• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

President Donald J. Trump

Started by The General, February 11, 2011, 01:33:34 AM

Kidnostad3

Quote from: Yorkshire Pud on June 04, 2017, 03:06:20 PM
Being a guest of HMG and in the navy at the time, I hope you availed yourself of the deeply felt hospitality.

No, I was content with a hearty handshake and a pint or two.  Of course that was back in the day when Thatcher was in.

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on June 04, 2017, 03:22:12 PM
No, I was content with a hearty handshake and a pint or two.  Of course that was back in the day when Thatcher was in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2koyUc-4MQ0

Gd5150

Quote from: albrecht on June 04, 2017, 01:19:36 PM
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2016/02/20160215%2006-03%20PM/Ch_XXVII-7-d.pdf

"respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples,  local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity,"<---what does any of this stuff have to do with climate or science?

It is all about symbology and advancing "progressive" causes and wealth redistribution, nothing to do with science or climate, it is "non-binding." Yet the Left and their media are having a fit? Hollywood is freaking out? Over a symbolic, non-binding treaty being abandoned, years later, by the US? The reason why they are freaking out is because it wasn't about climate or science but about "social justice."

The 2 most cited aspects of this environmental political/religious movement are "disruption", as in the current title "man made climate disruption". And "consensus".

Now look at the scientific method: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses"

Disruption is purposely chosen because its unmeasurable. Any theory that is unmeasurable does not fit into the definition of science, as defined by the scientific method.

Consensus: "a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group." this goes completely against testing and modification of hypothesis.

The 2 biggest pillars of this cause are totally separated from science. It is not science, it is an unmeasurable, unprovable theory. Believing in it is nothing more than religious faith. Supporting it is completely political. Which is confirmed by all of the political, not scientific, solutions proposed.

Kidnostad3

Quote from: Spy on June 04, 2017, 06:39:38 AM
97% of the world's climate scientists believe in made-made climate change, including the scientists at NASA (yes, we really did go to the moon) and NOAA. 

Where do you get your information? Alex Jones? John B. Wells?

Reference please.

Dr. MD MD

On Fox they're ridiculing Putin for suggesting that the intelligence community could've hacked the election and made it look like the Russians. What's really funny is that through Wikileaks we know that's true. Fox is just the right-wing version of a deep state BJ now.  ::)




WOTR

Quote from: Spy on June 04, 2017, 07:55:15 AM
California, the world's 6th largest economy, and New York have announced they will observe the Paris Agreement and have formed the United States Climate Alliance. Five more states have joined them.  Why? Because it's the right thing to do and because doing so is an economic winner for those states individually and for the US and the world.

This is 100% the right thing to do.  They are going to reduce their emissions and invest in jobs, infrastructure and technology.  I doubt they are going to observe the dozens of articles that the accord would demand, I doubt they are going to be putting their money in another country.

I should be clear- I believe that a part (possibly even a significant part) of "climate change" is influenced by humans.  Changing to renewable energy only makes sense (the word "nonrenewable" itself should tip you off that relying on it forever is not a wise move.)

Yes, that was the wording in the preamble that I found amusing, but you also have:

7.5 "Parties acknowledge that adaptation action should follow a country-driven,
gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into
consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be
based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional
knowledge, knowledge of indigenous peoples and local knowledge systems, "  Again, very important that climate change be "gender responsive."  Are we following science, or asking indigenous populations what their ancestors thought of preventing climate change in the year 1675?


Anyhow, I would encourage people to scan the document for "shall" and "should." Keep in mind that their use is not an accident.  When scanning them, ask yourself why the hell a developing nation would NOT sign on.  Free technology, free funds to help "mitigate" climate change, talk of an "international insurance fund" (I wonder who will contribute and who will draw on it? 8.4.f Risk insurance facilities, climate risk pooling and other insurance solutions).  Developing countries have very few obligations (to be fair, they "should" do lots of things.)  I suppose if they are too busy counting the hundreds of millions rolling into to their brothers and sons reconstruction companies or buying yachts they don't really have to do anything.  It is extremely one sided.

9.1. Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist
developing country...
9.5 Developed country Parties shall biennially communicate... Other Parties (non developed countries) providing resources are encouraged to communicate biennially such information on a voluntary basis.
9.7 Developed country Parties shall provide transparent and consistent information on support for developing country...
10.6  financial support, shall be provided to developing country Parties for the implementation of this Article, (Yup, developed countries SHALL pay to implement it in developing countries.)
11.4 Developing country Parties should regularly communicate progress made... (Unless they are too busy...)
13.9  Developed country Parties shall, and other Parties that provide support should, provide information... (again, unless they are too busy.)
13.14 Support shall be provided to developing countries for the implementation of this Article. (again somebody is footing the bill.)
15.2 The committee shall pay particular attention to the respective national capabilities and circumstances of Parties. (If you are a developed nation, you have lots to spend on what the committee tells you that you should (shall?) spend it on.)

Really, it goes on and on.  This is one time that I can agree with Trump.  I also agree with the states and cities who have decided to still reduce their footprint.






Quote from: Meister_000 on June 04, 2017, 11:19:20 PM
For the search-impaired among us . . .
https://www.google.com/search?&q=97%25+of+the+world%27s+climate+scientists+believe+in+man+made+climate+change

We go to the link, a site by some group called ''Skeptical Science'', then scroll down to find Skeptical Science's 2013:  the Consensus Project.  Which then has a gigantic red and white graphic:  ''97% of climate papers stating a position on human caused global warming AGREE [in caps] global warming is happening - and we're the cause''.

Reading further, there are various reports from various groups in various years ''finding'' most research papers showing a finding agree, although none are quite as high as 97%.


Lets look at this as a statistical report, which it claims to be.  Its one person's blog.  We all have biases.  Miser claims 97% of climate scientists agree regarding ''man-made global warming.  But is that what is claimed at this website?  No.  The claim is in regards to research papers published, not all climate scientists.  Climate scientists outside university research are not represented. 

We're suspicious research funded by, say, oil companies is likely to give a result they are pleased with.  Why would be not be as ''skeptical'' regarding funding provided by folks that want findings showing global warming, and that its man made?  Just a question.

Also, this is a yes or a no.  How many of these research papers show man's responsibility as higher than zero but less than 100%?  We aren't told.  So if a report shows ANY activity by man to be a contributing factor, its included in the 97%.

Students and grads are chosen to participate in research.  The ''wrong'' people are weeded out.  Given the left wing atmosphere on campus, what percentage of these ''scientists'' are pre-disclosed to find evidence warming is man made?  How many know that had better be part of their findings if they want to continue as a researcher?

I could go on debunking this statistic, but that should be plenty.  Once anything - in this case science - is politicized, truth and honesty go out the window.


Read up on East Anglica, once the repository of climate change research.  Until they were caught red-handed on the eve of he Copenhagen meetings in an email hack advising each other how to amplify the man-made angle, and downplay research that didn't support that. 

Bottom line:  the same people who have been lying to us about everything else are almost surely lying about this.  If not, well, its the boy who cried wolf all over again.

Quote from: Spy on June 04, 2017, 07:55:15 AM
...  Five times more Americans are employed in the renewable energy sector than in the fossil fuel industry...

As long as we're at it, let's look at this one.

Again with this statistic, it depends on what's being counted.  They can't possibly be counting all the folks who work at the headquarters of oil companies, natural gas companies, coal companies, power plants, etc:  office employees of exploration companies, drillers, miners, transporters, refiners, utility companies, gas stations.  Let alone the people in the field actually doing the work.  Because there are a lot of companies employing a lot of people, and some are pretty big.

I'm going to guess they're limiting their ''job count'' to researchers, and not just researchers but certain kinds of research that doesn't include some of what the ''fossil fuel industry'' researchers do. 


Now we're all for alternative energy, and it would be great if we could just run everything off the sun's energy but we aren't there yet, not even close.  No one has any great love for big oil companies, or coal companies although as with other businesses they do provide a product we need. 

No, this statistic is about convincing people the fossil fuel industry isn't important for anyone except fat cats ripping us off.  ''Hey, look'' they tell us  ''there aren't even that many jobs in play''. 

It's more bullshit from the same people who are always lying to us.  This one doesn't even pass the smell test.

Quote from: Yorkshire Pud on June 01, 2017, 05:11:38 PM
China is decommissioning coal mines. The smog and respitory deaths in the major cities has kicked their asses into doing something.

Quote from: Yorkshire Pud on June 03, 2017, 08:05:13 AM
Indeed they didn't. They're starting now instead, decommissioning coal mines. The USA is the second biggest polluter in the world with barely 5% of the population.



Coal mines?  I think you mean coal fired power plants.  Let's say it's coal mines.  In that case - so what, coal is cheap and they can buy plenty.  They just canceled their coal purchases from North Korea and are replacing that with coal they will purchase from the US (win-win, they can claim to be punishing NK over the nuke tests, and lower the trade imbalance with the US at the same time).  Let's look at their coal fired power plants.

China has been bringing on line one coal fired power plant a month for years, decades.  They reached overcapacity for the foreseeable future awhile back, but the central government didn't hit the brakes on building more until recently.  They're currently running what they have at half capacity.  They have plans in the works to build still more, but are canceling plans to build some of them.  They will still be building more, and aren't taking any off-line.  They aren't cutting back on energy consumption, but they realize they are killing themselves with pollution and are trying to move towards renewable energy.  It's great, but it isn't because they're concerned about ''man-made global warming''. 

But just claiming they are canceling plans to build some of them, and saying they are doing it for the climate gives them brownie points.  Please try to be more skeptical of anything the Chinese government has to say.


http://fortune.com/2016/11/28/china-build-unnecessary-coal-plants/ 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/world/asia/china-coal-power-plants-pollution.html?_r=0


Meister_000

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on June 04, 2017, 11:57:33 PM
We go to the link . . .

Poor dear, she missed the one at the TOP of the page -- THAT WOULD BE *NASA*

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

She's far past demented (pay her no-never-mind) The phrase "nothin to see here" was invented just for 97% of her posts. The 3% remainder are must-see super-special level-10 examples of fanatical extreme right histrionics (the others, merely level-8).

Quote from: Yorkshire Pud on June 03, 2017, 08:05:13 AM
Indeed they didn't. They're starting now instead, decommissioning coal mines. The USA is the second biggest polluter in the world with barely 5% of the population.

I know you've been to the US.  Have you been to China and India?  I have.  India, and especially China, are horribly polluted.  A person really has to see it to believe it.  I'm not sure how anything even lives there.  The other major cities in Asia I've been to can be much the same.  The US is pollution free by comparison. 

So even the ChiComs know they have to do something - may as well use it to their advantage, say the right things, sanctimoniously act as if they are leading on this, try to make the US look bad, and fool a few folks.

Manufacturing is best done in the West, where we have environmental protections.

Quote from: Meister_000 on June 05, 2017, 12:36:50 AM
Poor dear, she missed the one at the TOP of the page -- THAT WOULD BE *NASA*

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

She's far past demented (pay her no-never-mind) The phrase "nothin to see here" was invented just for 97% of her posts. The 3% remainder are must-see super-special level-10 examples of fanatical extreme right histrionics (the others, merely level-8).

I figured I'd just go to NASA's source.  They did provide a reference you know.  And that reference is the second site that comes up on your link.  Thank you for allowing me to clarify this for you.

Here's the reference for the claim on NASA's site.  J. Cook is John Cook, the guy running the Skeptical Science blog.  That's right, NASA's ''reference'' is some blog (see above for the debunking):


NASA Global Climate Change (website)

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming (article title)

Blah, blah, blah, 97%, blah, blah, blah... (article content)

References​

1.  J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”



Next question

Meister_000

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on June 05, 2017, 12:41:56 AM
I figured I'd just go to NASA's source.  They did provide a reference you know.  And that reference is the second site that comes up on your link . . .
[/i]
Next question

Next question: so how long have you been a demented bloviating fag?
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

THERE ARE NO LESS THAN *14*, count them *14*, references cited at the foot of that page (13 unique). Number two alone is a joint statement from *18*, count them 18,  separate Scientific Associations.

Please find a sharp pin and lance yourself in a few places to let some the toxic pus drain from your rotted carcass.

Quote from: Meister_000 on June 05, 2017, 01:26:15 AM
Next question: so how long have you been a demented bloviating fag?
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

THERE ARE NO LESS THAN *14*, count them *14*, references cited at the foot of that page (13 unique). Number two alone is a joint statement from *18*, count them 18,  separate Scientific Associations.

Please find a sharp pin and lance yourself in a few places to let some the toxic pus drain from your rotted carcass.

Yes, but only one reference is for the the 97% figure you're so proud of.  The one I posted.  Do you see that little ''1'' after ''scientific journals'' in the following quote taken from the article?  That means they are they are citing Reference Number 1 shown at the end of the article.  You can even go to the article itself, click on the ''1'', and it will take you to the reference.  I would have though a person claiming to write educational materials would know that.

''Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities...''


For Chrissakes I take back what I said the other day about you having the capacity to learn something.

This is why these idiots need to riot, call people names, and attack them.  All their lives they've been told how smart they are for parroting back the propaganda they've been fed, really have no idea what they are talking about, and get upset, flustered, and hostile when its pointed out.

Look at the way they make shit up and attack Trump over it because they lost the election and can't deal with it.  Pathetic.  We need to remove these people from office, and ignore them.

I've gotten a few emails from Miser's Twitter followers.  They want to know if they can follow me instead.  A few even sent their photos.



Meister_000

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on June 05, 2017, 01:49:45 AM
This is why these idiots need to riot, call people names, and attack them.  All their lives they've been told how smart they are for parroting back the propaganda they've been fed, really have no idea what they are talking about, and get upset, flustered, and hostile when its pointed out.

Look at the way they make shit up and attack Trump over it because they lost the election and can't deal with it.  Pathetic.  We need to remove these people from office, and ignore them.

Shut-up you demented fag. ALL, *as in ALL*, reputable sources give the percentage as being somewhere between 93 and 100 percent. The average then is what? i.e. the middle mean between 93% and 100%. Tic, tic, tic. approx 97% ringy-dingy!  We call that a WIN! And thus _You_ can go lance your boils again.

And btw, YOUR team is the *far* more violent and riot-prone and physically threatening bunch of the two -- just for the record. And *your* president INCITES them to it, habitually.  Now go lance yourself, Liberally!  ;D ;D ;D. Your free-trial tuition period has expired (long ago).

Quote from: Meister_000 on June 05, 2017, 02:20:49 AM
Shut-up you demented fag. ALL, *as in ALL*, reputable sources give the percentage as being somewhere between 93 and 100 percent. The average then is what? i.e. the middle mean between 93% and 100%. Tic, tic, tic. approx 97% ringy-dingy!  We call that a WIN! And thus _You_ can go lance your boils again...

Yes, but it ALL, *as in ALL*, is ultimately referenced back to some guy's blog.  NASA references him (you didn't even check - apparently you either didn't know how, or couldn't follow it), someone else references NASA, and so it goes.

After that it goes from ''97% of all the reports'' he looked at - taken from colleges collecting government funding and expected to get specific results - to ''97% of all climate scientists''.  The next thing you know it's in the Fake Media, and taken as fact (and which is what the original poster claimed).  See how this works?  (No, of course you don't).

Hint:  the 97% figure should have told you something was fishy. 

Quote from: Meister_000 on June 05, 2017, 02:20:49 AM
... And btw, YOUR team is the *far* more violent and riot-prone and physically threatening bunch of the two -- just for the record. And *your* president INCITES them to it, habitually...

And there's the lie.  She just can't help herself.

Not only is it the Left ALWAYS doing the rioting, looting, burning, blocking roads and bridges, attacking police - and now anyone who wants to hear a speaker, or just gets too close - but it's their voters who are the violent criminals, and their friends the Muslims blowing people up.  I thought you guys were proud of it - claiming it was on behalf of ''social justice'' and all that.  Just own it already.



Meister_000

The Guardian ~ June 4, 2017
I spent two days with a group of neo-Nazis and white nationalists in rural Kentucky. This is what I saw.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/04/national-socialism-neo-nazis-america-donald-trump

"Trump was Heimbach’s dream come true. In early 2016, Heimbach had described the presidential candidate as the “gateway drug” to outright white nationalism. “He’s not one of us and everyone needs to know that,” Heimbach told the site Vocativ last year, describing the president. “But he’s opening political space. He’s definitely opening up political space for people like ourselves.”


paladin1991

Quote from: Kidnostad3 on June 04, 2017, 03:22:12 PM
No, I was content with a hearty handshake and a pint or two.  Of course that was back in the day when Thatcher was in balls deep.

Fixed it

Meister_000

Newsweek ~ June 4, 2017
Homegrown Terrorism and Why the Threat of Right-Wing Extremism is Rising in America

http://www.newsweek.com/homegrown-terrorism-rising-threat-right-wing-extremism-619724

" . . .These incidents have grown even more common since President Donald Trump’s election. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit that researches U.S. extremism, reported 900 bias-related incidents against minorities in the first 10 days after Trump’s electionâ€"compared to several dozen in a normal weekâ€"and the group found that many of the harassers invoked the then-president-elect’s name."

=Schlyder=

ah yes.. get your ass handed to you... revert back to calling everyone Nazis. LOL pathetic.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod