The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

And we care....why?

Can i ask what the point of this reply of yours is? You say that climate can't be predicted because weather can't be predicted, but they're different things and in fact are rooted in different fields (statistics vs fluid dynamics).

I don't have the time or desire to convince you global warming is real. The discussion is filled with more bullshit -propagated both by people who deny it and make up **** and people who try to convince others it's real and dont know their ****- than i can stomach.

So i don't care that you ignore facts or don't care for them, but at least know that weather and climate are different things.

Predicting the overall climate and using that to make long, drawn out predictions is ludicrous at this level of technology. Trying to make specific predictions from that information is also nonsensical.

We have enough to draw what is essentially a modified exponential curve with only a few dense data points.

There's enough bullshit on both sides that I say we don't deliberately kill off the environment and don't regulate everyone who produces greenhouse gases.

Live and let live, basically.

That's not how live and let live works.

Y'know, because of the whole "killing the world" kinda thing.

The concept isn't exactly hard to understand though: the more co2 is in the atmosphere the more the suns energy is trapped below it => more heat stays. Easy enough? I don't understand why anybody would not agree on that.

Also fun fact: I happen to have some basic archaeology lessons at university and we can in fact clearly measure a "massive" (nothing compared to today obviously) surge in atmosphere-co2 around the time humans started metal "industries". That was like 3000 to 4000 years ago. So even a bunch of bronze/iron age humans managed to burn enough forests to do that.
Saying humans are not able to have a large scale affect on earth by today is kinda crazy imho. I mean look around you. It's hard to find a place of untouched nature.

Not to mention that even if you TOTALY ignore climate change it turns out that not regulating toxic exhausts is a bad idea. .
Even your lungs can get cancer from toxic dirt in the air mered. You don't want that.

Hm? Oh you must have confused me with a simpleton. Duh, pollution is bad. Duh, open fire coal plants are bad. Duh, industrial waste is bad.

Im pointing to the average clean coal and clean oil businesses that certain politians want taxed into oblivion by climate change laws.

Colin, we don't know that the uptick in co2 production was caused by humanities entrance into the stone age. We have two data points that are closely related by time. Drawing a line between them for scientific reasons isn't science - it's speculation.

The same is true today. We guesstimate that we have added x amount of co2 into the atmosphere. We can't know for sure, and we also cannot measure the effects of that co2 directly.

Yes, we can measure a temperature change, but without 4-500 years of accurate weather data, we cannot even begin to understand if the current trends are anything but a natural cycle. We have maybe a hundred and fifty years of accurate data, and it's not a continuous set. Any climate changes recorded now cannot be considered dangerous or even threatening without further data.

Don't believe me? Look up statistics and correlation. Read up on Climategate.

That's the excuse the UN wants to use to regulate my breathing. Hells to the naw.

And the dissapointing thing is, this is the kind of thing you actually believe.

You have N cars. Eachcar releases at minimum X amount of CO2.
Apply simply grade school math and you can get a good ideaof the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere.
The general affect of CO2 in the atmosphere is also known.
Simple conclusion: more co2 is making it warmer.

Also lol at "clean" coal. Clean. Lol. Stop believing corporate lies

Hmmm I'm sure there's not something like clean coal or oil.
Since when is the Climate lobby more powerful then the Oil lobby?

So I did look up Climategate as you said, @mered4 . In the top ten results, most of them say that the Climategate e-mails were the unfiltered frank discussions among scientist. So they were sometimes rude to each other, badmouthed climate sceptics and used words such as "trick" and "hide". Subsequently, nine different independent committees investigated the e-mails. All nine of them cleared the scientists of any wrongdoing. The tricking and hiding just referred to techniques to process data better, with "trick" just meaning a clever technique to save a bunch of complicated work but gives the same result.

In the top ten, I did find two sources that did claim that Climategate was evidence of a global conspiracy of climate scientist, but the first was from something called "conservapedia", which seems to be an attempt by hardcore Republicans to provide a heavily biased version of Wikipedia. Actually, their article about "Barack Hussein Obama II (reportedly born in Honolulu, Hawaii)" is quite hilarious. The other is about some book called "Climategate" written by Susskind.

From what I gather, it was mostly Sarah Palin and James Inhofe that saw in these leaked emails the "smoking gun" proving "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people". The most popular e-mail they refer to says: "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith [Briffa]'s, to hide the decline.", which is used as evidence for this hoax. But it actually refers to a problem with obtaining temperature readings from tree rings, which turned out to be not as accurate as was previously thought. Correlating actual temperatures over the last 50 years to the temperatures indicated by the tree rings over the same period showed a divergence that is yet to be explained. Also at the time the e-mail was written (1999), there had not yet been any suggestions of temperature decline. In fact, 1998 was apparently the warmest year on record at the time.

And I used DuckDuckGo to not get trapped in those bubbles that Google and co use to give one more relevant search results but in the end effectively reinforces one's own believes.

I'm curious to know what your main data sources are though. Where do you get your news? From the people around you? Or certain tv/radio stations? Or politicians such as Sarah Palin? Facebook and Twitter? I'm simply trying to understand where you are coming from. The difference in opinions between you and most other people in this forum is so mindbogglingly large that I just want to know why that could be.

I have some other questions for you too, though they are kind of loaded and could explode this discussion even more, so feel free to ignore them.
- Do you think Obama was really born in Hawaii?
- Do you think Obama is secretly a Muslim?
- Do you think evolution is real or intelligent design?
- Do you think the Earth is only 6000 years old?
- Do you think that homosexuality is a mental condition that should be treated?
Sorry for treating you almost like a scientific specimen, but I'm just really curious about your worldview. In any case, feel free to ignore these questions (not that I need to tell you what to ignore or not of course )

Lol.

Why is this disappointing? The UN has consistently shown a blatant desire to gain control over the most powerful countries in the world for little to no reason other than more power. They often side with socialist and left leaning countries. They often make decisions which benefit them in the short term politically. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. Until the UN is made up of directly elected leaders, I won't trust them as far as I can throw them. They do not have our best interests at heart.

Sure I'll answer your basically meaningless questions because you want confirmation that I'm certifiable! s

Idiots. You can't even take me seriously. Lol. I've tolerated yalls views. This is what I get? "You don't agree with me I guess you are crazy?"

What you're doing here, denim? This is the BS the media and the elites want us to do to each other so we fight and we bicker and we call each other extreme.

You can have whatever opinions you want on now government should be run. You can claim I should be taxed to my underwear because of starving children in Africa. I don't care. But the line I draw? It's where you try to go outside the government and call for global reach. That's the main issue I have with global warming/climate change. It's about power, not solving problems. If it was about solving problems, we'd be using more nuclear fission and have put more funding onto fusion.

I get my sources from online news sites and source material and my opinions from the brain God gave me. Don't insult me.

Lol.

Why is this disappointing? The UN has consistently shown a blatant desire to gain control over the most powerful countries in the world for little to no reason other than more power. They often side with socialist and left leaning countries. They often make decisions which benefit them in the short term politically. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. Until the UN is made up of directly elected leaders, I won't trust them as far as I can throw them. They do not have our best interests at heart.

[QUOTE="DeathByDenim, post: 1128832, member: 1786359"

I have some other questions for you too, though they are kind of loaded and could explode this discussion even more, so feel free to ignore them.
- Do you think Obama was really born in Hawaii?
- Do you think Obama is secretly a Muslim?
- Do you think evolution is real or intelligent design?
- Do you think the Earth is only 6000 years old?
- Do you think that homosexuality is a mental condition that should be treated?
Sorry for treating you almost like a scientific specimen, but I'm just really curious about your worldview. In any case, feel free to ignore these questions (not that I need to tell you what to ignore or not of course )[/QUOTE]
Sure I'll answer your basically meaningless questions because you want confirmation that I'm certifiable! s

Idiots. You can't even take me seriously. Lol. I've tolerated yalls views. This is what I get? "You don't agree with me I guess you are crazy?"

What you're doing here, denim? This is the BS the media and the elites want us to do to each other so we fight and we bicker and we call each other extreme.

You can have whatever opinions you want on now government should be run. You can claim I should be taxed to my underwear because of starving children in Africa. I don't care. But the line I draw? It's where you try to go outside the government and call for global reach. That's the main issue I have with global warming/climate change. It's about power, not solving problems. If it was about solving problems, we'd be using more nuclear fission and have put more funding onto fusion.

I get my sources from online news sites and source material and my opinions from the brain God gave me. Don't insult me.

It's almost like the "socialist" and "left leaning" countries occasionally might agree with the UN's principles when it comes to saving the Earth and other things like human rights. There's some kind of pattern here, I swear.

Crazy, I know.

Also, you can't gain control over the most powerful power blocs in the world without being a powerful power bloc yourself. I don't think you fundamentally understand what the UN is, or how it operates.

I'd say its regulating the effect a person can have on somebody else's breathing. If your factories/power plants are putting out enough gasses to effect a residential area that they don't own, they should be regulated to prevent that. Argue against global warming all you want, industrial pollution has measurable localized impact that should be minimized.

You seem to be against having the UN regulate what you breathe, yet fine with giving the right to somebody else. All output regulations do is prevent people from effecting you beyond a certain degree.

I don't understand the logic here. I'm about as far on the spectrum of "do not limit my rights" as it gets and this doesn't make sense.

And the reason we haven't been pushing nuclear mostly has to do with a treaty we have with Russia that limits how we can use radioactive materials. The EU has boatloads of nuclear and it works great. I wish a president would push to fix the issue, but the public doesn't care enough to push the politicians to change things in that area.

Rip the double post. Rip the failed quote. ;-;

Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you with my questions. I am really just at a loss at understanding you. Yes, from my point of view, denying climate change by humans is fairly crazy. I did try to see your point of view by looking up the climategate thing you suggested, but came to the conclusion that climategate wasn't really a thing according to the various sources I looked at, so I asked about your sources. Which should have come across that I do take you seriously and am trying to understand your point of view.

And there are people that hold the views that Obama is not actually an US citizen, which by the way Trump is (or used to be?) or that he is secretly a Muslim. So I was wondering where you draw the line at what is true and what is not. Didn't mean to make you angry. Which is why I already said that they were loaded questions that you should ignore if you wanted to. I hope that makes my intentions more clear?

Or is this the tactic you were talking about earlier where you try detract attention from the main point? Because you didn't say which news source and source material you use. And using a brain is fine and all that, but brains still rely on input.

Long time ago, but the context is clear. Perhaps i should have inserted "illegal" in front of immigrant to deliver the message better. It had nothing to do with legality. It had everything to do with labeling a certain demographic. The usage of "alien" in place of immigrant is discriminatory due to its meaning. (Aliens are considered invaders. Invaders are considered scary.)


Also not sure the murrica politics thread is appropriate for conspiracy theories...

On to actual Politics:

-Bernie's campaign is no longer for the presidency and is now only used for raising selected issues.

- The conversation of a contested convention is being talked about more. I do think its better to go through a contested convention rather than the utilitarian "mob rule" that many people assume is the system. After all, the population should be responsible for choosing delegates in their district to vote on their behalf if they so desire such a choice.

-Trump has mentioned a few times that he will be more "presidential" . If Trump becomes less intimidating to Bernie voters, he may gain alot of their vote. While his approval ratings are low in certain polls, I doubt the majority of people desire an establishment candidate like Hillary. Trump cannot win on republican voters alone in the upcoming election and I believe the majority of Bernie voters are the "fight corruption and make jobs" party. Both are sending a populist message.

- With Trump becoming more presidential, it will be interesting to see if it will have any impact on his policy. To some extent, I believe it will change alot of his stances towards certain policies that are considered drastic. If this is to be the case, I wonder how people will perceive his credibility. If people can "forgive and forget" many of his statements made in the primaries, there will be a stronger case for a Trump presidency since many of his policies wont look as extreme.


Side Note:
One theme that has been interesting to examine is the idea of fighting corruption. In some regards, corruption appears to take many different meanings to various candidates. For instance, Bernie takes corruption as stance for creating and upholding laws. Trump on the other hand takes corruption as something impenetrable, hence being corrupt, requiring drastic resolution (himself). I find it interesting that one topic can have multiple interpretations. Maybe its the perception of "hope" that is the deciding factor.

Please dont be like this. All the ridicule back and forth makes this tread barely tolerable to read.

Well i think that a lot of Bernie supporters will now vote trump. They're not that different on many fronts, certainly not on their most extreme views (equal opportunities, fighting established order/corruption/etc).

As to what Trump will do: whatever the masses want him to do, pretty much. He's changed stance many times before and he can just do the same again.

I've been actively polling my bernie supporter friends, and the majority of them are in the ANYONE BUT HILLARY party. They really don't want hillary lol. They'd vote for ted cruz first.