https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub3RR6rKfrU
Just like FP, an excuse maker.
Just like FP, an excuse maker.
Nontrumpers have been very quiet since Pelosi's announcement.
Reality setting in.
Fat hurts wrote:
_its_baddude wrote:
If you state that:
since 1990 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of recent global warming. Of these, 97% agree, explicitly or implicitly, that global warming is happening and is human-caused.
I will agree with you. However, that is all it means. That does not prove anything, not that 97% of scientists agree with it or that global warming is a calamity or it is a problem.
There are real scientist with prestigious credentials that disagree with global warming.
Wrong. There is not a single climate scientist who disagrees with global warming. No credentialed climate scientist denies the basic fact that the earth is getting hotter.
There is a tiny handful who are unsure about the future projections.
There is a tiny handful who are unsure about causation.
There is a tiny handful who are unsure about the negative effects.
But even in this small subset who are unsure about the IPCC conclusions, many of those have not made a definitive statement about it in a long time. So we don't know if they have changed their minds.
The scientific consensus on climate change is getting stronger and stronger as more data comes in. Mankind is in big trouble.
The good news is that the solution to climate change will create a better world with less air pollution and electricity that is essentially free.
And Flagpole wonders why I don’t take any of this garbage seriously. The whole thing is a scam....
_its_baddude wrote:
https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/videos-climate-change/nobel-laureate-in-physics-global-warming-is-pseudoscienceFat hurts wrote:
Wrong. There is not a single climate scientist who disagrees with global warming. No credentialed climate scientist denies the basic fact that the earth is getting hotter.
There is a tiny handful who are unsure about the future projections.
There is a tiny handful who are unsure about causation.
There is a tiny handful who are unsure about the negative effects.
But even in this small subset who are unsure about the IPCC conclusions, many of those have not made a definitive statement about it in a long time. So we don't know if they have changed their minds.
The scientific consensus on climate change is getting stronger and stronger as more data comes in. Mankind is in big trouble.
The good news is that the solution to climate change will create a better world with less air pollution and electricity that is essentially free.
Flagpole is going 180! wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Not sure why that is so funny. Too far out to make a declaration, and we don't even know who he would be running against yet.
Are you serious? Do you not see the pure ignorance in your post?
You have claimed for almost 2 years that he won't finish his first term because he'll resign or be impeached. You guaranteed it.
You now state "if he's eligible to run, I"m not willing to say YET that he can't win."
Do you need the moronic irony of the above sentence explained to you?
Wow!
You've basically just admitted that you are wrong and have been wrong this whole time.
THIS!^^^
Bettor wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Would be a good slam, but I never said he would become a great NFL quarterback.
Actually, you did (no alien qualifiers either).
I remember saying they should give him more of a chance, but I do not ever remember predicting he would be a "great" quarterback. If you can prove that to me, then I will admit my memory is wrong. Maybe I did. Right now I don't remember saying that or thinking that.
Flagpole wrote:
Bettor wrote:
Actually, you did (no alien qualifiers either).
I remember saying they should give him more of a chance, but I do not ever remember predicting he would be a "great" quarterback. If you can prove that to me, then I will admit my memory is wrong. Maybe I did. Right now I don't remember saying that or thinking that.
You just lost bigly flagpole. 2 posts above yours, you got called out and the poster is spot on. The hypocrisy that you spew is embarrassing dude. You now know that you are wrong. Admit it and move on. He's not getting impeached nor is he resigning as you said over and over.
_its_baddude wrote:
https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/videos-climate-change/nobel-laureate-in-physics-global-warming-is-pseudoscienceFat hurts wrote:
Wrong. There is not a single climate scientist who disagrees with global warming. No credentialed climate scientist denies the basic fact that the earth is getting hotter.
There is a tiny handful who are unsure about the future projections.
There is a tiny handful who are unsure about causation.
There is a tiny handful who are unsure about the negative effects.
But even in this small subset who are unsure about the IPCC conclusions, many of those have not made a definitive statement about it in a long time. So we don't know if they have changed their minds.
The scientific consensus on climate change is getting stronger and stronger as more data comes in. Mankind is in big trouble.
The good news is that the solution to climate change will create a better world with less air pollution and electricity that is essentially free.
You just proved my point.
1. Giaever is not a climate scientist.
2. Giaever does not deny that the earth has gotten hotter.
Giaever is in the tiny group who is unsure about future projections. But he's a physicist and not an expert in climate science. So he doesn't count anyway.
Fat hurts wrote:
_its_baddude wrote:
https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/videos-climate-change/nobel-laureate-in-physics-global-warming-is-pseudoscienceYou just proved my point.
1. Giaever is not a climate scientist.
2. Giaever does not deny that the earth has gotten hotter.
Giaever is in the tiny group who is unsure about future projections. But he's a physicist and not an expert in climate science. So he doesn't count anyway.
Blah, blah, blah!!!!!
_its_baddude wrote:
https://reason.com/blog/2017/01/04/georgia-tech-climatologist-judith-curry_its_baddude wrote:
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
Another one of the tiny handful who is unsure about future projections.
She does not deny the basic fact that the earth is getting hotter.
You just keep proving my point.
Flagpole is going 180! wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Not sure why that is so funny. Too far out to make a declaration, and we don't even know who he would be running against yet.
Are you serious? Do you not see the pure ignorance in your post?
You have claimed for almost 2 years that he won't finish his first term because he'll resign or be impeached. You guaranteed it.
You now state "if he's eligible to run, I"m not willing to say YET that he can't win."
Do you need the moronic irony of the above sentence explained to you?
Wow!
You've basically just admitted that you are wrong and have been wrong this whole time.
1) I have said for a little over a year that Trump will resign or be impeached and convicted by the Senate. True. I still predict that.
2) I have never used the word "guarantee".
3) My statement in #1 above is not at odds with this statement of mine - "if he's eligible to run, I"m not willing to say YET that he can't win." What if the Mueller Report comes out and says they can't find anything that Trump ever did that was criminal? I don't believe that will happen, but if it does, then, depending on a lot of other things closer to the election like the state of the economy, he could win again. We also don't know who his opponent will be, and that will determine his chances if he indeed is eligible to run again.
4) So, no, I have not "basically" admitted to being wrong about anything.
An odd conclusion you drew there...odd and wrong.
Fat hurts wrote:
_its_baddude wrote:
https://reason.com/blog/2017/01/04/georgia-tech-climatologist-judith-curryAnother one of the tiny handful who is unsure about future projections.
She does not deny the basic fact that the earth is getting hotter.
You just keep proving my point.
You do not have a point. You are making a statement that the Earth is getting warmer. So what? That is like saying today was hotter than yesterday. That statement has nothing to do with Climate Change or Global Warming. I'm not proving any of your points.
By implication you claim that Climate Change is important because it will "destroy the world." I'm telling you that real scientists disagree with that statement.
I gave you all the tools you need to comprehend what is happening. I gave you a site where they attack skeptics. You can deduce from this site who are the real skeptics. I gave you a link to show you the politics of Climate Change. How scientist who disagree are attacked.
Furthermore, you are not qualified to judge any of the skeptics. So just because you make a claim does that mean it is true.
Here is a person that is more qualified than you and less qualified then the prominent skeptics.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/global-warming-a-fear-campaign-by-scientists-hooked-on-government-grants-greenpeace-founder-saysHardloper wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
Every president is different, and Trump of course is a highly unique specimen. But what is not different is our political process and herd mentality. It doesn’t take much digging into Nixon’s impeachment to figure out what is likely going to happen. When $hit started to hit the fan, Nixon aggressively attacked the media and any critics, and his party fell in line and did the same. Only at the very end when he really couldn’t escape what was coming did most abandon ship. Trump went into defensive mode from day 1. His problems have piled up exponentially and as reflected in the midterms results there are some serious cracks in his armor. The moment impeachment begins there is no turning back, only utter destruction. I think his chance of re election is so small right now, but a well timed impeachment would totally crush him.
Bill’s impeachment is even more interesting when you look at how much they pecked around desperately to find something that would stick and they eventually did. It started with that real estate corruption investigation and when it all almost over they find out about Monica. They all then voted along party lines on the back of his lying about an affair. That was a moral issue, but with Nixon it was criminal abuse of power and so his party had to go against him to limit the damage. He was the leader of the present until it was clear he was done and they moved on instantly.
I have a hard time believing that the seriousness of the allegations won’t lead to republicans turning their backs on Trump, especially when it’s clear he won’t win in 2020 and no longer represents the present. I’m not sure the GOP can afford the potential damage from siding with him when Mueller shows his hand. Trump’s bat$hit crazy reactions alone might give them enough cover to run the other way.
As for Pence, the cheerleader of the porn star president, he doesn’t stand a chance at being elected POTUS. He can go back to “serving the lord” in his former capacity.
Nice word salad there
You tripped all over yourself this time in a rush to get your little punch line in that you forgot to use one of your other 10 handles. Dumba$$
nontrumper wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
I remember saying they should give him more of a chance, but I do not ever remember predicting he would be a "great" quarterback. If you can prove that to me, then I will admit my memory is wrong. Maybe I did. Right now I don't remember saying that or thinking that.
You just lost bigly flagpole. 2 posts above yours, you got called out and the poster is spot on. The hypocrisy that you spew is embarrassing dude. You now know that you are wrong. Admit it and move on. He's not getting impeached nor is he resigning as you said over and over.
1) I haven't lost anything, bigly or not.
2) The poster isn't spot on until he/she proves that I said Tebow would be a great quarterback. I don't remember saying that, so the onus is on the accuser. If there is proof, then I will admit my memory is wrong.
3) Regarding Trump and his resignation and/or impeachment and removal, I haven't seen anything that says otherwise at this point. If I am wrong, then I will admit I was wrong. Not time for that yet, brother. I maintain that he will resign or be removed (again, unless he dies, there is proven criminality, or aliens from space make it not so).
A quick search provides me this comment from me from 9 years ago -- showing that not only did I think Tebow wasn't a great pick but also that I was "far from an expert on football", showing the humblness for which I am known:
Flagpole - "I am far from an expert on football, and I've long said I'm simply a fan, so with that in mind, it APPEARS to me that picking Tebow over Clausen is the wrong decision...but, what do I know?
Ryan Leaf appeared to be a good pick, and he wasn't. There are a whole bunch of can't-misses who didn't make it and people like Tom Brady who did when most didn't think he would.
So, who really knows?"
Here's another comment from me about Tebow in 2012:
"I loved the Tim Tebow thing from last year, and I'd like to see him do well, but he led the league in three and outs, even though he didn't play the whole season.
So, to answer your question, as of today, Eli Manning is the better quarterback. Eli Manning is on a path to the Hall of Fame (needs more good seasons though I think), and Tebow isn't anywhere close to that path today.
On a side note, did you hear his press conference from the other day? He sounded like the most naive adult I've ever heard. I do wish him well though. I'm a fan and not a hater."
So, I sure don't see any ideas from me that Tebow was going to be a great quarterback.
Flagpole wrote:
Flagpole is going 180! wrote:
Are you serious? Do you not see the pure ignorance in your post?
You have claimed for almost 2 years that he won't finish his first term because he'll resign or be impeached. You guaranteed it.
You now state "if he's eligible to run, I"m not willing to say YET that he can't win."
Do you need the moronic irony of the above sentence explained to you?
Wow!
You've basically just admitted that you are wrong and have been wrong this whole time.
1) I have said for a little over a year that Trump will resign or be impeached and convicted by the Senate. True. I still predict that.
2) I have never used the word "guarantee".
3) My statement in #1 above is not at odds with this statement of mine - "if he's eligible to run, I"m not willing to say YET that he can't win." What if the Mueller Report comes out and says they can't find anything that Trump ever did that was criminal? I don't believe that will happen, but if it does, then, depending on a lot of other things closer to the election like the state of the economy, he could win again. We also don't know who his opponent will be, and that will determine his chances if he indeed is eligible to run again.
4) So, no, I have not "basically" admitted to being wrong about anything.
An odd conclusion you drew there...odd and wrong.
Yep, you were handily defeated and proven wrong, again. Keep at it, you're like 0-4 over the last 2 years. Hang in there, you're bound to get something right. Heck, a broken clock is right twice a day.
A few points ...
1) There is no "consensus" in science. And to say the "science is settled" is something a true scientist would never say. Only an idiot scientist or non-scientist would say that.
2 ) Anyone who throws out that bogus 97% number does not belong in any discussion on Global Warming.
3) To say the "Earth is warming" means nothing. The Earth has possibly warmed ever-so-slightly over the last two decades but you can't even say that without acknowledging the widespread data manipulation that has gone on. Why was there data manipulation going on and perpetuated by so-called climate "scientists?" Because the data did not support their claim of Global Warming.
4) Even IF the Earth is currently warming, what does that mean? The Earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles throughout its history. The Earth was warming during the Middle Ages than it is now. How can that be if CO2 emissions are the current cause of Global Warming. Even if the Earth is warming now in 50 years it could be in the midst of a cooling cycle. Are Liberals then going to claim a Global Cooling crisis to get trillions of dollars from wealthy countries?
5) The US has reduced its CO2 emissions over the last couple of decades. Any additional measures it takes won't mean squat if China and to a lesser degree India and a few other countries keep having their CO2 emissions skyrocket. China's CO2 emissions have tripled since 1998 and will quadruple in a short period of time since that year. China is making no effort to control its CO2 emissions. It has far surpassed the US. The US could do stuff that AOC would be proud of and it would make no difference if the worst-polluting countries don't make significant changes.