a hundred times that of the atmosphere. Quote: “Most of the net energy increase in the climate system in recent decades is stored in the oceans.” [Emphasis is theirs]
“Recent studies show that the oceans lose heat to the atmosphere during warm El Niño events, while more heat penetrates to ocean depths in cold La Niñas. Such changes occur repeatedly over decades and more.”

Another natural cycle. The oceans gave up its heat to the atmosphere for most of the 20th century, mainly by evaporation (I guess water vapor does last longer than nine days in the air after all), but suddenly that changed in 1998 and the warming of the atmosphere stopped.

Arctic ice is also helpful. Ice reflects heat but open water absorbs heat. So nothing is constant since the cycle is always shifting.

Defining climate change prospects, effects and mitigation

“The outcome of any significant climate change will be varied rather than simply an overall increase in average or nocturnal temperatures.”
The outcome of climate change will be varied? That can’t be. We are told it will result in a global disaster. People are going to die!

Tipping point?

“The joint February 2014 report by the UK Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences presents a lot of information, including that from the IPCC Fifth Assessment report, as above. It also says: “Results from the best available climate models do not predict abrupt changes in such systems (often referred to as tipping points) in the near future.” But it “might”, they go on to say. They aren’t sure. So now we approach the end.

Geological context and perspective

“The Earth’s climate has been gradually cooling for most of the last 50 million years.”

“Over the past 2.6 million years (the Pleistocene and Holocene), the Earth’s climate has been on average cooler than today, and often much colder. That period is known as the ‘Ice Age’, a series of glacial episodes separated by short warm ‘interglacial’ periods that lasted between 10,000-30,000 years. We are currently living through one of these interglacial periods. The present warm period (known as the Holocene) became established only 11,500 years ago, since when our climate has been relatively stable.”

“Recent estimates suggest that at times between 5.2 and 2.6 million years ago (during the Pliocene), the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere reached between 330 and 400 ppm.”
There’s that scary number again – 400 ppm. But wait.

“During those periods, global temperatures were 2-3°C higher than now, and sea levels were higher than now by 10-25 metres, implying that global ice volume was much less than today.”

We’re told we have 400 ppm today! So why is the ocean level not 10-25 meters higher? Could it be that something is preventing it? Could it be that the climate change believers were wrong when they predicted that would happen? Could it be they are wrong about a lot of what they believe?

“Ummm, could be, doc,” as Bugs Bunny would say.

.

























































We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
progpen
Posted: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 1:16:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 2,046
Neurons: 369,910
Location: March, England, United Kingdom
Very interesting articles about the psychology of climate change denial.
http://www.chalquist.com/climatechangedenial.html
We resort to psychological defenses like rationalization, repression, and denial when overwhelmed with the enormity of disastrous news. The human mind needs a schema or map by which to make sense of such news and other people to talk it over with. Lacking either of those resources, the mind will protect itself by whistling past the graveyard and sticking to business as usual.

Furthermore, the mind, like the environment, operates with reinforcing feedback loops: circular pathways that under certain circumstances become self-perpetuating. When an activist or scientist shouts the alarm, a mind not prepared for it will protect itself so well--"How does he know all this?" "It can't be this grim."--that the hearer will be MORE psychologically numb AFTER hearing the bad news than before hearing it. That's right: more numb, not less, because of the warning. That fact alone has huge implications for those tasked with waking up the public to imminent danger.

Other defenses besides denial come into play here: manic defenses (trying to cheer oneself up and "think positively"), scapegoating the bearer of bad news, self-distraction, paranoia ("It's all a hoax"), splitting (keeping the bad news off to one side), parent projections (mother Earth can't be sick, father God won't permit it). In all defense, the primary goal is to hold the mind together against an onslaught of overwhelming, destabilizing emotions until the defender has a safe place and opportunity to work through overwhelm and move from helplessness into action.




https://www.psychology.org.au/About-Us/What-we-do/advocacy/Advocacy-social-issues/Environment-climate-change-psychology/Resources-for-Psychologists-and-others-advocating/The-psychology-of-climate-change-denial

In Australia, 87% of those surveyed accept that climate change is real and driven by human behaviour. 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change exists and is driven by human behaviour. However, there is a consensus gap. The consensus gap is the difference between the public's perception of how much agreement there is among scientists that humans are causing global warming (typically about 50%), compared to the actual 97% consensus among scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature.

Robust studies of climate change perceptions in Australia, the UK and America show that only very small numbers of people actually deny that climate change is happening. The figures range from between 5 to 8% of the population. However, this small minority can be influential in casting doubt on the science, spreading misinformation and impeding progress on climate policies.

The best way to neutralise misinformation is to expose people to a weak form of the misinformation. First, explain the fallacy employed by the myth. Once people understand the techniques used to distort the science, they can reconcile the myth with the fact.




Another article has signs to look out for.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/contemporary-psychoanalysis-in-action/201405/are-you-in-climate-change-denial-three-signs-look
1) You think climate change is bad, but not that bad.
2) You don’t have an emotional reaction to climate change.
3) You aren’t getting political.




Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, January 9, 2019 7:49:13 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,704
Neurons: 49,892
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Thanks for that interesting information, Proggy. I shall check out the links.

:::::::::::

FD, it was not "the Left", it was I, Hope123, who called you out. Call a spade a spade, for goodness sake. It had nothing to do with my being right, left, or driving on the wrong side of the road.

The cartoon had to do with your personal remarks psychoanalyzing other posters. It had nothing to do with you being stupid. Until your last response that is - still not getting that I called you out - again - for psychoanalyzing other posters and making untrue personal comments. I've asked you at least 26 times to keep your arm chair BS psychology to yourself and discuss facts, not personal opinions labelling others. You either are obtuse and don't understand, willfully ignore my request, or are just trolling for fun.

If you read it, the cartoon had nothing to do with science, causes of climate change, or a purple people eater. In fact, I shall not be discussing any of those topics with you further. It also had nothing to do with men or women in general.

"Causes discussions" are way past the "best before" date. The world has moved on. Coal is too expensive last report. And pollution is up in the US since Donald removed the regulations. Just keep that air south of the 49th. We have this habit of breathing up here.

If anyone else wishes to discuss positive developments in climate mitigation I'm up for that. But this thread needed a requiem a long time ago.

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Lotje1000
Posted: Thursday, January 10, 2019 2:29:53 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2014
Posts: 1,014
Neurons: 554,524
Location: Leuven, Flanders, Belgium
FounDit wrote:
Doing so has provided me a bit of perspective. Progpen’s irrational attitude of refusing to even permit, or tolerate, a difference of opinion stands as testament to the general attitude on the subject.

Misinterpretation and misrepresentation of Progpen's perspective.

FounDit wrote:
Hope’s dependency on Yahoo and CBS (who certainly aren’t scientists), and everyone else’s dependency on the IPCC as the final authority on the subject (even after the flaws in their AR5 were revealed), is much akin to using the Bible to prove the existence of God to an atheist.

Misrepresentation of the sources used. Hope and others quote much more than what Foundit lists here, but he ignores those sources.
Misrepresentation of Yahoo and CBS. No one's claiming all people who work at Yahoo or CBS are scientists, that doesn't stop them from bringing news about/from scientists.
FounDit's opinion of sources such as the IPCC is limited and unfounded (he brings no sources to back him up), and his claims against them have been refuted repeatedly.
Burden of proof: FounDit tries to cast sources in a bad daylight rather than providing his own to prove his own points.


FounDit wrote:
Will wants to talk about circular logic, but that is exactly what is demonstrated each time we get on this subject with everyone circling back to their favorite talking points and engaging in no critical questioning at all.

Misunderstanding of the concept of circular logic. Circling back to favourite talking points is just repeated behaviour, not a logical fallacy. FounDit misrepresenting what is happening as a logical fallacy, however, could be seen as a logical fallacy.
FounDit is also misrepresenting and narrowing down will's point, rather than trying to discuss anything he's said so far.

FounDit wrote:
Further, that fact that the greatest polluters on the planet are being completely ignored speaks volumes. The failure to even speak of it put a lie to the claim that believers care about the planet and the people on it. How can anyone claim to be so concerned, yet ignore the worst polluters on the planet?

Whataboutism: FounDit is not addressing points that were made, he's bringing something different to the table to try "to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position, without directly refuting or disproving the opponent's initial argument".

FounDit wrote:
All this causes me to wonder if I’m dealing with rational people when it comes to the topics of the political Left, one of their favorites being that of climate change. I’m convinced that now, especially on this topic, I am not; what I’m seeing is fear – irrational emotional fear; a blinding, paroxysm of fear brought on by total acceptance of a successful propaganda campaign over several decades; a campaign that brooks no challenge; a campaign that seeks to blot out any disagreement with its core belief and purpose — which is now being admitted openly by one of our new congress persons — total control and elimination of the country’s energy sector in favor of replacing it with a Utopian fantasy.

Ad hominem
Kirill Vorobyov
Posted: Thursday, January 10, 2019 4:33:09 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2016
Posts: 867
Neurons: 4,282
Location: Moscow, Moscow, Russia
The house of cards has started to collapse.

This is irreversible, no matter how frantically they try to keep individual cards from falling. Lies take time and thorough effort to build up, truth finds its way to hearts and minds much faster.
progpen
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2019 1:17:19 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 2,046
Neurons: 369,910
Location: March, England, United Kingdom
More news from the US.
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

Without substantial and sustained global mitigation and regional adaptation efforts, climate change is expected to cause growing losses to American infrastructure and property and impede the rate of economic growth over this century.

So we have Numbnuts in the White House doing his ever-lovin' damndest to tank the economy plus increasing infrastructure and property damage to look forward to.

Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Hope123
Posted: Friday, January 11, 2019 3:22:00 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,704
Neurons: 49,892
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Proggy. I think the latest term for the occupant of the WH and his followers - "Wallnuts”.

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 10:09:45 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,704
Neurons: 49,892
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Donald is more than "wall nuts". Here's another "brilliant" idea he has to save money. More news on threatening the environment re nuclear waste by the US president.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-trump-nuke-radioactive-waste-20181210-story.html

I actually feel sorry for American people who don't support him and especially those who live near waste disposal plants. His plan is to reclassify nukes as "non-harmful".

Every time he decides to save money on the backs of the people to pay for the tax grab of the wealthy, it actually costs more in the long run and does harm to the public. Ask the farmers who have not committed suicide yet who are turning against him because of his tariffs and trade war with China, and now no socialistic subsidy cheques during the shutdown. And those who are losing jobs at GM and other companies, and those federal workers who are at food lines when they haven't been paid because of his temper tantrum. Even the economy is now being threatened. When personal pocketbooks get hit they will finally see that he really is for himself, not them. Something they were warned about before the election.

Supporters wanted change and shakeup. They must love the chaos.

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.