DonLever

Donald J. Trump, 45th US President of the United States

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Aguila said:

32000 scientists in the US have taken the time and risk to sign this so far. (Oregon petition)

4 minutes ago, Duodenum said:

You might want to do some research into the authenticity of this petition (ie there is none).

Research requires "time and risk". The time taken to verify whether your beliefs are actually fact-based and the risk that you might find some objective truths which counter your feelings on the subject. The OP is someone who has decided that he feels a certain way about the subject and goes about searching for "evidence" which conforms to his feelings regardless of the objectivity of this evidence. Not to mention he has been doing this for years. Best to ignore him when he starts, he is a spectacular racist but when it comes to science he is woefully lacking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lockout Casualty said:

¿Por qué no los dos?

convenido...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Aguila said:

32000 scientists in the US have taken the time and risk to sign this so far. (Oregon petition)

 

Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg

 

 

Trump will be at the Army Navy game in a few minutes.  Should be interesting.

You know what the best part of this "petition" is? That it was signed by Edward Teller. Here's what Teller had to say about Climate Change:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller#Global_climate_change

Quote

 

Teller was one of the first prominent people to raise the danger of climate change, driven by the burning of fossil fuels. At an address to the membership of the American Chemical Society in December 1957, Teller warned that the large amount of carbon-based fuel that had been burnt since the mid-19th century was increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which would "act in the same way as a greenhouse and will raise the temperature at the surface", and that he had calculated that if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by 10% "an appreciable part of the polar ice might melt."[83]

In 1959, at a symposium organised by the American Petroleum Institute and the Columbia Graduate School of Business for the centennial of the American oil industry, Edward Teller warned that:[84]

I am to talk to you about energy in the future. I will start by telling you why I believe that the energy resources of the past must be supplemented. [...] And this, strangely, is the question of contaminating the atmosphere. [...] Whenever you burn conventional fuel, you create carbon dioxide. [...] Carbon dioxide has a strange property. It transmits visible light but it absorbs the infrared radiation which is emitted from the earth. Its presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect [....] It has been calculated that a temperature rise corresponding to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. All the coastal cities would be covered, and since a considerable percentage of the human race lives in coastal regions, I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to believe.

 

In case there's any doubt about whether that actually is Teller's signature, here's a copy I found online:

image.png.44f8fef753b08c32505c18a5cddc0acc.png

 

You really need to look harder for your fake "evidence". This one was ridiculously easy to debunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Duodenum said:

You might want to do some research into the authenticity of this petition (ie there is none).

 

Why do conspiracy theorists have such a difficult time checking sources, knowing what constitutes as authentic, and prefer to believe "alternative facts" made on a ground of marshmallows rather than repeatedly veritable tests, models, consistent findings by all the top scientific institutions on a global scale, papers, etc.

 

Its really odd. On one side you have a mountain of evidence. On the other, some paid oil scientists who make a petition and deliberately make it look like it's from a top scientific institute (it's not), with no verification of names and actually includes a bunch of fakes (the spice girls and Charles Darwin to name a few).

 

This is the backbone of your argument? :lol:

I'm so glad I was lucky enough not to end up a tinfoil hatter.

 

Still waiting on that first accurate post. Maybe just make one saying the sun is hot or something just to get started.

Here are the names of the signatories. http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_state_main.php   Do more than check in with Steyer's 97% Skeptical Science site.

 

This is not the backbone of my argument. No one here delves deeper than "scientists say" so I wont try to either. This is a just a good counter point to that .

Edited by Aguila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

You know what the best part of this "petition" is? That it was signed by Edward Teller. Here's what Teller had to say about Climate Change:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller#Global_climate_change

In case there's any doubt about whether that actually is Teller's signature, here's a copy I found online:

image.png.44f8fef753b08c32505c18a5cddc0acc.png

 

You really need to look harder for your fake "evidence". This one was ridiculously easy to debunk.

He wrote something in 1957 and changed his mind over the course 40 years. This is stronger evidence for my position. Thank you.

 

 

 

Edited by Aguila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Aguila said:

He wrote something in 1957 and changed his mind over the course 40 years. This is stronger evidence for my position.

He start losing it as he got older, but the reason people started questioning his acumen was his strong support of Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative. I can find nothing that supports your claim that he changed his mind about Climate Change. Maybe you can provide something from a source other than your posterior?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RUPERTKBD said:

He start losing it as he got older, but the reason people started questioning his acumen was his strong support of Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative. I can find nothing that supports your claim that he changed his mind about Climate Change. Maybe you can provide something from a source other than your posterior?

He signed the petition. Am I missing something.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Aguila said:

He signed the petition. Am I missing something.

You certainly are. Anyone can post an image and call it a "petition". A petition doesn't include just one signature.

 

I'm saying it's bogus and that Teller never signed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Aguila said:

Here are the names of the signatories. http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_state_main.php   Do more than check in with Steyer's 97% Skeptical Science site.

 

This is not the backbone of my argument. No one here delves deeper than "scientists say" so I wont try to either. This is a just a good counter point to that .

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

 

BTW: Here's a little background on your "source":

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

 

Quote

 

The petition was organized and circulated by Arthur B. Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (described as "a small independent research group") in 1998, and again in 2007.[2]Frederick Seitz, then the chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, wrote a cover letter endorsing the petition, emphasizing connection to the National Academy of Sciences (of which Seitz had previously served as president).[3][4] "In a highly unusual move, the National Academy held a press conference to disclaim the mailing and distance itself from its former president."[4]

Robinson asserted in 2008 that the petition has over 31,000 signatories, with 9,000 of these holding a PhD degree.[2] Most signatories with a PhD hold their degree in engineering.[5] A 2009 report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)—a group that "disputes the reality of man-made climate change"[6]—lists 31,478 degreed signatories, including 9,029 with PhDs.[7] The list has been criticized for its lack of verification, with pranksters successfully submitting the names of Charles Darwin, a member of the Spice Girls and characters from Star Wars, and getting them briefly included on the list.[8]

 

 

Quote

 

In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."

Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition — one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[27]

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

You certainly are. Anyone can post an image and call it a "petition". A petition doesn't include just one signature.

 

I'm saying it's bogus and that Teller never signed it.

Oh, I see. So if this petition is legit, it must be that your faith will be shaken. Congrats. The other 32000 names are posted in the link above.  Check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Aguila said:

Oh, I see. So if this petition is legit, it must be that your faith will be shaken. Congrats. The other 32000 names are posted in the link above.  Check it out.

I did. Check out the post above yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

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

 

BTW: Here's a little background on your "source":

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

 

 

 

 

Yes. The "source" is all good. What's the problem. 

 

Obama's NASA thing mentions 97% of ACTIVELY PUBLISHING climate scientists which means exactly nothing and is meant to mislead.

Edited by Aguila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aguila said:

Yes. The "source" is all good. What's the problem. 

 

Obama's NASA thing mention 97% of ACTIVELY PUBLISHING climate scientist which means exactly nothing and is meant to mislead.

Obama's NASA? Attempt to mislead? :lol:

 

As I said earlier, you're not worth my time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently life expectancy has fallen for the 3rd year in a row in the US.

The numbers behind the this are interesting.

 

The rise in deaths from Fentanyl is quite disturbing.

I did not realise how potent this drug is.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Obama's NASA? Attempt to mislead? :lol:

 

As I said earlier, you're not worth my time.

Good decision on your part. 

 

And yes Obama's NASA. He turned them away from space and into Global Warming preachers.

 

Trump needs to let NASA carry on for awhile otherwise there would be screams to the heavens of "repressed information" from the climate cultists.  That's why he had to allow the release of that manifesto a week or two ago. Here's the reviews.

 

 

Scientists rip new federal climate report as ‘tripe’ – ’embarrassing’ – ‘systematically flawed’ – Key claim based on study funded by Steyer & Bloomberg

 
 
Climate expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.: The claim of economic damage from climate change is based on a 15 degree F temp increase that is double the "most extreme value reported elsewhere in the report." The "sole editor" of this claim in the report was an alumni of the Center for American Progress, which is also funded by Tom Styer."

Climate analyst Paul Homewood: ‘Cherry picks’ a few bad weather events…extrapolates using the most scary scenarios’

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels on the report: ‘Systematically flawed’ – Report ‘should be shelved’

Trump v. Trump?!: Dr. Ken Haapala: 'The global warming chorus immediately seized on the new USGCRP report claiming the Trump administration is contradicting President Trump’s claims about global warming. Amusingly, some of the chorus interviewed people who worked on the USGCRP, who were political appointees under the Obama Administration.'

Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: "The science must be addressed head-on. If POTUS has his reasons for letting this Obama-era committee continue to peddle tripe I wish he would tell us what they are."
 
Dr. John Dunn: "Two years into the Trump administration it is sad to see this 400-page pile of crap."
 
Climate Depot's Morano: "It is a political report masquerading as science. The media is hyping a rehash of frightening climate change claims by Obama administration holdover activist government scientists. The new report is once again pre-determined science.  The National Climate Assessment report reads like a press release from environmental pressure groups — because it is! Two key authors are longtime Union of Concerned Scientist activists, Donald Wuebbles and Katharine Hayhoe.

The new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide To Climate Change: MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen wrote of the National Academy of Sciences: "Regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If the government wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide." 

 

Climate Depot Special Report

The new federal climate report, the 4th National Climate Assessment, released on Black Friday, is being hyped by climate activists and the media. See: CBS News: ‘Mass deaths and mayhem: National Climate Assessment’s most shocking warnings’  – &

Nothing new in administration climate change report &

The report is under fire for its scientific claims:‘EMBARRASSING’: CLIMATE EXPERT EXPLAINS WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE WHITE HOUSE’S NEW CLIMATE REPORT

But major scientific flaws were immediately discovered in this new federal climate report.

Climate experts call out new federal report for hiding the decline in hurricanes – ‘Were they thinking, no one would notice?’

Climate analyst on fed climate report: ‘Cherry picks’ a few bad weather events…extrapolates using the most scary scenarios’

Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels on new fed climate report: ‘Systematically flawed’ – Report ‘should be shelved’

Science group rips new fed climate report: ‘Based on speculation, not hard evidence’ – ‘Vague and unsubstantiated’

Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore ripped the new federal climate report: “The science must be addressed head-on. If POTUS has his reasons for letting this Obama-era committee continue to peddle tripe I wish he would tell us what they are,” Moore told Climate Depot.

“This new federal climate report even flies in the face of the  UNIPCC admission that there is no evidence of a connection between AGW (anthropogenic global warming) and extreme weather. [Lead author] Ms. [Katharine] Hayhoe reigns supreme. Very worrying,” Moore added.

The National Climate Assessment report is reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, is basing one of its headline scare scenario on a study funded by climate activist billionaire Tom Steyer. Climate expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. noted on November 24 that the claim of economic damage from climate change is based on a 15 degree F temperature increase that is double the “most extreme value reported elsewhere in the report.” The “sole editor” of this claim in the report was an alumni of the Center for American Progress, which is also funded by Tom Styer.”

Pielke Jr. wrote: 

“Here’s source of the top line conclusion of US National Climate Assessment, 10% damage to US GDP
It’s derived from a study funded by Tom Steyer et al. The 15 deg F temp increase is 2x most extreme value reported elsewhere in the report,” Pielke Jr. wrote.

“Shouldn’t such an outlandish, outlier conclusion been caught in the review process?” Pielke Jr. added. 

“Not a good look that sole review editor for this chapter is an alum of the Center for American Progress … which is funded by Tom Steyer. Even rudimentary attention to COI (conflict of interest) would avoided this,” he added.

More here: HEADLINE CLAIM IN FED CLIMATE REPORT RELIES ON RESEARCH TIED TO MAJOR DEMOCRATIC DONORS – A top-line claim in the latest U.S. government climate report is based on research funded by groups tied to Democratic donors. The new National Climate Assessment claims the U.S. economy could take a 10 percent hit from global warming. However, that claim is based on research funded by groups founded by Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg.

Screenshot-2018-11-25-at-10.48.05-242x30Screenshot-2018-11-25-at-10.48.45-300x22

Dr. Pielke has rebuked this new federal climate report, calling it “embarrassing.” See: ‘EMBARRASSING’: CLIMATE EXPERT EXPLAINS WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE WHITE HOUSE’S NEW CLIMATE REPORT – Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: “By presenting cherrypicked science, at odds w/ NCA Vol,1 & IPCC AR5, the authors of NCA Vol.2 have given a big fat gift to anyone who wants to dismiss climate science and policy,” Pielke Jr. wrote in a tweet Friday shortly after the White House released the report. “Embarrassing.”

Dr. John Dunn lamented that he was disappointed that President Trump has not halted these federal reports written to promote climate fears.

“Two years into the Trump administration it is sad to see this 400-page pile of crap,” Dunn told Climate Depot.

As Climate Depot has previously reported:

“This is pre-determined science. If you are reading this report and you say: ‘This sounds like a press release by environmental groups’ — that’s because it is! The lead authors are activists with environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists.”

“The government is paying our National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to come up with alarming report with a bunch of scary climate computer models. (NAS is almost entirely dependent on federal funding).

The lead authors of this report Donald Wuebbles and Katharine Hayhoe, have come out and said every storm is now impacted by global warming. It is a political report masquerading as science. We knew what it was going to say before it was issued. The media is hyping a rehash of frightening climate change claims by Obama administration holdover activist government scientists. The new report is once again pre-determined science.

The 2017 National Climate Assessment report reads like a press release from environmental pressure groups — because it is! Two key authors are longtime Union of Concerned Scientist activists, Donald Wuebbles and Katharine Hayhoe.

Wuebbles is on record as believing global warming has powers and abilities far beyond those of any other phenomenon. “There’s really no such thing as natural weather anymore,” Wuebbles said in 2011.  “Anything that takes place today in the weather system has been affected by the changes we’ve made to the climate system,” he added.

Whoa! Wuebbles may as well claim that we never had weather like this until those darn witches moved in the neighborhood! If he is correct, then how does he explain that as CO2 has risen, extreme weather events have declined? This National Climate Assessment is a political report masquerading under the guise of a “science” report. The report is designed to pressure the Trump administration to reverse course on repealing Obama era climate regulations. Essentially the same climate scare report is issued every four years and relentlessly hyped by the media.

 

Edited by Aguila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2018 at 9:15 AM, Ronaldoescobar said:

Congrats to your uncle on the money and retirement! 

 

It has been a great 9-10 years with people making loads of money. What will separate the good and bad advisers now is seeing how your portfolio goes through these downturns. Hopefully diversification will help to quell some of the losses and if you can beat the market return (even if your return is negative) then you are still in good shape long term. (CDC aside) Dont be afraid to to visit another adviser to get a second opinion on your holdings as well as they may see something your current adviser has overlooked and definitely question every move and any fees/commissions that may be triggered. Your adviser should be able to explain to you in layman's terms why certain moves are being made and why he is recommending a position. If they try to "bs" you with industry jargon (i see it every day) or recommend a lot of small moves that seem to be redundant then GTFO quick.  

Certainly, well, yes and no. He's down a lot of money this year because of this gong show going on. Anyway, I called him because he went through 2008 and came out relatively unscathed by the sounds of it and I stressed my concerns and he helped put my mind at ease some, because I am fiscally conservative and seeing myself in the red like this and nothing to show for it was really bothering me. There are a couple things about my portfolio I am not really sure of, or rather.. happy about. But that is a question for my investor. I went to a financial seminar by Raymond James a while back and they asserted some of the same things he did. So.. I guess that helps. I could get a second opinion from them I suppose since we spoke directly although I'm not sure there would be any major differences between them and my guy/his team.

Edited by Tortorella's Rant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i find it mildly amusing

but also incredibly stupid

that posters on here feel free to discredit

work of the scientific community that has been worked on for many many months

and has been subject to peer review

and supported by the vast majority of credible scientists/scholars

 

yet here we are a brief time later

with skeptics who have not had sufficient time to fully digest the details of such an expansive investigation

feeling free to fully discredit the work

based on a flimsy article or 2

 

very trump like

who needs institutions, centers of learning

the build up of expertise over many years

when a person's gut or firm opposite belief

is just as valid online??

 

really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, coastal.view said:

i find it mildly amusing

but also incredibly stupid

that posters on here feel free to discredit

work of the scientific community that has been worked on for many many months

and has been subject to peer review

and supported by the vast majority of credible scientists/scholars

 

yet here we are a brief time later

with skeptics who have not had sufficient time to fully digest the details of such an expansive investigation

feeling free to fully discredit the work

based on a flimsy article or 2

 

very trump like

who needs institutions, centers of learning

the build up of expertise over many years

when a person's gut or firm opposite belief

is just as valid online??

 

really?

Well apparently the majority of the world isn't listening to these scientists/scholars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ryan Strome said:

Well apparently the majority of the world isn't listening to these scientists/scholars.

ignorance rules

style over substance

short term thinking over long term

easy vs. hard

 

welcome to our softening society

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.