Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It's because Trumps supporters are terrible people.

We need to open the borders so that anyone can come into the country and get a job. Foreigners work harder than natives anyways. Natives are drug addicts that keep ODing on opiates, and some, I assume, are good people.

Old people like Trump still thinks America is like 1950's Detroit. He has no idea how a globalist economy works.
[doublepost=1496323929][/doublepost]

Probably better to just boycott US companies in favor of more environmentally friendly products from other countries.
[doublepost=1496323975][/doublepost]

Yes. Liberal is good.

Now you're learning.
[doublepost=1496324076][/doublepost]

You don't think traitoring against the US warrants impeachment?

Maybe you're a Russian, I don't know...
You assume all Trump supporters are bad. That's an ignorant mentality but hey, you keep showing your ignorance. That's your choice.

Open borders - No, we certainly do NOT need open borders. This is 2017, many people want to come here to cause massive damage to this country, and people like you just want to let them right on in!

Liberal is good? You consider yourself one? If so, being ignorant isn't good.

Proof of him being a traitor? Oh, right, Russia? Still no evidence, but hey, MSM tells you there is so of course you just keep lapping it up like a good little boy. Maybe your ignorant? Maybe not but certainly appears so.

I'm done, you have proven your ignorance over and over and over, you really have nothing of substance to contribute anymore. You keep spinning the MSM talking points and it's quite tiresome at this point.
 
Last edited:
You assume all Trump supporters are bad. That's a ignorant mentality but hey, you keep showing your ignorance. That's your choice.

Open borders - No, we certainly do NOT need open borders. This is 2017, many people want to come here to cause massive damage to this country, and people like you just want to let them right on in!

Liberal is good? You consider yourself one? If so, being ignorant isn't good.

Proof of him being a traitor? Oh, right, Russia? Still no evidence, but hey, MSM tells you there is so of course you just keep lapping it up like a good little boy. Maybe your ignorant? Maybe not but certainly appears so.

I'm done, you have proven your ignorance over and over and over, you really have nothing of substance to contribute anymore. You keep spinning the MSM talking points and it's quite tiresome at this point.

I accept your surrender. I am glad we all agree to open borders to make sure everyone can come into this country.

And remember, the MSM's job is to make sure people don't lie, and the only people that fight the MSM are people that want to lie.

You can always tell who's a liar when the complain about the MSM.

Liberals are always superior to the timid, afraid, intellectually inferior conservatives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wildhope
This is what saddens me. You are projecting a falsified MSM narrative onto a guy who is nowhere near the evil that the Bush family possesses. You seriously just compared a Globalist Elitist who has literally zero of your best interests in mind and started a fake war where thousands of our own young men and women had to die for profit and revenge vs. a dude who facetiously commented on grabbing a groupie.

A 72 year old man who's "biggest transgression" was that. Think about that. 72 years and that's what they came up with. They labeled him a racist for protecting our country from ILLEGALS. Not LEGAL immigrants, mind you. A guy who every single person of any ethnicity that's met him says he's not a racist. A guy who DATED a black woman. lol. A man who demanded his limo driver to pull over to STOP A ROBBERY.

You just said he's a bad person and said Bush was an "ok kinda dude". And you wonder why you lost. Unreal.
If you haven't noticed, ALL the Trump bashers do is nothing but project MSM BS, they clearly can't think for themselves. They STILL can't prove Russian Collusion yet, they can't let it go. Someone leaked Trumps taxes showing he STILL paid more than Clinton, etc and they STILL can't let that go.

It's disgusting.
 
You've been brainwashed bud. It's sad but quite common among liberals these days. It looks like you've been #triggered lmao

Yes. Everyone should be brainwashed by going to college and being smart.

Brainwashing is a good thing - it cleans out the dumb from the brain, for that sparkling new brain shine.
[doublepost=1496327833][/doublepost]
If you haven't noticed, ALL the Trump bashers do is nothing but project MSM BS, they clearly can't think for themselves. They STILL can't prove Russian Collusion yet, they can't let it go. Someone leaked Trumps taxes showing he STILL paid more than Clinton, etc and they STILL can't let that go.

It's disgusting.

Yes. MSM is a good thing. We should obey the MSM.

If you are complaining about the MSM, you are trying to lie. The MSM won't let you lie, because their job is to out liars.

This is why Republicans hate the MSM, because the MSM doesn't let Republicans lie.
 
Yawn....

"the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
"our cold, wet climate"
synonyms: weather conditions, weather;
atmospheric conditions
"the mild climate"

As I said, they change constantly. This is a fact.

And as to the little "or me either" snarky, condescending comment, trust me, my opinion of you and your comments, you really think I give 2 ***** what you think? No, I don't, and further responses are going to be ignored, the elitism that oozes from you daily is quite disgusting.
Nope again. Still don't understand climate other than how they use the word on TV.

Nope a third time. Try as you may, you can't undo scientific method by calling its proponents elitist.
 
No, the point is we can't continue to increase the Earth's population Exponentially (look up the growth in the last 100 years) without consequences.

Someone serious about "climate change" would look at ways to reduce carbon AND population. Best way is to encourage people to have less kids.
Yeah, it's definitely tricky. In a democracy we can only encourage, but at some point we might have to make it a law, as much as I hate to say so, just because it's unsustainable. I think that this is a good idea, but pulling out of this climate pact isn't going to make things better is all I'm saying. But yeah, I wish they would do more with overpopulation as well. Also, a key problem with reducing the birthrate is that it stifles the economy. That's going to be a huge cluster to figure out.
 
A few interesting links - solar pricing is cheaper or approaching the cost of coal...

http://www.mining.com/wind-solar-power-plants-cheaper-coal-decade/
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/01/04/solar-power_n_13961296.html
https://qz.com/871907/2016-was-the-...cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-just-wait-for-2017/

Trump is still pushing coal for votes.. where in the economic big picture, coal is on life support.

( yes, coal is just one item of fossil fuels )

and guess who swooped in and bought coal companies at depressed prices after a community organizing socialist put them on life support?? Soros, anyone?
 
This is the guy that lives in a constant bubble as well.. Why should we listen to him? Next, we would wanna get rid of recycle cans.
 
Get out. @Potus and @TimCook

Trump needs to do what he needs to do (not stay in the pact) and Tim Cook needs to focus on next week's keynote and less on the president. Smfh.
Translation: I don't have a PhD in anything much less climatology but am willing to bet my lack of knowledge on the world's future, and Americans don't actually have the rights guaranteed under the 1st Amendment but I do." That about right?
 
All part of shipping MORE of our jobs to China, India, etc.

Lets get out and stay out. Regulations are killing this country. No surprise the large companies want to stay in - more protection for them through regulation!

MAGA!

I understand your general frustration with government regulations. However, let's see if there is some common ground here. At the beginning of the industrial revolution, there were essentially no regulations because the government and people did not understand some of the secondary impacts of unfettered pursuit of profits. Don't get me wrong, few would argue that free markets are the most efficient engine for wide-spread prosperity. However, overtime, regulations have been introduced to protect various stake holders: e.g. child labor laws, anti-trust regulations, health and safety rules, and of course environmental laws. And, just as few would argue with the general premise of a free market economy, most would agree that some regulation in business is necessary. In the dawn of the industrial revolution, companies would literally dump raw sewage into local streams because this is the profit maximizing solution for their operations.....and, business exist to pursue maximum profits. I don't say pursuing profits is bad, but pretty much everyone agrees that the impacts on downstream populations from pollution practices during this period were unacceptable. People would die. Children would become ill. Generations would suffer. So, regulations were introduced to reduce the impact on local populations.

Now, fast forward 100 plus years. Instead of 1.5 billion people, there are 7.5 billion people. Instead of 10% of the world being industrialized, well over half of the world is industrialized....don't know the true figure.....but, we can agree it has grown substantially. Now, environmental impacts are no longer just downstream and local. They are global. As it relates to climate change for example, Scientists are pretty much unanimous on this point....impacts are global. So, if environmental impacts are global, doesn't it make sense to have some international agreements about how to deal with these potentially catastrophic issues? I am not saying the Paris Accords are perfect. Perhaps, they could be improved. I am simply supporting the basic philosophical approach and wisdom of having international environmental agreements when there are clearly global environmental impacts that need to be addressed.
 
Last edited:
I understand your general frustration with government regulations. However, let's see if there is some common ground here. At the beginning of the industrial revolution, there were essentially no regulations because the government and people did not understand some of the secondary impacts of unfettered pursuit of profits. Don't get me wrong, few would argue that free markets are the most efficient engine for wide-spread prosperity. However, overtime, regulations have been introduced to protect various stake holders: e.g. child labor laws, anti-trust regulations, health and safety rules, and of course environmental laws. And, just as few would argue with the general premise of a free market economy, most would agree that some regulation in business is necessary. In the dawn of the industrial revolution, companies would literally dump raw sewage into local streams because this is the profit maximizing solution for their operations.....and, business exist to pursue maximum profits. I don't say pursuing profits is bad, but pretty much everyone agrees that the impacts on downstream populations from pollution practices during this period were unacceptable. People would die. Children would become ill. Generations would suffer. So, regulations were introduced to reduce the impact on local populations.

Now, fast forward 100 plus years. Instead of 1.5 billion people, there are 7.5 billion people. Instead of 10% of the world being industrialized, well over half of the world is industrialized....don't know the true figure.....but, we can agree it has grown substantially. Now, environmental impacts are no longer just downstream and local. They are global. As it relates to climate change for example, Scientists are pretty much unanimous on this point....impacts are global. So, if environmental impacts are global, doesn't it make sense to have some international agreements about how to deal with these potentially catastrophic issues? I am not saying the Paris Accords are perfect. Perhaps, they could be improved. I am simply supporting the basic philosophical approach and wisdom of having international environmental agreements when there are clearly global environmental impacts that need to be addressed.
This agreement is a direct shot at US Manufacturing. China does not have to do anything until 2030 while the US Taxpayer and Middle Class foot the bill. It needs to be even for ALL PARTIES. I am not a climate change denier. I am against sending more jobs to China through government regulation while letting the rust belt spread across middle america instead of lifting them up through capitalism and not social programs that entrap people and make it difficult for them to get out of.
 
Translation: I don't have a PhD in anything much less climatology but am willing to bet my lack of knowledge on the world's future, and Americans don't actually have the rights guaranteed under the 1st Amendment but I do." That about right?
Wrong.
[doublepost=1496331973][/doublepost]
Yes. Everyone should be brainwashed by going to college and being smart.

Brainwashing is a good thing - it cleans out the dumb from the brain, for that sparkling new brain shine.
[doublepost=1496327833][/doublepost]

Yes. MSM is a good thing. We should obey the MSM.

If you are complaining about the MSM, you are trying to lie. The MSM won't let you lie, because their job is to out liars.

This is why Republicans hate the MSM, because the MSM doesn't let Republicans lie.
You write as if you couldn't even make it into a community college. Considering I went to one of the top universities in the U.S. and graduated top of my class, I think I know what I'm talking about. You on the other hand, are just a sheep. A mindless, wandering sheep. It's unfortunate, but alas, that's life. And I'd rather you stay that way so I can profit off of the people like you, that work for me.
 
Let's remove the electoral college because your candidate lost...boo hoo.

I never advocated removing the Electoral College. I merely pointed out that Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump. That's something that seemed to rankle Trump, as he equates votes with Nielsen ratings.
 
Nope again. Still don't understand climate other than how they use the word on TV.

Nope a third time. Try as you may, you can't undo scientific method by calling its proponents elitist.
As I said, elitist. You think you are right, no matter how wrong you are. Typical.
 
Hi! Meteorology major here. We can predict the weather for your neighborhood for the next few days with (usually) pretty good accuracy. If you're not getting the accuracy you seek, perhaps it's a good idea to get weather information from a different source. For the United States, the National Weather Service, The Weather Channel, local broadcast media, Weather Underground, AccuWeather, Dark Sky, and many more exist.

Climate change is the result of relatively simple radiative processes in our atmosphere. Carbon dioxide traps and reemits solar radiation that enters our atmosphere. Other gases do this, too, and together they're called greenhouse gases. There are a lot of sources of greenhouse gases, and in moderation, they're a good thing! They're here to keep our temperatures from swinging hundreds of degrees Fahrenheit each day.

Of course, there can be too much of a good thing. Climate's changed before, sure, and we can look at previous climate change going back centuries or even millennia. But compared to previous climate changes, this one's happening really fast—far faster than any before it—and it starts right around the beginning of the 20th century.

It's tough not to tie this to the human-led Industrial Revolution, when we started pumping into the air factory exhaust and, soon afterward, car exhaust. Deforestation, which removes plants that absorb carbon dioxide and return oxygen, exacerbates the problem.

If you have an alternative explanation for why atmospheric carbon dioxide started jumping around the Industrial Revolution, and the global mean temperature began trending up to follow suit, but is not related to humans, I'd be interested to hear it.

As for what caused the end of the last Ice Age, it was a change in the composition of gases in our atmosphere—fittingly, an increase in carbon dioxide.
Get out of here with your quite sound logic and reason! /s

What school are you going to? I might not live far from you. I'm also a weather geek and have considered getting a second degree in meteorology. You seem well spoken for a student, but if you're like me, you were probably reading college textbooks on cyclogenesis in middle school and trying to figure out how to connect your home weather station to Weather Underground's network and, while at university, thought you were nearly going to die in the RFD of a rain wrapped tornado during a chase gone wrong in the ozarks. Ok, that last one is very specific so probably not, lol.
 
I believe that Global Warming was caused by man. I also hear Trump on his issues with the regulations. But there are other jobs (tech, medical, law, etc) that could have more focus on being created and still meet environment goals. People need to adapt. For example, if my job was to cut down trees and lets say trees are 95% cut down, I would complain and fight environment activist so that I can cut the remaining 5% of the trees down. Transitioning to a new job requiring new skillsets can be difficult financially but maybe there could be help in that area.
 
This agreement is a direct shot at US Manufacturing. China does not have to do anything until 2030 while the US Taxpayer and Middle Class foot the bill. It needs to be even for ALL PARTIES. I am not a climate change denier. I am against sending more jobs to China through government regulation while letting the rust belt spread across middle america instead of lifting them up through capitalism and not social programs that entrap people and make it difficult for them to get out of.


I am definitely not an expert on the Paris Accords, so my original post was really more philosophical about the need to deal with global environmental impacts via international agreements. If we can agree to that, then maybe it would be better to propose amendments to the Accords, rather than bail-out of them and the international environmental community all together. In this way, we could continue to be a leader of the free world rather than appear to be a superpower without an international role in making the planet better.

As it relates to China, I found this from the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions:

"China committed to the following actions by 2030:

  • Peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 and making best efforts to peak early;
  • Lowering carbon dioxide intensity (carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP) by 60 to 65 percent from the 2005 level;
  • Increasing the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20 percent; and
  • Increasing the forest stock volume by around 4.5 billion cubic meters from the 2005 level.1

Based on analysis by some of the world’s leading energy institutes, China’s INDC represents a significant undertaking beyond business-as-usual and will help slow the rise in global greenhouse gas emissions. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), International Energy Agency (IEA), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Tsinghua University, peaking carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 would reduce China’s emissions by at least 1.7 Gt or 14 percent from the most optimistic business-as-usual (BAU) scenario"



In order to hit these 2030 targets, China will have to do something soon to turn the tide and change the way they do business. The point is: Just because the goals are measured in the year 2030 doesn't mean action isn't required immediately to meet those goals. So, it might not be completely accurate to say "China doesn't have to do anything until 2030".
 
I believe that Global Warming was caused by man. I also hear Trump on his issues with the regulations. But there are other jobs (tech, medical, law, etc) that could have more focus on being created and still meet environment goals. People need to adapt. For example, if my job was to cut down trees and lets say trees are 95% cut down, I would complain and fight environment activist so that I can cut the remaining 5% of the trees down. Transitioning to a new job requiring new skillsets can be difficult financially but maybe there could be help in that area.

Being caused by man is very debatable. Interestingly, because we don't feel that intense heat of the fireballs that are forming as a result of Global Warming, they changed the name to Climate Change because we don't feel the created and perceived warmth we were supposed to feel from Global Warming come as drastically as Al Gore said it was going to be by this time. I don't deny that man has had some effect on the globe, but I also believe nature takes it course and cycles.

What I don't understand is the mindset that the best way to do this is to continue the stifling regulations over here that make manufacturing at reasonable costs impossible, so we ship it overseas and continue having China do it unregulated while growing their economy and indirectly support them ruining our planet?

I think the other problem is the reporting these days gets delivered in extreme black and white versions. Trump is lifting some regulations, this gets reported as Trump has removed ALL regulations and we are back to dumping toxic sludge in the water and releasing all filters off the smokestacks and pushing toxins in the air. He puts an immigration ban on a few Countries, and this gets reported as all muslims throughout the world are no longer welcome. And because this is "legitimate news", this gets received as it must be true. Trump goes on his first international trip, he makes some great speeches. He meets the pope, what do we take out of this meeting? The photo of the moment Trump was smiling and the Pope was not. He goes to the NATO HQ and calls all countries out, this made him an oafish boar. Rules and expenses only seem to apply to us. And what did we get out of all these meetings? Trump chose not to listen to the Italian President in headphones as everyone was using.....he was listening on an earpiece.

Tell a lie often enough and the people will believe it.
 
As I said, elitist. You think you are right, no matter how wrong you are. Typical.
Nope. Being right doesn't automatically mean elitism. I'm only interested in evidence and where it takes us. Not angry, not defensive, just facts and objectively and statistically supported hypotheses. You can't get your head around the fact that science has no emotion about it. I don't care if I'm the lowliest of the low, as long as truth is untainted by bias.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 89aw11s/c
Same could be said for all the debt Obama and the Democrats have racked up over the past 8 years, that will effect our children in the future far worse than the climate will, yet I don't see you complaining about that.
You don't see me complaining about that? I'm hurt that you haven't been following my every post across the web.

Also, two wrongs don't make a...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.