The IPPC climate report and what I personally think of it!

HarveyH55 wrote:
Science does explain all kinds of things, but only as far as we can observe, and based on past experience. The explanations evolve, change, sometimes even dismissed. Yep, science gets it wrong occasionally, oops... I just don't believe we know all there is to know about anything. I don't pretend to be an authority or expert on any subject. I know more than many people, about a few dozen topics, but there are people who know a lot more.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Some 'science', like Climatology, I don't believe, because it isn't straight forward.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's shady, tricky, secretive, deceptive, which is generally the signs of fraud.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I live by the saying, 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear'.

HarveyH55 wrote:
If the IPCC is so positive that their calculations are 100%, why aren't the 100% transparent, share everything.

HarveyH55 wrote:
They are funded by many different governments, and asking to make a huge impact on all of our lives, starting with a carbon-credit economy.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I really don't see why they would hide anything, you'd think they would encourage anyone and everyone to check their work.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The study was completed years ago, or so the announced to the world.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Supposedly, they proved that man-made CO2 is the only possible cause for the dangerous, rapid warming we have been experiencing.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Was Al Gore's flick, about a decade ago, where he sort of walked us through the evidence, in a propagande laden way? The inconvenient truth, is they had nothing to work with, except an idea, and a goal, their research was mainly computer based, and patchwork, shoddy work at that.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Weather models have taken decades to evolve an mature, still only 80%, at best, at 5 day in the future.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Those models are shared, and worked on, by thousands of meteorologists around the world.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Climatologists haven't been at it half as long, and only a couple hundred have potential access.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It would take a decade of waiting, to see if a 10 year prediction is close.

HarveyH55 wrote:
They haven't had time to test the models.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's one thing to write them, use old data laying around, and get the results that match what actually happened, within an acceptable rate of error, because you already know the outcome.
It's different to use fresh data, and not know, until it happens (or not).

HarveyH55 wrote:
Models can predict weather accurately.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Models can't predict lottery numbers either.

HarveyH55 wrote:
But mostly, I don't see the big crisis a few degrees increase in temperature. Hasn't been a big deal in the past, when we had hot years. I'd get concerned, is it was 10-20 degrees, in a decade, and no chance of cooling, just keep climbing. That ain't happening, it gets warmer, gets cooler, just like always. It's a few degrees warmer, over a century's time span, not scary at all.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't blindly believe everything I read, nor mindlessly regurgitate what I've read. I really can quote much of anything, word-for-word, I tend to just remember the functional parts, usually can't recall the source. Less clutter to work through, in my sub-average brain...

James___ wrote:
It's funny Harvey. I had one teacher in school that explained to me that D students don't understand why they're D students. I was trying to help a D student and he thought I should change my answers to agree with his. He didn't care that I had taken the time to learn math.
And he didn't want me to help him improve his grade, he just didn't want to see someone get a better grade than him. It's like you said, Americans only care about themselves. You have shown that to be true.

James___ wrote:
Ever wonder what Trump meant when he said Make America Great Again.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Science does explain all kinds of things, but only as far as we can observe, and based on past experience. The explanations evolve, change, sometimes even dismissed. Yep, science gets it wrong occasionally, oops... I just don't believe we know all there is to know about anything. I don't pretend to be an authority or expert on any subject. I know more than many people, about a few dozen topics, but there are people who know a lot more.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument. This means science explains things. Science has no power to predict. The things it explains happened in the past or are happening now. It must turn to a closed functional system like mathematics to gain the power of prediction.

Science, being an open functional system, has many explanations about a great many things. Taken one at a time, though, each theory is pretty clear and concise about what it is explaining.

You know a lot. You may not be able to put your finger on why, but you know a lot.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Some 'science', like Climatology, I don't believe, because it isn't straight forward.

There is no branch of science of Climatology. Meteorologists study climates, just like they study the weather. Climate is just predominant weather over a long time. How big the region is or how long 'a long time' is remains unspecified. The very word 'climate' is rather a vague and subjective term.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's shady, tricky, secretive, deceptive, which is generally the signs of fraud.

Bingo. You have it exactly right. Climate 'scientists' deny science and mathematics.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I live by the saying, 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear'.

A rather dangerous saying. There is a reason the government is prohibited from just searching you for no reason. Whatever you might have on you that is perfectly acceptable, but 'political incorrect' for the day IS something you can legitimately hide. Nosey people are a problem, particularly if they are government agents.

HarveyH55 wrote:
If the IPCC is so positive that their calculations are 100%, why aren't the 100% transparent, share everything.

They have no calculations. They just make up the numbers out of thick air as they go along.

HarveyH55 wrote:
They are funded by many different governments, and asking to make a huge impact on all of our lives, starting with a carbon-credit economy.

They are funded by the UN, which is decidedly Marxist and anti-United States.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I really don't see why they would hide anything, you'd think they would encourage anyone and everyone to check their work.

They haven't done any work. That's why no one can check it. They just make stuff up.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The study was completed years ago, or so the announced to the world.

The only 'study' performed was how best to hoodwink the general population. The 'ozone hole scare' taught them a lot. So did the 'we are all going to freeze to death' scare.

They've become really quite good at hoodwinking people now.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Supposedly, they proved that man-made CO2 is the only possible cause for the dangerous, rapid warming we have been experiencing.

There are no proofs in science, and CO2 is not capable of warming anything. We can't even measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Was Al Gore's flick, about a decade ago, where he sort of walked us through the evidence, in a propagande laden way? The inconvenient truth, is they had nothing to work with, except an idea, and a goal, their research was mainly computer based, and patchwork, shoddy work at that.

Many of those predictions by the Holy Son of the Church of Global Warming never came true in the time he said they would. According to Al, both polar ice caps should already be completely gone, and the polar bears should all be dead.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Weather models have taken decades to evolve an mature, still only 80%, at best, at 5 day in the future.

Actually, they are good only out to 36 hours. This is a vast improvement from before, which was 24 hours. It's not models. It's simple observation. It's like watching the waves near the coast at sea and predicting when it will arrive on the shore and how big it's going to be.
Weather satellites can see the storms. They can also see where the jet stream is at any given moment. Surface stations (if they exist in that location) can confirm that data and provide more detail. They can see how fast a low pressure center is moving, and where it will likely move. Only when it gets close enough to be pretty certain where it's going, can they make any prediction about it.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Those models are shared, and worked on, by thousands of meteorologists around the world.

The models don't work. They are computer programs printing out numbers in nice neat columns. They aren't necessarily right. The observation of low and high pressure centers moving around is just like watching the waves or a herd of cattle running along. There comes a time when you can predict that wave or that herd is actually going to hit you rather than turn away.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Climatologists haven't been at it half as long, and only a couple hundred have potential access.

There are no climatologists. Climate is studied by meteorologists, just like they study any weather.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It would take a decade of waiting, to see if a 10 year prediction is close.

The problem with using models is a simple one. They are based on random numbers. Random numbers are imports into the Math Domain you learned in school (the Real Math Domain). Their use takes away the power of prediction inherent in mathematics.

HarveyH55 wrote:
They haven't had time to test the models.

Not possible. Even if the model is somehow 'correct', it's nothing more than a lucky guess for that run. The next run may be quite wrong, or you may be able to lucky guess it again. Models use probability math. Probability math does NOT have the power of prediction inherent within it.

HarveyH55 wrote:
It's one thing to write them, use old data laying around, and get the results that match what actually happened, within an acceptable rate of error, because you already know the outcome.
It's different to use fresh data, and not know, until it happens (or not).

There is no data to start from. It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or even the temperature of any region of Earth. We just don't have enough thermometers to even begin a sensible statistical analysis.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Models can predict weather accurately.

No, they can't. They're guessing. Weather is 'predicted' by observation. For example, if Seattle gets heavy rains, we know the storm generally moves east, up through midwestern Canada following the usual jet stream. It then drops down over the northern midsection of the United States and brings with it heavy snow in the winter. You can watch the storm progressively move eastward on the satellites and by piecing together data from any ground stations along the way.

In the same way, warm moist air moving in from the Gulf and cold dry air moving in from the North product a mixing that generates thunderstorms. Where that will happen is where the two air masses meet. That is an observation, not a model. These storms get so violent as to produce tornadoes much of the time. We know that tornadoes will tend to develop along a particular edge of the storm as it moves east (like most storms in the United States).

In the same way, we can see tropical storms develop off the coast of Africa. We can see if the begin to organize into a larger storm. We can see the hurricane coming from clear across the Atlantic in this way by watching it form at sea using Satellites. We have NO idea where it will hit, if at all, until the storm gets quite close...practically on top of us.

The news media likes to talk about models a lot, and try to predict the storm. This is no different than trying to predict the outcome of a football game. It's what people like to do. A lot of people like to predict in this way. It keeps the casinos open in Las Vegas.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Models can't predict lottery numbers either.

For the same reason. Lottery numbers are random numbers of the form randR (like dice, they have no memory of the previous pick). You can calculate odds all day long, but they can't predict the next roll of the dice. The use of random numbers removes mathematic's ability to predict anything. This is why probability math cannot predict. Statistical math has the same problem.

HarveyH55 wrote:
But mostly, I don't see the big crisis a few degrees increase in temperature. Hasn't been a big deal in the past, when we had hot years. I'd get concerned, is it was 10-20 degrees, in a decade, and no chance of cooling, just keep climbing. That ain't happening, it gets warmer, gets cooler, just like always. It's a few degrees warmer, over a century's time span, not scary at all.

This is the part you know, and you know a lot. Your own experience. Don't let ANYONE discount it!

HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't blindly believe everything I read, nor mindlessly regurgitate what I've read. I really can quote much of anything, word-for-word, I tend to just remember the functional parts, usually can't recall the source. Less clutter to work through, in my sub-average brain...

This is another part you know, again from your own experience. You know that someone sitting in a room full of fancy instruments and no windows can't tell you what the current weather is outside, while all you have to do is look out the window.

That's big. You are doing what any meteorologist does that's worth his own rain gauge. You look outside, watch the clouds, watch the winds, see a big dark grey mass of clouds moving your way, and see that a storm is coming.

The only difference between you and that meteorologist, is that they have an eye in the sky (the satellites) that can see that storm from further away.

You already know that when storms arrive, the temperature drops. The meteorologist is the same way. Using previous storms, he can give you a pretty good guess how FAR the temperature will drop. It's experience that shows him this, not computer models. It's the same experiences YOU have. It's why you can see through the Church of Global Warming bullpucky.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Women are women, if you find one you like being with, does it really matter where she's from, or even how she looks? Most every one these days, have ancestors from other countries. Even the Native Americans, aren't as pure. I have no idea about myself, little bit many. Personally, I really don't care, as long as she speaks English fluently. Women sort of like to use language difference, in annoying ways at times, so I stay away from that on thing anymore. I mean real english, not that british crap either...

I think our President has great ideas and ambitious, and the Demoncrats are scared, and have been fight to keep him from getting anything done, because cleaning out the scum was on his list. It's not just the democrats either, but they play together most. Socialism doesn't work, and that's the direction they are pushing the country. The Russian Investigation should be coming to a close soon, wasn't really anything to it, just something Hillary made up during the campaign. Trump has tried to make good on most of his campaign promises, just lacks the leadership skills to get it done. He can't fire everyone that tells him 'NO', the American people have to fire the elected officials. As president, he has to work with them, to get what he wants. Patriotic? Compared to whom, the congressmen who bash the president? The people of America elected Trump, the majority liked his ideas, and want to see those changes. Are the Democrats being Patriotic, by denying us, what we voted for? The wall is a good idea, it's not going to stop illegal immigration, drug smuggling, or anything else, just make it a little tougher, more obvious, easier to catch. I do understand most illegals just want to work, but a lot of that tax-free money gets sent south of the border, to help more enter illegally. A lot of the hit-and-run accidents are done by illegals, no licence, no insurance, and deportation, prison, if the victim dies. Identity theft is such good business, not just robbing the origin owner, but it gets the illegals some documentation. About 8 years ago, everybody in Florida had to get new driver's licences, we had to bring proof, like our birth certificate, social security cards, and a few other items. I had to really dig, to find my birth certificate, got lucky on the SS card. Apparently, Puerto Ricans could sell their birth certificate for around $10k, and get legal copies, no problem.

James___ wrote:
Harvey,
What do you call giving corporations a large tax break

James___ wrote:
while saying you should pay more for health care?

James___ wrote:
That's capitalism pure and simple. It's what you are supporting.

James___ wrote:
I live in Kentucky and many Kentuckians are like you.
They want to be proud even if it hurts them financially. Kentucky receives the most federal dollars per capita of any state

James___ wrote:
in the US. Kentuckians are very Red (Republican).

James___ wrote:
This prevents them from saying how what Democrats have fought for helps them.

James___ wrote:
The press in Kentucky has even wondered about why people would be against those who do the most to help them.

James___ wrote:
Isn't pride a funny thing?

James___ wrote:
With me, I've been asking complete strangers online to help me. I figure that's the best chance of making my situation known.

James___ wrote:
If that happens then it might be found out that I'm not the only person this has been happening to. I find it difficult to believe that in our country that I'm the only person who's being obviously screwed by doctors.
What motivates me? My mother passed away from colorectal cancer 4 years before I had it. I diagnosed myself. Doctors told me I was healthy and a drug addict. And now with my intestines being positioned wrong, my sister was fed intravenously for over 20 years before she died because of it. I'm on the same path that she's on. With my mother, she told me how she got diagnosed and what her symptoms were. I didn't shut up when doctors told me to.

James___ wrote:
Some Democrats are wealthy but for the most part politics has become a class war.

James___ wrote:
The wealthy vs. the poor.

James___ wrote:
And since you're poor you support the wealthy.

James___ wrote:
This could hurt your retirement which includes social security, Medicare, etc. Are you willing to receive a lower social security payment while paying more for health care?

James___ wrote:
If you are then this would help President Trump and other Republicans. This is because people like you can pay for their generous corporate tax breaks.

James___ wrote:
And with your pride, I think you would be willing to do with less. People like Trump having more doesn't really make a difference in their life but for people like him I think it's about him. Seriously, if he's worth $2.5 Billion now would his being worth $3 Billion matter? Chances are it would increase the poverty rate.

James___ wrote:
You should learn about Brazil. I think it's 5% of their population controls 95% of it's wealth. It is the world's 7th largest economy while having a high poverty rate.

James___ wrote:
And with me, if things work out for me I'll probably move to another country. Americans just won't allow me to have an American woman in my life.

James___ wrote:
I suffered a hearing loss while serving in the Navy. I know it's nothing personal because people can only tell you how good they are by who they support or who they are better than. You know, keeping up with the Jones. The "classic" example, If you're neighbour buys a new car then you need to buy a better one. That is what defines Americans.

James___ wrote:
And since this is Christmas Eve, I will leave you (ya'all) with the preamble to the U.S. Constitution;
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It does say to form a more perfect union. Maybe one day Americans will consider what those words mean. Does it mean that only certain people should have it good or that we should strive to ensure the general welfare of ALL Americans?

James___ wrote:
Do you know what's sad Itn? You're Native American but can't say it. You're literally ashamed of who you are.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Can't imagine a Native American, ashamed of their heritage, it something most are proud of, not to mention 1/16th is usually enough to get tribal status, sometimes a paycheck... I can see anger, but never shame.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Taxes do more to create poverty, than anything else, except maybe laziness.

HarveyH55 wrote:
People with more money, tend to spend more of it, helps the economy, creates jobs, business opportunities.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I've never been a fan of the welfare system, never used it, or unemployment, though likely could have qualified a few times in my life. Think easy handouts, promote laziness, and high taxes tend to encourage more people to take the easy way out of working for a living.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Taxes aren't just about revenue for the government to spend frivolously, but also power and control.

HarveyH55 wrote:
You don't run a business to hopefully break even, you expect wealth. It costs money to run a business, and your profit depends on how well your product or service sells. When business is good, you can afford to hire more employees, grow your business. More people with jobs, means more people buying.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Taxes kind of screw that up, it's an added business expense, employees are expensive too, can't avoid paying taxes. Now it's true, that many consumers buy on credit, and get into trouble with debt, unlike our government, most don't buy, what they can't afford. Higher taxes, mean they can afford to buy less, bad for businesses.

HarveyH55 wrote:
ObamaCare, is about buying insurance, not health care. The mandate should never have been made a law, or been put on a ballot for the people to decide. Insurance has been the reason for for cost of health care to increase, as well as lawsuits. Insurance is a for-profit industry, should be no law, that compels you to buy a product you don't want or need. Would love to see the portfolios of some of our lawmakers who really pushed for ObamaCare, likely did very well. I've always had affordable insurance through work available, since my early 20's. Simply getting a job, would have given most the same opportunity. I've never had a job, that required a college degree, or even a high school diploma. Think if health insurance was important, a person would just take a job that offers it. Businesses need employees, better to keep employees, rather than keep hiring and training new ones. They'd offer a group plan eventually.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate Change, is just another tax plan.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The Carbon Credit economy is starting to get scary, as they work out the details. It's not just for businesses, but they are discussing carbon offsets for everyone. I'm pretty sure they are going to see a lot of fighting over it, too much tax as it is. The effects of ObamaCare already got people mad, don't think sneaking in a new tax is going to go well.

James___ wrote:
Harvey,
Nothing you posted can be verified. Not one word of it.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Why no tribe? I don't think you have to prove your bloodline, just that you have Native American blood. DNA doesn't differentiate tribes. Most tribes welcome new members graciously, least where I grew up 30 years ago. I was asked many times, guess I sort of look it, but know I don't have any close ties, unless there was some infidelity... Pays out pretty good, and it helps the tribe, since the government gambled most, if not all would have died off eventually. Greatly underestimated the will to survive, but the blood gets thinner with each generation, fewer newborns qualify. Money could never compensate for what was done in the past, but a lot of tribes still struggle, deserve a lot more.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Why no tribe?

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Why no tribe?

None needed. I was born in America. That makes me native American.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Why no tribe?

None needed. I was born in America. That makes me native American.

We should not be arguing the political BS surrounding Trump. The media and James are straight socialists who believe that the world owes them a living.

I have had SEVERAL times in my live in which my own health was seriously impaired and I never for one second believed that my own health should be in the hands of anyone else but my own.

You may not be able to afford to insure yourself and you may only be working jobs that do not pay enough for your to insure yourself. But that does NOT give you the right to demand that others do. Hell, even the homeless that are not from substance abuse both know and agree with that. Their complaints are that their jobs and the ability to rent or buy a home has been destroyed by the glut of illegal aliens in this country.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Why no tribe?

None needed. I was born in America. That makes me native American.

We should not be arguing the political BS surrounding Trump. The media and James are straight socialists who believe that the world owes them a living.

I have had SEVERAL times in my live in which my own health was seriously impaired and I never for one second believed that my own health should be in the hands of anyone else but my own.

You may not be able to afford to insure yourself and you may only be working jobs that do not pay enough for your to insure yourself. But that does NOT give you the right to demand that others do. Hell, even the homeless that are not from substance abuse both know and agree with that. Their complaints are that their jobs and the ability to rent or buy a home has been destroyed by the glut of illegal aliens in this country.

I've never had a job I really wanted, but I was always willing to take any job I could find. There was never anything stopping me for looking for a better job. I've had to work two part time jobs a few times, while looking for a more stable job. If you are in a job, that doesn't pay what you like, or provide the benefits you want, there are other jobs. Phone calls, Emails, resumes don't generally work, you have to go in person. It's work, inconvenient, but it puts your name on the top of the stack, they need someone, and you are there, you have the best chance of getting hired. You just leave your contact information, you go to the bottom of the stack, which they'll sift through, if the absolutely have to hire. Most people seem to think employers call around and offer jobs, see if anyone is interested. Long wait for those calls...

There really isn't a good reason to be homeless, plenty of charities and resources to get back into proper living, if desired. Some choose to live that way, as it's freedom. Freedom from bills, punching a clock, responsibilities. Other are substance abusers, and pretty much robbed and freeloaded of everyone they could, while enjoying the substance of choice, which most employers don't want in their workplace. Then there are a whole lot who have legal issues, some criminal, some financial (owe a lot of money). Any use of their identity, would of course put them in a position to face responsibility. Homeless people can get everything they need to survive, free. The can get a free pass on a lot of petty crimes, since jail is consider an upgrade, all health issues are the state's responsibility. Society would rather reward them, give them a place to stay, food stamp card, job operatunity, and hope it works out for the best.

The Constitution guarantees us the right to pursue what makes us happy, not guarantee that we'll get it, or handed to us free. We the people, are expected to work for what we want.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Why no tribe?

None needed. I was born in America. That makes me native American.

We should not be arguing the political BS surrounding Trump. The media and James are straight socialists who believe that the world owes them a living.

I have had SEVERAL times in my live in which my own health was seriously impaired and I never for one second believed that my own health should be in the hands of anyone else but my own.

You may not be able to afford to insure yourself and you may only be working jobs that do not pay enough for your to insure yourself. But that does NOT give you the right to demand that others do. Hell, even the homeless that are not from substance abuse both know and agree with that. Their complaints are that their jobs and the ability to rent or buy a home has been destroyed by the glut of illegal aliens in this country.

Wake wrote:
Well, there is plenty of good reasons that people are homeless in California.

Wake wrote:
There is a shortage of housing

Wake wrote:
and you have three illegal families living to a home so they can pay a lot more for housing than an American who tends to only live one family to a home.

Wake wrote:
I have a retired Navy friend who has two roommates living in the 3 bedroom house. But the rent is rising faster than they know why and pretty quick they will be on the street.

Wake wrote:
Even the parking space rent for a mobile home is now higher than the rent used to be for a 3 bedroom home. As long as we have some 30 million illegals in this country we are going to have these sorts of problems.

Wake wrote:
This has to end.

Wake wrote:
A large cause of drug addiction among Americans is that they do not feel like they are citizens in their own country.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Why no tribe?

None needed. I was born in America. That makes me native American.

We should not be arguing the political BS surrounding Trump. The media and James are straight socialists who believe that the world owes them a living.

I have had SEVERAL times in my live in which my own health was seriously impaired and I never for one second believed that my own health should be in the hands of anyone else but my own.

You may not be able to afford to insure yourself and you may only be working jobs that do not pay enough for your to insure yourself. But that does NOT give you the right to demand that others do. Hell, even the homeless that are not from substance abuse both know and agree with that. Their complaints are that their jobs and the ability to rent or buy a home has been destroyed by the glut of illegal aliens in this country.

Just whining, like you do.

Illegal immigrants are not working on anything better than construction jobs, fast food work, maids and gardeners, and as ranch hands for farming and ranching. They are not buying up expensive homes or condos. They live in the cheapest place they can find. They are the ones sponging off society, cluttering up the emergency rooms for free health care, and becoming members of some of the worse gangs. A very few actually open a business, usually to scam something on their own. At least they are working, in most cases.

The homeless are homeless because for one reason or another they either can't or don't want to hold a job (mostly the latter). If they can't, is usually for mental problems or drug addiction.

I just don't have a lot of compassion for homeless on the corner with their cardboard signs that are obviously able-bodied and doing this in the midst of 'Help Wanted' signs everywhere. They are scum, stealing and scamming for a living.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Why no tribe?

None needed. I was born in America. That makes me native American.

We should not be arguing the political BS surrounding Trump. The media and James are straight socialists who believe that the world owes them a living.

I have had SEVERAL times in my live in which my own health was seriously impaired and I never for one second believed that my own health should be in the hands of anyone else but my own.

You may not be able to afford to insure yourself and you may only be working jobs that do not pay enough for your to insure yourself. But that does NOT give you the right to demand that others do. Hell, even the homeless that are not from substance abuse both know and agree with that. Their complaints are that their jobs and the ability to rent or buy a home has been destroyed by the glut of illegal aliens in this country.

Just whining, like you do.

Illegal immigrants are not working on anything better than construction jobs, fast food work, maids and gardeners, and as ranch hands for farming and ranching. They are not buying up expensive homes or condos. They live in the cheapest place they can find. They are the ones sponging off society, cluttering up the emergency rooms for free health care, and becoming members of some of the worse gangs. A very few actually open a business, usually to scam something on their own. At least they are working, in most cases.

The homeless are homeless because for one reason or another they either can't or don't want to hold a job (mostly the latter). If they can't, is usually for mental problems or drug addiction.

I just don't have a lot of compassion for homeless on the corner with their cardboard signs that are obviously able-bodied and doing this in the midst of 'Help Wanted' signs everywhere. They are scum, stealing and scamming for a living.

Tend to agree that most illegals work cash only jobs, since they have no Social Security numbers, and there a penalties for hiring without. Most employers have to follow the laws, and can only hire illegals with stolen identities (another good reason for the wall). Lack of identification, also limits their housing choices, again, mainly cash, and a little less than legal. Can't even turn on utilities, unless they get creative. Usually, there is one, who has a green card, or even citizenship, who handles the legal stuff, like the home rental, phone, utilities, for a price. They really aren't such bad neighbors, mostly working or sleeping, generally quiet, and low key, very respectful. They don't tolerate those that cause problems, draw attention. Some states are different though. Remember reading about one on the west coast, that is like a sanctuary state, not just one city, the whole state. The get the illegals a Social Security number, so they can be prosecuted. Not sure how that works, strange state anyway, too many taxes. Most everywhere else, if you are having problems with illegals, there's a phone number, you can call in a tip. Not sure if you get a reward, but the government appreciates your help, since there are fines for those hiring illegals, or renting property, improves the revenue stream. Guess in sanctuary cities, they don't do that.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Mostly the younger ones, want to have fun, don't have a sense of responsibility. They want stuff, want cars, get drunk, have a good time. Cars are a big problem, easy enough to get, just can register them, no driver's licence, no insurance, no a lot of experience either. They have an accident, and take off, ditch the car, don't even stop. Some of the victims could have lived, if they would have been helped a few hours sooner... Hit and run accidents are a huge problem in Florida, a bad one (or more), pretty much daily.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Think Trump is doing it right, secure the border first, least slow down the flow, then deal with the ones already here. Think deportation should apply to the whole family, kids should be a reason to stay, since they were brought here illegally, or born to illegal parents. Maybe some special consideration at 18 years of age, but they should go back, maybe try the legal way after a few years.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Women are women, if you find one you like being with, does it really matter where she's from, or even how she looks? Most every one these days, have ancestors from other countries. Even the Native Americans, aren't as pure. I have no idea about myself, little bit many. Personally, I really don't care, as long as she speaks English fluently. Women sort of like to use language difference, in annoying ways at times, so I stay away from that on thing anymore. I mean real english, not that british crap either...

I think our President has great ideas and ambitious, and the Demoncrats are scared, and have been fight to keep him from getting anything done, because cleaning out the scum was on his list. It's not just the democrats either, but they play together most. Socialism doesn't work, and that's the direction they are pushing the country. The Russian Investigation should be coming to a close soon, wasn't really anything to it, just something Hillary made up during the campaign. Trump has tried to make good on most of his campaign promises, just lacks the leadership skills to get it done. He can't fire everyone that tells him 'NO', the American people have to fire the elected officials. As president, he has to work with them, to get what he wants. Patriotic? Compared to whom, the congressmen who bash the president? The people of America elected Trump, the majority liked his ideas, and want to see those changes. Are the Democrats being Patriotic, by denying us, what we voted for? The wall is a good idea, it's not going to stop illegal immigration, drug smuggling, or anything else, just make it a little tougher, more obvious, easier to catch. I do understand most illegals just want to work, but a lot of that tax-free money gets sent south of the border, to help more enter illegally. A lot of the hit-and-run accidents are done by illegals, no licence, no insurance, and deportation, prison, if the victim dies. Identity theft is such good business, not just robbing the origin owner, but it gets the illegals some documentation. About 8 years ago, everybody in Florida had to get new driver's licences, we had to bring proof, like our birth certificate, social security cards, and a few other items. I had to really dig, to find my birth certificate, got lucky on the SS card. Apparently, Puerto Ricans could sell their birth certificate for around $10k, and get legal copies, no problem.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I'd kind of like to watch at least some of the video, but an hour is much too long. I'm still using dial-up internet, and that hour, could be days. I do get the feeling that there is some group out there pulling the strings. Just too much dependence on government handouts, pretty much everywhere, and controlling energy production/usage is sort of the final act. We can revolt and protest, but we still are going to need food, water, energy. Too many like the freebies to put up much of a fight. It'll be rough going for a while, and the national debt will probably come into play, not to mention foreign interests. Won't be an easy revolution.

Tim the plumber wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
I'd kind of like to watch at least some of the video, but an hour is much too long. I'm still using dial-up internet, and that hour, could be days. I do get the feeling that there is some group out there pulling the strings. Just too much dependence on government handouts, pretty much everywhere, and controlling energy production/usage is sort of the final act. We can revolt and protest, but we still are going to need food, water, energy. Too many like the freebies to put up much of a fight. It'll be rough going for a while, and the national debt will probably come into play, not to mention foreign interests. Won't be an easy revolution.

Yep, it is a lot easier to kill the king when he has the obvious palace and stuff. When he is invisable and simply the rules you are lost already.

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
I'd kind of like to watch at least some of the video, but an hour is much too long. I'm still using dial-up internet, and that hour, could be days. I do get the feeling that there is some group out there pulling the strings. Just too much dependence on government handouts, pretty much everywhere, and controlling energy production/usage is sort of the final act. We can revolt and protest, but we still are going to need food, water, energy. Too many like the freebies to put up much of a fight. It'll be rough going for a while, and the national debt will probably come into play, not to mention foreign interests. Won't be an easy revolution.

Yep, it is a lot easier to kill the king when he has the obvious palace and stuff. When he is invisable and simply the rules you are lost already.

Not necessarily. After all, the independence of the United States was won against just such a set of rules. Remember, the king was in England, and no desire to assassinate the king was ever a critical part of that war.

HarveyH55 wrote:
But England wasn't passing out anything for free, just taking/taxing. Most of the long term handouts, seem to be gifts of the democrats. Many seemed justified for short term assistance in tough times, but should have ended. Turned into a charity, and they kept them going, even though there were jobs, a stable economy. Instead of people working harder, or dealing with hardships, local communities pulling together, families helping each other, they just let the government pick up the tab. It's not just welfare, healthcare, but the government picks up the tab for many other things, the don't have to, like education, agriculture subsidies, business incentives. Likely half the population benefits from a government handout or two. Those freebies are gone, if we go to war. It's not really our government that's bad, it's a group misusing, and corrupting it. It's not just the democrats, but they are the main ones abusing it. Really doubt a rebellion is going to work here, too many have a vested interest in keeping things as they are, we don't really know 'who' our enemies are, or where we'd go if successful. There is still a huge national debt, and likely several foreign powers, who may see an operatunity as well.

England gave up, mostly because of the long distance, and the had troubles closer to home, a little more pressing.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
I'd kind of like to watch at least some of the video, but an hour is much too long. I'm still using dial-up internet, and that hour, could be days. I do get the feeling that there is some group out there pulling the strings. Just too much dependence on government handouts, pretty much everywhere, and controlling energy production/usage is sort of the final act. We can revolt and protest, but we still are going to need food, water, energy. Too many like the freebies to put up much of a fight. It'll be rough going for a while, and the national debt will probably come into play, not to mention foreign interests. Won't be an easy revolution.

Yep, it is a lot easier to kill the king when he has the obvious palace and stuff. When he is invisable and simply the rules you are lost already.

Not necessarily. After all, the independence of the United States was won against just such a set of rules. Remember, the king was in England, and no desire to assassinate the king was ever a critical part of that war.

There was a clear target for revolution.

Without that target it is difficult to aim.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
But England wasn't passing out anything for free, just taking/taxing. Most of the long term handouts, seem to be gifts of the democrats. Many seemed justified for short term assistance in tough times, but should have ended. Turned into a charity, and they kept them going, even though there were jobs, a stable economy. Instead of people working harder, or dealing with hardships, local communities pulling together, families helping each other, they just let the government pick up the tab. It's not just welfare, healthcare, but the government picks up the tab for many other things, the don't have to, like education, agriculture subsidies, business incentives. Likely half the population benefits from a government handout or two. Those freebies are gone, if we go to war. It's not really our government that's bad, it's a group misusing, and corrupting it. It's not just the democrats, but they are the main ones abusing it. Really doubt a rebellion is going to work here, too many have a vested interest in keeping things as they are, we don't really know 'who' our enemies are, or where we'd go if successful. There is still a huge national debt, and likely several foreign powers, who may see an operatunity as well.

England gave up, mostly because of the long distance, and the had troubles closer to home, a little more pressing.

England didn't really give up. They tried again in 1812.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
But England wasn't passing out anything for free, just taking/taxing. Most of the long term handouts, seem to be gifts of the democrats. Many seemed justified for short term assistance in tough times, but should have ended. Turned into a charity, and they kept them going, even though there were jobs, a stable economy. Instead of people working harder, or dealing with hardships, local communities pulling together, families helping each other, they just let the government pick up the tab. It's not just welfare, healthcare, but the government picks up the tab for many other things, the don't have to, like education, agriculture subsidies, business incentives. Likely half the population benefits from a government handout or two. Those freebies are gone, if we go to war. It's not really our government that's bad, it's a group misusing, and corrupting it. It's not just the democrats, but they are the main ones abusing it. Really doubt a rebellion is going to work here, too many have a vested interest in keeping things as they are, we don't really know 'who' our enemies are, or where we'd go if successful. There is still a huge national debt, and likely several foreign powers, who may see an operatunity as well.

England gave up, mostly because of the long distance, and the had troubles closer to home, a little more pressing.

England didn't really give up. They tried again in 1812.

In 1812 the USA invaded Canada.

That you lost and had the white house burnt down in 1815 was just solid proof that we could have won the war but mostly did not want to.

Tim the plumber wrote:
The sparation of the 13 colonies was more of a civil war within the English/British political and social faction than anything else.
[quote]Tim the plumber wrote:
The passion for democracy was all over this faction but strongest in the Americas. Still plenty of it in the homeland. Thus the homeland was not behind the effort to surpress the rebels. Sort of like Vietnam but much more so politically.

HarveyH55 wrote:
War and political history were never a strong interest to me, but in school, they give little choice. I always thought it was because the Brits had to many other wars going on closer to home. These frontier colonies were far off, and costly, not easy to fight. Was just us 'Americans' they had to fight, but also the Native Americans (who were getting to really hate all the whites). Those bright red jackets were really easy targets too, brilliant idea...

James___ wrote:

YoucefZX wrote:

James___ wrote:

YoucefZX wrote:
I've written an article about the IPPC climate report and their final call to "save" the world from a climate catastrophe!

This article is in my opinion very interesting because in it I show that solar cycles are responsible for climate change. Thus solar activity rather than the CO2 myth.

You can also read what my opninion is about the reports of the sun being whiter and more intense.

Full article at: https://news-uncensored-fresh.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ippc-climate-report-and-their-final.html

Hope you enjoy it!

I'll give you something specific to consider. The IPCC changed the way it collected data because their report in 2013 stated that there was little warming between 1998 - 2013.
They didn't change any data before 1998.
They should've amended all previous data. They didn't because then they'd be back to little change between 1998 - 2013.
The only way temperatures can suddenly change is a geological event.
What did coincide with warming having paused was the other 2013 report the IPCC put out. They said that stratospheric ozone depletion had almost stopped between once again 1998 - 2013.
That could be a coincidence or ozone depletion was actually causing global warming. If so then melting glaciers might've created a feedback mechanism which the IPCC would claim as both AGW and greenhouse gases. Warming caused by ozone depletion is AGW and they'd say "see, we told you it was caused by man" even though they're actually talking about other causes.
If I accepted both IPCC reports from 2013 then I'd say that ozone depletion is what's responsible for global warming/climate change. But the scientists with the IPCC need to protect their credibility. When it was realized that CFC's were depleting the ozone layer, scientists became Rock Stars in a way. Global warming helps some to maintain that status. Just look at who's in the news. It's a drug that's addictive.

Stratospheric ozone depletion I read a few articles about it, it all sounds very convincing but when I look at the recurring ozone hole in Antarctica I can't help but think ozone has nothing to do with climate change.

The depletion in Antarctica is extreme yet it is the Arctic which is full of zone that is melting away... Can't be that simple, I truly believe either the sun or earth's weakening magnetic shield is at the core of climate change.

All the other factors can not have a significant impact, except for volcanoes which can have an immediate cooling effect but even so the effects fade within a few years.

What is happening to our planet is happening globbaly and it's a continious trend. For me the culprit is the sun, keep in mind that our planet is also connected magneticaly to the sun!

Any change on the sun has an immediate impact on our planet. Stratospheric ozone depletion is caused by sudden stratospehric warmings and stratospheric break ups so in essence it is an effect not a cause.

Arguments are easy to create. Between 1943 and 1978 global temperatures held steady. Atmospheric nuclear testing happened during those years.
In 1978 the Greenland Sea abyss started warming in a way that matches global warming. Many scientists are starting to consider hydrothermal vents and deep faults as sources of heat. itn is also a source of hot air.
With air, it's density is 1/1000th that of water. If the air temperature is 45 degrees F. and there's a 10 mph wind, it feels like 39.8 degrees F. If water follows the same rule as air does, then if water moves at 0.01 mph faster it's chill effect would be the same as air moving at 10 mph.
Ice core researchers have backed away from saying that CO2 caused the end of the last Ice Age. That had been the argument for CO2 based global warming. And if you look from France up into the Arctic above Scandinavia and Russia, you'll find it's warming and the Gulf Stream is slowing. It's possible that the entire thermohaline circulation is slowing.
If so, then Tectonic Plate rebound and heat from within the Earth itself might be upsetting the Thermohaline Circulation on a global scale. And if it's slowing then it could be dumping heat into the atmosphere.
If this is the case then we need to understand how glaciers play a role in this and if anything we are doing is influencing their melting. It's just that if we don't understand natural climate change then we can't know if we are influencing it.

edited to add; They say that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. If so then what's causing climate change should be most obvious there. And with the Greenland Sea abyss, it's warming is 10 times that of any other body of water. I'm not sure why but scientists have wanted to follow heat to it's source. I can only think that's frowned upon because it might not give them the answer that they want. Their graph matches global warming while CO2 doesn't.
This is where you could consider if heat being released from the Earth's core can slow the Gulf Stream/thermohaline circulation. I don't think they've thought of that yet.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm

YoucefZX wrote:

James___ wrote:

YoucefZX wrote:

James___ wrote:

YoucefZX wrote:
I've written an article about the IPPC climate report and their final call to "save" the world from a climate catastrophe!

This article is in my opinion very interesting because in it I show that solar cycles are responsible for climate change. Thus solar activity rather than the CO2 myth.

You can also read what my opninion is about the reports of the sun being whiter and more intense.

Full article at: https://news-uncensored-fresh.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ippc-climate-report-and-their-final.html

Hope you enjoy it!

I'll give you something specific to consider. The IPCC changed the way it collected data because their report in 2013 stated that there was little warming between 1998 - 2013.
They didn't change any data before 1998.
They should've amended all previous data. They didn't because then they'd be back to little change between 1998 - 2013.
The only way temperatures can suddenly change is a geological event.
What did coincide with warming having paused was the other 2013 report the IPCC put out. They said that stratospheric ozone depletion had almost stopped between once again 1998 - 2013.
That could be a coincidence or ozone depletion was actually causing global warming. If so then melting glaciers might've created a feedback mechanism which the IPCC would claim as both AGW and greenhouse gases. Warming caused by ozone depletion is AGW and they'd say "see, we told you it was caused by man" even though they're actually talking about other causes.
If I accepted both IPCC reports from 2013 then I'd say that ozone depletion is what's responsible for global warming/climate change. But the scientists with the IPCC need to protect their credibility. When it was realized that CFC's were depleting the ozone layer, scientists became Rock Stars in a way. Global warming helps some to maintain that status. Just look at who's in the news. It's a drug that's addictive.

Stratospheric ozone depletion I read a few articles about it, it all sounds very convincing but when I look at the recurring ozone hole in Antarctica I can't help but think ozone has nothing to do with climate change.

The depletion in Antarctica is extreme yet it is the Arctic which is full of zone that is melting away... Can't be that simple, I truly believe either the sun or earth's weakening magnetic shield is at the core of climate change.

All the other factors can not have a significant impact, except for volcanoes which can have an immediate cooling effect but even so the effects fade within a few years.

What is happening to our planet is happening globbaly and it's a continious trend. For me the culprit is the sun, keep in mind that our planet is also connected magneticaly to the sun!

Any change on the sun has an immediate impact on our planet. Stratospheric ozone depletion is caused by sudden stratospehric warmings and stratospheric break ups so in essence it is an effect not a cause.

Arguments are easy to create. Between 1943 and 1978 global temperatures held steady. Atmospheric nuclear testing happened during those years.
In 1978 the Greenland Sea abyss started warming in a way that matches global warming. Many scientists are starting to consider hydrothermal vents and deep faults as sources of heat. itn is also a source of hot air.
With air, it's density is 1/1000th that of water. If the air temperature is 45 degrees F. and there's a 10 mph wind, it feels like 39.8 degrees F. If water follows the same rule as air does, then if water moves at 0.01 mph faster it's chill effect would be the same as air moving at 10 mph.
Ice core researchers have backed away from saying that CO2 caused the end of the last Ice Age. That had been the argument for CO2 based global warming. And if you look from France up into the Arctic above Scandinavia and Russia, you'll find it's warming and the Gulf Stream is slowing. It's possible that the entire thermohaline circulation is slowing.
If so, then Tectonic Plate rebound and heat from within the Earth itself might be upsetting the Thermohaline Circulation on a global scale. And if it's slowing then it could be dumping heat into the atmosphere.
If this is the case then we need to understand how glaciers play a role in this and if anything we are doing is influencing their melting. It's just that if we don't understand natural climate change then we can't know if we are influencing it.

edited to add; They say that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. If so then what's causing climate change should be most obvious there. And with the Greenland Sea abyss, it's warming is 10 times that of any other body of water. I'm not sure why but scientists have wanted to follow heat to it's source. I can only think that's frowned upon because it might not give them the answer that they want. Their graph matches global warming while CO2 doesn't.
This is where you could consider if heat being released from the Earth's core can slow the Gulf Stream/thermohaline circulation. I don't think they've thought of that yet.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm

Indeed CO2 is the least plausible explanation and it explains why folks like al gore ride on heavy diesel limo's...lol

YoucefZX wrote:
It's more than clear that the Arctic and Antarctica are melting because fo sea temperature rather than atmospheric conditions.

YoucefZX wrote:
The gulf stream is slowing down

YoucefZX wrote:
and significantly, surprisingly this slow down finds it's origin in Antarctica there cold water is held back by warmer waters.

YoucefZX wrote:
Cold water is thus held at the surface rather than sinking as it is supposed to...

YoucefZX wrote:
This is the reason why Antarctic ice is growing at the surface but overal Antarctica is melting away. (glaciers breaking up...)

YoucefZX wrote:
BTW the sun has a conveyor belt too internally which means that this event is magnetic in nature.

James___ wrote:

YoucefZX wrote:

James___ wrote:

YoucefZX wrote:
I've written an article about the IPPC climate report and their final call to "save" the world from a climate catastrophe!

This article is in my opinion very interesting because in it I show that solar cycles are responsible for climate change. Thus solar activity rather than the CO2 myth.

You can also read what my opninion is about the reports of the sun being whiter and more intense.

Full article at: https://news-uncensored-fresh.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ippc-climate-report-and-their-final.html

Hope you enjoy it!

I'll give you something specific to consider. The IPCC changed the way it collected data because their report in 2013 stated that there was little warming between 1998 - 2013.
They didn't change any data before 1998.
They should've amended all previous data. They didn't because then they'd be back to little change between 1998 - 2013.
The only way temperatures can suddenly change is a geological event.
What did coincide with warming having paused was the other 2013 report the IPCC put out. They said that stratospheric ozone depletion had almost stopped between once again 1998 - 2013.
That could be a coincidence or ozone depletion was actually causing global warming. If so then melting glaciers might've created a feedback mechanism which the IPCC would claim as both AGW and greenhouse gases. Warming caused by ozone depletion is AGW and they'd say "see, we told you it was caused by man" even though they're actually talking about other causes.
If I accepted both IPCC reports from 2013 then I'd say that ozone depletion is what's responsible for global warming/climate change. But the scientists with the IPCC need to protect their credibility. When it was realized that CFC's were depleting the ozone layer, scientists became Rock Stars in a way. Global warming helps some to maintain that status. Just look at who's in the news. It's a drug that's addictive.

Stratospheric ozone depletion I read a few articles about it, it all sounds very convincing but when I look at the recurring ozone hole in Antarctica I can't help but think ozone has nothing to do with climate change.

The depletion in Antarctica is extreme yet it is the Arctic which is full of zone that is melting away... Can't be that simple, I truly believe either the sun or earth's weakening magnetic shield is at the core of climate change.

All the other factors can not have a significant impact, except for volcanoes which can have an immediate cooling effect but even so the effects fade within a few years.

What is happening to our planet is happening globbaly and it's a continious trend. For me the culprit is the sun, keep in mind that our planet is also connected magneticaly to the sun!

Any change on the sun has an immediate impact on our planet. Stratospheric ozone depletion is caused by sudden stratospehric warmings and stratospheric break ups so in essence it is an effect not a cause.

Arguments are easy to create. Between 1943 and 1978 global temperatures held steady. Atmospheric nuclear testing happened during those years.
In 1978 the Greenland Sea abyss started warming in a way that matches global warming. Many scientists are starting to consider hydrothermal vents and deep faults as sources of heat. itn is also a source of hot air.
With air, it's density is 1/1000th that of water. If the air temperature is 45 degrees F. and there's a 10 mph wind, it feels like 39.8 degrees F. If water follows the same rule as air does, then if water moves at 0.01 mph faster it's chill effect would be the same as air moving at 10 mph.
Ice core researchers have backed away from saying that CO2 caused the end of the last Ice Age. That had been the argument for CO2 based global warming. And if you look from France up into the Arctic above Scandinavia and Russia, you'll find it's warming and the Gulf Stream is slowing. It's possible that the entire thermohaline circulation is slowing.
If so, then Tectonic Plate rebound and heat from within the Earth itself might be upsetting the Thermohaline Circulation on a global scale. And if it's slowing then it could be dumping heat into the atmosphere.
If this is the case then we need to understand how glaciers play a role in this and if anything we are doing is influencing their melting. It's just that if we don't understand natural climate change then we can't know if we are influencing it.

edited to add; They say that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. If so then what's causing climate change should be most obvious there. And with the Greenland Sea abyss, it's warming is 10 times that of any other body of water. I'm not sure why but scientists have wanted to follow heat to it's source. I can only think that's frowned upon because it might not give them the answer that they want. Their graph matches global warming while CO2 doesn't.
This is where you could consider if heat being released from the Earth's core can slow the Gulf Stream/thermohaline circulation. I don't think they've thought of that yet.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130925102833.htm

YoucefZX wrote:
Look no further the magnetic north pole moves at 55km per year towards Siberia!

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1070131/north-pole-canada-siberia-moving

YoucefZX wrote:
I'm not so sure however as the cause of this sudden wandering, most likely our solar system is under the influence of a magnetic force form interstellar space.

Into the Night wrote:

YoucefZX wrote:
Look no further the magnetic north pole moves at 55km per year towards Siberia!

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1070131/north-pole-canada-siberia-moving

As is so often the case, the UK news is wrong.

The magnetic pole is currently moving at about 10km per year toward the geographic north pole, not Siberia. It's current location is somewhat NW of Greenland.

YoucefZX wrote:
I'm not so sure however as the cause of this sudden wandering, most likely our solar system is under the influence of a magnetic force form interstellar space.

It is not a sudden 'wandering'. It is a fairly steady progression that has been noted since the 1800's. Charts are routinely updated to reflect this change.