[Potemkin]

San Francisco is ran by Democrat politicians Late. It is a fucking mess and the solution they came with was decriminalisation rather than actually addressing the problems there which ironically has made things much worse. California happens to be Americas breadbasket with GDP larger than most other nations and IT IS STILL broke. How do you think that has happened? I can tell you but you won't like the answer. It is broke because it is a low tax state and that is why Silicon Valley, Hollywood and the virtual signaling bourgeois reside there. There is virtually no investment in state run programs like health, transport and education which you find in any other country run by recognised Left leaning parties, the cost of living has not been addressed especially in regards to housing and welfare is non existent. The biggest lie every told was the claim the Democrats are a Left party. They are run by the same donors as the Republican party and as such defecto the same party. Until Americans understand this, the will be clout chasing and arguing amongst themselves over stupid little things like who can use what toilet rather than the problems that matter like the cost of living.

That’s one way of telling us you do understand.

[Rich]

The biggest lie every told was the claim the Democrats are a Left party.

That itself is a disgusting lie. The Democrats are the left party of the United States. If you want to compare them to an absolute standard across (modern) time and space, then the natural comparison is with Gladstone and Disraeli. By absolute standards both the Republicans and Democrats are extremely far left parties.

As far as I'm aware there is not a single leading Republican let alone a leading Democrat that has even talked about restoring the monarchy and returning to conservative values.

[Godstud]

I think most people think of it as:
Left = Progressive
Right = Conservative.

[B0ycey]

That itself is a disgusting lie. The Democrats are the left party of the United States. If you want to compare them to an absolute standard across (modern) time and space, then the natural comparison is with Gladstone and Disraeli. By absolute standards both the Republicans and Democrats are extremely far left parties.

As far as I'm aware there is not a single leading Republican let alone a leading Democrat that has even talked about restoring the monarchy and returning to conservative values.

Perhaps I should have wrote 'The biggest lie ever told was the Democrats were a Socialist Party' Rich. Either way, anyone who thinks America is in a better state now than they were under Trump is in lala land. When the residents of Maui are getting LESS aide than Ukraine despite having their home literally burn down and being a blue state, people should be questioning what exactly are Washingtons priorities are right now. Not defending them due to partizan politics. And to be frank, when I look at blue and Red states, despite being a Social Democrat who supports free health care, education etc, because the parties are both so similar in everything that matters to me (in a negative way), I would always pick a Red state to live in due to traditional family values and the adherence of the law.

[late]

In the 1970s they were talking about climate change going towards an Ice Age.

The problem with not knowing something is not in the ignorance.

It's when you use ignorance as a tactic.

Very dumb and dumber.

The guys that did that had to retract the paper... It was never taken seriously.

[late]

That itself is a disgusting lie. The Democrats are the left party of the United States. If you want to compare them to an absolute standard across (modern) time and space, then the natural comparison is with Gladstone and Disraeli. By absolute standards both the Republicans and Democrats are extremely far left parties.

As far as I'm aware there is not a single leading Republican let alone a leading Democrat that has even talked about restoring the monarchy and returning to conservative values.

Sigh.

There are no absolute standards.

Back in the 70s, it was the Kochs that bankrolled Reagan. Their economic guru was a wacko that wanted to bring back slavery in everything but name. You thought the extreme income inequality we have is an accident?

That level of inequality makes the superich defacto royalty. It's already happened.

[Godstud]

@late My point was that the science is not established, and that it changes as we learn more about it. The predictions change every year.

That is not to say that AGW is not real. I think it is. I think that CO2, however, is not the problem that people make it out to be. I think that's something that has been highly politicized, because there's good money in it for governments.

The earth used to have much higher concentrations of CO2, and estimates of how much the earth is going to heat up, compared to estimates of CO2 levels, don't really match up. They estimate an increase of 2.44 ppm per year. We sit around 422 ppm(outdoors), right now. The Earth used to be 20C hotter when we had @4,000 ppm of CO2. The math doesn't seem to add up.

[Pants-of-dog]

and estimates of how much the earth is going to heat up, compared to estimates of CO2 levels, don't really match up. They estimate an increase of 2.44 ppm per year. We sit around 422 ppm(outdoors), right now. The Earth used to be 20C hotter when we had @4,000 ppm of CO2. The math doesn't seem to add up. :?:

Provide a link to a source showing this.

[Godstud]

https://mlg.eng.cam.ac.uk/carl/words/ca ... per%20year.

https://earth.org/data_visualization/a- ... ry-of-co2/

[Pants-of-dog]

https://mlg.eng.cam.ac.uk/carl/words/carbon.html#:~:text=In%201960%2D1970%20the%20growth,about%202.46%20ppm%20per%20year.

https://earth.org/data_visualization/a- ... ry-of-co2/

Those links do not support the claim.

Can you quote the text that you think supports the claim?

[late]

[usermention=41202]

@late[/usermention] My point was that the science is not established, and that it changes as we learn more about it. The predictions change every year.

That is not to say that AGW is not real. I think it is. I think that CO2, however, is not the problem that people make it out to be. I think that's something that has been highly politicized, because there's good money in it for governments.

The earth used to have much higher concentrations of CO2, and estimates of how much the earth is going to heat up, compared to estimates of CO2 levels, don't really match up. They estimate an increase of 2.44 ppm per year. We sit around 422 ppm(outdoors), right now. The Earth used to be 20C hotter when we had @4,000 ppm of CO2. The math doesn't seem to add up. :?:

I told you about the report from 1977, that hasn't changed.

You are babbling BS.

[Godstud]

@late This is not a report from 1977. Pay attention.

I am talking about CO2 levels, NOW. I acknowledge your response and it makes sense. Take the W.

[late]

@late This is not a report from 1977. Pay attention.

I am talking about CO2 levels, NOW. I acknowledge your response and it makes sense. Take the W.

The environment had considerable ability to buffer temp changes.

That is over, in fact, we keep finding evidence that suggests things are going to get dramatically worse.

[Godstud]

@late I am not saying otherwise, but there is an immense of hyperbole in AGW activism.

[Pants-of-dog]

If immense amounts of hyperbole were enough to dismiss a position, then most conservative positions would be bunk.

But hyperbole is an attribute of the person arguing, not the position.

[late]

@late I am not saying otherwise, but there is an immense of hyperbole in AGW activism.

That's what I meant by babbling.

[Godstud]

@Godstud I am a literary god compared to your jibber-jabber.

[Pants-of-dog]

Is it hyperbole to say that Thailand will have significant amounts of flooding by the end of the century from climate change?

[Truth To Power]

It's an essential feature in science.

No, it's just something that sometimes happens.
[/quote]"This list catalogs well-accepted theories in science and pre-scientific natural philosophy and natural history which have since been superseded by scientific theories. Many discarded explanations were once supported by a scientific consensus, but replaced after more empirical information became available that identified flaws and prompted new theories which better explain the available data. Pre-modern explanations originated before the scientific method, with varying degrees of empirical support.

Some theories are discarded in their entirety, such as the replacement of the phlogiston theory by energy and thermodynamics. Some theories known to be incomplete or in some ways incorrect are still used. For example, Newtonian classical mechanics is accurate enough for practical calculations at everyday distances and velocities, and it is still taught in schools. The more complicated relativistic mechanics must be used for long distances and velocities nearing the speed of light, and quantum mechanics for very small distances and objects.

Some theories originate in, or are perpetuated by, pseudoscience, which claims to be both scientific and factual, but fails to follow the scientific method."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science[/quote]
Which does not mean all science will eventually be superseded.

[ingliz]

@Truth To Power

Einstein is known to be flawed. There are serious problems with energy-momentum localization in general relativity, but as nothing better has turned up and it does the job for all but the most obscure problems in cosmology, we all pretend it's hunky-dory.