jcsmith

How about a better solution. Politicians who suggest this sort of thing get lined up and shot? 

This type of thing (as well as beating woman and children) happens all too often here. They need to start dishing out real punishment for these offenses if they ever hope to turn it around. A re-examination of the pampering of (particularly male) kids is probably also in order. 

12 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

Don't even know where to start with this... You've clearly been consuming wayyy too much of the MSM Koolaid. Jill Stein is a member of a different party altogether, a recount would not change her status in this election. It is not her concern. If she is really after "fairness" then why only choose those 3 states? Why not investigate or recount the states where there have been allegations or voter fraud? California would be a great place to start. Next the states that use the "faulty" Soros voting machines. Trump did not "make up a lie" - or perhaps you or CNN (aka The Clinton News Network) has evidence that no illegals voted in California?? Yes, I thought not.

 

The whole bashing Trump for using Twitter thing is getting old and tired now. There is a reason he uses it. To communicate to his millions of followers when the ridiculously biased and pro Clinton mainstream media cover him unfairly, twist his words, or just make things up about him. Most Trump bashing is just rehashed repeated nonsense which orginated from the Clinton campaign or the MSM. Take the blinders off, you are being brainwashed.

You are missing the point. It has nothing to do with Jill Stein or the recount process. Recounts are provided by law. If she wants to raise money and have a recount that is her decision. But Trump can't go on childish rants making up lies and then attacking reporters when they point out that there is no evidence to back his claims. Jill Stein, CNN, Hillary Clinton and everyplace else have made a point in saying that there is no evidence to support any wrongdoing or cheating from anyplace. In all likelihood they will recount (as is in their right to do) and the result will be the same. 

Trump however has done something completely different. He then makes an unjustified claim that MILLIONS of illegal immigrants voted in California. If he can not provide evidence of this then he needs to be called out for spreading lies or rumors, which he did during his campaign. The honus is not on others to prove that millions of illegals didn't vote, it is on him to prove that they did. 

With regards to people making up things about Trump. That is such a cop out. The mainstream press isn't making up lies about Trump. They can't, he will sue them. He's shown that time and time again. They are telling facts which can be backed up with evidence. I'd offer you the same chance as Trump there. If you think anything that has been said here is not true, please point it out. Otherwise maybe you should look inward on your last two sentences.

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

Did you actually read the bit of the OP that says:

Unless the world stops burning fossil fuels ?

Does anyone on the side of the "we must do something about global warming" mob actually comprehend the result of that?

It would result in mass starvation as enough food could no longer be grown or transported to feed the billions on planet earth.

Soooooo, the choice is clear- stop using fossil fuel NOW ( later will be too late to make a difference ) and see millions or even billions starve to death, or keep using fossil fuels and ( if the models are correct ) see the Arctic ice melt and the polar bears die off.

 

Up to you.

Come now, who is saying that? 

How about option C: Start enforcing a transition to cleaner forms of energy. I don't think anyone has ever said stop using energy now to save the environment. But what should be happening is that solar roof panels should be mandatory for new structures. Do not allow new coal factories to be created. And then begin shutting them down after you have built sufficient clean energy sources. 

His twitter is embarrassing. Can anyone imagine any other president in U.S. history doing these kind of childish rants?

He was angry that Jill Stein raised money for a recount. She asked both parties to help with the recount process to ensure it is fair. Hillary agreed to do so. Trump meanwhile went on his typical rant and made up a lie that millions of people voted illegally or else he would have won the popular vote. CNN of course was only one of the networks to point out that there was no evidence of this happening and that it was extremely unlikely. They stopped short of calling him a liar, which he clearly is. And this is how he responds.  

Similar to past incidents when you attack Trump or accuse him of wrongdoing he goes on the type of rant that you would chastise your children for. There is NO question that voter fraud did take place he says, but only in his warped reality is that the case.  Ladies and gentlemen the 45th president of the United States. He attacks the journalist for having no evidence that voter fraud didn't happen, yet he forgets he's the one who said it did without providing any evidence whatsoever.

3 hours ago, DM07 said:

Nooooo populist policies!

Nooooooo!

I never really had a problem with this sort of thing, but the hypocrisy of the junta is as clear as day.

@Si Thea01: Ah okay I see the confusion. I worded that line pretty poorly looking at the quote. The 70 meter number is if the ice melted globally. And as I mentioned there that was not going to happen any time soon. The arctic and Greenland ice is likely to melt though. So those were two separate statements but it was worded poorly and looks like I'm referring to that number from Greenland alone. That was not the intention though.

4-6 meter rises is what we will likely be facing. It could be much worse than that though. Greenland alone could contribute more than 7 meters if it completely melts.

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

JC, I was referring to you alarming statistics on how much sea level is going to rise but now you have reduced that to only 3 metres.  That's a huge reduction to what you initially claimed.   I thought it so horrendous that I was thinking of going out and buying a house in the mountains, at least 700 metres above sea level. But given it hasn't risen much in the past 100 years, between 0.8mm to 203.3 mm, you would hardly call that  a devastation of the land, so I've put off that idea.

 

Now, according to you, it has jumped past the year 2100 when we can expect the sea to swallow the land to about the 2500 and only could result, not will.  And to be sure, to be sure, neither of us will be around then and given all the ill predictions arising from the USA Elections, none of may be here if we accept some soothsayers and their allegations of poor old Donald hitting the button.  I think we on the non-believers' side accept that there is pollution and things that need to be corrected that man has carried out, very foolishly, however, it ain't CO2 that's the problem despite all the facts and figures you want to quote.

That's a misrpresentation of what was said. If all of the ice melted worldwide we'd be looking at 70 meter rises. If the Greenland ice melted on its own its probably (different projections from different people) no more than 7 meters globally, though a 7 meter rise will as I said wreak havoc on coastal areas. As mentioned before New Orleans would be in trouble with just a 3 meter rise, at 7 meters much of southern florida, much of the bay area is flooded. 

With regards to the rise in the past hundred years, it should be noted the rate at which it is rising has doubled in the past decade. And this is a trend you can expect to continue. Ice deflects sunlight, but as it melts more of that light will hit the surface which will increase surface temperature, which in turn will cause the ice to melt at a faster rate.  So the longer we take to respond to this, the quicker it will happen. And the rate at which it speeds up will rapidly accelerate the further it goes. But again this isn't just about warming, there are so many other things which the rise in CO2 affects and they all factor into a dangerous situation. 

@ClutchClark: Population growth also is certainly a problem. More people = the need for more food and the need for more power. If we produce more power plants using non-clean energy sources we accelerate the effects of climate change. Climate change in turn will affect food production. Altogether you have a very volatile mix.

@Si Thea01: People have money they like good views. It's why people a large percentage of the worlds populations live in coastal areas. I mean let's take us as an example. Of Thailand I prefer Phuket because the beaches of the nice beaches. By the time Phuket sees serious issues from this, I'm probably not going to be around. So buying a home there won't really affect me. It's our children and grandchildren that will bear the brunt of us ignoring the signs of nature.

As for timelines, it's impossible to pinpoint exactly. It was estimated that at 400ppm Greenland could lose between as much as 40% of its ice level it could result in a 3 meter sea level rise in the next 400 years just from Greenland. Here's the problem though, we're already at that. And the CO2 levels have risen by 90 ppm since 1950 and as you can see from the image above it is not slowing down, it's speeding up at astronomical rates, and is directly as a result of man. And here's the thing, the higher it gets the faster it melts, it's not like another 100ppm is going to accelerate this by 20%, it will be by a greater number. The worse it gets the faster it will accelerate. It will likely melt fully, it's just a matter of when. And that will be decided by how mankind responds to the issue. That's not scaremongering, it's trying to reach people to make them understand the seriousness of what we are doing to the environment.

7 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

Here's an experiment anyone can carry out. Put some ice cubes in glass and then fill it with water.  Then, when the ice melts, see what happens, absolutely nothing.  So, given that the ice melting at the poles is a natural phenomenon and is replaced and has been occurring forever, as does the sinking and rising of the land, and the sea levels haven't risen, then how will it happen now and when?  Why is it so?  

If the ice caps and ice on Greenland melted we'd be looking at a 70 meter (230 foot) rise in global sea levels, not exactly an ice cube in a bathtub. That probably won't happen and certainly not any time soon. But what is likely to happen is that the Arctic and Greenland ice does melts, and if that happens we are looking at anywhere between 4-6 meter (13-20 foot) rise of sea levels. That would wreak havoc on many coastal cities. In terms of the U.S. we're talking about New Orleans, Miami, New York (not New York city but the coastal areas),  and the bay area seeing large parts of them being submerged. I think anyone who has been to the beaches here in Thailand realizes what it would do to many of them.

@MajarTheLion: Noone is saying at all that the earth doesn't go through natural heating and warming cycles. That certainly happens. The warming we are seeing now is not part of that natural cycle though. The CO2 levels right now are far above where they have been at any time in at least 800,000 years. And if you look at the record it is so obvious that this is caused by the industrial revolution. 

That is undeniably man made. This will raise the temperature, acidify the ocean, and as a byproduct cause glacial melting which will in turn cause a sea level rise.

40 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yes I know many who disagree with my (and the majority of americans) point of view. 

 

But.... But..... But.... "POPULAR VOTE" 

You apparently don't get it. Democrats winning the popular vote means that that Trump didn't have the majority of Americans. Neither did in fact but Hillary had more. Not that it matters though since the electoral vote is all that matters in the election.

On 11/21/2016 at 10:02 AM, Catoni said:

   Global Warming/Climate Change is a great tool though to use for a political agenda.. don't you think?    Great for helping to build U.N. power, get cash for your "study and research", and to get cash to fly to fancy conferences at exotic places with five star hotels, limousines and champagne and caviar banquets with the  other "concerned elites" who know better than the rest of us,  and to raise taxes.. 

You are completely ignoring man's influence on this. Yes the earth's climate fluctuates, and life will evolve to deal with these changes. Industrialization is creating artificial change however, which is changing things much faster than they would be naturally. This will affect mankind in a very negative way if it continues. As I mentioned on previous pages, we are making great scientific progress in this day and age and that will continue to accelerate. We can find solutions to influence the environment, but we need to make sure we don't reach a point of no return before then. 

There are ways to clean up the CO2 levels. There are ways to decrease the amount of sunlight that reaches Earth. These are things that we can either not do right now though (in the case of deflecting or shading sun rays), or are things that are expensive and slow acting (in reducing CO2 levels). And who knows what the future will bring in regards to other solutions. Those are not viable solutions at this time, but reducing our affects in the environment is.

The alt-right is who HRC was referring to when she said deplorables. Richard Spencer (who is hailing Trump here) founded the term alt-right. Now the big problem here is that Stephen Bannon was the executive chairman of Breitbart, which is the alt-right publication, until joining Trump's team in August, and will serve as Trump's top aide. David Duke (former head of the KKK) had this to say about Bannon being given this position, “You have an individual, Mr. Bannon, who’s basically creating the ideological aspects of where we’re going, and ideology ultimately is the most important aspect of any government.”

Trump did come out and speak against this today after pressure. But I'm not sure how genuine he is.  He gave three quick tweets making a huge deal of the Hamilton speech to Pence, but only after coming under heavy pressure did he say that he speak out about this.

The fact that he has filled his cabinet with these individuals is alarming. Michael Flynn (his proposed National Security Adviser) called the islamic faith a "vicious cancer inside the bodies of 1.7 billion people on this planet" and said that it "must be excised". He also has said that "fear of islam is rational". Jeff Sessions is up for Attorney General, but he once said that he thought the KKK was okay until he found out that their members smoked pot. He was also denied a federal judgeship because of that and other racist incidents. Sessions is not only against illegal immigrants, but wants to see legal immigration fade out. That should be of particular note to anyone who has a Thai family. 

So none of this should be surprising. The writing has been on the walls for some time now. Certainly not all Trump supporters fall into this category, I'd say a minority of them do. But this is exactly what people were warning leading up to the election. Electing Trump has emboldened and legitimized these extremists.

22 minutes ago, daveAustin said:

I think whatever he does, he can't do a worse job than at least the last four potus' - the last (current) one was a special letdown. And at least he's not a boring, PC-yabbering, liberal, leftist loon!

He certainly can. Now in my lifetime (which started with Nixon) I'd rank Obama #3 among the presidents. Despite republicans fighting him tooth and nail in congress, the tea party, I just don't see how people can pretend he did such a bad job. His campaign started facing housing, economic and employment crisis, all which improved significantly under his watch. He may not have been a great president but he certainly wasn't a poor one. In my lifetime I'd put Reagan at #1 (imo he was perfect for the cold war era), and Clinton and Obama right at #2 and #3, followed by Bush Sr. (who wasn't great either but the list of guys after that was worse in G.W., Carter, Nixon and Ford).

Trump can absolutely do a worse job than any of those guys. That doesn't mean he will, but he has potential to be the worst president in U.S. history, and he also has potential to surprise people like me and do some good things. He's definitely the most dangerous choice of president though in my lifetime. 

4 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

This man simply cannot become President, and I do not believe he will. He has more than one screw loose.

 
Although I agree with you, I do think he won the election fair and square and we just have to deal with it. When he goes too far (which I believe he will at some point) they can deal with it legally. Until then all you can really do is make your voice heard and hope for the best.

49 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

Can no one tell me how CC will affect America?

 

Of particular jnterest--Eastern CO.

 

Thanks

Affects on the U.S. by region, from the  U.S. Global Change Research Program:

Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.

Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region’s economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.

Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

Southwest. Increased heat, drought and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.

6 hours ago, connda said:

Obamacare is about lining the pockets of corporations in the healthcare and insurance businesses and has nothing to do with developing a system of universal healthcare for the benefit of the citizenry.  The citizenry are there to have their wealth harvested.  Incredibly bad system.  Republicans won't want to scrap it because their corporate sponsors want a system in place that benefits corporations and harvests that wealth of a captive audience.  The congressmen and sentors don't care.  They don't have Obamacare.  They have top-notch health care plans that no mere citizen is afforded.  If the legislations is rolled back it will be replaced with legislation that is equally as bad.   As it stands now, unless you are rich or very poor (i.e., if you're middle class) and don't have insurance through an employer, you're one bad illness or accident away from bankruptcy if the premiums don't put you in poverty first. 

We need true national health care, but the problem is the republicans would have fought it endlessly. Obamacare was a compromise and it certainly has flaws. It will never work without some type of a price limiting, but the problem is the medical industry is going to has politicians in their pocket, preventing this from happening. As we all know living here, it's ridiculous to buy the same medicine you can get in the states for much cheaper, and to deal with ludicrous pricing for doctors or procedures. The system needs a huge revamp all around. But so long as the medical industry has politicians in their back pockets, it will never happen. That having been said, with an average of about 40-50,000 Americans dying every year from a lack of health care, it was a step in the right direction. But something has to be done to prevent peoples premiums from skyrocketing.

They are like-minded (bigoted) individuals.

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

I do know the difference between man made and natural and agree with you about man made pollution but CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a necessity of all life on this planet.   I don't want to pay into Scams that do nothing, however, given what is happening world wide, with the reduction in CO2 output, via government regulations, people are paying for it in the cost of services and goods and I, for one, have no problem with that

 

As for clean air and water, of course we all want that, however, neither is being polluted by CO2, but for sure by other man made chemicals.  Nothing man can do will stop climate change, it has been happening for millions of years so any of the alarmists who think they can, then they are living n cloud cuckoo land.  

Too much carbon dioxide is in fact dangerous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia The more general problem and closer issue with CO2 emissions though are that the greenhouse effect which is contributing to rises in temperature and the acidification of the oceans.

Climate change in general is something natural, that is true. The world isn't static and unchanging. However, the human footprint is causing rapid changes to it. We are taking a problem that may have been far in the distant future and making it something that will affect the next generations. 

To say that there is nothing man can do to prevent these issues is a fallacy. There are already numerous plans aimed at doing just that. It's one of the largest issues we face moving forward and there are a lot of ideas about how to minimize its effects. There are already ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere but they are not cost efficient and can not clean it up as quickly as we are adding it. There are other proposals that will deflect sunlight or shade it from space. Most importantly science is moving faster than ever and with each discovery new opportunities open up. Given time we can find a solution. This isn't going to happen over night though. Moving to cleaner forms of energy is something we can do now, to slow the problems before this becomes a larger problem.

Now the real question here is, why would anyone not want to work towards solving this problem or moving to clean energy? The only thing I can think of is either that they don't understand the seriousness of the issue, have been misled by companies profiting from fossils fuels, are financially benefiting from the use of fossil fuels (either as a politician receiving lobbyist money or due to ties or employment from a business in the industry), or are worried that a small increase to their taxes is not worth an issue that they are too old to see serious effects from. 

21 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

In both cases it boiled down to normal Democrat voters voting for Trump (standing as a Republican).  Any idea why?

I haven't heard of a large number of democrats voting for Trump at all. I think the problem the democrats had were that too many did not vote. Reference: http://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2016/11/17/the-non-voters-who-decided-the-election-trump-won-because-of-lower-democratic-turnout/

@Andreas2: I think this chart leaves little doubt of man's influence: http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/203_co2-graph-021116.jpeg

Not a fan of Mattis, but I think Romney would be a good choice.

With regards to the 97% consensus number which someone spent a lot of time trying to show was not accurate. Don't take one survey there have been many published: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 It is an overwhelming consensus throughout though the actual numbers vary from study to study. If you want the most recent a Pew Research Center poll of 3748 AAAS members found an 87% consensus, and the smaller subset of 306 specialists had a 96.7% number. To suggest that scientists are split on this is a misrepresentation of the facts.

So people are asking how will this affect them?

The oceans are going to continue to absorb a lot of that heat, but as they due the water expands and sea levels rise. This also increases the power of hurricanes, melts ice caps (which cause sea levels to rise), and alters habitats and thus the food chain. You can expect heat waves and droughts to become more intense and cold waves to become less intense and a reduction in the moisture of soil. Some diseases will also spread more easily, and land based ecosystems will change, again affecting the food chain. Agriculture will be affected.

Longer term when sea levels rise significantly many coastline cities are going to be in trouble. New Orleans, Amsterdam, Georgetown could become submerged early in those scenarios due to their elevation above sea level. But many coastline areas are at risk. In the shorter term flooding, and damage caused as a result of that will be problematic in more areas. You can see cities like Miami are starting to invest large amounts of money to create pumps and sea walls. Naval yards, harbors, are other high risk areas. Even Trump, despite being a public climate denier has requested permits to build protection on his own properties from the effects of climate change. 

And here's the except on regional effects from the U.S. Global Change Research Program:
 

Quote

 

Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.

Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region’s economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.

Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

Southwest. Increased heat, drought and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns.

 

1 hour ago, muffy said:

Liberals to the back of the bus never to recover .

I'm not sure if you can call Trump a republican really. He's more republican than democrat, but many of the republican party are disgusted by him. Just a month before the election many were turning their backs on him and people were talking about the divide within the party. The divide is still there between the alt-right extremists and the run of the mill moderate republicans. I think both parties were weakened by this election. The democrats somehow lost to the worst candidate in American history. The republicans who have long touted things like christian values now have a guy running the show who features ideals that many of them do not share, and who makes it very hard to tout those values.

Trump did win the election fair and square though. He'll have his presidency and then the honus is on him to do something positive with it. Otherwise we'll have a divided country for the next four years.