Donald Trump
" If they had data going back 5 million years, and compared the peaks and dips, those aggressive spikes you see in the data recently would shrink considerably, and not look nearly as bad as they're making it out to be. Anyone could use graphs to prove any sort of point they'd like to prove. Someone could cut and paste 10 years of the graph and make it look like the Earth is doomed on its current rate of warming in another 5 years. Meanwhile, reactionary troglodytes take the data and run with it. They've already been caught cooking the data a few different times. Last edited by MrSmiley21#1051 on Jul 4, 2016, 9:27:18 AM
|
|
| |
|
The Sun has cycles, some might call seasons where it can warm or cool for a decade or 2. Or more. You have other factors such as emissions from volcanic activity, or other processes that release gasses into the atmosphere that aren't caused by humans. We know that these factors by themselves, without human intervention can and have shifted the Earth's climate to the extremes in the past. I'm not convinced the human impact is strong enough to break the scales.
Take a look at this as a more recent example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age They're just "guessing" on the data. But they do know that the Earth's climate cooled for a period of a few hundred years. We might still be in the process of rebounding back from that cooler period. Last edited by MrSmiley21#1051 on Jul 4, 2016, 9:38:39 AM
|
|
|
You mean, your misinformed opinion is worth more than the scientific consensus, composed of all the people that have been thoroughly studying the issue, factoring in the many different factors, and taking into account multiple fields of study?
What are you going to tell us next, that the earth is flat like a pizza? |
|
" I know all that and the experts know even more than we do. I don´t know how exactly and I don´t feel like looking that up now(do so, if you like) but I´ve heard in some german scientific magazine with this guy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Lesch) that sun activity already is ruled out. I´m sure they take a look at the ratio of human activities against other causes. |
|
|
Come on Trump get with the program. It's called being a political. Lie!
Like Obama - take lessons - he pays fealty and speaks "feel your pain" language of the poor, environment etc and then screws it over worse like good corporate tool he is. Politics 101. Appeal to as many as possible. Work for least amount possible with deep pockets. I don't care if you're a mayor of mayberry, country commissioner or president of the US. It's the same. Git R Dun! Last edited by Aim_Deep#3474 on Jul 4, 2016, 9:54:17 AM
|
|
" :D |
|
" Someone could just as well ask the questioner about the difference between a one megaton vs a five megaton air burst and what the standard detonation height is for a soft target, like a city. If someone isn't involved in that arena, the chances are they don't know a lot about it. If you asked Hillary what the cut off mass was for a squib explosion, she probably wouldn't know it, but those involved when Iraq under Saddam was assumed to be acquiring nukes or dirty nukes might know that number. Trump has seemed to voice that nuclear weapons are a last resource. Keeping them under consideration isn't a matter of - we'll use them at 86% of scenario X - as much as it is a matter of keeping nation Y from deciding that it can afford the cost of a war directly against the US. Iran is working on acquiring a small usable (meaning more than one or two weapons) stockpile, so that the non-Shiite Islamic world doesn't decide it is time to take Iran out completely. It would also keep Israel from using a first strike policy on Iran, should things go to hell in a hand basket very quickly. The counterpart - preventing any need to ever use a nuclear war is what the press isn't talking about, but those involved in defense are well aware of. The weaker the conventional forces are, and the lower their readiness state is, the greater the chances that other nations are willing to risk exploratory military actions. Exhibit A is the Russians doing what they please in their arena. Exhibit B is the Chinese expansion in the South Sea. Hillary would do nothing to strengthen the military. It needs to be rebuilt - not so that we can use it whenever we want, but so that we when the US makes a display of force, those contemplating war know that it can be backed up with sustained action. The old strategy was to be able to fight two major wars in two theaters, and still have the capacity for a third war in a somewhat lesser extent. Someone thought that idea was too old fashioned and expensive and began dismantling the US military. The idea of so much capacity in an era of peacetime is exactly because you want to avoid war. It's like the boiling point of water. Just because you don't need to boil eggs at the moment, doesn't mean you only need a stove that can heat water to 50 degrees Centigrade. There are solid logistical reasons behind the strategy, and while civilian oversight is built in through the US Constitution, civilian expertise is not. The last 15 years has been disastrous, and while Rumsfeld isn't the only architect of the military draw down, he was the single biggest factor. I don't think his intentions (reduce costs and modernize) were bad, but he was given and participated in a direction that should never have taken. Any incoming president that wasn't involved in defense strategy or legislation affecting such beforehand isn't going to know much about this. The intelligence agencies and the department of defense will bring them quickly up to speed. And that is when their hair turns grey. Trump's campaign managers and other aides are abysmal. The fact that the powers that be (the GOP) is not making serious efforts to ensure Trump has a good team of advisers is part of the problem. Some of that, Trump caused himself with his brashness, some is the fact that he is an outsider. Without a good team of advisers, the best educated and most intelligent person in the world would make a horrible president. From that standpoint - Trump's critics do have some very valid points. IMO - the GOP is just hoping the Trump float will sink, and go away and that in four years they will have a chance again. Their primary concern, really isn't the state of the nation, or whether the world is at war. It is whether they are in power or can remain in power. Constitutional congressional term limits are probably the only answer to this cyclical disaster. Imagine the president you least like in charge for 40 or 50 years and the problem persistent incumbency of congress becomes more obvious. TL/DR - I certainly don't think people are wrong to be concerned, but I do think they don't know what to be looking for as warning signs. "The only legitimate use of a computer is to play games." - Eugene Jarvis
PoE Origins - Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910 |
|
|
Last edited by Schmodderhengst#7293 on Jul 4, 2016, 10:00:27 AM
|
|
" Another factor that weighs into shaping my opinion, and reinforces my skepticism on the matter is the reactions by the political establishment, and sometimes even the scientific establishment toward people who are skeptical of their proposed global warming narrative. They're using bullying tactics to silence the critics/skeptics, and even going as far as making completely erroneous claims comparing global warming skeptics to holocaust deniers. If they weren't resorting to tactics like this, I might be slightly less skeptical of their claims. But I'm personally of the belief that they don't know enough about the Earths climate and all the variables that factor in to really make an assumption that we're the cause of the most recent warming trend. They're not even sure what caused the mini ice age. They have a few proposed ideas, but nothing concrete. Last edited by MrSmiley21#1051 on Jul 4, 2016, 10:02:53 AM
|
|
