Remember me
▼ Content

What's wrong with this picture? Proof Please.


What's wrong with this picture? Proof Please.05-12-2018 14:57
cthor29
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
People need to ask questions.
Proof is important. Not speculation or theories. How many times have you heard the words "Scientists now believe.." or "Studies now show.." where scientists or academics have changed their minds. Their findings are never certain.
Why are people being removed from positions after speaking out against Climate Change? What is the real motive?
The Head Of Meteorologists was removed from his job after saying that he doubted global warming predictions were right because they depended on clouds and you cannot predict clouds.
A Journalist was removed from a TV show because they questioned the validity of the findings of global warming.
A Weather Presenter who was a qualified Meteorologist was replaced on a news program after she said the weather was normal and not a sign of climate change.
A man being interviewed on TV was cut off and removed during the break because he was able to tell of a hotter and longer period of "heat wave" weather in the late 50's derailing their point that a recent spell of hot weather was the hottest ever.( I tried to find records of that period but a five year block in the late 50's is missing.???)
In order to prove their point records only start in 1961 for the Global Warming study.(An unusual time to start. It should have been from the beginning of records.)
People are constantly interrupted and drowned out whenever they begin to put an alternative perspective to the global warming/climate change debate.
DEBATE, that's a joke in itself. The Climate change people do not allow debate.
They used to call it 'Global Warming' and claimed it would never rain again, but when the drought broke they could not sell that easily anymore so they called it 'Climate Change' because it was easier to convince people as the climate is always changing naturally and normally.
The weather is not a machine and no two days are exactly the same so it is easier to fool the general population, who are removed from nature, into believing anything they are told.
Every time there is a sign that things are normal and people are starting to doubt, suddenly there is a barrage of people warning us how desperate things are and that we need to act quickly or we will all perish.
Every time there is a Natural disaster, suddenly it is global warming without a scrap of proof. (Natural disasters have been happening yearly since time began, Seems to be just another scare tactic to make people believe)
It is OK to doubt and get a balanced perspective before we do something we will regret.
05-12-2018 16:03
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(603)
I think the truth about 'Climate Change/Global Warming' is starting to sink in, and most people who have been promoting it, will start backing away, quietly at first, but more will stat talking against. It's slowly becoming unpopular, because people are starting to feel the squeeze on their bank accounts, and naturally, it gets very real, very personal. With money, people want to know how, why, and where their personal dollars are going, '..at an alarming rate'. France raised there carbon-related tax, a great deal, to set an example to the world, what needs to be done, to fight CO2. The people didn't like that too much, protested, rioted, and I suspect a possible revolt in the works. I haven't found a news story about the government backing down on the tax hike, or much about the protests, past few days. President Bush's funeral is the main story, sad, but think the media is hiding France behind it for now. Talking about it, is trendy, but having to pay for it is a different thing entirely. It's not fun or attractive, if a good portion of your paycheck is going to be taken. Most of the filthy rich folks, didn't get rich, by spending their own money, and guard is theirs, viciously.

What it really comes down to, is the scientist do most of their work on paper, on on the computer screen. There is very little 'real' data, least not enough real prove anything. They have to rely on proxy data, and virtual data, to feed models on the computer. Their projections are only a few degrees, over a century. The precision of the data going into the models, is no where near that resolution, margin of error is way more than double the predicted increase. They know a lot of the proxy data is very weak for the argument, but they need to hide under a lot of technical papers, which is pseudo-credibility. They need reliable, an accurate data, for a period longer than the span of the prediction, and fail. They have nothing to compare with, because the planet isn't repetitious, changes constantly, every day is different. We haven't always been here burning stuff, nor have we been making measurements all that long, considering the estimated age of civilization, or how long ago, was the last major ice age. I believe we are still recovering, and have been warming for thousands of years. It's not a constant, linear recovery, there are spikes and dips, even a mini ice age (like right now).

People will resist, when it comes to their income, and their savings. The proposal will be costly, and not just the cash. People are going to lose jobs, or have to find work closer to home. Instead of personal transportation, the will be forced to use mass transit, maybe ride a bicycle to get to the nearest station. We will pay a lot more for electricity, and need to cut way back on usage, but that's okay, most will be working more hours, just to keep food on the table...
05-12-2018 21:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
cthor29 wrote:
People need to ask questions.
Proof is important. Not speculation or theories. How many times have you heard the words "Scientists now believe.." or "Studies now show.." where scientists or academics have changed their minds. Their findings are never certain.
Why are people being removed from positions after speaking out against Climate Change? What is the real motive?
The Head Of Meteorologists was removed from his job after saying that he doubted global warming predictions were right because they depended on clouds and you cannot predict clouds.
A Journalist was removed from a TV show because they questioned the validity of the findings of global warming.
A Weather Presenter who was a qualified Meteorologist was replaced on a news program after she said the weather was normal and not a sign of climate change.
A man being interviewed on TV was cut off and removed during the break because he was able to tell of a hotter and longer period of "heat wave" weather in the late 50's derailing their point that a recent spell of hot weather was the hottest ever.( I tried to find records of that period but a five year block in the late 50's is missing.???)
In order to prove their point records only start in 1961 for the Global Warming study.(An unusual time to start. It should have been from the beginning of records.)
People are constantly interrupted and drowned out whenever they begin to put an alternative perspective to the global warming/climate change debate.
DEBATE, that's a joke in itself. The Climate change people do not allow debate.
They used to call it 'Global Warming' and claimed it would never rain again, but when the drought broke they could not sell that easily anymore so they called it 'Climate Change' because it was easier to convince people as the climate is always changing naturally and normally.
The weather is not a machine and no two days are exactly the same so it is easier to fool the general population, who are removed from nature, into believing anything they are told.
Every time there is a sign that things are normal and people are starting to doubt, suddenly there is a barrage of people warning us how desperate things are and that we need to act quickly or we will all perish.
Every time there is a Natural disaster, suddenly it is global warming without a scrap of proof. (Natural disasters have been happening yearly since time began, Seems to be just another scare tactic to make people believe)
It is OK to doubt and get a balanced perspective before we do something we will regret.


And here you touch on yet another paradox by the liberals. They claim, "Free speech! Free speech!" all day long, but are the FIRST to censure anyone that is against their views and agenda.


The Parrot Killer
05-12-2018 21:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think the truth about 'Climate Change/Global Warming' is starting to sink in, and most people who have been promoting it, will start backing away, quietly at first, but more will stat talking against. It's slowly becoming unpopular, because people are starting to feel the squeeze on their bank accounts, and naturally, it gets very real, very personal. With money, people want to know how, why, and where their personal dollars are going, '..at an alarming rate'. France raised there carbon-related tax, a great deal, to set an example to the world, what needs to be done, to fight CO2. The people didn't like that too much, protested, rioted, and I suspect a possible revolt in the works. I haven't found a news story about the government backing down on the tax hike, or much about the protests, past few days. President Bush's funeral is the main story, sad, but think the media is hiding France behind it for now. Talking about it, is trendy, but having to pay for it is a different thing entirely. It's not fun or attractive, if a good portion of your paycheck is going to be taken. Most of the filthy rich folks, didn't get rich, by spending their own money, and guard is theirs, viciously.

What it really comes down to, is the scientist do most of their work on paper, on on the computer screen. There is very little 'real' data, least not enough real prove anything. They have to rely on proxy data, and virtual data, to feed models on the computer. Their projections are only a few degrees, over a century. The precision of the data going into the models, is no where near that resolution, margin of error is way more than double the predicted increase. They know a lot of the proxy data is very weak for the argument, but they need to hide under a lot of technical papers, which is pseudo-credibility. They need reliable, an accurate data, for a period longer than the span of the prediction, and fail. They have nothing to compare with, because the planet isn't repetitious, changes constantly, every day is different. We haven't always been here burning stuff, nor have we been making measurements all that long, considering the estimated age of civilization, or how long ago, was the last major ice age. I believe we are still recovering, and have been warming for thousands of years. It's not a constant, linear recovery, there are spikes and dips, even a mini ice age (like right now).

People will resist, when it comes to their income, and their savings. The proposal will be costly, and not just the cash. People are going to lose jobs, or have to find work closer to home. Instead of personal transportation, the will be forced to use mass transit, maybe ride a bicycle to get to the nearest station. We will pay a lot more for electricity, and need to cut way back on usage, but that's okay, most will be working more hours, just to keep food on the table...


The Church of Global Warming is tenacious. It will not back away. It will double down on its abusive methods to MAKE people believe by force.

The Church of Green is the same way.


The Parrot Killer
06-12-2018 06:40
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(603)
The Church has about as much power, as the President of the United States, very limited, can only attempt to lead. Right now, they depend on swaying the power of governments, to install their socialist ways. Many of the people of those countries are concerned, maybe scared, but still voters. The politics, is more about what concerns them, or scares them the most. I think like France, when people see the price tag, and how the bill is going to get paid, they are so ready to buy. Our politicians really like their jobs, stick with them for decades (much too long, in most cases). Some people like mass transit, I don't like the idea of being stuck with. Just like the freedom and independence of driving myself, on my own schedule. We are in the middle of a light rail project. Suppose to run from east coast-west, eventually. Don't see it completing though. It doesn't run through my city, I'd have to find alternate transportation for about half my commute to work and back. Takes me 30-40 minutes, sometimes less... Mass transit would easily double that, since there is a wait to get boarded and get moving, every stop. The current last station, is maybe a mile from work, could walk that, just wouldn't want to in the rain, or middle summer, mid day. I've got a bus stop across the street, but never used it. Runs every hour, I think, not sure how it works, or where it could take me. Just haven't been interested enough to look up their website.

Don't know about other countries, but Americans love their credit, and living beyond their means. That all important credit score, the bragging rights. My score is probably about as low as it can go. I paid off my house, and everything else, 12 years ago. Have had, or used any credit since. Least I don't have to worry much about identity theft. For those that carry a lot of debt, paying tribute to the Church of Climatology, just isn't in the budget. Bills come faster than the paycheck. Our government doesn't care about debt, so why should the people...

For me, CO2 is a real threat to the economy, and freedom, a non-issue for the climate.
06-12-2018 08:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
In my case, fiddling with the bus would take longer than if I just walked for an hour to work.

CO2 is not a threat to the economy. The Church of Global Warming is trying to be, and they have successfully killed a lot of economy in places like California, and they also live without many freedoms.

In the end, the United States as a whole will reject it. France is beginning to reject it now.

The biggest danger to the economy though is not the Church of Global Warming, it's the problems facing the dollar. Confidence in the dollar is waning, especially in world trade, but also at home. This is caused by the massive 'printing' of them and the inability of gathering enough in taxes to pay for the debt.

Yes, government debt IS a problem, and it must eventually cause a grand mal crash. The debt is being generated over things that do not pay for themselves, so it's bad debt. Yes, there IS a limit on how much debt the government can ring up before confidence in the dollar is lost completely.

What will replace it? Things of real value or a currency that has a much cleaner balance sheet. It might be SDRs, it might be bitcoin or something like it. It might be a return to gold and silver (which CAN function in a modern economy). It might be a combination of them. Who knows?

The Church of Global Warming will be forgotten when it happens though. Good riddance.
06-12-2018 17:18
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(603)
I was really hoping Pres. Trump would have been able to do more, had some great ideas. Think failed from the start, he should have open his own investigations in to the many strange things going on in our government (drain the swamp). Pres. Obama doubled the national debt, in only 8 years. He didn't do it all by himself, and I've never seen any accountability over how it happened, or where all that money went. The borrowing was meant for extreme emergency, and short term. A ceiling was set, and suppose to curb more borrowing than we could afford. Not sure where all that borrowed money went in 8 years, but I image a few billion ended up in many of their pockets. Also tend to believe that many of our legislators use their job to enrich themselves. The deal with stuff, that can have a huge impact on business, and they know a long time, before a bill passes, and signed into law. Just too many of them, and a lot of temptation. The Russian Connection investigation... No proof of meddling in the election, result were declared valid, Trump won, no crime to investigate, or be in collusion with. Investigation should have ended in months, but over two years now, still going strong. The few charges are minor, some might have be through loyalty, trying to protect the boss, and really knowing if there was anything to protect him from. Mostly, I think they didn't remember accurately, they talk to a lot of people, hard to perfectly recall every thing said or written. Hillary Clinton's E-mail investigation didn't take as long, as it did for her to turn over the E-mails. She was allow to sort through them, and remove her personal emails, before surrendering her sanitized server. What police agency allows a suspect, to tamper with evidence in an investigation. But, the question never answered, the reason her Emails were of interest, was the four diplomats in Libya, who were beaten, tortured, and murder. When, and how often Amb. Stevens requested stronger security, and what actions Hillary took to protect them. The also want to know, when Hillary knew there was trouble, and how long it took for her to act. I've got a hunch that server would have been a treasure trove of sneaky dealings, and that a whole lot of our legislators knew, or strongly involved. Don't believe the Clinton Foundation function, is mainly charity, but then again, most of them aren't.

Most households know that debt is a bad thing, sooner they get paid off, the better life is in general. Less stress, less work to keep up with the bills, more money to do fun things. We all have credit limits, usually our lenders set it higher than we could afford, but not so high that people will walk away from a bankruptcy, richer than before they borrowed. I can't believe our law makers don't understand or care about debt. Kind of another good reason for term limits. Need some fresh people in there, to keep the perspective on the health of the country, and what most Americans are going through. I'm not saying a politician is completely done after the limit, just needs to step off for at least one term, they can still run for other jobs. Don't think most of those legislative jobs, were ever intended to be full time careers, that last a lifetime.
06-12-2018 19:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was really hoping Pres. Trump would have been able to do more, had some great ideas. Think failed from the start, he should have open his own investigations in to the many strange things going on in our government (drain the swamp). Pres. Obama doubled the national debt, in only 8 years. He didn't do it all by himself, and I've never seen any accountability over how it happened, or where all that money went.

It went largely to fund a few banks, the unions, and some of that kicked back to Obama and friends (including the Clinton Foundation).
HarveyH55 wrote:
The borrowing was meant for extreme emergency, and short term. A ceiling was set, and suppose to curb more borrowing than we could afford. Not sure where all that borrowed money went in 8 years,

Up in smoke.
HarveyH55 wrote:
but I image a few billion ended up in many of their pockets.
Yup.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Also tend to believe that many of our legislators use their job to enrich themselves. The deal with stuff, that can have a huge impact on business, and they know a long time, before a bill passes, and signed into law. Just too many of them, and a lot of temptation. The Russian Connection investigation... No proof of meddling in the election, result were declared valid, Trump won, no crime to investigate, or be in collusion with. Investigation should have ended in months, but over two years now, still going strong. The few charges are minor, some might have be through loyalty, trying to protect the boss, and really knowing if there was anything to protect him from. Mostly, I think they didn't remember accurately, they talk to a lot of people, hard to perfectly recall every thing said or written. Hillary Clinton's E-mail investigation didn't take as long, as it did for her to turn over the E-mails. She was allow to sort through them, and remove her personal emails, before surrendering her sanitized server. What police agency allows a suspect, to tamper with evidence in an investigation. But, the question never answered, the reason her Emails were of interest, was the four diplomats in Libya, who were beaten, tortured, and murder. When, and how often Amb. Stevens requested stronger security, and what actions Hillary took to protect them. The also want to know, when Hillary knew there was trouble, and how long it took for her to act. I've got a hunch that server would have been a treasure trove of sneaky dealings, and that a whole lot of our legislators knew, or strongly involved. Don't believe the Clinton Foundation function, is mainly charity, but then again, most of them aren't.

The main beneficiaries of the Clinton Foundation are the Clintons.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Most households know that debt is a bad thing, sooner they get paid off, the better life is in general. Less stress, less work to keep up with the bills, more money to do fun things. We all have credit limits, usually our lenders set it higher than we could afford, but not so high that people will walk away from a bankruptcy, richer than before they borrowed. I can't believe our law makers don't understand or care about debt.

Some do, some don't. Fiat money is rather strange stuff.

Fiat money exists BECAUSE of debt. That's actually what gives it its value. When the U.S. government prints a dollar, is like a bond, but with zero interest rates and no expiration date. There is no inherent real wealth behind a dollar. It works because we can pay our taxes with them and the government can pay us with them. It works because of a psychological confidence in the dollar and that the government will honor and pay its debts.

So far the federal government has paid every bond it has issued, and it has honored every dollar out there. Intentional overprinting to devalue to the dollar had a purpose. To try to import inflation to compensate for an economy that wants to deflate. This 'stagflation' since the Carter years is the result of the less successful attempts to import inflation.

Reagan allowed the economy to deflate (that's why the liberals went after his hide). The result was a stronger real economy, not a paper one, that lasted right on through the Clinton years, until the crash of 2001, caused by overspeculation brought on by the Fed printing too much money under Clinton.

The Fed, faced with picking up the pieces from the 2001 crash, ordered more money printing to try to stimulate the economy (classic Keynesian economics). Unfortunately, deflationary forces were quite strong during much of that time as old debts slowly unwound. The economy did not respond as intended until the last two years of the Bush Jr. years. It swung quickly into an overheated economy and crashed again in late 2007, due to overspeculation in the housing markets. It was again caused by the Fed.

Through the Obama years, despite massive money printing to get things started again, the economy did not respond. Largely because the money entered the economy through friends of Obama. Obama announced the new stalled economy was the 'new normal', and did nothing to improve real wealth creation. By this time, regulations prevented many companies from operating profitably, and many went overseas to conduct their business.

Trump removed many of these regulations, and lowered the corporate tax rates (which were abusively high, thanks to Obama). The result was predictable. Companies are investing in America once again. The economy is again seeing real wealth creation. Trump also lowered income tax rates so you get to keep and reinvest that money. Despite what you hear on the news, the economy IS improving, and this time it is real wealth being created. Money is still being printed, but now it is being soaked up into the wealth creation. The dollar again represents real wealth, and confidence is stronger again in the dollar, even in international trade.

How long will it last?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 06-12-2018 19:54
06-12-2018 20:27
James___
★★★★☆
(1187)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was really hoping Pres. Trump would have been able to do more, had some great ideas. Think failed from the start, he should have open his own investigations in to the many strange things going on in our government (drain the swamp). Pres. Obama doubled the national debt, in only 8 years. He didn't do it all by himself, and I've never seen any accountability over how it happened, or where all that money went. The borrowing was meant for extreme emergency, and short term. A ceiling was set, and suppose to curb more borrowing than we could afford. Not sure where all that borrowed money went in 8 years, but I image a few billion ended up in many of their pockets. Also tend to believe that many of our legislators use their job to enrich themselves. The deal with stuff, that can have a huge impact on business, and they know a long time, before a bill passes, and signed into law. Just too many of them, and a lot of temptation. The Russian Connection investigation... No proof of meddling in the election, result were declared valid, Trump won, no crime to investigate, or be in collusion with. Investigation should have ended in months, but over two years now, still going strong. The few charges are minor, some might have be through loyalty, trying to protect the boss, and really knowing if there was anything to protect him from. Mostly, I think they didn't remember accurately, they talk to a lot of people, hard to perfectly recall every thing said or written. Hillary Clinton's E-mail investigation didn't take as long, as it did for her to turn over the E-mails. She was allow to sort through them, and remove her personal emails, before surrendering her sanitized server. What police agency allows a suspect, to tamper with evidence in an investigation. But, the question never answered, the reason her Emails were of interest, was the four diplomats in Libya, who were beaten, tortured, and murder. When, and how often Amb. Stevens requested stronger security, and what actions Hillary took to protect them. The also want to know, when Hillary knew there was trouble, and how long it took for her to act. I've got a hunch that server would have been a treasure trove of sneaky dealings, and that a whole lot of our legislators knew, or strongly involved. Don't believe the Clinton Foundation function, is mainly charity, but then again, most of them aren't.

Most households know that debt is a bad thing, sooner they get paid off, the better life is in general. Less stress, less work to keep up with the bills, more money to do fun things. We all have credit limits, usually our lenders set it higher than we could afford, but not so high that people will walk away from a bankruptcy, richer than before they borrowed. I can't believe our law makers don't understand or care about debt. Kind of another good reason for term limits. Need some fresh people in there, to keep the perspective on the health of the country, and what most Americans are going through. I'm not saying a politician is completely done after the limit, just needs to step off for at least one term, they can still run for other jobs. Don't think most of those legislative jobs, were ever intended to be full time careers, that last a lifetime.



What started Trillion Dollar deficits was the need to avoid another Great Depression. Bush was more interested in Bin Laden, invading Iraq than what was happening in our country. Trump will keep the Trillion Dollar deficits going. It's what's growing our economy and not investments which are creating new jobs.

With the attack on 9:11, Bush could've said that if Alla supported their actions then they would've gotten 9:12 right. There's only one book in the Quran that has 9 chapters. The attack of 9/11 was based on 9:12. This means they got it wrong. In a Holy War, the scripture should agree with the act.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-revealed-secret-israeli-mission-northern-syria-russian-diplomats-720600
Edited on 06-12-2018 20:38
06-12-2018 20:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was really hoping Pres. Trump would have been able to do more, had some great ideas. Think failed from the start, he should have open his own investigations in to the many strange things going on in our government (drain the swamp). Pres. Obama doubled the national debt, in only 8 years. He didn't do it all by himself, and I've never seen any accountability over how it happened, or where all that money went. The borrowing was meant for extreme emergency, and short term. A ceiling was set, and suppose to curb more borrowing than we could afford. Not sure where all that borrowed money went in 8 years, but I image a few billion ended up in many of their pockets. Also tend to believe that many of our legislators use their job to enrich themselves. The deal with stuff, that can have a huge impact on business, and they know a long time, before a bill passes, and signed into law. Just too many of them, and a lot of temptation. The Russian Connection investigation... No proof of meddling in the election, result were declared valid, Trump won, no crime to investigate, or be in collusion with. Investigation should have ended in months, but over two years now, still going strong. The few charges are minor, some might have be through loyalty, trying to protect the boss, and really knowing if there was anything to protect him from. Mostly, I think they didn't remember accurately, they talk to a lot of people, hard to perfectly recall every thing said or written. Hillary Clinton's E-mail investigation didn't take as long, as it did for her to turn over the E-mails. She was allow to sort through them, and remove her personal emails, before surrendering her sanitized server. What police agency allows a suspect, to tamper with evidence in an investigation. But, the question never answered, the reason her Emails were of interest, was the four diplomats in Libya, who were beaten, tortured, and murder. When, and how often Amb. Stevens requested stronger security, and what actions Hillary took to protect them. The also want to know, when Hillary knew there was trouble, and how long it took for her to act. I've got a hunch that server would have been a treasure trove of sneaky dealings, and that a whole lot of our legislators knew, or strongly involved. Don't believe the Clinton Foundation function, is mainly charity, but then again, most of them aren't.

Most households know that debt is a bad thing, sooner they get paid off, the better life is in general. Less stress, less work to keep up with the bills, more money to do fun things. We all have credit limits, usually our lenders set it higher than we could afford, but not so high that people will walk away from a bankruptcy, richer than before they borrowed. I can't believe our law makers don't understand or care about debt. Kind of another good reason for term limits. Need some fresh people in there, to keep the perspective on the health of the country, and what most Americans are going through. I'm not saying a politician is completely done after the limit, just needs to step off for at least one term, they can still run for other jobs. Don't think most of those legislative jobs, were ever intended to be full time careers, that last a lifetime.



What started Trillion Dollar deficits was the need to avoid another Great Depression.

No. That will not stop a Great Depression. It will cause one though.

The downturn that became the Great Depression was a normal downturn caused by overspeculation in the stockmarkets (caused by the Fed printing too much money and the cost of debt for many nations for WW1). The disaster of the Treaty of Versailles and the downturn is what started WW2.

The thing that made the Great Depression Great was FDR''s policies of overregulation, theft of the nation's gold, the institution by force of fiat money in its place, and the commitment to build stuff for the war instead of what people actually wanted. That depression lasted right on through 1946, when the war finally ended, people came home, and started building the nation's wealth again.

James___ wrote:
Bush was more interested in Bin Laden, invading Iraq than what was happening in our country.
Bush Jr. had many interests. He was not fixated only on trying to catch Bin Laden.
James___ wrote:
Trump will keep the Trillion Dollar deficits going.
Trump doesn't have that authority. Congress does.
James___ wrote:
It's what's growing our economy
That is not what is growing our economy.
James___ wrote:
and not investments which are creating new jobs.

Investments in America and creating new jobs is what is growing our economy. We are currently in the midst of another industrial revolution...the Cloud revolution.


The Parrot Killer
06-12-2018 21:25
James___
★★★★☆
(1187)
You know itn that if the people in here were told that there are probably Russian nationals in eastern Ukraine saying they are Ukrainian and creating dissension, they probably wouldn't believe it. Yet that is your role in this forum.
I think everyone knows that the Great Depression was the result of buying stock on margin and over farming which created the Dust Bowl. That had nothing to do with war. Just like today you want people to trust what you say. If they do they could be in for a big let down


@All, in the 1920's you could buy $10,000 worth of stock for $1,000. This buying on margin drove the price of stock up. Then when the Stock Market peaked and the margins had to be paid, the stock market started collapsing.
Today stocks have gone up because of the corporate tax break President Trump gave. This is increasing US debt. When that debt has to be paid then an economic correction will happen.
There are some billionaires that think it will be worse than 2008.
[url] https://nypost.com/2018/02/22/ray-dalio-sees-70-percent-chance-of-us-recession-by-2020/[/url]
Edited on 06-12-2018 21:34
06-12-2018 23:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
James___ wrote:
You know itn that if the people in here were told that there are probably Russian nationals in eastern Ukraine saying they are Ukrainian and creating dissension, they probably wouldn't believe it. Yet that is your role in this forum.

I am not Russian or Ukrainian. No one is particularly creating dissension in this forum at the moment, not even Wake.
James___ wrote:
I think everyone knows that the Great Depression was the result of buying stock on margin

Nope. Is was the unstable atmosphere created by FDR, the theft of gold, and the debts racked up by WW1 that caused the downturn. The 'Great' in the Great Depression was because of FDR policies and the waste of wealth on WW2.

Margin trading is still available today.
James___ wrote:
and over farming which created the Dust Bowl.

Not the cause of the Dust Bowl. That was caused by one of the periodic droughts that hit the southeast United States. It doesn't happen now because we imported ground cover plants (Kudzu among them). Farms manage water better now too, meaning the droughts when they DO come can be somewhat mitigated.
James___ wrote:
That had nothing to do with war.

It had everything to do with war.
James___ wrote:
Just like today you want people to trust what you say. If they do they could be in for a big let down

It is YOU trying to change history, James. Revisionism is a fallacy.
James___ wrote:
@All, in the 1920's you could buy $10,000 worth of stock for $1,000. This buying on margin drove the price of stock up. Then when the Stock Market peaked and the margins had to be paid, the stock market started collapsing.

Margin trading still occurs today. Nothing has changed, yet the stock market is not collapsing at the moment.
James___ wrote:
Today stocks have gone up because of the corporate tax break President Trump gave.

I agree it's a factor, but it is not the primary cause.
James___ wrote:
This is increasing US debt.

No, spending too much money by the federal government and borrowing to pay for it is what causes increasing debt.
James___ wrote:
When that debt has to be paid then an economic correction will happen.

Bonds are paid every year when they mature. Multi-year bonds are just part of that.
James___ wrote:
here are some billionaires that think it will be worse than 2008.

Yes. Many people think the next crash will be worse than 2008. It is quite possible, if loss of confidence in the dollar is significant in that crash.


The Parrot Killer
06-12-2018 23:45
James___
★★★★☆
(1187)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
You know itn that if the people in here were told that there are probably Russian nationals in eastern Ukraine saying they are Ukrainian and creating dissension, they probably wouldn't believe it. Yet that is your role in this forum.

I am not Russian or Ukrainian. No one is particularly creating dissension in this forum at the moment, not even Wake.
James___ wrote:
I think everyone knows that the Great Depression was the result of buying stock on margin

Nope. Is was the unstable atmosphere created by FDR, the theft of gold, and the debts racked up by WW1 that caused the downturn. The 'Great' in the Great Depression was because of FDR policies and the waste of wealth on WW2.

Margin trading is still available today.
James___ wrote:
and over farming which created the Dust Bowl.

Not the cause of the Dust Bowl. That was caused by one of the periodic droughts that hit the southeast United States. It doesn't happen now because we imported ground cover plants (Kudzu among them). Farms manage water better now too, meaning the droughts when they DO come can be somewhat mitigated.
James___ wrote:
That had nothing to do with war.

It had everything to do with war.
James___ wrote:
Just like today you want people to trust what you say. If they do they could be in for a big let down

It is YOU trying to change history, James. Revisionism is a fallacy.
James___ wrote:
@All, in the 1920's you could buy $10,000 worth of stock for $1,000. This buying on margin drove the price of stock up. Then when the Stock Market peaked and the margins had to be paid, the stock market started collapsing.

Margin trading still occurs today. Nothing has changed, yet the stock market is not collapsing at the moment.
James___ wrote:
Today stocks have gone up because of the corporate tax break President Trump gave.

I agree it's a factor, but it is not the primary cause.
James___ wrote:
This is increasing US debt.

No, spending too much money by the federal government and borrowing to pay for it is what causes increasing debt.
James___ wrote:
When that debt has to be paid then an economic correction will happen.

Bonds are paid every year when they mature. Multi-year bonds are just part of that.
James___ wrote:
here are some billionaires that think it will be worse than 2008.

Yes. Many people think the next crash will be worse than 2008. It is quite possible, if loss of confidence in the dollar is significant in that crash.


I like the way you mix fallacy with reality. An easy way to confuse people. Wells are going dry where the Dust Bowl happened. They didn't know about the Ogallala Aquifer or there would've been no Dust Bowl.
When I say the US has to start paying down it's debt, I'm talking about the over $21 Trillion National Debt. When the GDP to debt ratio goes over 115%, somewhere around there the dollar will probably start falling. Then austerity measures will probably be I acted. This means raising taxes while decreasing government services/benefits.
Of course the US is a capitalist country and may find it can poorly manage itself just as any other country can do.
07-12-2018 03:25
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(603)
The main problem, is that nothing is free, there is a price we all have to pay. When our government is giving away free goods and services, they still need to be paid for, eventually. The charity our government throws out here in America, is ridiculously generous. But, it doesn't stop at our own shores, we've been helping out all around the world. Charity isn't a bad thing, just when it goes beyond a year or two (decades in many cases), is where it leads to dependence. Trump has the right idea in re-negotiating our trade deals, many were put in place, to help out other countries, who are now more than strong enough, to take our business away (fewer jobs for us, and fewer able to spend, more needing public assistance). Domestically, public assistance should be the bare minimum from the government, and short term, and have lots of requirements to prove it's not money being wasted. Some sort of work requirement, being part time, volunteer, just something to show a willingness. There are plenty of places locally to get additional assistance, like churches, charitable foundations (Clinton Foundation), many are one-time, or short term, meaning someone would need to keep going back, and wait in line. It shouldn't be easier, than actually getting a job. Many jobs came with affordable health care. I've done a lot o factory/warehouse work in my life, no college degree required, all offered cheap insurance. It could have been offered by more employers, rather just being given away, to those who choose not to work for it. Flipping burgers isn't a career choice, neither is run a Walmart cash register. Ridiculous hearing people crying on TV, that they can't afford to feed their family, and getting no benefits, from a job, that is temporary, or supplemental. High school kids use to do many of those jobs, for shiny new rims, to put on some rust, dented POS, maybe a cool stereo. Adults took these jobs, when they needed some extra cash, or between better paying jobs.

The national debt, is mostly from greedy rich folks (that run the country), trying to protect and increase their wealth. Wonder just how many millionaires we have working on capital hill these days...
07-12-2018 09:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
You know itn that if the people in here were told that there are probably Russian nationals in eastern Ukraine saying they are Ukrainian and creating dissension, they probably wouldn't believe it. Yet that is your role in this forum.

I am not Russian or Ukrainian. No one is particularly creating dissension in this forum at the moment, not even Wake.
James___ wrote:
I think everyone knows that the Great Depression was the result of buying stock on margin

Nope. Is was the unstable atmosphere created by FDR, the theft of gold, and the debts racked up by WW1 that caused the downturn. The 'Great' in the Great Depression was because of FDR policies and the waste of wealth on WW2.

Margin trading is still available today.
James___ wrote:
and over farming which created the Dust Bowl.

Not the cause of the Dust Bowl. That was caused by one of the periodic droughts that hit the southeast United States. It doesn't happen now because we imported ground cover plants (Kudzu among them). Farms manage water better now too, meaning the droughts when they DO come can be somewhat mitigated.
James___ wrote:
That had nothing to do with war.

It had everything to do with war.
James___ wrote:
Just like today you want people to trust what you say. If they do they could be in for a big let down

It is YOU trying to change history, James. Revisionism is a fallacy.
James___ wrote:
@All, in the 1920's you could buy $10,000 worth of stock for $1,000. This buying on margin drove the price of stock up. Then when the Stock Market peaked and the margins had to be paid, the stock market started collapsing.

Margin trading still occurs today. Nothing has changed, yet the stock market is not collapsing at the moment.
James___ wrote:
Today stocks have gone up because of the corporate tax break President Trump gave.

I agree it's a factor, but it is not the primary cause.
James___ wrote:
This is increasing US debt.

No, spending too much money by the federal government and borrowing to pay for it is what causes increasing debt.
James___ wrote:
When that debt has to be paid then an economic correction will happen.

Bonds are paid every year when they mature. Multi-year bonds are just part of that.
James___ wrote:
here are some billionaires that think it will be worse than 2008.

Yes. Many people think the next crash will be worse than 2008. It is quite possible, if loss of confidence in the dollar is significant in that crash.


I like the way you mix fallacy with reality. An easy way to confuse people. Wells are going dry where the Dust Bowl happened. They didn't know about the Ogallala Aquifer or there would've been no Dust Bowl.
Yes, there would've been. It's the groundcover they imported that stopped dust bowls from happening. Improved wells helped of course, but they weren't the primary cause.
James___ wrote:
When I say the US has to start paying down it's debt, I'm talking about the over $21 Trillion National Debt. When the GDP to debt ratio goes over 115%, somewhere around there the dollar will probably start falling.
The dollar is already falling. Haven't you noticed?
James___ wrote:
Then austerity measures will probably be I acted. This means raising taxes while decreasing government services/benefits.

The government can only raise taxes so far before a revolt takes place.
They can also issue bonds (borrow it), or just print it.

Of course none of these three alternatives is a particularly attractive one.

James___ wrote:
Of course the US is a capitalist country and may find it can poorly manage itself just as any other country can do.

Capitalism doesn't need a government to function.


The Parrot Killer
09-12-2018 19:56
Wake
★★★★★
(4024)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think the truth about 'Climate Change/Global Warming' is starting to sink in, and most people who have been promoting it, will start backing away, quietly at first, but more will stat talking against. It's slowly becoming unpopular, because people are starting to feel the squeeze on their bank accounts, and naturally, it gets very real, very personal.

In the big picture you're right. In the small picture, those with no knowledge of science are those the most adamant that AGM is real. It is sort of a death cult that are actually hoping that the human race that doesn't accept them are all doomed.
10-12-2018 19:02
Wake
★★★★★
(4024)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I was really hoping Pres. Trump would have been able to do more, had some great ideas. Think failed from the start, he should have open his own investigations in to the many strange things going on in our government (drain the swamp). Pres. Obama doubled the national debt, in only 8 years. He didn't do it all by himself, and I've never seen any accountability over how it happened, or where all that money went. The borrowing was meant for extreme emergency, and short term. A ceiling was set, and suppose to curb more borrowing than we could afford. Not sure where all that borrowed money went in 8 years, but I image a few billion ended up in many of their pockets. Also tend to believe that many of our legislators use their job to enrich themselves. The deal with stuff, that can have a huge impact on business, and they know a long time, before a bill passes, and signed into law. Just too many of them, and a lot of temptation. The Russian Connection investigation... No proof of meddling in the election, result were declared valid, Trump won, no crime to investigate, or be in collusion with. Investigation should have ended in months, but over two years now, still going strong. The few charges are minor, some might have be through loyalty, trying to protect the boss, and really knowing if there was anything to protect him from. Mostly, I think they didn't remember accurately, they talk to a lot of people, hard to perfectly recall every thing said or written. Hillary Clinton's E-mail investigation didn't take as long, as it did for her to turn over the E-mails. She was allow to sort through them, and remove her personal emails, before surrendering her sanitized server. What police agency allows a suspect, to tamper with evidence in an investigation. But, the question never answered, the reason her Emails were of interest, was the four diplomats in Libya, who were beaten, tortured, and murder. When, and how often Amb. Stevens requested stronger security, and what actions Hillary took to protect them. The also want to know, when Hillary knew there was trouble, and how long it took for her to act. I've got a hunch that server would have been a treasure trove of sneaky dealings, and that a whole lot of our legislators knew, or strongly involved. Don't believe the Clinton Foundation function, is mainly charity, but then again, most of them aren't.

Most households know that debt is a bad thing, sooner they get paid off, the better life is in general. Less stress, less work to keep up with the bills, more money to do fun things. We all have credit limits, usually our lenders set it higher than we could afford, but not so high that people will walk away from a bankruptcy, richer than before they borrowed. I can't believe our law makers don't understand or care about debt. Kind of another good reason for term limits. Need some fresh people in there, to keep the perspective on the health of the country, and what most Americans are going through. I'm not saying a politician is completely done after the limit, just needs to step off for at least one term, they can still run for other jobs. Don't think most of those legislative jobs, were ever intended to be full time careers, that last a lifetime.



What started Trillion Dollar deficits was the need to avoid another Great Depression. Bush was more interested in Bin Laden, invading Iraq than what was happening in our country. Trump will keep the Trillion Dollar deficits going. It's what's growing our economy and not investments which are creating new jobs.

With the attack on 9:11, Bush could've said that if Alla supported their actions then they would've gotten 9:12 right. There's only one book in the Quran that has 9 chapters. The attack of 9/11 was based on 9:12. This means they got it wrong. In a Holy War, the scripture should agree with the act.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-revealed-secret-israeli-mission-northern-syria-russian-diplomats-720600


I see among your other talents you've avoided learning economics and most especially Keynesian economics which the Federal economists especially under Obama claimed to be following while nothing could be further from the truth.

You CANNOT stop a depression or even a recession with borrowed money but again that's something you can't handle and you can only deny.
10-12-2018 21:58
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(603)
Throwing money at a problem, doesn't fix the problem, just puts it off, for someone else to deal with later. Welfare and food stamps, for those unable to find their dream job (sitting on the couch, watch TV). How many times did Obama extend unemployment benefits? It wasn't because no jobs were available, the place I worked, was hiring those 2 years. I know some people are a little particular, and warehouse work isn't for everyone. I didn't grow up picky, you were lucky to find any job, doing anything. It's so much better get a paycheck, than job hunting, even when the work sucks. Even though you get a crappy job, nothing preventing you from looking for a better one. The only time I ever had an employer call me up, and asked me if I wanted a job, was when I worked for a temp agency. Their great, got several full-time jobs, I probably wouldn't have found looking on my own. Sort of a try, before you apply, type of deal. Although, I pretty sure the temp agency would rather have kept me on for a while, didn't mind traveling, no shift preference, never turned down an assignment.

I know there are a lot of jobs out there, we have people jumping the border, from other countries, wanting those jobs, well, and maybe to get some of those freebies. We could solve a couple of problem, but cutting back on the freebies, and insisting people get off the couch and take a job, any job. No jobs, no freebies, why jump the fence? They can rob, steal, and murder in their own countries, just as easy.
10-12-2018 22:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4024)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Throwing money at a problem, doesn't fix the problem, just puts it off, for someone else to deal with later. Welfare and food stamps, for those unable to find their dream job (sitting on the couch, watch TV). How many times did Obama extend unemployment benefits? It wasn't because no jobs were available, the place I worked, was hiring those 2 years. I know some people are a little particular, and warehouse work isn't for everyone. I didn't grow up picky, you were lucky to find any job, doing anything. It's so much better get a paycheck, than job hunting, even when the work sucks. Even though you get a crappy job, nothing preventing you from looking for a better one. The only time I ever had an employer call me up, and asked me if I wanted a job, was when I worked for a temp agency. Their great, got several full-time jobs, I probably wouldn't have found looking on my own. Sort of a try, before you apply, type of deal. Although, I pretty sure the temp agency would rather have kept me on for a while, didn't mind traveling, no shift preference, never turned down an assignment.

I know there are a lot of jobs out there, we have people jumping the border, from other countries, wanting those jobs, well, and maybe to get some of those freebies. We could solve a couple of problem, but cutting back on the freebies, and insisting people get off the couch and take a job, any job. No jobs, no freebies, why jump the fence? They can rob, steal, and murder in their own countries, just as easy.


Keynes said that you should have a saved money source and in the event of a recession you spend to increase the economy. I've gone all over this with government economists who claim that CREDIT is the same as a saved source of money. It is not. Only real money works. And the way that they increase the money supply is also all screwed up forcing inflation or reducing the value of currency. That the government could get away with this since Woodrow Wilson is pretty disgusting.
10-12-2018 22:36
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
I'll ask the obvious question: if someone working for, let say, National Geographic, claims evolution is false and Creationism is legitimate, would you say them being fired is evidence that evolution is false, or that Creationist arguments are being ignored or that doubt in evolution is being curtailed deliberately in scientific circles?
10-12-2018 23:35
Wake
★★★★★
(4024)
Leafsdude wrote:
I'll ask the obvious question: if someone working for, let say, National Geographic, claims evolution is false and Creationism is legitimate, would you say them being fired is evidence that evolution is false, or that Creationist arguments are being ignored or that doubt in evolution is being curtailed deliberately in scientific circles?


I think that you should start a new thread for this because it gets into the BELIEF of people who do not know science and yet call tell you that 97% of all of the "climate scientists" in the world believe in it so you should as well by force if necessary.
11-12-2018 00:19
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Wake wrote:I think that you should start a new thread for this because it gets into the BELIEF of people who do not know science and yet call tell you that 97% of all of the "climate scientists" in the world believe in it so you should as well by force if necessary.


1) The question is entirely relevant in this thread because the OP made their argument by asserting that people being fired from jobs for questioning climate change means climate change is a hoax, as opposed to them being fired because climate change is the most accurate conclusion possible based on the known data. Considering Occum's Razor, the latter conclusion is more reasonable.

2) People who cite the "97% of scientists" are indeed making an incorrect argument. However, those that cite the "97% of scientific studies" are being entirely scientific, as science does work on the consensus of data and experiments, as it is the primary measure of the scientific concept of repeatability.

3) Define "by force" and provide examples, please.
11-12-2018 00:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4024)
Leafsdude wrote:
Wake wrote:I think that you should start a new thread for this because it gets into the BELIEF of people who do not know science and yet call tell you that 97% of all of the "climate scientists" in the world believe in it so you should as well by force if necessary.


1) The question is entirely relevant in this thread because the OP made their argument by asserting that people being fired from jobs for questioning climate change means climate change is a hoax, as opposed to them being fired because climate change is the most accurate conclusion possible based on the known data. Considering Occum's Razor, the latter conclusion is more reasonable.

2) People who cite the "97% of scientists" are indeed making an incorrect argument. However, those that cite the "97% of scientific studies" are being entirely scientific, as science does work on the consensus of data and experiments, as it is the primary measure of the scientific concept of repeatability.

3) Define "by force" and provide examples, please.

What has Occam's Razor have to do with this? If you do not know what you're talking about then using science by vote has absolute insanity behind it. Not ONE single climate model has shown even a wide agreement with what the climate has actually done. Therefore all of these people that have written all of these papers upon which these climate models are based are WRONG in entirety. There are real world occurrences and modeled ones. If the modeled ones do not precisely predict the climate both before and after the present day they are wrong. Not a little but completely. None of these models can even predict PAST temperature variations.


Using 97% when that was little more than a construct to begin with makes you no points. That was 97% of the 1,000 papers of the 3,000 papers that Cook discarded as being too far off his point. And HALF of those papers said nothing about there being global warming or that it could even possibly be man-made. Cook included them in the "positive" column because he thought that "they implied" AGW was real when most of these authors said that they neither said nor implied any such thing.

You don't know that Google has fired scientifically trained engineers for opposing AGW? You do not consider that force majeure? Facebook has been suspected of the same thing. Yahoo simply erases many comments that show actual proof that there is no AGW.
11-12-2018 01:10
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Wake wrote:What has Occam's Razor have to do with this?


Occam's Razor states that the conclusion that requires the least number of assumptions is usually the right one. Any conclusion that the majority of the scientific data supporting climate change is wrong or faked or a conspiracy require more assumptions than those that state the data is correct.

Wake wrote:If you do not know what you're talking about then using science by vote has absolute insanity behind it.


Yes, absolutely. Consensus by analyzing published studies is not science by vote, it's just science.

Wake wrote:Not ONE single climate model has shown even a wide agreement with what the climate has actually done.


Not one?

Wake wrote:Using 97% when that was little more than a construct to begin with makes you no points. That was 97% of the 1,000 papers of the 3,000 papers that Cook discarded as being too far off his point. And HALF of those papers said nothing about there being global warming or that it could even possibly be man-made.


Define "too far off his point".

And the numbers were: 11 944 papers with "global climate change" or "global warming" in the abstract, ~4 013 that stated a position on AGW, and ~3 894 that agreed that AGW was happening. So I'm not sure where you're getting your 3 000 and 1 000 from.

And you are aware that Cook 2013 is but one of at least 7 papers that all conclude the scientific data supports AGW to the rate of 90% or more, right?

Wake wrote:Cook included them in the "positive" column because he thought that "they implied" AGW was real when most of these authors said that they neither said nor implied any such thing.


Except that he also surveyed the publishing author(s) in his paper and the percentages were for all intents and purposes the same (though it is interesting to point out that there were both papers that they listed as uncertain about AGW and that agreed that AGW was occurring that were rated by authors to be in the other category).

Wake wrote:You don't know that Google has fired scientifically trained engineers for opposing AGW? You do not consider that force majeure?


No, I don't. Why do you?

Wake wrote:Facebook has been suspected of the same thing. Yahoo simply erases many comments that show actual proof that there is no AGW.


I've debated on Yahoo about climate for years. I've never seen a post rejecting climate change deleted, and I've had posts of mine supporting climate change deleted before as well (note: I wouldn't claim my posts are being deleted because I'm supporting climate change, btw, because there's way too many other, more likely reasons for them to be deleted, just as there are for them erasing posts that reject AGW.)
11-12-2018 03:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Throwing money at a problem, doesn't fix the problem, just puts it off, for someone else to deal with later. Welfare and food stamps, for those unable to find their dream job (sitting on the couch, watch TV). How many times did Obama extend unemployment benefits? It wasn't because no jobs were available, the place I worked, was hiring those 2 years. I know some people are a little particular, and warehouse work isn't for everyone. I didn't grow up picky, you were lucky to find any job, doing anything. It's so much better get a paycheck, than job hunting, even when the work sucks. Even though you get a crappy job, nothing preventing you from looking for a better one. The only time I ever had an employer call me up, and asked me if I wanted a job, was when I worked for a temp agency. Their great, got several full-time jobs, I probably wouldn't have found looking on my own. Sort of a try, before you apply, type of deal. Although, I pretty sure the temp agency would rather have kept me on for a while, didn't mind traveling, no shift preference, never turned down an assignment.

I know there are a lot of jobs out there, we have people jumping the border, from other countries, wanting those jobs, well, and maybe to get some of those freebies. We could solve a couple of problem, but cutting back on the freebies, and insisting people get off the couch and take a job, any job. No jobs, no freebies, why jump the fence? They can rob, steal, and murder in their own countries, just as easy.


Keynes said that you should have a saved money source and in the event of a recession you spend to increase the economy. I've gone all over this with government economists who claim that CREDIT is the same as a saved source of money. It is not. Only real money works. And the way that they increase the money supply is also all screwed up forcing inflation or reducing the value of currency. That the government could get away with this since Woodrow Wilson is pretty disgusting.


We'll see how much longer the government can get away with it. Confidence in the dollar is already waning.


The Parrot Killer
11-12-2018 03:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
Leafsdude wrote:
Wake wrote:I think that you should start a new thread for this because it gets into the BELIEF of people who do not know science and yet call tell you that 97% of all of the "climate scientists" in the world believe in it so you should as well by force if necessary.


1) The question is entirely relevant in this thread because the OP made their argument by asserting that people being fired from jobs for questioning climate change means climate change is a hoax, as opposed to them being fired because climate change is the most accurate conclusion possible based on the known data. Considering Occum's Razor, the latter conclusion is more reasonable.

Occam's Razor is not data. It is not a proof. It is not mathematics. There is no data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

The 'greenhouse' effect ignores the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, as well as the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Leafsdude wrote:
2) People who cite the "97% of scientists" are indeed making an incorrect argument. However, those that cite the "97% of scientific studies" are being entirely scientific, as science does work on the consensus of data and experiments, as it is the primary measure of the scientific concept of repeatability.


Not the definition of science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more, nothing less.
Science does not use consensus. Science is not data. Science is not experiments. Repeating a test produces the same result under the same conditions. It is pointless.

There is no such thing as a 'scientific' study. Science is not studies.

The 97% number is an argument from randU. It is entirely fake.


The Parrot Killer
11-12-2018 04:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7678)
Leafsdude wrote:
Wake wrote:What has Occam's Razor have to do with this?


Occam's Razor states that the conclusion that requires the least number of assumptions is usually the right one. Any conclusion that the majority of the scientific data supporting climate change is wrong or faked or a conspiracy require more assumptions than those that state the data is correct.
Leafsdude wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:If you do not know what you're talking about then using science by vote has absolute insanity behind it.


Yes, absolutely. Consensus by analyzing published studies is not science by vote, it's just science.

Consensus IS vote. Science does not use consensus.


Leafsdude wrote:
Wake wrote:Not ONE single climate model has shown even a wide agreement with what the climate has actually done.


Not one?

Wake wrote:Using 97% when that was little more than a construct to begin with makes you no points. That was 97% of the 1,000 papers of the 3,000 papers that Cook discarded as being too far off his point. And HALF of those papers said nothing about there being global warming or that it could even possibly be man-made.


Define "too far off his point".

And the numbers were: 11 944 papers with "global climate change" or "global warming" in the abstract, ~4 013 that stated a position on AGW, and ~3 894 that agreed that AGW was happening. So I'm not sure where you're getting your 3 000 and 1 000 from.

And you are aware that Cook 2013 is but one of at least 7 papers that all conclude the scientific data supports AGW to the rate of 90% or more, right?

There is no such thing as 'scientific' data. There is only data. Science is not data. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

Cook (and othes) simply made up these numbers. The raw data was never released. The statistical analysis made egregious math errors.



Leafsdude wrote:
Wake wrote:Cook included them in the "positive" column because he thought that "they implied" AGW was real when most of these authors said that they neither said nor implied any such thing.


Except that he also surveyed the publishing author(s) in his paper and the percentages were for all intents and purposes the same (though it is interesting to point out that there were both papers that they listed as uncertain about AGW and that agreed that AGW was occurring that were rated by authors to be in the other category).

Wake wrote:You don't know that Google has fired scientifically trained engineers for opposing AGW? You do not consider that force majeure?


No, I don't. Why do you?

Google routinely fires such people. I have seen the same practice at Microsoft also. Amazon also does it, but not as badly.

Bias is all over the web. Anyone rejecting the Church of Global Warming is discouraged, if not outright banned, from Reddit, Wikipedia, Facebook, Google (including YouTube), Microsoft, Amazon, Twitter (which tried to shut down Trump's account until the loud protests that resulted when they were caught at it. Accounts of people presenting arguments against the Church of Global Warming have been disabled, removed, or banned from presenting any new material. Some material as even been removed by these sites.


The Parrot Killer
11-12-2018 04:40
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(603)
I'm a frequent reader of the site, Hack-A-Day, which has slid downhill considerably over the years, dig up a lot of older stuff any more. When they have 'Climate Change' related article, or some sort of 'Green Energy' relate device, there are no negative comments allowed, even when obvious and relevant. Not sure about their moderation methods, or policies, but it's completely one sided. I find it annoying, but I don't own the site, just a guest, and have to follow their rules, and respect their beliefs and values. I don't have to visit there, adopt their way of think, or participate. When you work for a company, and represent their beliefs and values, you can't really speak against them, and expect to remain part of the company.

Posting about a 'heated', controversial issue or topic, usually leads to problems. Most sites have banned topics and behavior, clearly outline in the rules and terms of service. Generally, religion, sports, politics, since people will argue and fight over these topics, can't keep it civilized for long. Now, if some like mind folks are having a civilized discussion, pro-warming, and it attracts a few people, with negative input, 'it's a scam, a fraud, fake science', that's just disruptive behavior, not really supporting what the sheep are discussing. It's more of a political issue, and businesses need to be mindful of how their image is portrayed, doesn't really mean they believe or support an issue, just that it's what's best for the company.




Join the debate What's wrong with this picture? Proof Please.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
climate change is wrong grammer910-04-2019 21:57
This is New York City's $10 billion plan to 'climate-proof' itself920-03-2019 13:02
Angstrom is right. Arrhenius is wrong.218-03-2019 19:43
This experiment is close, but still wrong018-03-2019 15:09
So if Angstrom already proven Arrhenius wrong, then what's the problem?314-03-2019 02:07
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact