New CNN Presidential Poll

Bah! he won it by filling the vacancy. i say it's time for him to legitimately reclaim the crown!

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

.

Well, if you're a believer in climate change, how could you vote for Trump over Clinton? Clinton wants to shut the coal mines down, Trump supports the coal industry. Something doesn't jive. Originally Posted by bambino

There are many issues in a candidate's platform. Climate change is one. More important issues to me are the economy, employment issues in the U.S., Social Security funding, Medicare, cost of medical care, terrorism, and several others. Sometimes one single issue outweighs the rest and you vote for the candidate you believe best matches your desires. More often, you vote for a candidate based on his/her position on multiple issues, with some being more important than others.

There are many issues in a candidate's platform. Climate change is one. More important issues to me are the economy, employment issues in the U.S., Social Security funding, Medicare, cost of medical care, terrorism, and several others. Sometimes one single issue outweighs the rest and you vote for the candidate you believe best matches your desires. More often, you vote for a candidate based on his/her position on multiple issues, with some being more important than others. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Geez, I never knew this. Thanks for the tutorial.

"then counter me smarty. Global Climate Change .. as they refer to it now, is not just bad science or rather inconclusive science to be fair, is a FRAUD. you don't even know why they no longer call it "global warming". i'll tell ya smarty, because going all the way back to the 1970's the so-called alarmists claimed the Planet was warming at an alarming rate. well .. it's NOT. the best data even the proponents can show .. if that .. is that the temperature of the planet, since the 1970's has risen 1.5 to at most 2 degrees. so much for that eh? ahaha so they had to re brand it "Climate Change". clever of them actually since they can pretty much pin anything on this FRAUD.

remember the "hockey stick" graph? proven to be FALSE.

see, smarty? you aren't even up on the current terminology! go do your homework. i'll make it easy for ya! i'll bump my thread. read it. you might learn something. like the truth."

I went back and read the first 5 pages of the thread and gave up after it deteriorated into name calling with no substance.

In the first 5 pages, the only "proof" you supplied that global warming (or Global Climate Change -- same subject, different name) is a hoax is an editorial by some unknown person in something called the Investor's Business Daily. That is ONE person's opinion on the subject. A person with as far as I can tell absolutely no science background. The goal of people pushing global warming is to destroy capitalism!!!??? Give me a break. Maybe you offered further "proof" in pages 6 -13 of the thread.

Again, the main difference between you and me is that I know what an opinion is and you know "the truth". Unlike you, I admit to not being an expert on global warming and depend on other opinions to gain insight into the subject.

Here are but a handful of opinions by people whom I consider to be fairly educated on the subject, including opinions from people at National Geographic and Scientific American.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

"The major scientific agencies of the United States — including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) — agree that climate change is occurring and that humans are contributing to it. In 2010, the National Research Council concluded that "Climate change is occurring, is very likely caused by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems".


Source: https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html

The following presents many "facts" including in the author's opinion that "Scientific experts can be wrong."

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...rsus-opinions/

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/7-scary-f...climate-change

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...rian-nonsense/

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/cl...special-issue/

Geez, I never knew this. Thanks for the tutorial. Originally Posted by bambino

If it was so obvious, why did you ask me why I would vote for Trump because I differed with him on one item in his platform?

If it was so obvious, why did you ask me why I would vote for Trump because I differed with him on one item in his platform? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Because climate believers are usually zealots and it's on the top of their list of things. Like it is with Sanders, Clinton and BO. I tend to believe this guy, he's pretty fucking smart:


https://e360.yale.edu/digest/with-fr...-skeptic/1880/

Because climate believers are usually zealots and it's on the top of their list of things. Like it is with Sanders, Clinton and BO. I tend to believe this guy, he's pretty fucking smart:


https://e360.yale.edu/digest/with-fr...-skeptic/1880/ Originally Posted by bambino

If I, in the past, had never participated in global warming threads, how could a be classified as a zealot? Never mind.

I fully accept Dyson's opinion on the subject as another data point to consider. He readily admits he is "not a climate expert" but I, too, believe his POV needs to be heard. And yes, he is probably "pretty fucking smart".
But I tend to believe scientists at National Geographic and other institutions who have actually investigated the subject and come up with a different conclusion.

Most climate scientists say that Dyson’s views — including his claim that warming today is largely confined to the Arctic — are flat-out wrong. But Dyson, who readily admits that he is not a climate expert, remains undaunted, insisting that his skeptical point of view needs to be heard.

War of words over global warming as Nobel laureate resigns in protest


A Nobel laureate has quit one of the world's leading organisations for scientists in protest at its assertion that the evidence of damaging global warming is "incontrovertible"....

But Prof Giaever, who shared the 1973 Nobel award for physics, told The Sunday Telegraph. "Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science."....

Prof Giaever was one of Barack Obama's leading scientific supporters during the 2008 president election campaign, joining 70 Nobel science laureates endorsing his candidacy.

But he has since criticised Mr Obama over his stance on global warming and was one of more 100 scientists who wrote an open letter to him, declaring: "We maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."....

"Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money."

(Telegraph)

And Bambino's Freeman Dyson.

If I, in the past, had never participated in global warming threads, how could a be classified as a zealot? Never mind.

I fully accept Dyson's opinion on the subject as another data point to consider. He readily admits he is "not a climate expert" but I, too, believe his POV needs to be heard. And yes, he is probably "pretty fucking smart".
But I tend to believe scientists at National Geographic and other institutions who have actually investigated the subject and come up with a different conclusion.

Most climate scientists say that Dyson’s views — including his claim that warming today is largely confined to the Arctic — are flat-out wrong. But Dyson, who readily admits that he is not a climate expert, remains undaunted, insisting that his skeptical point of view needs to be heard.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You did say this:

. Global warming? Fact. Take a trip on the National Geographic Explorer or Orion to Antarctica and see for yourself how global warming has upset the balance of nature

So, it seems that you're a believer. And most believers put it up there on voting issues. As for Dyson, he's being demure when he says he's not an expert. He's studied the climate plenty during his life. There are 5 components to the climate. Most experts only connect two of them. Dyson has researched all 5. Maybe he's not the "expert" Al Gore is. But Dyson is a skeptic and so am I. And I'm a skeptic that you'll vote for Trump.

If it was so obvious, why did you ask me why I would vote for Trump because I differed with him on one item in his platform? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I don't think the guys are seeing that you are considering voting for Mr. Trump.

I think you also are correct in what I believe was your implied assumption that no candidate will perfectly fit your viewpoint, so you must weight each in the balance.

When I weigh them in the balance, Mrs. Clinton is found to be wanting.

Guys, SpeedRacer isn't so bad, and I'm not saying that just because I loved that cartoon (made in Japan, BTW) when I was a kid.

You did say this:

. Global warming? Fact. Take a trip on the National Geographic Explorer or Orion to Antarctica and see for yourself how global warming has upset the balance of nature

So, it seems that you're a believer. And most believers put it up there on voting issues. As for Dyson, he's being demure when he says he's not an expert. He's studied the climate plenty during his life. There are 5 components to the climate. Most experts only connect two of them. Dyson has researched all 5. Maybe he's not the "expert" Al Gore is. But Dyson is a skeptic and so am I. And I'm a skeptic that you'll vote for Trump. Originally Posted by bambino

Yes. I am a believer in global warming but far from a zealot. It is simply not one of the top issues on which I base my decision as for whom I will vote. I've already listed my top concerns.

I was very open on Dyson -- his opinion is another that should be considered. I am not criticizing you or anyone else for choosing different sources of input on global warming than I and coming to a different support position than I.

I said I would vote for Trump if there were no other options than Trump and Clinton. To me, Cruz is too far to the right and Clinton and Sanders are too far to the left. I'm not sure exactly how Trump will accomplish what he states he is going to do. Too much talk, not enough substance so far. By voting for Trump would be more a vote against Clinton. But, to repeat myself, I plan to vote for Gary Johnson.

DSK, hopefully this addresses your question too.

Yes. I am a believer in global warming but far from a zealot. It is simply not one of the top issues on which I base my decision as for whom I will vote. I've already listed my top concerns.

I was very open on Dyson -- his opinion is another that should be considered. I am not criticizing you or anyone else for choosing different sources of input on global warming than I and coming to a different support position than I.

I said I would vote for Trump if there were no other options than Trump and Clinton. To me, Cruz is too far to the right and Clinton and Sanders are too far to the left. I'm not sure exactly how Trump will accomplish what he states he is going to do. Too much talk, not enough substance so far. By voting for Trump would be more a vote against Clinton. But, to repeat myself, I plan to vote for Gary Johnson.

DSK, hopefully this addresses your question too. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Fair enough. Johnson may get quite a few votes this time around.

Myself, I'm going to vote for Mr. Trump, though I believe he is a longshot at best.

From Israel?

Yes. I am a believer in global warming but far from a zealot. It is simply not one of the top issues on which I base my decision as for whom I will vote. I've already listed my top concerns.

I was very open on Dyson -- his opinion is another that should be considered. I am not criticizing you or anyone else for choosing different sources of input on global warming than I and coming to a different support position than I.

I said I would vote for Trump if there were no other options than Trump and Clinton. To me, Cruz is too far to the right and Clinton and Sanders are too far to the left. I'm not sure exactly how Trump will accomplish what he states he is going to do. Too much talk, not enough substance so far. By voting for Trump would be more a vote against Clinton. But, to repeat myself, I plan to vote for Gary Johnson.

DSK, hopefully this addresses your question too. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

So my skepticism about you voting for Trump was correct. You really had no desire to vote for him. You were employing "negative partisanship". Voting against a candidate instead of for a candidate. Which is fine. Gary Johnson is an interesting guy. He got 1% of the vote last time. I'm guessing the Never Trump forces will get behind Johnson this time. He will suck votes away from Trump. Pretty much handing the election to Hillary. Johnson has no chance of winning this time around either. So there's your conundrum, the candidate you like the least will win if you vote for Johnson.

Do you realize that if you came upon the global warming study after spending the last 50 years living under a rock you just can't believe the activists. Forget the research on both sides, lets look at the rhetoric;

The consensus agrees that global warming is real...

Science is NOT consensus, it is empirical evidence, experiments that prove that the evidence is valid and is repeatable, it is about conclusions drawn from those experiments and not some computer model.

All scientists agree that global warming is happening...

So if you find just one scientist that disagrees then this is proven to be a lie. Meet Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, climate scientist, MIT professor, author of over 200 scientific papers, and a GLOBAL WARMING CRITIC!

It has never been warmer than it has right now....

Really? EVER? We've only been recording temperatures accurately for about 300 years but geological records demonstrate that is has been far warmer on the planet many times over the past 100,000 years. Another lie disproven.

The activists keep lying and a certain segment of the poplation described by Lincoln still believe them. Without any knowledge on the topic, a person has to view anything from an activist with a deep skepticism.