htownbrown

I believe there is mmgw, but I'll never vote for a politician on that premise alone. Never ever. I don't think the data says what you think it does. So I will never have your level of urgency, I've already laid out several reasons why in this thread alone. Furthermore, I don't think there is a politician who knows enough about the subject to have any credible plan. We are all, every fucking one us, buying a ton of products from China, the biggest polluter on the planet. Everyone includes you. They give no shits who you voted for in Ohio. You will never see zero emissions on government regulations. That is preposterous thinking. The real solution is unequivocally in the private sector. When the technology is there and cheap, China and the US will jump aboard. That's not whataboutism btw. That also goes for the efficiency of the products we buy as well. The government didn't decide your clothes dryer had to run on less electricity, but they started to become available and people bought them. It happened pretty organically. You can still go buy a completely inefficient one if you want, but why? You better pray some greedy CEO is sitting in his italian leather captains chair salivating at the chance to be first to the market. Otherwise, from your perspective of the world, we're fucked. All that aside, the climate evangel you preach doesn't preclude you of your own criticisms. You can't say if I don't believe in your ideology than it's all on me. To start with, there is nothing that says what you believe in will make a global impact. It doesn't matter that you care more, if you're consuming goods from the same polluting companies as the unwashed masses.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/house-intelligence-committee-speaks-about-new-dna-bio-weapons-that-can-target-a-single-person/ar-AAZUas1

This is typical for la nina.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/synthetic-opioid-pyro-fentanyl-colorado-1727307%3famp=1 Expect casualties...

The hypocrisy in this thread is amazing!! I mean, you'd think everyone here just randomly drives their fossil fuel burning vehicle out of state to the creationist museum for no useful reason other than to troll a former poster on this board. But as it turns out, it was just one oblivious global warmer.

Isn't part of the appeal of the sport the sound of the engines?

I'm willing to wager Hunter was a towel boy on Epstein Island...he's always in the middle of a sticky situation.

When it comes to data, there are only two real factions of scientific opinion. First, you have to understand that IPCC uses roughly about 100 models to create multiple scenarios each. With this data they create a spaghetti plot and output a median range. The discussion of this range drives policy. If you leave it at that, without going into weighing the differences in models, it sounds very reasonable. Now I'm going to attempt to oversimplify where the climate "skeptic" has taken issue. Let's say you have a real sweet tooth, and you've gotten a little overweight. You've eaten twinkies every day since the 1970's. Let's say you create several models to track your weight gain from twinkies, as well as your normal diet. Currently you're consuming 2 twinkies a day, but you want modeled data of different scenarios. Obviously, you want scenarios of one twinkie and the ideal zero twinkie diet to understand where you could be. That makes perfect sense, but you also want to know what the scenario would be if you cheated. Now let's say you create a doomsday scenario that would have you eating twinkies breakfast, lunch, and dinner, roughly 6x more twinkies than you typically consume. That becomes the endpoint of your data set, all the rest of your scenarios are between 3-12 twinkies. Now let's assume the most you've ever eaten in 1 day is 5. How plausible then is the data from 6-12 twinkies? Why would you include them in the spaghetti plot if your trying to understand how the status quo would affect you? Educated skeptics argue that roughly 40% of the scenarios from the models are implausible, not that mmgw doesn't exist. That's an argument simply to shut down conversation. If you remove that 40%, the global median temperature rise to 2100 is 2.2 degrees. At zero carbon emission the same median would be 1.5 degrees. You can see how that won't sell tickets on policy, nor make for good documentaries. Now if you want to make a compelling argument for the "12 twinkie" scenarios, I'm all in. Otherwise, we don't have a clear understanding of the controversy.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrats-target-crypto-companies-because-their-carbon-footprints-are-too-big

Well, data from the Colorado Snow Survey Program from April, claimed the snowpack was 91% of average statewide and suggested that GW prematurely melted the 9% in early spring. But yeah, the real problem is political science, not climate science. Upstream tends to need more than downstream wants them to have, but that's desert life...

https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-mom-shot-at-by-man-killed-by-police-crashes-protest-is-he-not-a-bad-guy I wish there were more survivors taking this approach in these situations, but that's a tough ask. Good on her though.

That's why it's not really a reference point? It's an anomaly. While, sure, it does rely a little on local rainfall to contribute to it's supply, it also has been a desert before humans arrived on the continent. However, the source of the water that feeds it is still going strong. So even if I grant you that GW is playing some role, do you really think the lack of desert rainfall is the problem? You think it's possible that the growth of communities in the region may require most of the water that it takes to keep Lake Mead full? It doesn't require that you give up all your climate ideology to acknowledge human consumption of the water may be driving this particular problem.

So do you recall why it peaked in 1983? Unless someone is purposely trying to be dramatic 1983 should not be a reference point.

So this is a graph that should help you out. Notably, the US consumption of coal has been trending downward for quite some time (yes, even when Trump was president). This graph represents the world under various consumption scenarios. Now, notice the SSP5-8.5 & RCP8.5 lines. Those are mentioned over 40% of the time in IPCC reports compared to other scenarios and I've been hard pressed to find any media that doesn't use those same scenarios. This is probably where your core beliefs on the subject comes from. The data points from these scenarios create most of the doomsday projections that are driving leftwing policy. The problem with them is they assume the world coal consumption will rise to 6.2x our current consumption and, no joke, we will actually use liquid coal run cars in the future. I bring this up because even if the world continues at the current rate of coal consumption it won't be a doomsday scenario for humanity and maybe you can sleep a little.

Go watch the twitter vid I posted, her mother claims the accused is innocent.

This story just gets stranger.

He sits in the back of the room, drinking a sip out of each one in turn. When he finishes them, he comes back to the bar and orders three more. The bartender approaches and tells the cowboy, "You know, a mug goes flat after I draw it. It would taste better if you bought one at a time..." The cowboy replies, "Well, you see, I have two brothers. One is an Airborne Ranger, the other is a Navy Seal, both serving overseas somewhere. When we all left our home in Texas, we promised that we'd drink this way to remember the days when we drank together. So I'm drinking one beer for each of my brothers and one for myself." The bartender admits that this is a nice custom, and leaves it there. The cowboy becomes a regular in the bar, and always drinks the same way. He orders three mugs and drinks them in turn. One day, he comes in and only orders two mugs. (I know, a tear is coming to my eye too) All the regulars take notice and fall silent. When he comes back to the bar for the second round, the bartender says, "I don't want to intrude on your grief, but I wanted to offer my condolences on your loss." The cowboy looks quite puzzled for a moment, then a light dawns in his eyes and he laughs. "Oh, no, everybody's just fine," he explains, "It's just that my wife and I joined the Baptist Church and I had to quit drinking." "Hasn't affected my brothers though...."🤠 Here's one my Nigerian boss told me today: (Trigger Warning) What do you tell a woman with 2 black eyes? Nothing. You already told her twice.

Dastards!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.tmz.com/2022/07/09/twitter-debates-whether-anne-frank-had-white-privilege/ Not sure why he wanted to buy in the first place.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/new-biden-title-ix-rules-would-use-civil-rights-office…to-strip-civil-rights-from-students/ar-AAZouew?li=BBnbfcL Democrats want justice reform, but don't seem to understand due process. It feels like they are just lobbing softballs for SCOTUS to smash, eventually.

Thank goodness they voted Trump out...

A lot of things would have to be addressed for this to work on some levels. Such as, an owner could not sell his firearms to another individual or else you would circumnavigate the whole process. Hell, I inherited 2 pumps and a .243 at age 13. But as far as mass shootings, it wouldn't make a dent.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/why-are-mass-shooters-getting-younger-and-deadlier-experts-have-theories/ar-AAZiofm?li=BBnb7Kz If you believe anything from this article, you have to ask yourselves why young, traditionally white males, would be so angry. And to that note, I'd have to ask you what movement in all of western societies DOESN'T target them? At least in the media, they are responsible for almost everything evil. If your response is simply, "Boo Hoo Whiteboys", then you're not serious about solving the issue of mass shootings. It's certainly not the only problem and there's no excuse for violent random retaliation, but it's a rather obvious influence.