President Biden is leaving Trump a shocking mess to clean up

[eleos1954]

No I don't find it odd. When you run for president, anybody and everybody's life is gone through with a fine tooth comb. With that said, his city paper, the NYTimes, has been running articles of him years before. In example screwing contractors on a regular basis prior to his announcement. His bankrupt casinos. His six bankruptcies. His racial discrimination at his hotel. The Trump U fraud lawsuits started six years before he declared. The man use to call into newspapers faking to be someone else, clumsily disguising his voice to talk about how rich he was. He was mocked, not admired. And no, come Russian, Trump officials were working with Russians regarding the election. Paul Manafort point blank admitted it. Roger Stone was working with a Russian cutout. Don Jr was in Trump tower with Russians working to obtain Russian info helpful to the campaign. Those are facts, not propaganda.

"facts" according tp who? People lie .... period ... we never really know what the "facts" really are.

 

[eleos1954]

It simply isn't true that Trump has not been extensively scrutinized until he became political. Perhaps it is because you don't live in New York or pay attention to the financial page that you are unfamiliar with his shenanigans? No, he was not pretty much liked or admired by those of us familiar with him before he became a reality TV star.

Wayne Barrett from the Village Voice covered his time in NY pretty extensively. Barrons & the Wall Street Journal covered his finance deals and how he had an analyst fired for properly analyzing his casino deals (predicting that they were unsustainable). Spy Magazine covered his social climbing (famously labeling him not a term of admiration). The NYPost Page 6, their gossip/society page, covered him a bit more fawningly - he was known to pretend to be his own publicist calling in "tips" so he could read about himself.

Just because you were unaware of his history doesn't mean it didn't exist.


Not a hoax, not devised by Clinton or the Democratic Party or the news media. Have you not read the Mueller Report (redacted by Minion Barr)?
Are you not aware of all the convictions that came out of the investigation?


Seek and ye shall find?

This movie?

What I know is people lie ... it's all a maybe or maybe not ... the other thing I know is what will play out is what God says how it will .... the rest of the goings on in the world will lead up to that end. God is in control no matter how out of control the world may seem.

 

[Bradskii]

What I know is people lie ... it's all a maybe or maybe not ... the other thing I know is what will play out is what God says how it will .... the rest of the goings on in the world will lead up to that end. God is in control no matter how out of control the world may seem.

You know that if a river keeps on flooding then we build levees? If there's a forrest fire we put it out? If there's a chemical spill we clean it up? If there's a dangerous virus then we design vaccines. What we don't do is shrug our shoulders and say 'what will play out is what God says how it will'.

 

[eleos1954]

You know that if a river keeps on flooding then we build levees? If there's a forrest fire we put it out? If there's a chemical spill we clean it up? If there's a dangerous virus then we design vaccines. What we don't do is shrug our shoulders and say 'what will play out is what God says how it will'.

No ... we don't shrug our shoulders .... we make decisions that indeed effect society and our planet and to many degrees effect what happens on our planet ... we are temporary stewards of this earth until the return of the Lord and we do not know when that is. As believers ... it's just that we understand that planet earth is ultimately a temporary arrangement ... that does not mean we don't do anything ... as we also understand we live on this planet until the return of the Lord ... of which is unknown to us.

We are indeed caretakers of the planet until the Lord returns and we don't "shrug our shoulders" about these matters.

 

[Bradskii]

No ... we don't shrug our shoulders .... we make decisions that indeed effect society and our planet and to many degrees effect what happens on our planet ... we are temporary stewards of this earth until the return of the Lord and we do not know when that is. As believers ... it's just that we understand that planet earth is ultimately a temporary arrangement ... that does not mean we don't do anything ... as we also understand we live on this planet until the return of the Lord ... of which is unknown to us.

We are indeed caretakers of the planet until the Lord returns and we don't "shrug our shoulders" about these matters.

Then I have no idea of the point of your post.

 

[DaisyDay]

What I know is people lie ... it's all a maybe or maybe not ... the other thing I know is what will play out is what God says how it will .... the rest of the goings on in the world will lead up to that end. God is in control no matter how out of control the world may seem.

People also tell the truth. It's up to us to pay attention to how well actions correlate to words and how it bears out over time.

 

[Say it aint so]

"facts" according tp who? People lie .... period ... we never really know what the "facts" really are.

Cognitive dissonance.

 

[Gene2memE]

yes that IS what I said "OVER 50 years now" which means "longer than".

Yes, I was agreeing with you.

90% lol proven...no it isn't.

Sure it is. Go and read virtually any study on the causes of recent global warming.

US EPA: "This record shows that the climate varies naturally over a wide range of time scales, but this variability does not explain the observed warming since the 1950s. Rather, it is extremely likely (> 95%) that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming."

US Fourth National Climate Assessment: "The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 92%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence)."

Ribes et al (2016) "Consistent with the last IPCC assessment report, we find that most of the observed warming over this period (+0.65 K) is attributable to anthropogenic [human made] forcings (+0.67, +/- 0.12 K, 90 % confidence range), with a very limited contribution from natural forcings (-0.01, +/- 0.02K).


Like I said - more than 90% of the present warming is the result of human activities.

100% of climate change occurs because it has occurred previously (proven through science) and will continue....cycles in the sun....it is natural. The earth has heating and cooling periods throughout history.

Climate change has occurred previously. Climate change always occurs. Whats concerning is the rate, extent and direction of the current change.

If you look at natural cycles, the earth should be in a very, very mild cooling period. But, instead we're in a warming period.

The rate of warming is unlike anything our species has experienced. The temperature of the planet is going up faster than any time since humans became a species. It may be going up faster than any time within the last 20 million years.

The extent of warming is also a problem. Not only is temperature going up rapidly, its going to continue going up for at least another century. Atmospheric carbon has a warming impact of at least 100 years, although better than 75% the warming impact is experienced during the first 30 years.

If we cut all GHG emissions now, our great-great-great grandchildren will be experiencing warming from the carbon that we burned.

Like I said, HUMAN change like city smog is a LOCAL thing, not global.

It's both. Human effects are local and global - those things are not mutually exclusive, and can be mutually reinforcing for some impacts.

Here's the global atmospheric carbon level from four different sites:

https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/global_trend.pdf

If human changes are local, then why is atmospheric carbon growing equally rapidly in Hawaii, the Northern tip of Alaska, the South Pole and American Samoa?



I could cite data and studies and experts until I'm blue in the face, but I suspect that you're not going to reverse course are you?

 

[rambot]

No ... we don't shrug our shoulders .... we make decisions that indeed effect society and our planet and to many degrees effect what happens on our planet ... we are temporary stewards of this earth until the return of the Lord and we do not know when that is. As believers ... it's just that we understand that planet earth is ultimately a temporary arrangement ... that does not mean we don't do anything ... as we also understand we live on this planet until the return of the Lord ... of which is unknown to us.

We are indeed caretakers of the planet until the Lord returns and we don't "shrug our shoulders" about these matters.

And yet too many christians ABSOLUTELY do shrug their shoulders and say either "It's God's plan" or "Humans can't affect the planet that much"; the latter statement being (what they believe) is a scientific rebuttal.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

US EPA: "This record shows that the climate varies naturally over a wide range of time scales, but this variability does not explain the observed warming since the 1950s. Rather, it is extremely likely (> 95%) that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming."

US Fourth National Climate Assessment: "The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 92%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence)."

Climate change has occurred previously. Climate change always occurs. Whats concerning is the rate, extent and direction of the current change.

I could cite data and studies and experts until I'm blue in the face, but I suspect that you're not going to reverse course are you?

"Likely" does not mean it is...it means it MAY. So cars with cats have basically stopped all these emissions, so why it is not better IYO (although you know I do not agree)...??

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

And I don't believe you have the first clue of how the scientific community works i

Oh, yes I do...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Considering the mountains of factual evidence you were provided with, I'm curious why you didn't really make an effort to address it.

Repeating yourself isn't addressing anything and the Dunning Kruger level of knowledge you are showing could be easily resolved if you addressed the points previously made.


There is 0 precedent in trackable natural history that shows temperature changes on earth on THIS TIMEFRAME (ie....decades). Nothing even close really.

The Dunning and Kruger experiment did find a real effect. Most people think they are better than average. That is all Dunning and Kruger showed. The reality is that people have an innate ability to gauge their competence and knowledge. To claim otherwise suggests, incorrectly, that much of the population is hopelessly ignorant.

 

[KCfromNC]

"facts" according tp who?

Decided court cases, for one.

 

[Astrid]

You know that if a river keeps on flooding then we build levees? If there's a forrest fire we put it out? If there's a chemical spill we clean it up? If there's a dangerous virus then we design vaccines. What we don't do is shrug our shoulders and say 'what will play out is what God says how it will'.

If “what will play out..” becomes the attitude
of Americans, they will presently become aa third world
vassal state of China.

Que sera sera

 

[Astrid]

"Likely" does not mean it is...it means it MAY. So cars with cats have basically stopped all these emissions, so why it is not better IYO (although you know I do not agree)...??

Emissions of greenhouse gases keep increasing overall.

( we know you wont…)

 

[rambot]

"Likely" does not mean it is...it means it MAY.

95% likelihood

The Dunning and Kruger experiment did find a real effect. Most people think they are better than average. That is all Dunning and Kruger showed.

Well. This is hands down my favorite AND the most deliciously ironic take on Dunning Kruger I have ever seen.

I'd bet they would give each other a hearty pat on the back after reading it

The reality is that people have an innate ability to gauge their competence and knowledge

How can they if they dont know what they're judging up against?
Have you written a university level climatology final or even take a class? No

To claim otherwise suggests, incorrectly, that much of the population is hopelessly ignorant.

well considering rhe breadth of knowledge that climatologists have that average lay people do not have, I would say that point is accurate.
Do you believe climatologists simply play pinochle and try to find ways to take down capitalism while they go to schooling to learn about climate for 8 years?

No. They learn things. Many things you and i do not know. Its pretty insane to think otherwise really.

"You do not know what you do not know"

 

[wing2000]

If Joe Biden were a decent fellow and a patriot, he would be using his remaining weeks as president to fix some of the disasters he has created. Instead, he is doing just the opposite.
Biden and his apparatchiks are trying to spend every last dollar authorized by the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act so that the Trump administration cannot recapture those funds. The IRA gave the White House some $375 billion in taxpayer funds to be strewn about the country as they see fit, under the total control of former Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/5025207-biden-leaves-mess-for-trump/

What a sad state they have imposed on our country.

Apparently many Republicans are happy to spend the money...

The Inflation Reduction Act has channeled billions of dollars to renewable-energy projects across the country, with Republican-led states getting the lion’s share of the funding. …

“There are too many things in there that are too important to too many constituencies” to throw out the law, said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R., N.D.).
A clash between Trump and congressional Republicans over the fate of the IRA would mark a high-stakes showdown determining the fate of hundreds of projects, billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs. It would pit Trump against some of his staunchest oil-and-gas supporters, who have plowed money into projects funded by the climate law, while presenting another test of how hard GOP lawmakers are willing to push back against the president-elect.


President Biden:
“Will the next president stop a new electric battery factory in Liberty, North Carolina, that will create thousands of jobs? Will he shut down a new solar factory being built in Carterville, Georgia? Are they going to do that?” He made a convincing case that “a construction boom and a manufacturing boom all across America … [is] just going to continue to pick up with the billions of dollars being invested.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/12/12/democrats-accomplishments-raimondo-buttigieg-shadow-cabinet-trump-economy/

 

[rambot]

Some Republicans: Oh no! American infrastructure is getting built!!! Stop it!!


MAG by not improving it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So cars with cats have basically stopped all these emissions, so why it is not better

Catalytic converters do not remove carbon dioxide. Combustion engines produce carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.

95% likelihood

Better than that. It's a 95% likelihood that human influence is responsible for '92%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change.'

That's the peak of the 'Bell Curve' of their analysis. I don't know the exact shape of their analysis, but that roughly means there's a 99.7% chance of the human effect being within three standard deviations, so maybe like 85% to 130%.

The odds of human activity being responsible for 'only' 75% of the observed climate change are vanishingly small. And the odds of humans not being responsible at all are so small, the numbers involved are only seen in fallacious arguments against evolution.

.

 

[rambot]

Catalytic converters do not remove carbon dioxide. Combustion engines produce carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.


Better than that. It's a 95% likelihood that human influence is responsible for '92%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change.'

That's the peak of the 'Bell Curve' of their analysis. I don't know the exact shape of their analysis, but that roughly means there's a 99.7% chance of the human effect being within three standard deviations, so maybe like 85% to 130%.

The odds of human activity being responsible for 'only' 75% of the observed climate change are vanishingly small. And the odds of humans not being responsible at all are so small, the numbers involved are only seen in fallacious arguments against evolution.

View attachment 358488.

AGW deniers: