Extreme Liberalism is a Mental Disorder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Any time we have any form of unusual weather, the left blames it on "climate change" and swears it's from manmade cause.

---

LOL, the right does the exact same thing during short term cold spells:

(CNN)A new US government report delivers a dire warning about climate change and its devastating impacts, saying the economy could lose hundreds of billions of dollars -- or, in the worst-case scenario, more than 10% of its GDP -- by the end of the century.

---

Wondering what the present value estimates of projected GDP loses are if we continue to follow the GOP’s climate change denial/dismissal strategy versus aggressively reduce greenhouse gas emissions to bring net CO2 change to zero by 2050? Because I realistically don’t see how we could do any better even if we collectively went full-bore with a green energy “Marshall Plan”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

LOL, the right does the exact same thing during short term cold spells:

(CNN)A new US government report delivers a dire warning about climate change and its devastating impacts, saying the economy could lose hundreds of billions of dollars -- or, in the worst-case scenario, more than 10% of its GDP -- by the end of the century.

---

Wondering what the present value estimates of projected GDP loses are if we continue to follow the GOP’s climate change denial/dismissal strategy versus aggressively reduce greenhouse gas emissions to bring net CO2 change to zero by 2050? Because I realistically don’t see how we could do any better even if we collectively went full-bore with a green energy “Marshall Plan”.

---

There's money to be made in selling the American public on imminent climate disaster at www.buyawindmillfromadutchie.org.
And then there's www.buyasolarpanelandkeepchinaweak.commie

what is so infuriating is the two party system in the U.S. leaves little or no room for rational discussion.
if you're on their side you're an idiot


MumblesBadly: But the current energy-market industries that already are making bank can afford to “bribe” more politicians than green energy entrepreneurs. So fuck your attempt at false equivalency.

I'm a bit thick would you clarify? Are you saying the green entrepreneurs are fighting a losing battle because they have no voice/real backing?
Is that what you mean when you say false equivalency?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Any time we have any form of unusual weather, the left blames it on "climate change" and swears it's from manmade cause.

I brought up the fires in LA before. I had an argument today with some leftist on Twitter about this, who doesn't even live in the US.

They have fewer than 150 years of data for rain totals in Los Angeles. That's very little. What we do know for sure is that LA has always had high variance in the amount of precipitation received, ranging between 3 and 37 inches per year, with the average being around 15.

In the last five years, aside from the 2016-17 season, we've had far below average precipitation, which was a contributing factor (though not the main factor) to the fires.

Amazingly, the left is saying that this is climate change due to man-made factors.

How? Why?

Here we have an area with a very high variance in precipitation AND only 142 seasons' worth of data. Nothing can be concluded about the dryness of the 2010s in LA at this point, just like you can't say poker is rigged because you lost 6 of the last 7 hands you played.

But I've got tards insisting that this is permanent, man-induced climate change, and that LA will be far drier than average from now on.

I asked how LA had a record rain year in 2004-2005 (37 inches), and I got crickets.

Let's not forget the dire "hurricanes are going to be far more frequent and far worse" panic in 2005, only to have the following years end up quiet and below average intensity.

---

If the planet isn’t warming up, then why are the polar ice caps gradually melting away? The debate is whether humans are causing it, and I’ll take the scientists’ interpretation of the data over Druff’s “expert opinion”. BTW, I don’t give a shit if we are damaging the planet. I love the convenience fossil fuels bring to my life and have no intention of sacrificing for “the good of future generations”. Honestly, if humans destroy their ecosystem and become extinct (as many species have done over eons) the planet will go on fine without us.

---

I didn't say the planet isn't warming up.

I was talking about how the Los Angeles fires are not likely a result of climate change. The LA area is just very prone to this, and the yearly rainfall total is subject to huge natural variance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sanlmar

If Druff looks at the haze of pollution that hangs over LA and believes there will be no consequence that’s great.

However, offering any evidence regarding LA’s historical rainfall etc is astounding to me. LA really isn’t a naturally habitable climate.

From the epic movie Chinatown:

Quote:

---

Gentlemen, today you can walk out that door, turn right, hop on a streetcar and in twenty-five minutes end up smack in the Pacific Ocean. Now you can swim in it, you can fish in it, you can sail in it but you can't drink it, you can't water your lawns with it, you can't irrigate an orange grove with it. Remember we live next door to the ocean but we also live on the edge of the desert. Los Angeles is a desert community. Beneath this building, beneath every street there's a desert. Without water the dust will rise up and cover us as though we'd never existed!

---

Someday Las Vegas will have a serious water crisis. You know what? Our reaction will be the same as the Cali fires, “no shit, coulda called that”.

So yes we are attacking our environment but in a parallel fashion LA shouldn’t be there in the first place cause the environment was already inhospitable.

I thought I heard estimates are $13b in damage. If one dime of Federal funds are spent that will be 10 cents too much.

---

Pollution in LA is now substantially less than 30 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Any time we have any form of unusual weather, the left blames it on "climate change" and swears it's from manmade cause.

---

LOL, the right does the exact same thing during short term cold spells:

(CNN)A new US government report delivers a dire warning about climate change and its devastating impacts, saying the economy could lose hundreds of billions of dollars -- or, in the worst-case scenario, more than 10% of its GDP -- by the end of the century.

The report's findings run counter to President Donald Trump's consistent message that climate change is a hoax.
On Wednesday, Trump tweeted, "Whatever happened to Global Warming?" as some Americans faced the coldest Thanksgiving in over a century.

---

I've never stated that cold spells are evidence that there's no global warming. I realize that some on the right will say things like that, but it's just as stupid as those on the left taking a short-term dry stretch in Los Angeles and claiming it's because of man-made climate change.

Chancler Merkel gave a speech about giving up sovreighty!!?!?!?!!?!!!

SHE MEANS WHITE JUDEO CHRISTAN SOVREIGHTY, the others keep there's and it's enshrined In law...lol..

The libtards really want us too walk right in to an orwellian dystopia of scarcity , unemployment and poverty , famine and disease..

Lollollolhahahahalololololhahalibtards!!!!

Trumpism: a nearly incurable disorder when a Trump supporter blames everything else when someone criticizes Donald Trump.


https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e8/fc/da/e...ty-freedom.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

LOL, the right does the exact same thing during short term cold spells:

(CNN)A new US government report delivers a dire warning about climate change and its devastating impacts, saying the economy could lose hundreds of billions of dollars -- or, in the worst-case scenario, more than 10% of its GDP -- by the end of the century.

The report's findings run counter to President Donald Trump's consistent message that climate change is a hoax.
On Wednesday, Trump tweeted, "Whatever happened to Global Warming?" as some Americans faced the coldest Thanksgiving in over a century.

---

I've never stated that cold spells are evidence that there's no global warming. I realize that some on the right will say things like that, but it's just as stupid as those on the left taking a short-term dry stretch in Los Angeles and claiming it's because of man-made climate change.

---

So do you believe in global warming or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

If the planet isn’t warming up, then why are the polar ice caps gradually melting away? The debate is whether humans are causing it, and I’ll take the scientists’ interpretation of the data over Druff’s “expert opinion”. BTW, I don’t give a shit if we are damaging the planet. I love the convenience fossil fuels bring to my life and have no intention of sacrificing for “the good of future generations”. Honestly, if humans destroy their ecosystem and become extinct (as many species have done over eons) the planet will go on fine without us.

---

I didn't say the planet isn't warming up.

I was talking about how the Los Angeles fires are not likely a result of climate change. The LA area is just very prone to this, and the yearly rainfall total is subject to huge natural variance.

---

Except the data shows that the average temperature in southern California has risen considably over the past century. And the snowpack in the mountains is melting sooner. Both those effects are drying out the vegetation much more, making it easier for wildfires to start and spread.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production...-change-ca.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Wondering what the present value estimates of projected GDP loses are if we continue to follow the GOP’s climate change denial/dismissal strategy versus aggressively reduce greenhouse gas emissions to bring net CO2 change to zero by 2050? Because I realistically don’t see how we could do any better even if we collectively went full-bore with a green energy “Marshall Plan”.

---

There's money to be made in selling the American public on imminent climate disaster at www.buyawindmillfromadutchie.org.
And then there's www.buyasolarpanelandkeepchinaweak.commie

what is so infuriating is the two party system in the U.S. leaves little or no room for rational discussion.
if you're on their side you're an idiot

---

MumblesBadly: But the current energy-market industries that already are making bank can afford to “bribe” more politicians than green energy entrepreneurs. So fuck your attempt at false equivalency.

I'm a bit thick would you clarify? Are you saying the green entrepreneurs are fighting a losing battle because they have no voice/real backing?
Is that what you mean when you say false equivalency?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

There's money to be made in selling the American public on imminent climate disaster at www.buyawindmillfromadutchie.org.
And then there's www.buyasolarpanelandkeepchinaweak.commie

what is so infuriating is the two party system in the U.S. leaves little or no room for rational discussion.
if you're on their side you're an idiot

---

MumblesBadly: But the current energy-market industries that already are making bank can afford to “bribe” more politicians than green energy entrepreneurs. So fuck your attempt at false equivalency.

I'm a bit thick would you clarify? Are you saying the green entrepreneurs are fighting a losing battle because they have no voice/real backing?
Is that what you mean when you say false equivalency?

---

https://media1.tenor.com/images/ff1c...temid=10732408

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Wondering what the present value estimates of projected GDP loses are if we continue to follow the GOP’s climate change denial/dismissal strategy versus aggressively reduce greenhouse gas emissions to bring net CO2 change to zero by 2050? Because I realistically don’t see how we could do any better even if we collectively went full-bore with a green energy “Marshall Plan”.

---

There's money to be made in selling the American public on imminent climate disaster at www.buyawindmillfromadutchie.org.
And then there's www.buyasolarpanelandkeepchinaweak.commie

what is so infuriating is the two party system in the U.S. leaves little or no room for rational discussion.
if you're on their side you're an idiot


MumblesBadly: But the current energy-market industries that already are making bank can afford to “bribe” more politicians than green energy entrepreneurs. So fuck your attempt at false equivalency.

I'm a bit thick would you clarify? Are you saying the green entrepreneurs are fighting a losing battle because they have no voice/real backing?
Is that what you mean when you say false equivalency?

---

are you debating that science & statistics are wrong because capitalists are attempting to profit off it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

There's money to be made in selling the American public on imminent climate disaster at www.buyawindmillfromadutchie.org.
And then there's www.buyasolarpanelandkeepchinaweak.commie

what is so infuriating is the two party system in the U.S. leaves little or no room for rational discussion.
if you're on their side you're an idiot


MumblesBadly: But the current energy-market industries that already are making bank can afford to “bribe” more politicians than green energy entrepreneurs. So fuck your attempt at false equivalency.

I'm a bit thick would you clarify? Are you saying the green entrepreneurs are fighting a losing battle because they have no voice/real backing?
Is that what you mean when you say false equivalency?

---

are you debating that science & statistics are wrong because capitalists are attempting to profit off it?

---

No not even close. I think I threw Mumbles off with the first take. I was joking with the
green business opportunity websites but inferring there is an avenue to both make money and
help this planet. The capitalists that are happy with the status quo are seemingly fine with Trump and other deniers. In a country so in love with the dollar it's blasphemy to hint at curtailing profits

Got it. Its a confusingly formatted convo.

ur face is a confusingly formatted convo ANNNND KABOOM SON

Freedom of speech for everyone!!! who doesn't contradict the progressive dogma de jour.

"Political Correctness is fascism pretending to be manners" - George Carlin

Progressive Feminist Suspended From Twitter After Criticizing The Transgender Movement
https://www.dailywire.com/news/38669...ter-frank-camp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

There's money to be made in selling the American public on imminent climate disaster at www.buyawindmillfromadutchie.org.
And then there's www.buyasolarpanelandkeepchinaweak.commie

what is so infuriating is the two party system in the U.S. leaves little or no room for rational discussion.
if you're on their side you're an idiot

---

MumblesBadly: But the current energy-market industries that already are making bank can afford to “bribe” more politicians than green energy entrepreneurs. So fuck your attempt at false equivalency.

I'm a bit thick would you clarify? Are you saying the green entrepreneurs are fighting a losing battle because they have no voice/real backing?
Is that what you mean when you say false equivalency?

---

I’m saying that the “A bird in hand is worth two in the bush” proverb applies to which industries corruptible politicians are going to side with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jayjami

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I've never stated that cold spells are evidence that there's no global warming. I realize that some on the right will say things like that, but it's just as stupid as those on the left taking a short-term dry stretch in Los Angeles and claiming it's because of man-made climate change.

---

So do you believe in global warming or not?

---

I believe there is global warming.

I believe it is questionable whether or not man caused it.

I believe that many cyclic or random weather patterns are being blamed on global warming, without sufficient evidence or proper sample sizes to back it up.

I believe the left is jumping to far too many conclusions about the current consequences of global warming.

I believe that there will be actual dire consequences if it continues this way long term, but not as soon as many believe, and it's not clear if it will really remain this way.

I believe that poor cooperation from high polluting countries like China largely negates any effort we attempt to make here to possibly combat the problem, and at the same time we put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage by doing so while China runs wild.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I didn't say the planet isn't warming up.

I was talking about how the Los Angeles fires are not likely a result of climate change. The LA area is just very prone to this, and the yearly rainfall total is subject to huge natural variance.

---

Except the data shows that the average temperature in southern California has risen considably over the past century. And the snowpack in the mountains is melting sooner. Both those effects are drying out the vegetation much more, making it easier for wildfires to start and spread.

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production...-change-ca.pdf

---

You're making a huge leap here regarding "wildfires starting and spreading" which isn't necessarily true.

Southern California has always been dry for the 6 month period from April 15 to October 15 (and sometimes longer). A little dryer or a little hotter will be a negligible difference.

Wildfires get out of control because of the hot, dry environment and the prevalence of dense trees and brush in the hills and mountains in the region. There have been some efforts to encourage brush/tree clearance in order to bring down the wildfire danger, but environmentalists have refused to allow it, citing the destruction of animal habitats. Instead, the animals die a horrific death in these fires anyway. That's what Trump was trying to refer to when he was blaming California for this mess, but as usual, his lack of eloquence makes even his smart statements look stupid.

BTW, contrary to popular belief, more frequent wildfires is actually long term good for California, provided they are kept under control.

For example, Ventura County had the Spring Fire in 2013, which burnt up a lot of brush but destroyed very few structures and killed no one. The Hill Fire this time around, while initially scary, did little overall damage because it ran into the Spring Fire damage from 2013, and had no more fuel to burn. Firefighters easily contained it at that point.

The Woolsey fire, which was originally smaller, went a different direction, and did not run into areas recently burned, so it consumed a large area and caused a lot of destruction.

It should also be noted that smart neighborhood planning can also keep fire damage/deaths to a minimum. In these recent SoCal fires, some of the newer-built areas were much easier to defend, because they were built with fire danger in mind. It's the old school homes and businesses which are in greater danger, as they just put the houses up and didn't think about the fire situation.

Anyway, this is what bugs me about "climate change" fanatics. Instead of focusing upon the true causes of the problems and trying to solve them, it seems they want to bend over backwards to prove themselves right, thus resulting in nothing helpful actually getting done.