lippy 882 #51 April 5 14 minutes ago, brenthutch said: I never said it would. What is wrong with you people? They're probably just ticked off at some troll trying to be cute 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeWeber 2,613 #52 April 5 1 hour ago, brenthutch said: I never said it would. What is wrong with you people? We got us'n a damn burr under our saddles I reckon. Damn things, soon as you get shed of 'em they're right back. Sum'bitch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,379 #53 April 5 5 hours ago, brenthutch said: The polls So you agree that it's a problem that so many people incorrectly think that Trump would be better for the economy, and would consider voting for him despite his stated desire to overthrow democracy and the constitution. So what are you doing to try and persuade those people that they are wrong? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,379 #54 April 5 5 hours ago, brenthutch said: I’m not arguing the state of the economy, I am just sharing what the PERCEPTION of the economy is to a large segment of the electorate. BTW few folks care about GDP when inflation is out pacing their income. But you're not saying that it is, because you're not arguing the state of the economy, right? Yeah buddy, I'm sure someone out there believes you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 422 #55 April 5 (edited) 5 hours ago, jakee said: So you agree that it's a problem that so many people incorrectly think that Trump would be better for the economy, and would consider voting for him despite his stated desire to overthrow democracy and the constitution. So what are you doing to try and persuade those people that they are wrong? I have my hand full just trying to convince you guys that a few more PPM of CO2 won’t destroy civilization. (And even if it did, windmills, solar panels and EVs wouldn’t change anything) Edited April 5 by brenthutch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,114 #56 April 5 More bad news for the US economy. Job growth is too strong, unemployment is too low. More immigration is needed badly. The struggle is real. https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/march-jobs-report-04-05-24/index.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,379 #57 April 5 (edited) 4 hours ago, brenthutch said: I have my hand full just trying to convince you guys that a few more PPM of CO2 won’t destroy civilization. (And even if it did, windmills, solar panels and EVs wouldn’t change anything) What are you doing with your other hand? Anyway, if you think that’s not ever happening anyway, why the rush? The election is happening this year - so maybe you could prioritise? Edited April 5 by jakee Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 422 #58 April 5 19 minutes ago, jakee said: What are you doing with your other hand? Anyway, if you think that’s not ever happening anyway, why the rush? The election is happening this year - so maybe you could prioritise? What’s is happening is billions of dollars are being wasted on green boondoggles when that money would be better spent on schools, healthcare and providing for the poor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,379 #59 April 5 26 minutes ago, brenthutch said: What’s is happening is billions of dollars are being wasted on green boondoggles when that money would be better spent on schools, healthcare and providing for the poor. Are you gonna tell that to the guy in the other thread who think taxes are just pointless envy? I don't think he wants to redistribute any money from wealthy people to poor people. 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,772 #60 April 7 On 4/5/2024 at 5:31 AM, brenthutch said: I have my hand full just trying to convince you guys that a few more PPM of CO2 won’t destroy civilization. (And even if it did, windmills, solar panels and EVs wouldn’t change anything) They will, by definition, slow those hundreds of more PPM of CO2 that we are seeing. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,480 #61 April 7 1 hour ago, billvon said: They will, by definition, slow those hundreds of more PPM of CO2 that we are seeing. Right. But it's not going to happen instantly. And even if it did, it won't reverse climate change instantly. So the same dumbasses that like to pretend that because increasing CO2 hasn't increased the temperature instantly, AGW isn't real, will also pretend that mitigating CO2 doesn't do anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeWeber 2,613 #62 April 7 1 minute ago, wolfriverjoe said: Right. But it's not going to happen instantly. And even if it did, it won't reverse climate change instantly. So the same dumbasses that like to pretend that because increasing CO2 hasn't increased the temperature instantly, AGW isn't real, will also pretend that mitigating CO2 doesn't do anything. They're not dumbasses, they're LiberContrarians. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,334 #63 April 7 6 minutes ago, JoeWeber said: They're not dumbasses, they're LiberContrarians. I just heard the term LINO. Love it. Wendy P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 422 #64 April 7 (edited) 8 hours ago, billvon said: They will, by definition, slow those hundreds of more PPM of CO2 that we are seeing. Why in the world would we want to do that? There is NO evidence of an impending climate emergency, catastrophe, disaster or apocalypse. The only result of enhanced levels of CO2 is a more salubrious climate, longer growing seasons and record food production. According to the IPCC and NOAA there is no evidence of any meteorological phenomena that fall outside the range of natural variability. But I get it, you guys have a penchant for magical thinking. Edited April 8 by brenthutch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeWeber 2,613 #65 April 8 1 hour ago, brenthutch said: According to the IPCC and NOAA there is no evidence of any meteorological phenomena that fall outside the range of natural variability. At 600ppm CO2 do you think they will make the same observation? How about 800ppm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,772 #66 April 8 2 hours ago, brenthutch said: There is NO evidence of an impending climate emergency, catastrophe, disaster or apocalypse. Other than in that place that scares conservatives so much - reality. "Record rainfall extremes have continued to increase worldwide and, on average, 1 in 4 rainfall records in the last decade can be attributed to climate change. Tropical regions, comprised of vulnerable countries that typically contributed least to anthropogenic climate change, continue to see the strongest increase in extremes." You might also ask the people in Lahaina, HI or Paradise, CA if climate change might contribute to an emergency, catastrophe or disaster. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00202-w Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 422 #67 April 8 12 hours ago, billvon said: Other than in that place that scares conservatives so much - reality. "Record rainfall extremes have continued to increase worldwide and, on average, 1 in 4 rainfall records in the last decade can be attributed to climate change. Tropical regions, comprised of vulnerable countries that typically contributed least to anthropogenic climate change, continue to see the strongest increase in extremes." You might also ask the people in Lahaina, HI or Paradise, CA if climate change might contribute to an emergency, catastrophe or disaster. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00202-w Not NOAA or IPCC “The Lahaina situation involved a wet winter followed by a dry summer, causing grasses to grow exceptionally in spring, creating dense fuels ready to burn. Similar conditions often occur in California, where winter rains lead to grass growth before drying out in summer and fall. Winds in California, like the Santa Anas in Southern California and Diablos in the Bay Area, usually happen in the fall when dry grasses increase fire risk” Did climate change cause the Santa Ana winds? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeWeber 2,613 #68 April 8 51 minutes ago, brenthutch said: Not NOAA or IPCC “The Lahaina situation involved a wet winter followed by a dry summer, causing grasses to grow exceptionally in spring, creating dense fuels ready to burn. Similar conditions often occur in California, where winter rains lead to grass growth before drying out in summer and fall. Winds in California, like the Santa Anas in Southern California and Diablos in the Bay Area, usually happen in the fall when dry grasses increase fire risk” Did climate change cause the Santa Ana winds? Um, yes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 422 #69 April 8 49 minutes ago, JoeWeber said: Um, yes. Um, wrong “The earliest-known written reference to the "Santa Ana" winds appeared in the Nov. 15, 1880, edition of the Los Angeles Evening Express.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeWeber 2,613 #70 April 8 3 minutes ago, brenthutch said: Um, wrong “The earliest-known written reference to the "Santa Ana" winds appeared in the Nov. 15, 1880, edition of the Los Angeles Evening Express.” Well you're the climate scientist here, what do you think caused the Santa Ana winds? Coca Cola? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,772 #71 April 9 9 hours ago, JoeWeber said: Well you're the climate scientist here, what do you think caused the Santa Ana winds? Coca Cola? Of course not. It was illegal immigrants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeWeber 2,613 #72 April 9 37 minutes ago, billvon said: Of course not. It was illegal immigrants. Some folks just need a whole lot more doors to find the car than others, I reckon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 1,099 #73 April 9 On 4/5/2024 at 6:31 AM, brenthutch said: I have my hand full just trying to convince you guys that a few more PPM of CO2 won’t destroy civilization. (And even if it did, windmills, solar panels and EVs wouldn’t change anything) What's your other hand doing? 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,853 #74 May 21 Seems Boeing is doing well: The BBC is reporting that Boeing shareholders voted to give outgoing President Dave Calhoun a 2023 pay package worth a total of about $33 million. The shareholder meeting came as the DOJ said it was considering criminal proceedings against Boeing over allegations it had breached a deal shielding it from criminal charges after the crashes of two MAXes that killed 346 people in 2018 and 2019, and investigations continue into the QC issues (missing bolts) that led to the loss of a door plug at 16,000ft last January in an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,379 #75 May 21 3 hours ago, kallend said: Seems Boeing is doing well: The BBC is reporting that Boeing shareholders voted to give outgoing President Dave Calhoun a 2023 pay package worth a total of about $33 million. Amazing they can afford it after paying for so many hitmen. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites