Climate Change 'skeptic' chosen to lead NOAA

Soldier of the Cross said:

I'm sorry I didn't make it clear. I'm referring to the politicians and liberal elites who only use it as a way to get more power. I'm not talking about the average person.

Click to expand...

....to get more power. Well, one could make that argument about any issue. It's an meaningless argument.

wing2000 said:

....to get more power. Well, one could make that argument about any issue. It's an meaningless argument.

Click to expand...

Prove it isn't true. Power is all they care about.

Soldier of the Cross said:

Here's a simple experiment for you to do. You can do it now. Get a pitcher. Fill it halfway with water. Mark the water level with a piece of tape. Then add a few handfuls of ice. Mark the new water level with another piece of tape. Then when the ice has melted, see how much the water has risen.

Click to expand...

Which demonstrates what happens when the ice floating in the Arctic ocean melts.

Now do this; Get a pitcher. Fill it halfway with water. Mark the water level with a piece of tape. Then place some ice on a surface that will drain into the pitcher and let the ice cubes melt. Mark the new water level with a piece of tape.

That represents what happens when the ice ON Greenland, the Antarctic and continental glaciers all melt.

See the difference?

MIDutch said:

Climate Change: Overwhelming Scientific Evidence

Click to expand...

Of course.

The first rule of climate change is that you can't stop climate change. Planets with unchanging climates are not capable of supporting life.

Soldier of the Cross said:

I'm sorry I didn't make it clear. I'm referring to the politicians and liberal elites who only use it as a way to get more power. I'm not talking about the average person.

Click to expand...

I see. So you believe that average people, such as myself and my scientist friend, are being used by the liberal elites to gain more power? How do you feel this is working? How does trying to limit the damaging effects of climate change differ from past issues such as acid rain and the ozone issue created by CFC's?

KarateCowboy said:

Of course.

The first rule of climate change is that you can't stop climate change. Planets with unchanging climates are not capable of supporting life.

Click to expand...

And you know this how?

Bobber said:

But you see that's just the thing. Trump, his supporters and the New Republican Party feel Trump is protecting the institutions. For the very reason that Pelosi didn't want Trump to have the right to go to the Supreme Court in issues about witnesses in the impeachment demonstrates the Dems' willingness to do away with the Institutions at least in my view.

Click to expand...

Trump appointed people to lead institutions who were expressly opposed to the mission of those institutions. Here are just two examples:

Scott Pruitt, who was actively opposed to environmental regulations and the EPA, was appointed to lead the institution that he had been fighting for years. He hated the EPA and had never in his life been an advocate for any kind of protections or regulations to keep our air and water clean. He was appointed for the purpose of removing environmental protections so that the fossil fuel industry could make more money, unimpeded by laws that protect Americans from pollution.

Betsy DeVos, appointed by Trump to lead the Department of Education, is opposed to public education and has long been an advocate for privatizing education. She is not an educator and has no experience in public schools. She was appointed so that she could promote privatization of education and weaken the department.

The simple fact is that Republicans want to privatize much of the federal government. They do, in fact, want to shrink or eliminate many of these institutions and are not secretive about it.

Bobber said:

You don't mention exactly in what way they're harassing individuals. Perhaps you can elaborate on that.

Click to expand...

. I have t yet talked to any of the canvasses first hand, but they are approaching the canvassers (who work alone so that they can be socially distant)and telling them that they don’t want them there and that they should go home, in colorful language and in groups which is very scary for our canvassers.

Bobber said:

And to be fair can we not accept you're always going to have people, dumb people do this from both sides? Reports are too that some destroy Trump related things as well. You can see pictures in the link.

Click to expand...

There is not a history of democrats trying to physically intimidate voters or canvassers, no.

Bobber said:

There's nothing in you which can acknowledge there will be people doing this from the other side as well? You didn't see what was happening outside of Trump rallys in 2016? You don't see that there were agitators seeking always to create fear? As for Trump supporters being armed....yeah maybe, perhaps...who knows. If you have 100 million voters you'll always have somebody doing something. Is there really a need to paint everybody with a negative brush?

Click to expand...

I’m not making a guess or a prediction. There are Trump supporters organizing online with specific plans to show up at the polls, with guns, to somehow try to “stop” voter fraud and intimidate voters. There are no democrats planning anything like that. The Republicans have been busted a number of times admitting that the more people vote, the less of a chance they have at winning, and that’s not because of illegal votes, it’s just because more Americans identify with democrats.

cow451 said:

Here is a simple article for you:
Presently, glaciers occupy about 10 percent of the world's total land area, with most located in polar regions like Antarctica, Greenland, and the Canadian Arctic.

Click to expand...

Also warming waters expand meaning it's not just the ice melting.

MIDutch said:

Which demonstrates what happens when the ice floating in the Arctic ocean melts.

Now do this; Get a pitcher. Fill it halfway with water. Mark the water level with a piece of tape. Then place some ice on a surface that will drain into the pitcher and let the ice cubes melt. Mark the new water level with a piece of tape.

That represents what happens when the ice ON Greenland, the Antarctic and continental glaciers all melt.

See the difference?

Click to expand...

don't forget to warm the water up 2-3 degrees.

Nithavela said:

Please don't put goading emojis on my posts when you disagree with them.

If you really cared about winning you would do likewise.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about. Where have i goaded you?

Soldier of the Cross said:

Prove it isn't true. Power is all they care about.

Click to expand...

Are you asking someone to prove a negative?

Soldier of the Cross said:

It certainly doesn't help that the forests haven't been touched and cleaned up at all.

Click to expand...

Amazing that forests have been able to survive millions of years without us humans cleaning them up at all.

MIDutch said:

And you know this how?

Click to expand...

Well, first, 100% of all planets with life on them have an established history of consistent climate change over hundreds of millions of years.

Second you can look at planets such a Mars, or even the moon or other moons, which have such a consider y climate that there is little variation in both average temperature, rainfall, and humidity, as well as very consistent standard deviations for those measures. They do not have life.

This is all very easily accessible data and things you normally read about in junior high education

Sparagmos said:

Are you asking someone to prove a negative?

Click to expand...

It kind of blows my mind that some people think it's somehow impossible to prove a negative. I mean, how do you know when you run out of milk or toilet paper? Do you just keep spinning the cardboard tube, wondering when more toilet paper will appear? "Well gee it's impossible to prove that toilet paper is not on the roll anymore, so I'll just keep spinning!"?

Soldier of the Cross said:

All I said was not cleaning it doesn't help. I didn't say it was the sole reason.

Click to expand...

You read all of those links in under 4 minutes?
Wow!

KarateCowboy said:

It kind of blows my mind that some people think it's somehow impossible to prove a negative. I mean, how do you know when you run out of milk or toilet paper? Do you just keep spinning the cardboard tube, wondering when more toilet paper will appear? "Well gee it's impossible to prove that toilet paper is not on the roll anymore, so I'll just keep spinning!"?

Click to expand...

Ok, go ahead. Prove to me that there is no toilet paper in your house.

Sparagmos said:

Ok, go ahead. Prove to me that there is no toilet paper in your house.

Click to expand...

Well I recently stocked up but it's not that hard. You'd just have to check each room for toilet paper.

I can't believe I'm actually debating this. Even my cat can understand the concept. He knows when there is no food in his bowl and bothers me incessantly.

Like, if someone told you there are no fully grown elephants in his pants pocket, you would say "that's impossible to prove"?

KarateCowboy said:

Well I recently stocked up but it's not that hard. You'd just have to check each room for toilet paper.

I can't believe I'm actually debating this. Even my cat can understand the concept. He knows when there is no food in his bowl and bothers me incessantly.

Like, if someone told you there are no fully grown elephants in his pants pocket, you would say "that's impossible to prove"?

Click to expand...

But can you prove to another person that there is no toilet paper in your house? How would you go about doing that?

You raised the example.


There are some negatives that can be proven. But generally, asking someone to prove a negative is an incredibly lazy and unfair way to conduct an argument. It’s the person making the positive assertion that should show proof, and in almost all cases it is far easier to prove a positive than a negative.

Sparagmos said:

I have no idea what you are talking about. Where have i goaded you?

Click to expand...

By acting like my post was just a joke. I think that counts as goading.

Nithavela said:

By acting like my post was just a joke. I think that counts as goading.

Click to expand...

Ah. You weren’t trying to be funny when you said that Dems were being goody two shoes for not playing dirty? I sincerely thought you were.