Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/27...ing-rally.html

The group of more than 100 hooded protesters, with shields emblazoned with the words “no hate” and waving a flag identifying themselves as anarchists, busted through police lines, avoiding security checks by officers to take away possible weapons.

How many arrested?

Berkeley police chief Andrew Greenwood defended how police handled the protest, saying they made a strategic decision to let the anarchists enter to avoid more violence.

Greenwood said to The Associated Press: “the potential use of force became very problematic” given the thousands of peaceful protesters in the park. Once anarchists arrived, it was clear there would not be dueling protests between left and right so he ordered his officers out of the park and allowed the anarchists to march in.

There was “no need for a confrontation over a grass patch,” Greenwood said.

How about a confrontation to arrest a bunch of thugs assaulting people ?

Wonder what the reaction would have been if the interlopers were from the right, protesting a leftie event?

[Skydiver]

Sky, when did we do that?

As Jel said, it happened up thread. The post that did it along with the two that quoted it were deleted.

If you see someone using it to refer to a transgendered person, please report it and move on. Then we only have to delete the post from the originator instead of those quoting it.

thanks
\

[aretood2]

It's not just one person.
In 2010, some muckity-muck at the UN's IPCC publicly stated that they use climate policy as a way to transfer wealth, there was the guy I quoted in a recent post, 2015? ish or so. And if memory serves, there was a lot of nice dirt in the hacked emails that were released a few years back. Combine that with their behavior and I don't have too much doubt.

Look at some of the details of the Paris deal, which Trump wisely walked away from. China gets a pass, India gets a pass too, until someone else pays them a crapload of money, while they want to levy carbon taxes on US energy consumers. Screw that.

You still only mentioned one person...

[Annoyed]

You still only mentioned one person...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/...worlds-wealth/

Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

Lemme guess. Fake news?

[Gatefan1976]

Separate the policy from the problem.
Let me put it another way, because you want a border wall, it means illegal immigration does not exist in the USA.
You have a fair and honest point in saying that climate change has been used to push other agenda's, and no one is arguing that it has not, but that does not mean the problem does not exist.

[aretood2]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/...worlds-wealth/


Lemme guess. Fake news?

Fake news? Was that supposed to be an insult? You are still talking about just one person. You keep mentioning that there are untold many, yet mention the same one individual.

[Annoyed]

Fake news? Was that supposed to be an insult? You are still talking about just one person. You keep mentioning that there are untold many, yet mention the same one individual.

So, this Ottmar Edenhofer and Christina Figueres are one and the same person?

[Gatefan1976]

So, this Ottmar Edenhofer and Christina Figueres are one and the same person?

No, Ottmar is talking about wealth distribution under the guise of climate change.
Christina is talking about changing the economic model of the world.
They are not the same, no matter how much you wish they were.

[Annoyed]

No, Ottmar is talking about wealth distribution under the guise of climate change.
Christina is talking about changing the economic model of the world.
They are not the same, no matter how much you wish they were.

And you don't think the goal is the same?

[Annoyed]

Separate the policy from the problem.
Let me put it another way, because you want a border wall, it means illegal immigration does not exist in the USA.
You have a fair and honest point in saying that climate change has been used to push other agenda's, and no one is arguing that it has not, but that does not mean the problem does not exist.

Then why aren't the "scientists" objecting to their data being used to push a political agenda?

Oh, and btw, what about "fudged data"?

https://science.house.gov/news/press...limate-records

WASHINGTON – U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology members today responded to reports about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 2015 climate change study (“the Karl study”). According to Dr. John Bates, the recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the Karl study was used “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion. In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference. Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials. I repeatedly asked, ‘What does NOAA have to hide?’

Seems to me that at least some of the scientists are perfectly happy going along with the scam.

[Gatefan1976]

And some are equally willing to defend oil companies, tobacco companies and lead companies for the money, and did so for decades.

[Annoyed]

Transplanted from the Cantina thread for propriety. ( Yes, I know, there is no propriety in the Cantina, but.. )

Quote Originally Posted by squirrely1
wish someone would sentence me to life in Australia

Why would you want to be sent to this backwards socialist hellhole?

So THAT explains your crazy liberal ideas. You want to drag the US down to your level!

[Falcon Horus]

You are assuming that everyone is armed because they are intending to attack. Isn't that like assuming all people of one (insert characteristic here) are lazy or some other undesirable characteristic?
I thought you were against that kind of thing ?

No, it's not the same.

You do not come armed to a march for something, unless you have the intention to use those arms at some point during the march -- to intimidate, to attack and to defend (expecting to be attacked).

Assuming Mexicans are rapists is based on the actions of those who were actually convicted of such offence and then projecting that entire believe on an entire group.

I'm projecting my assumption on the marchers and the counterprotestors.

Any other nazi/antifa or militia who wasn't at the march is outside of the scope of this discussion.

yes.....who cares about the fact that political agendas are based on very little, if any fact, and relies rather heavily on populist rhetoric to get gullible people to swallow it?

You seem to gullibly swallow the idea that man-made climate change is a hoax.

Even the folks who push this crap have admitted that it's a scam.
Back in 2010? some UN IPCC member admitted that it's a wealth transfer scheme, and then there is this which is more current:

And there he goes with his 2010 proof --

Let me counter this with a very interesting challenge ExxonMobil issued a few years ago, and which two researchers decided to take up:

Harvard scientists took Exxon’s challenge; found it using the tobacco playbook
A new study finds a stark contrast between Exxon’s research and what the company told the public

"Read all of these documents and make up your own mind."

That was the challenge ExxonMobil issued when investigative journalism by Inside Climate News revealed that while it was at the forefront of climate science research in the 1970s and 1980s, Exxon engaged in a campaign to misinform the public.

Harvard scientists Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes decided to take up Exxon’s challenge, and have just published their results in the journal Environmental Research Letters. They used a method known as content analysis to analyze 187 public and internal Exxon documents. The results are striking:

In Exxon’s peer-reviewed papers and internal communications, about 80% of the documents acknowledged that climate change is real and human-caused.

In Exxon’s paid, editorial-style advertisements (“advertorials”) published in the New York Times, about 80% expressed doubt that climate change is real and human-caused.

How about that?

The Pope wrote a 192 page essay on Climate Change.

Here you go, for anyone interested, the Pope's text (the same one he gifted Trump):

Laudato Si
Pope Francis' encyclical on the environment and human ecology

Can be downloaded, ordered or read online for free.

Because he has a science background and knows what he's talking about.

He graduated as a Chemical Technician before he went into priesthood.

Definition of a chemical technician:
A chemical technician helps scientists and engineers conduct laboratory tests on new products, procedures, standards and materials. With an associate's degree, a chemical technician may be assigned to project tasks, including data collection, quality control, field sampling, equipment operation, equipment installation and chemical preparation. Bachelor's degree programs are also available, in which students will have the opportunity to pursue advanced study in the field of chemical technology or chemistry.

Fair enough, we do accept all rain checks!

I did pennance on saturday morning when I needed to check something and used the hotel wifi -- the article about Arpeio's pardon covered all the penance and then some.

....weather and climate are always changing

The problem is that it is changing faster than what it's used to, and it impacts everything from the smallest organism to the largest animal. It impacts the whole of the ecological environment we call our home and on which we depend to survive for food and warmth and water ...

But, But, I'm not racist..........
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-2...arpaio/8845148

Anything yet, or will we wait till it's no longer considered a crime again?

Like I said -- penance happened for my crime earlier in the thread when I saw this Saturday morning.
Cursed like a sailor and then some.

But, but, I'm the best president for the LGBTQ community!!

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/25/po...ary/index.html

2 law suits have already been filed and the problem the memorandum is facing is that Obama's ruling was preceded by extensive research which confirmed there was no impact on the readiness of the military. So, it'll be a challenge to defend the ban.

Whishing LambdaLegal and ACLU happy hunting!

Let's not forget this is set against the backdrop of a category 4 hurricane settling in to trash large swathes of Texas.

And Trump tweeting about his "big win in Missouri" while people in Texas were being flooding.

Harvey sure did a number on them.
Category 3 predicted and 4 on landfall. And not over yet...

Speaking of side effects, NK launched some more missiles today.

What else is new?

Oh and it's Chelsea, not Manning, or can't you even say that?

Be glad it's Manning -- probably the nicest he can do when it comes to Chelsea.

Note: Didn't see Skydiver's post until much later. So perhaps she changed it.

So, he is innocent?
Innocent people do not need a pardon, cause they are innocent.

They usually don't.

And people on your side of the fence are equally guilty of the same bias. Despite the fact that the alarmists cannot prove their theory, (and at the end of the day, without conclusive proof, which they do not have, it is just a theory) you've made up your mind, and you reject all of the data indicating it's a giant scam.

No, because rapid ice melting is perfectly normal.

and volcanic eruptions are figments of our imagination I suppose? a sudden and prolonged climate shift could just as easily be the result of a major volcanic eruption...like Mt. Tambora...whose ultra-Plinian eruption 200 years ago caused a sudden and prolonged period of global cooling

Congratulations, you just used one of the top but-but-but comments made by climate change deniers.

It's number 73 on the list.

"Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans" -- Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.

I wouldn't worry too much, once man has been annihilated, the earth will heal

There's a funky chart in one of our two zoo's.

When you eliminate any animal, extinction happens for everything else. Eliminate humans from the chart and no extinction occurs.

and that's the way most enviros think too...that mankind has no redeeming qualities whatsoever and is nothing more than a "blight" upon "Mother Earth" and this should all be annihilated....pretty sick attitude which I'm sure is psychological projection of their own self-loathing tendencies

Actually, humans are responsible for the enviromnent and the consequences change brings, such as deforestation.

Look at some of the details of the Paris deal, which Trump wisely walked away from. China gets a pass, India gets a pass too, until someone else pays them a crapload of money, while they want to levy carbon taxes on US energy consumers. Screw that.

Just goes to show you have no clue what the deal is about, and that it isn't even binding. And for the record, China is the largest producer of alternative energy. They just have to implement it better, and doing a darn good job at it too.

They simply have a lot of catching up to do.

The USA, on the other hand, is technologically ahead of China and should be able to meet the standards set.
Should, because like I said, not binding.

As Jel said, it happened up thread. The post that did it along with the two that quoted it were deleted.

If you see someone using it to refer to a transgendered person, please report it and move on. Then we only have to delete the post from the originator instead of those quoting it.

thanks
\

Thank you, Sky.

[jelgate]

Then why aren't the "scientists" objecting to their data being used to push a political agenda?

Oh, and btw, what about "fudged data"?

https://science.house.gov/news/press...limate-records


Seems to me that at least some of the scientists are perfectly happy going along with the scam.

You are grasping at straws.

[Annoyed]

No, it's not the same.

You do not come armed to a march for something, unless you have the intention to use those arms at some point during the march -- to intimidate, to attack and to defend (expecting to be attacked).

IF you expect to be attacked, it's quite reasonable and proper to be prepared to defend yourself. That's hardly the same thing as planning to attack.

[edit]
And I thought we were talking about people at the event, not the general population.