"One in three Americans have been victimized by extreme weather."
Joe was in perhaps his best form today. He said this in remarks to people in NY and NJ who lost everything, explaining to them that what they need to focus on is climate change. Now, as we've been told, weather is not climate, and when right-wingers remark after a harsh winter that this is evidence that global warming is not occurring, we are all told that they are confusing weather with climate. However, when floods or hurricanes occur and a global warming bill is in the hopper in Congress, weather is indeed indicative of human-generated climate change. Got all that?
He sputtered numerous times about his "Build Back Better" proposal and informed the now homeless residents and the dead that things will not get better for them unless his bill is passed. He emphasized several times that this was the truth, which is what people who are telling the truth always say. It's good to preface the truth with clear declarations that what is about to be said is, in fact, the truth.
"When I think climate change, I think jobs." "Building back" will create great jobs, paying upwards of $45-50 per hour, according to Joe. He didn't provide many specifics about what kinds of jobs he's thinking about when he said this, but it's safe to assume that these will be jobs for which our unemployed will be especially suited, in terms of education and training. It's great when a plan all comes together.
He did also admonish us to "Listen to the science," which has become another strong indicator of when someone knows what he or she is talking about. He's read the science. You haven't. Listen to him and listen to the 99% of climatologists who were surveyed back in 1999 about this whole issue.
Replies to: "One in three Americans have been victimized by extreme weather."
If you're forced off the 6th hole because of a thunderboomer, are you a victim?
(no message)
No, you’d be a 5 yr old.
(no message)
Where did 1 in 3 come from? What is the line between weather victimhood or not?
Your side made the claim. Give us the rules of the game. And what science gave us 1 in 3? Simple non threatening questions.
Biden is prone to using "McStats"...
(no message)
Thunderboomer?
(no message)
Way to avoid the questions? So, you don't know the answers. Just say it.
(no message)
Reread your original post. - reread my response.
Take a ci moment - think about it.
Your guy Joe claims 1 in 3 people are victimized by climate change. I'm asking you..................
Where did this guy get these numbers? You chose to chime in so I'm asking you what is the dividing line between a victim of climate change and just being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Just like those stranded by Biden in Afghanistan. This is your side claiming this. I'm asking you for an interpretation. Don't you know the science behind your side's talking points?
Okay, my guy said it. And you think I have something to say about it? I don't. What i responded to
was your post on "thunderboomer".
Your rage is all your own, or should I say, you and your moron pals.
You're all so difficult. All in rage.
To borrow a phrase - Lighten up Francis.
Rage? You don't even know when you guys are being ridiculed.....................
So, by the way the left is responding to this, they all don't even know what the hell Joe is talking about. It's OK. Just having some fun. Don't know if the word "thunderboomer" threw you, but it's defined as a large thunderstorm that even Chicago TV weather people will throw around every once in a while. If the left can mangle and change traditional words and meanings, I thought I would join the circus.
I’m just a humble lad trying to get some questions answered.
(no message)
There you go ELP. He doesn't know but whatever it is you're wrong.
That's jim in a nutshell. An expert on well just about everything - law, medicine, international relations, climate...but when pressed he'll run and hide. We refer to it as "self-banning". When cornered he will call you stupid and then disappear. Then reappear with a link YouTube link to obscure band or foreign movie. A transparent sleight of hand to take the heat off the fact he's clueless about the topic. It's sort of sad and pathetic if you think about it. The reality he's terribly unaccomplished and quite insecure about it.
So waiting for him to answer is a waste of your time. Go teach your dog Latin.
Jimbo is a complete tool, as bad as Tyrone, but in different way.
(no message)
Ty at least has a brain & sense of humor.
(no message)
Whatever it is, it's all in your head - 1 - 3? No idea what that means, and don't care.
(no message)
Bombogenesis. Science has spoken...
(Actually just tossing it out 'cause it's my favorite weather term.)
Read more. Post less.
Do you wish to join the other Board crackpots who deny the reality of dangerously increasing greenhouse gases (caused by human activity) warming our planet and causing extreme climate events?
These are many of the same crackpots who believe Trump won the 2020 election.
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=30798
Maybe you can explain what Biden's pork bill would do about climate change then
Also, considering greenhouse gas emissions mostly come from Asia. So what do you propose to force Asian countries to stop emitting so much?
Good questions, but since the real goal of the Bill isn’t to fix climate change, he won’t answer.
(no message)
I've not received a reply to these questions.
You get the posts from conner that clearly point the finger at Conservatives for not taking climate change nearly as seriously as the left, filled with lots of references to "Trumpists."
You then ask the question: What is the left doing to actually tackle the issue? (Nuclear, India/China, etc.) You also ask why -- if they view this to be such a catastrophic issue -- are so many of them purchasing coastal properties? You also ask why -- if it's so paramount that we act with urgency and speed -- was the bill that was introduced to "solve" the problem loaded with trillions in unrelated spend that will surely be contentious, rather than exclusively focused on CO2-related issues?
You don't get an answer.
He can’t explain anything, don’t bother.
(no message)
And the proper response is... wait for it... spending many trillions on human infrastructure...
which just happens to flood freshly printed dollars to the myriad bases of the Democrat Party.
Here's a bit of science for you...what's your explanation for CO2 levels over 410ppm...and
steadily rising...hasn't happened in the last 800,000 years...surely, you wouldn't post innuendos of mis-statements by Biden, if you didn't have rock solid evidence to the contrary...now, would you?
Is it pure coincidence that the rise started just when mankind started burning fossil fuels in earnest and injecting levels of CO2 that our natural ecosystem can't remove fast enough?....let's have your latest hypothesis on what's "really happening".
False leaps of logic & false claims. Climate has not followed CO2 levels since recorded rise began.
This is the argument against your claim:
There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
Twentieth century global warming did not start until 1910. By that time CO2 emissions had already risen from the expanded use of coal that had powered the industrial revolution, and emissions only increased slowly from 3.5gigatonnes in 1910 to under 4gigatonnes by the end of the Second World War.
It was the post war industrialization that caused the rapid rise in global CO2 emissions, but by 1945 when this began, the Earth was already in a cooling phase that started around 1942 and continued until 1975. With 32 years of rapidly increasing global temperatures and only a minor increase in global CO2 emissions, followed by 33 years of slowly cooling global temperatures with rapid increases in global CO2 emissions, it was deceitful for the IPCC to make any claim that CO2 emissions were primarily responsible for observed 20th century global warming.
CO2 levels are demonstrably higher, due primarily to deforestation and carbon emissions add to this. But the link to global temperature has not been made. Is this ecologically good or neutral? I doubt it. But is there scientific evidence of the anthropogenic causality of global climate change? Not that I have seen. Certainly not enough to enact the massive changes that the Paris Accords espouse.
But even if this issue is clearly resolved, then there’s the issue of whether the changes would actually affect the climate significantly. No China and India to start. Countries allowed to buy other countries carbon credits. Dictators being given money to use for green energy production with no way to enforce its proper use, etc.
Let’s all agree to first attack the problem that does not require a new liberal world order…..deforestation.
I believe global temps correlate strongly with the increased removal of female pubic hair since 1970
(no message)
Deforestation and terraforming- there’s always a price. :)
(no message)
The Venus Butterfly Effect
(no message)
Deforestation is absolutely a key contributor...BUT...not the greatest contributor to rapidly
increasing CO2 levels...how so you manage to dismiss the #1 cause in your assessment?...the burning of fossil fuels...that's totally absurd...unless you want to 'empty the tank' before switching to other sources of energy. (note the oft-posted British Petroleum estimate of recoverable oil reserves...currently at "53 years")...it is "Urgent" that we switch to other energy sources wherever appropriate...and you know where I stand on that topic.
btw...CO2 is a greenhouse gas...no one disputes that...it is being rapidly injected into our atmosphere is very large quantities, much faster than our ecosystem can take it out (forests, oceans, etc)...note: it takes anywhere from 50-300 years to remove most of the CO2,
Link: https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/global-warming/global-co2-emissions/story
To justify the massive program you suggest, you must do 3 things…..
1)prove that the CO2 increase is linked to the global temp rise (you haven’t as I outlined above based on our own data going back over 100 hrs)
2) prove that your measures will do diddly squat
3) If you prove the first 2 things, come up with a way that will be implemented rather than abused.
I also have not even delved into the data fixing scandals that have gone on that bring the validity of many findings into question - because it isn’t really even necessary as you can see from how far you are from making your case at this point.
It is worth noting though how it works out that the unprovable measures to save the world just happen to align with the Progressive agenda.
And the third...
Here's the second link...
Your questions are valid...for visibility sake, I'll post three separate links that will answer #1..
then, with the "Why" issue hopefully resolved, we can go on to #2, which is easily addressed, and then finally #3, which is the painful, but necessary part.
BTW...you're going to have to take some time to read this material...that is, if you truly care. In any event, I trust that others viewing this exchange will benefit.
Here's the first link...(see attached)
Link: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/