Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 153 of 171 FirstFirst ... 53103143151152153154155163 ... LastLast
Results 2,281 to 2,295 of 2561
  1. #2281
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    46,125
    Quote Originally Posted by WES445 View Post
    When will you become a for real, money in the pocket lawyer?
    2024.

  2. #2282
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    45,287
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack the Ripper View Post
    I'm not going through all 50 of those, a number of which seem to require a subscription to view the source material for, but just a couple:

    #18 says "Arctic will be ice free by 2018," but when you read the article you find that is nowhere to be found. There is talk of summer sea ice, but that is not remotely the same as "Arctic will be ice free."

    #26: "Arctic Ice-Free by 2015," except again the article they link to is again talking about summer sea ice, and they talk about other scientists that don't agree with the prediction.

    #30-35 are all link to the same article about peak oil, because I guess a list of 50 seems better than a list of 46 or whatever.

    #38 says "Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985," but then they link to themselves; in that link, they give a quote from Life magazine with no context, and with no link to find out what the context was, so who knows what they were actually saying there, much less who was saying it.

    #41 says "Killer bees!" but makes no reference to the climate or anything to do with the climate, and the article they link to doesn't either.

    And #50 says "Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter," which is not by itself anything anyone would mistake for "doomsday," but also when you go to the article they link, you find out that the prediction says the trees "could be blooming 29 days earlier by 2080 and 13 days earlier by 2050." Given that we are still some distance from both of those days, it's hard to imagine how this qualifies as any of the things they said in their title. How can an expert get something wrong when we're still 30-60 years away from the date given?



    Anyway. Fun Gish Gallop.


    "I was disagreeing with a friend about politics last night. I got so annoyed that I bear-sprayed him and beat him with a flagpole. I was surprised when he objected since we were obviously engaging in legitimate political discourse.”" - @SarahLongwell25

  3. #2283
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    45,287
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    So I clicked on a claim at random (admittedly looking for one of the more outlandish claims) and clicked on Manhatten underwater by 2015.

    There were (of course) several problems.

    First, it was a segment run by ABC's Good Morning America, which is not a scientific organization. Two, the person who created it is Bob Woodruff, a Journalist and again, not a scientist.

    Second, it never actually says in the video clip provided, nor anywhere else in the segment actually predicted Manhatten would be underwater by 2015. They are claiming a graphic which showed Manhatten slowly being submerged is somehow akin to claiming it would be, but nowhere does it actually say that, and the voice over as that graphic is displayed is talking about long term effects of global warming.

    If you watch the video, the very first thing you hear is a scientist say "you are going to see more floods, more droughts, more wildfires"

    Which have literally all come true as we are experiencing all of those and have been for several years. Then the "newsreporter" says "wildfires cover hundreds of miles" which seems absolutely quaint because the wildfires we've experienced the last 5-10 years have covered thousands of miles.


    Suffice to say, the very first link I clicked turned out to not be factually accurate at all, and worse, possibly intentionally misleading. I expect more of the same. I will look through some others and update what I find.
    I'm glad you at least looked at one I didn't.


    "I was disagreeing with a friend about politics last night. I got so annoyed that I bear-sprayed him and beat him with a flagpole. I was surprised when he objected since we were obviously engaging in legitimate political discourse.”" - @SarahLongwell25

  4. #2284
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    3,232
    Wildfires is an interesting subject. Three Democrat run states had the largest numbers and most damage to life and property in history. Wonder why? Because the three idiot governors in charge along with the Democrats in charge of the state legislatures refuse to take forest management, culling the old vegetation and building additonal water reservoirs. Why is that? Because they do not care about the loss of life and property. They would rather save a two inch fish than properly irrigate the land. And why would they irrigate the land when they would rather import food from Mexico and South America(even China) than to support the food, lumber, and fishing industries in their own states(most of the people involved in those industries don't vote Democrat you see).

  5. #2285
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    3,232
    Interesting that the spokespersons for climate change are led by a skank former bartender and a waif whose parents should be sued for child endangerment of a mentally challenged girl(Greta Thurberg). And the "leadership' of the Dem. Party is shaking in their boots about offending either one of these individuals. Funny stuff.

  6. #2286
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    104,348
    Quote Originally Posted by Bird of Prey View Post
    Wildfires is an interesting subject. Three Democrat run states had the largest numbers and most damage to life and property in history. Wonder why? Because the three idiot governors in charge along with the Democrats in charge of the state legislatures refuse to take forest management, culling the old vegetation and building additonal water reservoirs. Why is that? Because they do not care about the loss of life and property. They would rather save a two inch fish than properly irrigate the land. And why would they irrigate the land when they would rather import food from Mexico and South America(even China) than to support the food, lumber, and fishing industries in their own states(most of the people involved in those industries don't vote Democrat you see).
    Ahh raking the forests…classic Trumpism.

  7. #2287
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    17,263
    Yeah, almost word for word Trump.
    There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

    Will Rogers

  8. #2288
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    5,420
    Attack the info, not the provider
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, crovash, nastynice, natepro, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  9. #2289
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    17,263
    Don't have to if it came from Trump. He is like some here. They pull crap out of the arse and think it is gold.
    There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

    Will Rogers

  10. #2290
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    104,348
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    Attack the info, not the provider
    Ok. The concept of “forest management” as a solution to wildfires is ****ing stupid. The idea that simply raking the forests will stop anything is preposterous and downright laughable.

  11. #2291
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    5,420
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Ok. The concept of “forest management” as a solution to wildfires is ****ing stupid. The idea that simply raking the forests will stop anything is preposterous and downright laughable.
    Except removal of fuel helps reduce severity of fires at a minimum so, no, it's not.
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, crovash, nastynice, natepro, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  12. #2292
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    17,263
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    Except removal of fuel helps reduce severity of fires at a minimum so, no, it's not.
    Two years ago Australia suffer a massive forest fire that killed a million wild animals, and the Amazon burn badly as well. This past year fires burn to the edge of Athen, Greece. Canada lost millions of arces to forest fires. Serbia in Russia, still have massive fires burning and it is within the Arctic Circle. They have been experience massive warm up and reach a 100 degree, within the Arctic Circle. All these events have never happen before in modern time. And they happen in a short period of time. We have broken temp. records across the world

    But all these problems are the result of not raking the forest.

    It isn't removal of fuel that is the problem, the whole damn forest is so dry including standing timber that it, in itself is fuel. twenty year droughts tends to create these condition.
    Last edited by WES445; 01-14-2022 at 11:56 AM.
    There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

    Will Rogers

  13. #2293
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    17,263
    The more you deny the effect of climate change, the more foolish you get.

    I can't wait for you explain why our western states are rationing water. Leaking water pipes?
    Last edited by WES445; 01-14-2022 at 12:01 PM.
    There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

    Will Rogers

  14. #2294
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    10,324
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    Except removal of fuel helps reduce severity of fires at a minimum so, no, it's not.
    Classic short-sightedness (the absolute stock-in-trade of American conservatives): advocate treating a very minor symptom, but let the disease run rampant.

  15. #2295
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    5,420
    Quote Originally Posted by WES445 View Post
    Two years ago Australia suffer a massive forest fire that killed a million wild animals, and the Amazon burn badly as well. This past year fires burn to the edge of Athen, Greece. Canada lost millions of arces to forest fires. Serbia in Russia, still have massive fires burning and it is within the Arctic Circle. They have been experience massive warm up and reach a 100 degree, within the Arctic Circle. All these events have never happen before in modern time. And they happen in a short period of time. We have broken temp. records across the world

    But all these problems are the result of not raking the forest.

    It isn't removal of fuel that is the problem, the whole damn forest is so dry including standing timber that it, in itself is fuel. twenty year droughts tends to create these condition.
    Quote Originally Posted by WES445 View Post
    The more you deny the effect of climate change, the more foolish you get.

    I can't wait for you explain why our western states are rationing water. Leaking water pipes?
    You can make up anything you like to attribute to me. It's what a middle schooler does.
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, crovash, nastynice, natepro, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •