The Official Trump Thread

[J-hop]

Originally posted by A790

You got the alt-right murdering people because they're black. You got the right calling everyone who disagrees "Cucks" and "Libtards". You got right-wing celebrities like Ted Nugent calling for violence (did we all forget how he stated he wanted to kill Obama?).

Who is causing this divide? Who is embracing it? People. Fucking everyone.

Laying blame on the liberals as the sole cause of this bullshit is exactly that: bullshit.

Thank fuck for one level head in this thread
(Yea I'm including myself on the non-level headed side)

[SportEL]

There was never to the level of vast violent protests perpetrated by the left like under Trump's administration. That is the big difference. Protesting and Disagreeing is fine, but not when violence entails.

Comparing the Right to being all Nazis makes light of the fact that Nazis actually killed millions of people during the holocaust. They don't even know what Fascism is when what the left is doing is trying to kill Free Speech. Again, they are projecting onto others what they themselves are doing. And then you got all these people calling for Trumps assassination in social media. When was it ever to this level? And you got people like the MSNBC terrorism analyst actually calling for ISIS to blow up one up Trump's towers. This is the media who should actually have professional standards.

[SportEL]

Now you have the Left all melting down over Trump exiting the Paris Climate Agreement. All this based on climate change hoax that is greatly exaggerated. You have people like Elon Musk complaining over this yet he flies all over in his private jet, and you got people like Leonardo Dicaprio criticizing this yet he took a private jet to fly 8000 miles to accept a Green reward and then flew right back. What a whole bunch of hypocrisy. The Left loves to use Do as I say, not as I Do.

This agreement was all about taking money from the US and now the Globalists are in meltdown as they won't be able to fund their one-world government by taxing Americans with carbon taxes and taking away their jobs. All a Global wealth redistribution scheme. While countries like China and India who are among the biggest polluters didn't have to commit to reduce carbon emissions all the way up to 2030.

[googe]

Do you ever worry that you might have an undiagnosed mental illness? As the number of "climate change is a hoax" people gets smaller and smaller, you really have to wonder about the remaining few who hold on to that delusion. I mean at this point you're even arguing against the likes of BP, Exxon, Conoco and Goldman Sachs now, all of which agree that it's an issue and are trying to talk Trump out of exiting the deal.

You realize that science and the preservation of our species and habitat is not a partisan issue, right? Political parties are completely irrelevant.

Entertaining thoughts that there is some evil ulterior motive to create this hoax for the purposes of transferring wealth should have anybody worried that paranoid schizophrenia or something might be at play. It just defies any remotely reasonable test of logic.

[SportEL]

^And we were supposed to have an Ice Age in the 80s right? And Global warming was such a huge issue in the 90s and early 2000s. So what happened? Meanwhile, we have NASA studies showing Antarctic ice sheets greater than losses --->https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...er-than-losses

And also, we have the a recent report from the Canadian Ice Service data showing Greenland ice nearing a record high as Arctic sea ice extends over 800 000 square kilometres past its 2016 levels. ---> http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/...-bounces-back/

So what's causing this? The Industrial Revolution? There is support on both sides. The fact is we need better Science and better models that actually agree to what is actually happening in the climate.

That is not to say that we should not be reducing our carbon footprint which the US has been already doing anyways where CO2 emissions are already down to pre-1990s levels. It's through innovation and technology that this is being done, and how we can export that technology to other countries that have no regards to this. However, I don't believe countries should be taxed to use energy, and having industries shut down with jobs being lost while other countries that are among the biggest polluters aren't held accountable. I'm sure all the Oil and Gas companies are all for rationing off the energy to benefit their pocketbook. All this Accord was meant to do was to put the US at a massive economic advantage with minimal perceived climate benefit.

[Gestalt]

I think its because people that think they can use google to find stuff that supports there views also think they understand science.

Even the conspiracy part is plain dumb. The trillion dollar energy industry is honest, with their hundred million a year ceos. But the low paid $150k candian scientist that spends 20 years 12 hours a day,doing research, he is lying. The level of stupid required here actually confuses me. Not to mention all of them agree, from every country. If funded by exon, or the government, or china, or india, canada, america.

[googe]

Originally posted by rage2

There's an interesting opinion piece on this today from good old Bill O'Reilly.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...s-war-on-trump

That's all pretty true. Although, were it not for the system he's criticizing, he wouldn't exist either. Roger Ailes taking over Fox News and turning it into what has become the biggest contributing factor in cheerleading populist extremism and feeding the beast. It has plenty of representation on both sides to be clear, and increasingly so as things escalate, but if you have to pick the biggest influencer overall from either team, he definitely wins the prize.

Bill had some good comments on Seth Meyers a year or so ago, basically saying that neither the Obama haters nor the BLM type folks seem to be using any rational thought, and that the RNC was a giant load of bullshit that he doesn't believe in but only shows up to because he gets a ton of money.

https://archive.org/details/KNTV_201.../1620/end/1680

Personally, as someone who wants to see Trump removed from office, I can't stand how the media are treating him either. I only want him out if someone can prove something of substance.

Do some actual investigative journalism and report on issues that matter, then let people make up their own mind. It's almost as lazy, shameful and dishonest as the shit people like Ezra Levant do. You can't really criticize that and then pull the same crap. Like, a misspelled text message counts as news now?

People need to learn that criticism of an idea, especially an idea that was not even theirs, but happens to be associated with their chosen party, is not a criticism of them. Instead of considering new information, they instantly turn irrational and start acting as though you're making personal attacks against them.

The Paris debate is such a joke. You know damn well almost nobody running their mouth on either side has even read the thing or knows what it means.

Trump: "We are withdrawing from the Paris agreement"

"That's wrong because we are all going to die if the earth warms too much" <- Fail
"That's good, because global warming is bullshit" <- Fail
"That's wrong, you're just trying to appeal to your base" <- Fail
"That's good, because democrats are assholes" <- Huge fail
"That's good, because Leonardo DeCaprio takes rides in airplanes and Al Gore has a lot of lights" <- Seriously?
"That's good, because Bill cheated on Hillary" <- Just kill yourself
"Covfefe" <- (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻


"Why?" <- Winner, try to find out why, then focus on if the reasons are valid
"That's good, because I'm going to be dead by the time global warming is an issue anyway" <- Disagree with the position, definitely a shitty person, but actually a perfectly valid argument
"That's good, because although global warming is an issue, I read the agreement and I don't believe it will help" <- Almost valid, but falls short, because with extremely high probability, you are nowhere near qualified to evaluate the efficacy of the agreement
"That's bad, because I read the agreement, I read the analyses of it from various experts, and X% of them support it, so it would seem to be the best course of action as far as we know" <- Fine
"That's good, because I read the agreement, the economic costs are huge, and the experts who support it still claim that although they support it, their confidence level is very uncertain, and I would like more proof before we take such a risk" <- Fine, don't necessarily agree, but valid argument
"Ok, I'm not sure how I feel about that, and my area of expertise is in [tuning cars, programming computers, running a tow truck, etc], I don't need to have an opinion on absolutely everything because I'm good at some things, but frankly I don't know shit about most things, and I understand that important decisions are best left to qualified people, so I'm just going to STFU instead of make any strong statements one way or another" <- Winner

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by SportEL
And Global warming was such a huge issue in the 90s and early 2000s. So what happened?

It remains a huge issue? Hence all the hooplah around the Paris Agreement.

[phreezee]

Originally posted by googe

Entertaining thoughts that there is some evil ulterior motive to create this hoax for the purposes of transferring wealth should have anybody worried that paranoid schizophrenia or something might be at play. It just defies any remotely reasonable test of logic.

It's not paranoia, it plainly stated in the Paris Accord:

It asks richer countries to help out poorer countries
There’s a fundamental inequality when it comes to global emissions. Rich countries have plundered and burned huge amounts of fossil fuels, and gotten rich from them. Poor countries seeking to grow their economies are now shunned from using the same fuels. Many low-lying poor countries also will be among the first to bear the worst impacts of climate change.

So as part of the Paris agreement, richer countries, like the US, are supposed to send $100 billion a year in aid by 2020 to the poorer countries. And that amount is set to increase over time. Again, like the other provisions of the agreement, this isn’t an absolute mandate.

Originally posted by googe

That's good, because I'm going to be dead by the time global warming is an issue anyway

Back on the topic of Trump

[J-hop]

Originally posted by SportEL
There was never to the level of vast violent protests perpetrated by the left like under Trump's administration. That is the big difference. Protesting and Disagreeing is fine, but not when violence entails.

Comparing the Right to being all Nazis makes light of the fact that Nazis actually killed millions of people during the holocaust. They don't even know what Fascism is when what the left is doing is trying to kill Free Speech. Again, they are projecting onto others what they themselves are doing. And then you got all these people calling for Trumps assassination in social media. When was it ever to this level? And you got people like the MSNBC terrorism analyst actually calling for ISIS to blow up one up Trump's towers. This is the media who should actually have professional standards.

Not sure if you see the contradiction in your own statement. Equating the right to nazis seems ridiculous to you. I'd agree with that. But equating the left to those perpetrating violence in retaliation to a trump presidency is just as ridiculous.

Not sure what people don't get about that..................................

[max_boost]

no harm. planet has been around BILLIONS of years. we ain't shit. lol

[SportEL]

So looked at another way with cost benefit analysis. Let's not look at the science as this can be argued on both sides all day long.

What will it cost, and what will it achieve?

This will cost Trillions, millions in lost jobs, higher energy costs, and lower standard of living.

The benefit if, and if as these are all voluntary commitments with no enforcement, but under the assumptions would reduce the average global temperature by 2100 by 0.17 degrees.

While there is negligible significant gains, economic progress is stifled, and would put a cap on innovation and technology and better scientific research and development. So is this extravagant costs worth the miniscule gain? If it is, I would think that is highly irrational.


Interesting how the stock markets climbed to record highs on Friday.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by SportEL
So looked at another way with cost benefit analysis. Let's not look at the science as this can be argued on both sides all day long.

What will it cost, and what will it achieve?

This will cost Trillions, millions in lost jobs, higher energy costs, and lower standard of living.

The benefit if, and if as these are all voluntary commitments with no enforcement, but under the assumptions would reduce the average global temperature by 2100 by 0.17 degrees.

While there is negligible significant gains, economic progress is stifled, and would put a cap on innovation and technology and better scientific research and development. So is this extravagant costs worth the miniscule gain? If it is, I would think that is highly irrational.


Interesting how the stock markets climbed to record highs on Friday.

Can you provide an example country where this has stifled innovation and lowered standard of living?

The science cannot be argued at this point I don't get why people still say it can. There has never been a single sunspot, milancovitch cycle etc model that has fit the data. Add in anthropogenic influence and you move closer to a match with the data, that is undeniable at this point. People often use the "there used to be reptiles at the South Pole" argument as why anthropogenic accelerated global warming isn't an issue. This is silly. It's about rate of change not the endpoint. All the mass extinctions in the earths history have been a result of climate change too rapid for species to keep up with.

My favourite meme regarding climate change is the one that makes the obvious comment "what if this is all a hoax and we make the earth a better place to live for nothing"

[Buster]

if you want to actually reduce carbon emissions as much as people are saying we need to....you most certainly will not make the world a better place. It will be an ugly place full of social disorder.

[g-m]

I'm happy someone is standing up to this nonsense. I wish we could back out of the agreement as well

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Buster
if you want to actually reduce carbon emissions as much as people are saying we need to....you most certainly will not make the world a better place. It will be an ugly place full of social disorder.

Originally posted by g-m
I'm happy someone is standing up to this nonsense. I wish we could back out of the agreement as well

[SportEL]

Originally posted by J-hop



Can you provide an example country where this has stifled innovation and lowered standard of living?

The science cannot be argued at this point I don't get why people still say it can. There has never been a single sunspot, milancovitch cycle etc model that has fit the data. Add in anthropogenic influence and you move closer to a match with the data, that is undeniable at this point. People often use the &quot;there used to be reptiles at the South Pole&quot; argument as why anthropogenic accelerated global warming isn't an issue. This is silly. It's about rate of change not the endpoint. All the mass extinctions in the earths history have been a result of climate change too rapid for species to keep up with.

My favourite meme regarding climate change is the one that makes the obvious comment &quot;what if this is all a hoax and we make the earth a better place to live for nothing&quot;

Um yes, in Europe where they are spending money on alternative energy in which they would never would have unless they were being heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. This is where residential electricity rates in the EU have increased by an average of 63 percent. This has also resulted in bankruptcy from green energy giants from failed wind and solar projects. The fact is green energy still needs back-up sources from conventional power. The money is better spent on innovation and technology from companies themselves on conventional sources to reduce health and environmental impact.

Well the science is still argued. The below is from last year.

At the recent high-level climate change conference in London, a fundamental error in climate science was revealed for the first time. The much-vaunted “climate consensus” turns out to have been wrong all along.

At the London conference, 80 Professors, 60 Doctors of Science and 40 other experts, including Piers Corbyn, brother of Britain’s opposition leader, who has a first-class degree in Astrophysics, were shocked to learn that the error, first introduced a generation ago when climate scientists borrowed feedback math from electronic network analysis without really understanding it, is the reason for their exaggerated predictions of how much global warming Man may cause. Without that error, no one would ever have tried to pretend that global warming is a global crisis.

--->https://chemtrailsplanet.net/2016/09...lobal-warming/

[soloracer]

A) I am not a Trump fan - personally can't stand the guy
B) I too think we should pull out of the Paris accord as I believe we get treated unfairly and any positive impact as a result of our actions will be minuscule.
C) I would like to believe the write up in your linked article but the fact it comes from a Chemtrails website has me concerned. That group strikes me as the weirdest form of quackery and tin foil hat thinking.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by SportEL


Um yes, in Europe where they are spending money on alternative energy in which they would never would have unless they were being heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. This is where residential electricity rates in the EU have increased by an average of 63 percent. This has also resulted in bankruptcy from green energy giants from failed wind and solar projects. The fact is green energy still needs back-up sources from conventional power. The money is better spent on innovation and technology from companies themselves on conventional sources to reduce health and environmental impact.

Well the science is still argued. The below is from last year.

At the recent high-level climate change conference in London, a fundamental error in climate science was revealed for the first time. The much-vaunted “climate consensus” turns out to have been wrong all along.

At the London conference, 80 Professors, 60 Doctors of Science and 40 other experts, including Piers Corbyn, brother of Britain’s opposition leader, who has a first-class degree in Astrophysics, were shocked to learn that the error, first introduced a generation ago when climate scientists borrowed feedback math from electronic network analysis without really understanding it, is the reason for their exaggerated predictions of how much global warming Man may cause. Without that error, no one would ever have tried to pretend that global warming is a global crisis.

---&gt;https://chemtrailsplanet.net/2016/09...lobal-warming/

I don't mean this to be insulting but that "lord" monckton is objectively speaking an absolute lunatic. Find a better article

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...er-house-lords

[Seth1968]

It's already been shown that the whole "98% of all scientists believe in global warming” is at best a blatant misrepresentation, and at worst, a total farce. Yet, it's still constantly being spewed by the media and politicians up to and including Obama.

For a Climatologist to be skeptical of the global warming epidemic would be career suicide. This is just one example:

Climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology Judith Curry has announced her resignation effective immediately on her blog, Climate, Etc.

I have long found Curry to be an honest researcher and a fair-minded disputant in the ongoing debates over man-made climate change. She excelled at pointing out the uncertainties and deficiencies of climate modeling. Given the thoroughly politicized nature of climate science her efforts to clarify what is known and unknown by climate science caused her to be pilloried as "anti-science" by other researchers who are convinced that man-made global warming is leading toward catastrophe.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/04/ge...t-judith-curry

Now that the Trump administration is in, I'm hoping that more Climatologists will no longer be afraid to show that this whole fuckcluster isn't the scientific method.

Further to that, those who believe the dooms day computer models without question, don't understand political agenda or how computer models work. The former will take billions form the taxpayer (and will do just about nothing to help the environment), and the latter conveniently leaves out certain variables in order to achieve an outcome that the modeler wants.