Economy continues to . . . not fail

[lippy 773]

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

[JoeWeber 2,302]

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.

[jakee 1,257]

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?

[jakee 1,257]

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.

[brenthutch 384]

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

[gowlerk 1,914]

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

[jakee 1,257]

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

[brenthutch 384]

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.

[jakee 1,257]

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.

[billvon 2,400]

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.

[wolfriverjoe 1,342]

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.

[JoeWeber 2,302]

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. 

[wmw999 2,123]

6 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

They're not dumbasses, they're LiberContrarians. 

I just heard the term LINO. Love it.

Wendy P.

[brenthutch 384]

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

[JoeWeber 2,302]

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?

[billvon 2,400]

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

 

[brenthutch 384]

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?

[JoeWeber 2,302]

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.

[brenthutch 384]

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.”

[JoeWeber 2,302]

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?

[billvon 2,400]

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.

[JoeWeber 2,302]

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.

[Phil1111 911]

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?