Member this FAKE NEWS? I member. Do you member?

[Billy_Bob]

No. The electoral college is not an anachronism. It is how we elect the president and the basis for it is that they represent the entire population of our Republic. We don't have a Democracy. We have a Republic. Everyone is represented in a Republic.

The 54% who said NO to Trump aren't represented, are they?

The problem with your analysis is the people in the regions of land where Trump won far out pace the cities where the mob ruled. The Electoral colleges stops mob rule by the cities from forcing your fantasy on them majority of the US populace who do not..

WE are a Representative Republic and not a direct democracy for a reason. It stops mob rule and the hand out class, who have voted to deprive others of the fruits of their labors, from enslaving the rest of us by morons..

 

[ding]

Sure they are. The entire population of the Republic is represented by the ones that voted. Your error is trying to wanting the citizens who represented the population of their state to be able to represent the population of other states. Did you take a civics class as a kid?

Um, yeah... but a civics class explaining a bad idea doesn't make it less of a bad idea.

Most history classes will tell you the EC was a straight up shady deal to mollify the slave rapists.

There's no good reason to still have it, and I can think of four good reasons to get rid of it.

Hayes, Harrison, Bush and Trump.

Of course there is a good reason. I have already explained it to you.

 

[JoeB131]

The problem with your analysis is the people in the regions of land where Trump won far out pace the cities where the mob ruled. The Electoral colleges stops mob rule by the cities from forcing your fantasy on them majority of the US populace who do not..

WE are a Representative Republic and not a direct democracy for a reason. It stops mob rule and the hand out class, who have voted to deprive others of the fruits of their labors, from enslaving the rest of us by morons

The purpose of the Electoral College was to get the Slave States to sign on.
Beside the moral repugnance of even wanting that to be a thing, it didn't even work, because we got a civil war, anyway.

Here's the thing, "Mob Rule" got us Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Ike, Reagan, JFK. All the good presidents we got by popular vote.

The Shitty Presidents were Hayes, Harrison, Bush and now Trump. Presidents the people had the good sense to say no to.

 

[Old Rocks]

The question is simple and examinging it at that level is not demogoguery. Do you believe that the world is getting warmer and that the primary cause of that warming is human GHG emissions? Greater than 97% of the world's publishing climate scientists say yes to that question. Like it or not, that puts you and all your buddies here out of business. AGW is settled science.

Settled my ass.

Don't want anything to do with your ass. But I am going to once again point out that the people that made that graph have come to a totally different conclusion than the one you present. And they are real scientists, not posieres on an internet board.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.

Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center. NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

 

[Old Rocks]

The question is simple and examinging it at that level is not demogoguery. Do you believe that the world is getting warmer and that the primary cause of that warming is human GHG emissions? Greater than 97% of the world's publishing climate scientists say yes to that question. Like it or not, that puts you and all your buddies here out of business. AGW is settled science.

Not in the conclusions of the series of Bray and von Storch polls. At least not with the wording "primary cause"..

And even if it was -- still doesn't answer the questions that policy makers NEED. Which is "how bad will it get"? Or "are we seeing it today"?

I sign on to the premise that "the world is getting warmer and some of that warming is due to emissions of GH gases". So am I NOT a denier? Am I baptized into the congregation now?

No, you support the orange clown and his cabinet of incompetents that would make Lysenkoism into a governmental policy of our nation.

And those very people are the ones promising to shut down all US research on the very questions you are asking. The present research that is being done on both the West and East Antarctic Ice Shelves indicate they are far less stable than we previously thought. Paleo data indicates that the sea level rise in previous warm periods was not slow and steady, but occurred in spurts and jumps. And that the last time the GHGs stood at present levels, the sea level was tens of meters higher than today.

No, at present we really have no idea of how bad it can get, or at what pace that will occur. We do know that the predictions from the 20th century look laughably conservative compared to what has already happened. Northwest Passage to open sometime in the latter half of the 21st century. But in 2016, a huge luxury liner transited the Passage. Near total melt of the Arctic Ice for a short time in September at about 2100. But now it looks like that will happen before 2030. Ice shelves in Antarctica stable at least for several hundred years. But they are already breaking up, and we see major weaknesses in both the West and East Shelf.

Feedbacks and accelerations? Looks like we are already seeing them.

 

[Old Rocks]

From NASA, lol

Nice giggle. But how about a link?

Ask nicely. You might even throw in a pretty please for good measure.

Dingleberry will never give you a link because the link says exactly opposite the shit that he is pushing.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.

Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center. NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

 

[Old Rocks]

What I notice is that there's a whole section there where you can travel across the arctic ocean from the Atlantic to the Pacific... which is not a good thing.

Why?


.

Well, if you live in the mid-West, you are experiancing why.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ask nicely. You might even throw in a pretty please for good measure.

Yeah. You're a fraud. Dismissed.

Wow... doesn't that look like we have a problem!!!!

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 400,000 years.

Yes, that does look like we have a problem. And that is the conclusion of the scientists that created those graphs. That is why you never link to the original article. You are a fraud and a liar.

 

[Muhammed]

What I notice is that there's a whole section there where you can travel across the arctic ocean from the Atlantic to the Pacific... which is not a good thing.

That seems like it would be a good thing. A northern passage. Why do you say that's not a good thing?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The problem with your analysis is the people in the regions of land where Trump won far out pace the cities where the mob ruled. The Electoral colleges stops mob rule by the cities from forcing your fantasy on them majority of the US populace who do not..

WE are a Representative Republic and not a direct democracy for a reason. It stops mob rule and the hand out class, who have voted to deprive others of the fruits of their labors, from enslaving the rest of us by morons

The purpose of the Electoral College was to get the Slave States to sign on.
Beside the moral repugnance of even wanting that to be a thing, it didn't even work, because we got a civil war, anyway.

Here's the thing, "Mob Rule" got us Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Ike, Reagan, JFK. All the good presidents we got by popular vote.

The Shitty Presidents were Hayes, Harrison, Bush and now Trump. Presidents the people had the good sense to say no to.

Here's the thing, "Mob Rule" got us Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Ike, Reagan, JFK. All the good presidents we got by popular vote.


What the fuck propaganda retard.....so tell us asshole how did the popular vote elect them?

 

[Old Rocks]

Hurts when you have to face the reality of the fact your orange clown did not win more votes than Clinton, and in fact, had 2.7 million votes less.

 

[JoeB131]

That seems like it would be a good thing. A northern passage. Why do you say that's not a good thing?

are you some kind of fucking retard?

 

[Muhammed]

That seems like it would be a good thing. A northern passage. Why do you say that's not a good thing?

are you some kind of fucking retard?

You are dodging the question, jackass.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, Muhammed, here is your answer;

 

[JoeB131]

That seems like it would be a good thing. A northern passage. Why do you say that's not a good thing?

are you some kind of fucking retard?

You are dodging the question, jackass.

No, that you don't understand simple science enough to see why not having polar ice is a bad thing kind of makes you a retard. I mean, you should have learned this stuff in sixth grade science.

 

[ding]

From NASA, lol

Nice giggle. But how about a link?

Ask nicely. You might even throw in a pretty please for good measure.

Dingleberry will never give you a link because the link says exactly opposite the shit that he is pushing.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.

Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center. NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

I disagree that as the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. Their own data shows that the initial temperature spike was 8.1C to 12.4C and the time periods ranged from 6,000 years to 12,000 years. I disagree that a valid comparison can be made to the last century because the data does not exist over the 6,000 to 12,000 year time frames to do so. There were only two data points for each of the initial pressure spikes. I suspect that they know this too.

 

[ding]

Ask nicely. You might even throw in a pretty please for good measure.

Yeah. You're a fraud. Dismissed.

Wow... doesn't that look like we have a problem!!!!

Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 400,000 years.

Yes, that does look like we have a problem. And that is the conclusion of the scientists that created those graphs. That is why you never link to the original article. You are a fraud and a liar.

There is no problem. NASA's own data shows that our present temperature is at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperatures of three of the past four interglacials.

 

[ding]

 

[flacaltenn]

The question is simple and examinging it at that level is not demogoguery. Do you believe that the world is getting warmer and that the primary cause of that warming is human GHG emissions? Greater than 97% of the world's publishing climate scientists say yes to that question. Like it or not, that puts you and all your buddies here out of business. AGW is settled science.

Not in the conclusions of the series of Bray and von Storch polls. At least not with the wording "primary cause"..

And even if it was -- still doesn't answer the questions that policy makers NEED. Which is "how bad will it get"? Or "are we seeing it today"?

I sign on to the premise that "the world is getting warmer and some of that warming is due to emissions of GH gases". So am I NOT a denier? Am I baptized into the congregation now?

No, you support the orange clown and his cabinet of incompetents that would make Lysenkoism into a governmental policy of our nation.

And those very people are the ones promising to shut down all US research on the very questions you are asking. The present research that is being done on both the West and East Antarctic Ice Shelves indicate they are far less stable than we previously thought. Paleo data indicates that the sea level rise in previous warm periods was not slow and steady, but occurred in spurts and jumps. And that the last time the GHGs stood at present levels, the sea level was tens of meters higher than today.

No, at present we really have no idea of how bad it can get, or at what pace that will occur. We do know that the predictions from the 20th century look laughably conservative compared to what has already happened. Northwest Passage to open sometime in the latter half of the 21st century. But in 2016, a huge luxury liner transited the Passage. Near total melt of the Arctic Ice for a short time in September at about 2100. But now it looks like that will happen before 2030. Ice shelves in Antarctica stable at least for several hundred years. But they are already breaking up, and we see major weaknesses in both the West and East Shelf.

Feedbacks and accelerations? Looks like we are already seeing them.

I never spent a moment supporting El Loco Cheeto Grande and his minions of goobers. You should know that. And there's no sense getting hysterical about funding ALL research in the GW area. Including studies that the academic primadonnas have been blocking and blackballing. Time for an OPEN DEBATE. Not a rant..

 

[Crick]

If you want an open debate, you better get hot finding something scientifically valid to debate with