Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

_its_baddude wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

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.

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-says

Fat hurts wrote:

_its_baddude wrote:

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-says

Read what I wrote. My point is that there is no climate scientist in the world who denies global warming. You have utterly failed to come up with even one example.

You latest example is Patrick Moore, who is not a climate scientist. His expertise is in forestry.

And, btw, he is NOT a founder of Greenpeace.

So let's review my larger point, which you have also failed to dispute:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Given that fact, there are three possibilities:

1) The scientific community is made up of stupid people.

2) The scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy.

3) The scientific community is made up of smart people who know how to do their jobs and are therefore very likely to be correct.

Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1. For example, you might hear someone say something to the effect of "Don't you know that some of the thermometers are in urban areas? It's hotter there."

Those who are paranoid are picking #2. For example, on talk radio I often hear, "The global warming crowd is out to destroy capitalism. It's all a hoax!"

Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3.

Sally Vix wrote:

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.

Sally Vix wrote:

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.

Flagpole wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

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.

I'm not terribly interested in the Global Warming debate (because it is like talking to Flat Earthers to those who disbelieve), but I am interested enough to ask you these questions:

1) Is your reason for dismissing this bit of science just because this issue has been politicized?

2) If suddenly the flu vaccine or lead in paint (prior to 1978) and gas was politicized (and to be clear, Democrats would be on the correct side of the science there), would you be against those too?

3) Why are you against limiting pollution?

4) Just because other countries pollute, does that mean we should also? You do realize that the more countries that recognize pollutants for what they are the more pressure there is on those who pollute the most to stop. This can materialize in eventual sanctions, ban on purchasing goods from massively polluting countries, etc. It isn't a good argument to say, "we should continue to pollute just because China does."

So, feel free to answer those questions. I suggest you do so in front of a mirror so that you can get the full effect. I likely won't engage you further in Global Warming discussions because, as I said, I am not that interested in discussing that with people who will get on an airplane and take medicine but somehow decide the scientists are wrong about this.

Oh, and in case you didn't realize...

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

Fat hurts wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

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.

1) "scientific consensus" is a real thing. Look it up. But granted, nothing in science is beyond question.

2) Here you are saying that you are smarter than the scientists who did the research to come up with the 97% number.

3) Here you are saying that you are smarter than the climate scientists and that you believe in a global scientific conspiracy (data manipulation).

4) Again, you are saying that you are smarter than the climate scientists.

5) China is currently doing more than than the US to convert to renewable energy. They are the undisputed leader in the manufacture and deployment of solar energy. China is by far the largest market for electric vehicles. They are winning the future because they will have unlimited energy that is virtually free while we still rely on expensive fossil fuels.

Sally Vix wrote:

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.

youbeonedumbmofo wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

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.

How are you this stupid? Pollution = bad for your health. Rising temperatures = more heat waves, bad for your health and drain on energy sources. Rising temps = increased risk and spreading of vector borne diseases and extreme weather = also bad for you. Are you fkng brain dead?

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.

LIAR Flagpole 100% Proof wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

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.

YOU'VE JUST BEEN PROVEN A LIAR! You said he had zero chance to win on March 7th, 2017!

You said you are not willing to say YET that he can't win. Yes you did, you said he had ZERO chance to win the next election.

LIAR!

Sally Vix wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

I'm not terribly interested in the Global Warming debate (because it is like talking to Flat Earthers to those who disbelieve), but I am interested enough to ask you these questions:

1) Is your reason for dismissing this bit of science just because this issue has been politicized?

2) If suddenly the flu vaccine or lead in paint (prior to 1978) and gas was politicized (and to be clear, Democrats would be on the correct side of the science there), would you be against those too?

3) Why are you against limiting pollution?

4) Just because other countries pollute, does that mean we should also? You do realize that the more countries that recognize pollutants for what they are the more pressure there is on those who pollute the most to stop. This can materialize in eventual sanctions, ban on purchasing goods from massively polluting countries, etc. It isn't a good argument to say, "we should continue to pollute just because China does."

So, feel free to answer those questions. I suggest you do so in front of a mirror so that you can get the full effect. I likely won't engage you further in Global Warming discussions because, as I said, I am not that interested in discussing that with people who will get on an airplane and take medicine but somehow decide the scientists are wrong about this.

Oh, and in case you didn't realize...

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

You pose some nice questions.

1) The politicalization of it has indeed ruffled some of my feathers. Science welcomes attacks to confirm or disprove the underlying theory that may be present at the time. Global Warming welcomes no such attacks. It is treated as Gospel. Any climate scientist who does not go along with the dogma is either ostracized or does not receive funds for whatever project he or she is interested in.

2) Will come back to this.

3)I am all in favor of limiting pollution. The US has already done a lot in that respect. Question back at you - does it bother you that Global Warming advocates like Al Gore and AOC and others preach a good game but don't really follow what they preach? And all these Hollywood types like DeCaprio et al. who preach the mantra but take private jets anyway.

4) I kind of answered this previously. The US has made great strides in reducing CO2 emissions. A wonderful job but it can do more. But if other countries like China and India are not interesting in reducing emissions, the US's effort will mostly be for naught.

Fat hurts wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

You pose some nice questions.

1) The politicalization of it has indeed ruffled some of my feathers. Science welcomes attacks to confirm or disprove the underlying theory that may be present at the time. Global Warming welcomes no such attacks. It is treated as Gospel. Any climate scientist who does not go along with the dogma is either ostracized or does not receive funds for whatever project he or she is interested in.

2) Will come back to this.

3)I am all in favor of limiting pollution. The US has already done a lot in that respect. Question back at you - does it bother you that Global Warming advocates like Al Gore and AOC and others preach a good game but don't really follow what they preach? And all these Hollywood types like DeCaprio et al. who preach the mantra but take private jets anyway.

4) I kind of answered this previously. The US has made great strides in reducing CO2 emissions. A wonderful job but it can do more. But if other countries like China and India are not interesting in reducing emissions, the US's effort will mostly be for naught.

You are wrong about climate scientists who dispute elements of the scientific consensus. _its_baddude just posted a great example. Dr. Judith Curry is one of the most famous climate scientists who is skeptical of the IPCC conclusions. Her views have been well known for many years and yet she continued to serve on the faculty at one of the top science and engineering schools in the world. She held the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology for more than 10 years. And she continued to publish until her recent retirement.

It doesn't bother me at all that climate change advocates still ride in airplanes. You can advocate for better policies without being a Luddite. Climate change solutions do not mean withdraw from the modern world.

Grounding airplanes is not the answer.

Judicious public policy that embraces renewable energy is the answer.