HOW SWEET IT IS.

Twenty years from now, when the Colorado River runs dry, S Cal drowns under summer monsoons, corn withers in Iowa, and the last climate change denier hangs up his boots; when Trump's enablers in Congress are wheeled around exclusive retirement homes and textbooks record January 6 as the attempted coup that it was, and Trump himself is is buried in an unmarked grave, like Saddam, to avoid desecration, those who stood up to the pressures of power will be remembered for the right reasons. Liz Cheney will be one of them.

I still root for the Republican Party, but this is not my father's or grandfather's party anymore.
 
We will wait until Nov. and see how large that red wave will be. sleepy Joe's handlers are very worried and keeping sleepy Joe out of reach for fear he might say the wrong thing and even make it worse. How many on here have a pair of brass ones to admit they voted for sleepy Joe. Stand up and be counted because we want to ask you if you regret that vote.
RELH
 
Now she can run as an independent for president. I thought republicans were a shoe in but this could get interesting. I guess we shall see. I’ll check back in after all of my hunts are over.
 
bullskin said:
Twenty years from now, when the Colorado River runs dry, S Cal drowns under summer monsoons, corn withers in Iowa, and the last climate change denier hangs up his boots; when Trump's enablers in Congress are wheeled around exclusive retirement homes and textbooks record January 6 as the attempted coup that it was, and Trump himself is is buried in an unmarked grave, like Saddam, to avoid desecration, those who stood up to the pressures of power will be remembered for the right reasons. Liz Cheney will be one of them.

I still root for the Republican Party, but this is not my father's or grandfather's party anymore.
Click to expand...
Dry those tears foreskin....
 
bullskin said:
I still root for the Republican Party, but this is not my father's or grandfather's party anymore.
Click to expand...
You should take a look at the Dem. party. Are there any true liberals left or are they all far left progressives? Definitely not the Dem. party of your dad or grand-dad if you're paying attention.

Also, if you're serious on the climate stuff, you should pick-up a few books and at least inform yourself on the other side. I guarantee you will at least come out with a new perspective if not a complete change of mind.
"Fossil Future" by (Alex Epstein) probably the best and most definitive book out there right now.
"Unsettled" by Steven Koonin, Under Secretary for Science, U.S. Dept. of Energy Obama Administration.
"Apocalypse Never" Michael Shellenberger, just ran against Newsome in the CA recall election, Democrat turned Independent and a damn smart guy.
"False Alarm" by Bjorn Lomborg the farthest thing from a right wing climate denying radical.
You should research Patrick Moore the co-founder of Greenpeace - a guy who definitely cares about the planet.
There are scores of other climatologists, environmentalists, scientists of every persuasion refuting the climate nonsense.

Even the IPCC (U.N.) has said that you could stop every form of Co2 on the planet and you would not see any change at all in global temperatures. John Kerry has said the exact same thing. The dude that wrote and crafted the "Green New Deal" openly said it has nothing to do with climate but changing our economy from capitalist to socialist, not refuted. This last year in 2021 Antarctica recorded the coldest temperatures ever recorded and the largest expansion of ice ever recorded. Australia just reported that the Great Barrier Reef has had the largest expansion of the reef in nearly 4 decades. Co2 is not the lever that drives climate change. Food for thought
 
"It appears that Liz Cheney, one of the GOP's chief warmongers, is about to lose," wrote former Democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. "This is good news for every American regardless of party."
 
HINT:

I Didn't Vote For Brandon!



RELH said:
We will wait until Nov. and see how large that red wave will be. sleepy Joe's handlers are very worried and keeping sleepy Joe out of reach for fear he might say the wrong thing and even make it worse. How many on here have a pair of brass ones to admit they voted for sleepy Joe. Stand up and be counted because we want to ask you if you regret that vote.
RELH
Click to expand...
 
bullskin said:
Twenty years from now, when the Colorado River runs dry, S Cal drowns under summer monsoons, corn withers in Iowa, and the last climate change denier hangs up his boots; when Trump's enablers in Congress are wheeled around exclusive retirement homes and textbooks record January 6 as the attempted coup that it was, and Trump himself is is buried in an unmarked grave, like Saddam, to avoid desecration, those who stood up to the pressures of power will be remembered for the right reasons. Liz Cheney will be one of them.

I still root for the Republican Party, but this is not my father's or grandfather's party anymore.
Click to expand...


Might want to fire up the googler if you think Liz Cheney helped fight Climate Change.

I've read some weird defense of her, but Climate Change warrior, might be the strangest.
 
hossblur said:
Might want to fire up the googler if you think Liz Cheney helped fight Climate Change.

I've read some weird defense of her, but Climate Change warrior, might be the strangest.
Click to expand...

Very true. Cheney was all for fossil fuels, as any politician in Wyoming must be. But, despite this failure, she will be remembered for the position she took with regard to electoral accountability.
 
Are you from somewhere that has non plastic phones or computers?

Or winter for that matter?

Those evil fossil fuels sure beat burning down a forest of firewood 7 months of the year.

She will become a verb.

As in that politician was Cheneyed. Other than that, she'll be forgotten right after the 24' election, MSNBC/CNN will no longer have a use for her.

She'll a ton as a defense lobbyist though
 
wetmule said:
You should take a look at the Dem. party. Are there any true liberals left or are they all far left progressives? Definitely not the Dem. party of your dad or grand-dad if you're paying attention.

Also, if you're serious on the climate stuff, you should pick-up a few books and at least inform yourself on the other side. I guarantee you will at least come out with a new perspective if not a complete change of mind.
"Fossil Future" by (Alex Epstein) probably the best and most definitive book out there right now.
"Unsettled" by Steven Koonin, Under Secretary for Science, U.S. Dept. of Energy Obama Administration.
"Apocalypse Never" Michael Shellenberger, just ran against Newsome in the CA recall election, Democrat turned Independent and a damn smart guy.
"False Alarm" by Bjorn Lomborg the farthest thing from a right wing climate denying radical.
You should research Patrick Moore the co-founder of Greenpeace - a guy who definitely cares about the planet.
There are scores of other climatologists, environmentalists, scientists of every persuasion refuting the climate nonsense.

Even the IPCC (U.N.) has said that you could stop every form of Co2 on the planet and you would not see any change at all in global temperatures. John Kerry has said the exact same thing. The dude that wrote and crafted the "Green New Deal" openly said it has nothing to do with climate but changing our economy from capitalist to socialist, not refuted. This last year in 2021 Antarctica recorded the coldest temperatures ever recorded and the largest expansion of ice ever recorded. Australia just reported that the Great Barrier Reef has had the largest expansion of the reef in nearly 4 decades. Co2 is not the lever that drives climate change. Food for thought
Click to expand...

You won't hear me defend the Democratic Party, either. Rather, I will defend members of either party when they do well, and criticize those of either party when they do not. No one is perfect, and so it is pointless to defend anyone, except on a case-by-case basis. In the case of Liz Cheney's position on January 6, I believe she deserves my support.

As for Climate change, the simple fact that you have mentioned cold temperatures in Antartica tells me that you do not understand the concept. Even as average global temperatures rise, weather becomes more severe--hotter and cooler, wetter and drier-depending on the time and location. Furthermore, there have been many dramatic changes in climate over hundreds of millions of years, and most correspond to fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Anyone who says otherwise is either misinformed or has misunderstood the question. I do not doubt that there are authors minimizing the human impact on climate, but there are many more (actual climatologists) who agree they are wrong. As for Australia, the sort of coral that has regenerated is a very fast-growing species. The ecosystem itself has not recovered. It is like pointing to grass after a forest fire and claiming that plant life is restored...
 
bullskin said:
You won't hear me defend the Democratic Party, either. Rather, I will defend members of either party when they do well, and criticize those of either party when they do not. No one is perfect, and so it is pointless to defend anyone, except on a case-by-case basis. In the case of Liz Cheney's position on January 6, I believe she deserves my support.

As for Climate change, the simple fact that you have mentioned cold temperatures in Antartica tells me that you do not understand the concept. Even as average global temperatures rise, weather becomes more severe--hotter and cooler, wetter and drier-depending on the time and location. Furthermore, there have been many dramatic changes in climate over hundreds of millions of years, and most correspond to fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Anyone who says otherwise is either misinformed or has misunderstood the question. I do not doubt that there are authors minimizing the human impact on climate, but there are many more (actual climatologists) who agree they are wrong. As for Australia, the sort of coral that has regenerated is a very fast-growing species. The ecosystem itself has not recovered. It is like pointing to grass after a forest fire and claiming that plant life is restored...
Click to expand...


You truly believe Cheneys opposition to Trump is Jan 6?

She's a war mongering neo con. Trump was not, and had spent years bashing the Cheneys and Bush's for being so.

This was personal and financial. End of story.
 
bullskin said:
Twenty years from now, when the Colorado River runs dry, S Cal drowns under summer monsoons, corn withers in Iowa, and the last climate change denier hangs up his boots; when Trump's enablers in Congress are wheeled around exclusive retirement homes and textbooks record January 6 as the attempted coup that it was, and Trump himself is is buried in an unmarked grave, like Saddam, to avoid desecration, those who stood up to the pressures of power will be remembered for the right reasons. Liz Cheney will be one of them.

I still root for the Republican Party, but this is not my father's or grandfather's party anymore.
Click to expand...
Brandon fixed the climate yesterday when he signed the Inflation Reduction Act.
 
Bluehair said:
I’m really going to be pissed off if they ruin my Sunday mornings by making me go to church :mad:
Click to expand...
Nah, nah. They have preferences, but that decision is yours to make. Stay home, have some bacon, watch a ball game, do nothing and sleep in. Individual choices.

If they try to tell me what to do, they can kiss my arse.
 
SOOOOO Liz cheney's net worth was 4 million when she first came into congress 6 years ago. Now she is at 40 million.

Makes ya wander where that 36 million came from. Its just not her as most politicians always walk out much richer.
 
bullskin said:
You won't hear me defend the Democratic Party, either. Rather, I will defend members of either party when they do well, and criticize those of either party when they do not. No one is perfect, and so it is pointless to defend anyone, except on a case-by-case basis. In the case of Liz Cheney's position on January 6, I believe she deserves my support.

As for Climate change, the simple fact that you have mentioned cold temperatures in Antartica tells me that you do not understand the concept. Even as average global temperatures rise, weather becomes more severe--hotter and cooler, wetter and drier-depending on the time and location. Furthermore, there have been many dramatic changes in climate over hundreds of millions of years, and most correspond to fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Anyone who says otherwise is either misinformed or has misunderstood the question. I do not doubt that there are authors minimizing the human impact on climate, but there are many more (actual climatologists) who agree they are wrong. As for Australia, the sort of coral that has regenerated is a very fast-growing species. The ecosystem itself has not recovered. It is like pointing to grass after a forest fire and claiming that plant life is restored...
Click to expand...
The U.N. IPCC climate models that all this climate hysteria are based on are provably wrong, and many climate scientists & others have done just that. They put garbage in their models and get their preferred garbage out. You think the U.N. is an honest broker of information? Whatever you think about global warming, we are decades away from "transitioning" away from fossil fuels. Why then turn off the light switch and go to net zero so quickly. Have you seen what is going on in the world outside of the U.S.? Governments are failing, falling and being overthrown due to these ridiculous climate policies. You should watch a recent interview with Dan Crenshaw & Peter Zeihan. Zeihan is a pretty well known very smart global strategist. He says that at least a billion (he says that figure is on the low end) people are going to starve and die in the next couple years due to these policies of eliminating fossil fuels, and reducing/eliminating fertilizer. The powers that be are trying to bring it here and Biden is obviously all in. If they are successful here better get prepared for a vastly lower quality of life for all of us.
Screen Shot 2022-08-17 at 12.48.27 PM.png



https://twitter.com/x/status/1559155686013034496
 
wetmule said:
The U.N. IPCC climate models that all this climate hysteria are based on are provably wrong, and many climate scientists & others have done just that. They put garbage in their models and get their preferred garbage out. You think the U.N. is an honest broker of information? Whatever you think about global warming, we are decades away from "transitioning" away from fossil fuels. Why then turn off the light switch and go to net zero so quickly. Have you seen what is going on in the world outside of the U.S.? Governments are failing, falling and being overthrown due to these ridiculous climate policies. You should watch a recent interview with Dan Crenshaw & Peter Zeihan. Zeihan is a pretty well known very smart global strategist. He says that at least a billion (he says that figure is on the low end) people are going to starve and die in the next couple years due to these policies of eliminating fossil fuels, and reducing/eliminating fertilizer. The powers that be are trying to bring it here and Biden is obviously all in. If they are successful here better get prepared for a vastly lower quality of life for all of us.
View attachment 84195


https://twitter.com/x/status/1559155686013034496
Click to expand...

To start, I am not suggesting (nor is anyone else that I have heard) that we deprive ourselves of energy by immediately refusing fossil fuels. But I do support adding other sources a soon as possible in order that we and others may free ourselves of our dependency on Russia and other hostile nations who hold the world hostage. We may not need Russia's fuel, but others do, and those others contribute to our own stability. The prospect of less CO2 is also a good thing.

So, I agree with your point about not committing entirely to nonexistent sources of energy. That said, when the people making this argument are the same ones discouraging the development of these renewable resources, one has to question the validity of their position. And this is not surprising, given that fossil fuels are their sources of income, tax revenue, etc. The state of Wyoming has rejected the national science standards simply because they address the question of climate change and fossil fuels. It is like asking tobacco farmers to acknowledge the dangers of tobacco--it is not going to happen until they have better employment options themselves.

In the end, fossil fuels are a finite resource. We are going to run out, the only question is when. Under the circumstances, it is not a question of whether we should develop alternative sources of energy, but rather when we shall do so. Shall we wait until we have burned every ton we can extract, or shall we start down this path today? I see no reason why we should wait. We should at least provide the same sorts of support to renewables as we do to the fossil fuel industry and so many others.

Finally, the pie chart you have shown demonstrates why we should be wary of much of the information cited outside of scientific circles. It shows, for example, that water is the most effecting greenhouse gas, considering its abundance in the atmosphere. This is correct, but not really a concern since water is also the one "gas" mentioned that also rains out as soon as the atmosphere becomes saturated. In the long term, then, water vapor has no effect unless atmospheric temperatures warm (as, for example, they do when the other gases increase) and the air begins to hold more of it.
 
Last edited:
bullskin said:
To start, I am not suggesting (nor is anyone else that I have heard) that we deprive ourselves of energy by immediately refusing fossil fuels. But I do support adding other sources a soon as possible in order that we and others may free ourselves of our dependency on Russia and other hostile nations who hold the world hostage. We may not need Russia's fuel, but others do, and those others contribute to our own stability. The prospect of less CO2 is also a good thing.

So, I agree with your point about not committing entirely to nonexistent sources of energy. That said, when the people making this argument are the same ones discouraging the development of these renewable resources, one has to question the validity of their position. And this is not surprising, given that fossil fuels are their sources of income, tax revenue, etc. The state of Wyoming has rejected the national science standards simply because they address the question of climate change and fossil fuels. It is like asking tobacco farmers to acknowledge the dangers of tobacco--it is not going to happen until they have better employment options themselves.

In the end, fossil fuels are a finite resource. We are going to run out, the only question is when. Under the circumstances, it is not a question of whether we should develop alternative sources of energy, but rather when we shall do so. Shall we wait until we have burned every ton we can extract, or shall we start down this path today? I see no reason why we should wait. We should at least provide the same sorts of support to renewables as we do to the fossil fuel industry and so many others.

Finally, the pie chart you have shown demonstrates why we should be wary of much of the information cited outside of scientific circles. It shows, for example, that water is the most effecting greenhouse gas, considering its abundance in the atmosphere. This is correct, but not really a concern since water is also the one "gas" mentioned that also rains out as soon as the atmosphere becomes saturated. In the long term, then, water vapor has no effect unless atmospheric temperatures warm (as, for example, they do when the other gases increase) and the air begins to hold more of it.
Click to expand...
That clean energy sure is clean. Just wait for those EV batteries to start hitting our landfills. Maybe we can make beautiful art out of them too.....liberal logic.

 
bullskin said:
To start, I am not suggesting (nor is anyone else that I have heard) that we deprive ourselves of energy by immediately refusing fossil fuels. But I do support adding other sources a soon as possible in order that we and others may free ourselves of our dependency on Russia and other hostile nations who hold the world hostage. We may not need Russia's fuel, but others do, and those others contribute to our own stability. The prospect of less CO2 is also a good thing.

So, I agree with your point about not committing entirely to nonexistent sources of energy. That said, when the people making this argument are the same ones discouraging the development of these renewable resources, one has to question the validity of their position. And this is not surprising, given that fossil fuels are their sources of income, tax revenue, etc. The state of Wyoming has rejected the national science standards simply because they address the question of climate change and fossil fuels. It is like asking tobacco farmers to acknowledge the dangers of tobacco--it is not going to happen until they have better employment options themselves.

In the end, fossil fuels are a finite resource. We are going to run out, the only question is when. Under the circumstances, it is not a question of whether we should develop alternative sources of energy, but rather when we shall do so. Shall we wait until we have burned every ton we can extract, or shall we start down this path today? I see no reason why we should wait. We should at least provide the same sorts of support to renewables as we do to the fossil fuel industry and so many others.

Finally, the pie chart you have shown demonstrates why we should be wary of much of the information cited outside of scientific circles. It shows, for example, that water is the most effecting greenhouse gas, considering its abundance in the atmosphere. This is correct, but not really a concern since water is also the one "gas" mentioned that also rains out as soon as the atmosphere becomes saturated. In the long term, then, water vapor has no effect unless atmospheric temperatures warm (as, for example, they do when the other gases increase) and the air begins to hold more of it.
Click to expand...
Thx! Reliable sources say we have at least 200 years of oil & nat. gas here in the U.S., which makes me wonder why we are begging foreign adversaries like the Saudis, Venezuela, Iran etc to sell us their oil? Why not just produce our own unless you're so ideologically wedded to destroying our own industry/economy and delivering pain to the American people. Renewables currently produce for 3-4% worldwide of total energy needed. We are nowhere near being able to supply this nations or the worlds energy via renewables. Why not use what we have, (cheap, efficient & reliable sources) until technology catches up and we can wean ourselves off FF? Germany and many other European & other countries totally shot themselves in the foot to appease the U.N. global warming gods, and are now in dire straights as they committed to this U.N. ESG nonsense years ago. They are now backtracking & firing up their retired coal, & nuclear plants to provide energy to their citizens. I think the U.N. should be burned down and the ashes scattered to the winds as their prescriptions/solutions cause way more problems than their claimed intentions... pretty much like any govt. Got to create problems that only govt. can solve if only we give them more funding. It's a ponzi scheme IMO.

Not sure if you remember a dozen or more years ago the U.N. IPCC got busted putting fake numbers into their modeling machines that coincidently achieved their desired outcome. Anywho, if interested, this is a pretty good video you might find valuable that refutes the climate modeling used to make theses policies.

 
Wiszard said:
That is the difference between Republican and Democrat....Republicans don't MAKE you do anything. We accept the fact that this is a free country and should be ran as one.
Click to expand...
You are thinking of libertarians. Look no farther back than to COVID restrictions for examples that r’s are just another side of the same coin.

Compulsory church attendance has been floated, and it wasn’t by the libtards.
 
hossblur said:
Blue could use some church. Might make him think about boobs less ?
Click to expand...
I’m probably not the only guy to ponder boobs in church, but I may be the only to admit it.

And lets please not get into the things I would think about when I was detained in my Remedial Religious Reindoctrination and Responsible Citizenship Training.
 
Last edited:
HikeHunt61 said:
Who in congress floated that? (I'd like to know so I can contribute to their opponent in the next election).

Signed,
"Proud Republican"
Click to expand...
There was some whacko State Legislator from AZ a few years back.

The closest you have now are probably my congresscritter and MTG, although I really don’t keep a very close eye on these local politicians. Google Christian Nationalists and see what pops up.

Heres what my former bartender turned constitutional scholar (who I voted for) had to say about the separation of Church and State.

 
Ya, there are always some whacko local politicians on both sides who say crazy chit. I don't worry too much about them.

MTG is a blight on the R side at the national level for sure. Much like AOC on the D side.
 
RELH said:
We will wait until Nov. and see how large that red wave will be. sleepy Joe's handlers are very worried and keeping sleepy Joe out of reach for fear he might say the wrong thing and even make it worse. How many on here have a pair of brass ones to admit they voted for sleepy Joe. Stand up and be counted because we want to ask you if you regret that vote.
RELH
Click to expand...

I voted for sleepy NOT to be elected.

Does that count?
 
Grayback said:
Now she can run as an independent for president. I thought republicans were a shoe in but this could get interesting. I guess we shall see. I’ll check back in after all of my hunts are over.
Click to expand...
If Wyoming doesn’t want her, what would make anyone think the other 49 states would?
Maybe California, NY etc…
 
3TOE said:
If Wyoming doesn’t want her, what would make anyone think the other 49 states would?
Maybe California, NY etc…
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the Ds and orange man haters are contributing to her coffers and nudging her to do it. They all know she stands zero chance- but they sure like the idea of the biggest anti-Trump voice to be in debates and in the national conversation. Just politics as usual.

Sad part is, she just may well let them use her like that- which would say a lot about her self-worth.
 
bullskin said:
To start, I am not suggesting (nor is anyone else that I have heard) that we deprive ourselves of energy by immediately refusing fossil fuels. But I do support adding other sources a soon as possible in order that we and others may free ourselves of our dependency on Russia and other hostile nations who hold the world hostage. We may not need Russia's fuel, but others do, and those others contribute to our own stability. The prospect of less CO2 is also a good thing.

So, I agree with your point about not committing entirely to nonexistent sources of energy. That said, when the people making this argument are the same ones discouraging the development of these renewable resources, one has to question the validity of their position. And this is not surprising, given that fossil fuels are their sources of income, tax revenue, etc. The state of Wyoming has rejected the national science standards simply because they address the question of climate change and fossil fuels. It is like asking tobacco farmers to acknowledge the dangers of tobacco--it is not going to happen until they have better employment options themselves.

In the end, fossil fuels are a finite resource. We are going to run out, the only question is when. Under the circumstances, it is not a question of whether we should develop alternative sources of energy, but rather when we shall do so. Shall we wait until we have burned every ton we can extract, or shall we start down this path today? I see no reason why we should wait. We should at least provide the same sorts of support to renewables as we do to the fossil fuel industry and so many others.

Finally, the pie chart you have shown demonstrates why we should be wary of much of the information cited outside of scientific circles. It shows, for example, that water is the most effecting greenhouse gas, considering its abundance in the atmosphere. This is correct, but not really a concern since water is also the one "gas" mentioned that also rains out as soon as the atmosphere becomes saturated. In the long term, then, water vapor has no effect unless atmospheric temperatures warm (as, for example, they do when the other gases increase) and the air begins to hold more of it.
Click to expand...
All these climate predictions are based on computer models, as wetmule pointed out. Here's a couple short videos that shows how corrupted the "science" behind these models are. Very easy to follow and logical.


 
eelgrass said:
All these climate predictions are based on computer models, as wetmule pointed out. Here's a couple short videos that shows how corrupted the "science" behind these models are. Very easy to follow and logical.


Click to expand...
Nothing to see here, folks.

Yeah, don't pay attention to the lying Russians, cuz you know, they're from Russia.
 
eelgrass said:
All these climate predictions are based on computer models, as wetmule pointed out. Here's a couple short videos that shows how corrupted the "science" behind these models are. Very easy to follow and logical.


Click to expand...
It's political religion to these folks not science. Sad thing is they are demanding policy based on faulty science to get a desired outcome. Outcomes that are causing real harm. When have we seen that before? Well, just yesterday when the CDC completely reversed their whole covid guidelines. Politics and science should not mix and anytime anyone says that the science is settled, we should run as far and fast as we can in the other direction. WaPo received and still has a Pulitzer for their reporting on the fake Russia hoax that Hillary paid for.
 
So….. eel. Let me figure this out with ya.

They call me out for donating to Trump, yet they elect the outlaws that tax us to death to pay the climate change knotheads and “they” see that as logical and better yet, they see it as virtuous.

Is that how you read that?
 
2lumpy said:
So….. eel. Let me figure this out with ya.

They call me out for donating to Trump, yet they elect the outlaws that tax us to death to pay the climate change knotheads and “they” see that as logical and better yet, they see it as virtuous.

Is that how you read that?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. And then they insult us by calling us climate deniers. I've donated, not to Trump. He has plenty of money. I did donate to what Trump believes in hoping the message will get out there.
 
Wiszard said:
Not only do the Chinamen have our number but now the Russians are playing smear the queer with us.....we've had the ball an awful lot lately.
Click to expand...
I have come to the conclusion that ultimately the goal is to destroy our country or at least the foundation that it has stood upon for nearly 250 years. Like Rome, the US will fall if WE don’t stand up to the chaos that is being orchestrated right under our noses.
It’s not only the Dems it’s the majority of the Republicans too. Most ALL of them are corrupt as hell & only out for themselves, not the people they swore an oath for. It’s just not the same country that it was 30 plus years ago.
 
eelgrass said:
Absolutely. And then they insult us by calling us climate deniers. I've donated, not to Trump. He has plenty of money. I did donate to what Trump believes in hoping the message will get out there.
Click to expand...
I like your style eel. What’s too bad is there isn’t someone strong enough to deliver the Trump ideology that can deliver the goods like Reagon did. Until one of those type rides up, I’ll stick with the New Yorker.
 
2lumpy said:
I like your style eel. What’s too bad is there isn’t someone strong enough to deliver the Trump ideology that can deliver the goods like Reagon did. Until one of those type rides up, I’ll stick with the New Yorker.
Click to expand...
2lumpy said:
I like your style eel. What’s too bad is there isn’t someone strong enough to deliver the Trump ideology that can deliver the goods like Reagon did. Until one of those type rides up, I’ll stick with the New Yorker.
Click to expand...
Do you have no faith in DeSantis?
 
Homer said:
Do you have no faith in DeSantis?
Click to expand...
I do but like Trump was, he’s still an unproven quantity yet. He could be, I hope he is. If Trump’s gone, he’s head and shoulders about the next best. I feel like I know what I’ll get from Trump so he’s still the leader in my mind. De Santis has not experienced withering attack from the full force of the Federal Democrat machinery yet and he’s still young and teachable so I’ll take Trump now and let mature.
 
eelgrass said:
All these climate predictions are based on computer models, as wetmule pointed out. Here's a couple short videos that shows how corrupted the "science" behind these models are. Very easy to follow and logical.


Click to expand...

Thanks Eel. It is always interesting to see why folks cannot agree on these issues. To put the video in context, it should be understood that Wannabe's climate model was produced in the 1960's--long before anyone understood the science well enough to produce an accurate model. And so his Noble Prize, in 2021, had nothing to do with the accuracy of his model. Instead, the award recognized his discovery that atmospheric carbon dioxide is related to the surface temperature of the planet. It was groundbreaking in the sense that it was the first inkling we had that such a thing was possible. The narrator of the video appears not to understand this at all. If he really believes that Wannabe was awarded for the prize for the accuracy of his fifty-five year old model, then he is sorely misinformed.

So, what about the Russian model? It is important to note that it was not developed as a forecast model. In fact, it was developed as a hindcast model--a model to explain that which we have already observed over the past sixty years--and is updated constantly. So it is not surprising that it is more accurate since has been tweaked over time to reflect the changes we have actually seen. The real question is whether or not it can accurately forecast the future. It is worth noting that it consistently underestimates temperatures, and that there are several other models that produce much better data.

I wonder, then, why the narrator singles out this model as the best when it clearly is not. And to attempt to mislead his viewers by suggesting that Wannabe was awarded his prize for a crappy model (which was not actually the achievement for which he was awarded) is truly remarkable. In the end, there was a lot of flag waving taking place... Of the Russian flag...

Do I smell a rat? If one lived in an extremely cold climate where agriculture and industry would be improved by warmer temperatures, as is the case with Russia, then one might be tempted to downplay the threat of climate change. Russia has recognized this for decades and has even expressed climate change as within their national interest. I will not jump to the conclusion that this is a poorly constructed piece of propaganda, but it does grab my attention. Given the blatant inaccuracies presented, I wonder if the accusation of corruption applies more accurately to the source of this video than to the Nobel Prize committee.

But, hey, it is almost hunting season. Did you get any good tags?
 
bullskin said:
Thanks Eel. It is always interesting to see why folks cannot agree on these issues. To put the video in context, it should be understood that Wannabe's climate model was produced in the 1960's--long before anyone understood the science well enough to produce an accurate model. And so his Noble Prize, in 2021, had nothing to do with the accuracy of his model. Instead, the award recognized his discovery that atmospheric carbon dioxide is related to the surface temperature of the planet. It was groundbreaking in the sense that it was the first inkling we had that such a thing was possible. The narrator of the video appears not to understand this at all. If he really believes that Wannabe was awarded for the prize for the accuracy of his fifty-five year old model, then he is sorely misinformed.

So, what about the Russian model? It is important to note that it was not developed as a forecast model. In fact, it was developed as a hindcast model--a model to explain that which we have already observed over the past sixty years--and is updated constantly. So it is not surprising that it is more accurate since has been tweaked over time to reflect the changes we have actually seen. The real question is whether or not it can accurately forecast the future. It is worth noting that it consistently underestimates temperatures, and that there are several other models that produce much better data.

I wonder, then, why the narrator singles out this model as the best when it clearly is not. And to attempt to mislead his viewers by suggesting that Wannabe was awarded his prize for a crappy model (which was not actually the achievement for which he was awarded) is truly remarkable. In the end, there was a lot of flag waving taking place... Of the Russian flag...

Do I smell a rat? If one lived in an extremely cold climate where agriculture and industry would be improved by warmer temperatures, as is the case with Russia, then one might be tempted to downplay the threat of climate change. Russia has recognized this for decades and has even expressed climate change as within their national interest. I will not jump to the conclusion that this is a poorly constructed piece of propaganda, but it does grab my attention. Given the blatant inaccuracies presented, I wonder if the accusation of corruption applies more accurately to the source of this video than to the Nobel Prize committee.

But, hey, it is almost hunting season. Did you get any good tags?
Click to expand...
lol....you're funny

At least you spelled his last name more accurately....lol
 
Last edited:
bullskin said:
Twenty years from now, when the Colorado River runs dry, S Cal drowns under summer monsoons, corn withers in Iowa, and the last climate change denier hangs up his boots; when Trump's enablers in Congress are wheeled around exclusive retirement homes and textbooks record January 6 as the attempted coup that it was, and Trump himself is is buried in an unmarked grave, like Saddam, to avoid desecration, those who stood up to the pressures of power will be remembered for the right reasons. Liz Cheney will be one of them.

I still root for the Republican Party, but this is not my father's or grandfather's party anymore.
Click to expand...
Please tell me you're being sarcastic
 
bullskin said:
Twenty years from now, when the Colorado River runs dry, S Cal drowns under summer monsoons, corn withers in Iowa, and the last climate change denier hangs up his boots; when Trump's enablers in Congress are wheeled around exclusive retirement homes and textbooks record January 6 as the attempted coup that it was, and Trump himself is is buried in an unmarked grave, like Saddam, to avoid desecration, those who stood up to the pressures of power will be remembered for the right reasons. Liz Cheney will be one of them.

I still root for the Republican Party, but this is not my father's or grandfather's party anymore.
Click to expand...
Seems like you are not joking. I'll bet every penny I own that the Colorado River is not dry in 20 years. Remember when they said the glaciers would be gone from glacier national Park in 2020 and they had to take down the signs.? I bet in 20 or 30 years you will realize what a scam this climate change nonsense is. The climate is going to do what the climate does and there's very little humans can do about it.

So what are you doing to help climate change? I hope you're not one of those hypocrites that believes in climate change and preaches to everyone what they should be doing yet they do nothing, because they know it is a scam or know humans have very little to do with it.
 
bullskin said:
To put the video in context, it should be understood that Wannabe's climate model was produced in the 1960's--long before anyone understood the science well enough to produce an accurate model.
Click to expand...
The 1960's. Maybe his model predicted the next ice age then, and that New York would be covered in ice. That was the big prediction back then. No wonder he got the Nobel Prize in 2021.

No tags for me.
 
bullskin said:
Thanks Eel. It is always interesting to see why folks cannot agree on these issues. To put the video in context, it should be understood that Wannabe's climate model was produced in the 1960's--long before anyone understood the science well enough to produce an accurate model. And so his Noble Prize, in 2021, had nothing to do with the accuracy of his model. Instead, the award recognized his discovery that atmospheric carbon dioxide is related to the surface temperature of the planet. It was groundbreaking in the sense that it was the first inkling we had that such a thing was possible. The narrator of the video appears not to understand this at all. If he really believes that Wannabe was awarded for the prize for the accuracy of his fifty-five year old model, then he is sorely misinformed.

So, what about the Russian model? It is important to note that it was not developed as a forecast model. In fact, it was developed as a hindcast model--a model to explain that which we have already observed over the past sixty years--and is updated constantly. So it is not surprising that it is more accurate since has been tweaked over time to reflect the changes we have actually seen. The real question is whether or not it can accurately forecast the future. It is worth noting that it consistently underestimates temperatures, and that there are several other models that produce much better data.

I wonder, then, why the narrator singles out this model as the best when it clearly is not. And to attempt to mislead his viewers by suggesting that Wannabe was awarded his prize for a crappy model (which was not actually the achievement for which he was awarded) is truly remarkable. In the end, there was a lot of flag waving taking place... Of the Russian flag...

Do I smell a rat? If one lived in an extremely cold climate where agriculture and industry would be improved by warmer temperatures, as is the case with Russia, then one might be tempted to downplay the threat of climate change. Russia has recognized this for decades and has even expressed climate change as within their national interest. I will not jump to the conclusion that this is a poorly constructed piece of propaganda, but it does grab my attention. Given the blatant inaccuracies presented, I wonder if the accusation of corruption applies more accurately to the source of this video than to the Nobel Prize committee.

But, hey, it is almost hunting season. Did you get any good tags?
Click to expand...

Nicely written response. Missing a couple key points that vector the conclusion though:

1) All climate models are validated thru "hindcasting". Otherwise, the model is open loop and has no validity at all.

2) If a model is "consistent" in under (or over) estimating, that is very good news. It is easy to fix a model with consistent results.

So a rat? I suppose. Like all models- that is all they are. None have proven consistent, otherwise predictions of disaster 30, 20 even 10 years ago would have come to pass. No such luck for the modelers to date. Undoubtedly, over the next 50 years, the models will improve- as the methods, AI, etc become more all encompassing and data gathering consistency improves.

But the Colorado river will still be flowing my friend.
 
2lumpy said:
I do but like Trump was, he’s still an unproven quantity yet. He could be, I hope he is. If Trump’s gone, he’s head and shoulders about the next best. I feel like I know what I’ll get from Trump so he’s still the leader in my mind. De Santis has not experienced withering attack from the full force of the Federal Democrat machinery yet and he’s still young and teachable so I’ll take Trump now and let mature.
Click to expand...
As long as he’s NOT being taught by the gop establishment! DeSantis needs to be the same person he is now and take the reins where Trump left off. The DOJ, Bidens, FBI, CDC, etc...all their heads need to roll or nothing will change.
 
They were predicting the coming ice age in the 60's when you claim Manabe developed his model....
 
I worked for Shell Oil until 1975. Shell Oil geologists were convinced and convinced all of Shell Oil’s executives there were no oil fields left unfound and the world would be out of petroleum by in 30 years.

Not all science is honest and anyone with the IQ of a garden root vegetable (not my analogy) knows almost all science has been disproven after a reasonable period of time. Gravity is suspect………?

Glaciers have been receding for 15,000 years……… according to science. What caused them to recede for the first 10,000? Maybe they need to consider excellerated exponential compounding warming formulas.
 
Flyjunky12 said:
As long as he’s NOT being taught by the gop establishment! DeSantis needs to be the same person he is now and take the reins where Trump left off. The DOJ, Bidens, FBI, CDC, etc...all their heads need to roll or nothing will change.
Click to expand...
Never…. Ever……. under estimate the tenacity of the left. They are wrong but they’re not stupid. They will fight to the bitter end. History is replete with brilliant people who have destroyed civilizations. Their heads ain’t gonna roll easy. Remember that…….everyday!
 
Homer said:
The models will not improve in the next 50 years unless the modelers leave their agenda out of it...
Click to expand...
Correct. Their model has to rise as CO2 levels rise to keep the scam going. That's why NASA altered the recorded temperatures of the 20's and 30's.
 
2lumpy said:
I worked for Shell Oil until 1975. Shell Oil geologists were convinced and convinced all of Shell Oil’s executives there were no oil fields left unfound and the world would be out of petroleum by in 30 years.

Not all science is honest and anyone with the IQ of a garden root vegetable (not my analogy) knows almost all science has been disproven after a reasonable period of time. Gravity is suspect………?

Glaciers have been receding for 15,000 years……… according to science. What caused them to recede for the first 10,000? Maybe they need to consider excellerated exponential compounding warming formulas.
Click to expand...

That's because executives are easily fooled. Say the words "stock dividends" and they're all ears and you'll have them eating from your hand.
 
3TOE said:
If Wyoming doesn’t want her, what would make anyone think the other 49 states would?
Maybe California, NY etc…
Click to expand...
She wouldn’t run to win. She would run to take votes from Trump. Those of us in Wyoming heard her last campaign adds before the primary. Her Dad clearly stated the goal was to insure Trump never became president.
 
Grayback said:
She wouldn’t run to win. She would run to take votes from Trump. Those of us in Wyoming heard her last campaign adds before the primary. Her Dad clearly stated the goal was to insure Trump never became president.
Click to expand...
What does Wyoming think of her dad??
 
HikeHunt61 said:
Nicely written response. Missing a couple key points that vector the conclusion though:

1) All climate models are validated thru "hindcasting". Otherwise, the model is open loop and has no validity at all.

2) If a model is "consistent" in under (or over) estimating, that is very good news. It is easy to fix a model with consistent results.

So a rat? I suppose. Like all models- that is all they are. None have proven consistent, otherwise predictions of disaster 30, 20 even 10 years ago would have come to pass. No such luck for the modelers to date. Undoubtedly, over the next 50 years, the models will improve- as the methods, AI, etc become more all encompassing and data gathering consistency improves.

But the Colorado river will still be flowing my friend.
Click to expand...

I hope you are right. As for comparing models with data, I understand the need. My point is only that it is senseless to compare a model revised up the the last minute with one produced a half century ago, as the author attempts. That was not the intent of the Nobel Committee and it is therefore disingenuous to proclaim that the committee was somehow "corrupt." Furthermore, I am puzzled by his selection of the Russian model as the "best" when there are clearly better ones to be found. I think the author had an agenda of his own.
 
Last edited:
bullskin said:
I hope you are right. As for comparing models with data, I understand the need. My point is only that it is pointless to compare a model revised up the the last minute with one produced a half century ago, as the author attempts. That was not the intent of the Nobel Committee and it is therefore disingenuous to proclaim that the committee was somehow "corrupt."
Click to expand...
They gave Obama and Gore a Nobel.......and they aren't leftist?....lol
 
schoolhousegrizz said:
Seems like you are not joking. I'll bet every penny I own that the Colorado River is not dry in 20 years. Remember when they said the glaciers would be gone from glacier national Park in 2020 and they had to take down the signs.? I bet in 20 or 30 years you will realize what a scam this climate change nonsense is. The climate is going to do what the climate does and there's very little humans can do about it.

So what are you doing to help climate change? I hope you're not one of those hypocrites that believes in climate change and preaches to everyone what they should be doing yet they do nothing, because they know it is a scam or know humans have very little to do with it.
Click to expand...

I agree that climate will change (and has changed) whether we like it or not. But I also believe that human activity affects climate and a growing number of scientists agree. I understand that predictive models are rarely perfect. It was estimated that Glacier National Park would lose it glaciers by 2020, and that has not been the case. In fact, they are only reduced by 40%. Am I to conclude, then, that the entire thing is a hoax? As you say, time will tell, but I am inclined to believe scientists over business interests.

That said, aside from suggesting that is logical to support the renewables energy just as we support the extraction of fossil fuels, I do not recall ever telling others what they should do. I am content to share what I know, same as you, and then let the reader decide for himself.
 

Similar threads

nfh
Post them up
Replies
18
Views
2k
LIK2HNT
LIK2HNT
C
Wasatch thoughts
2
Replies
193
Views
5k
elkassassin
elkassassin
Founder
Backcountry Horseback Hunts in unit 76 Colorado
Replies
0
Views
691
Founder
Founder

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

A55D2024-EF87-4673-BD05-710EDE4DCD7D.jpeg
8AE6BB82-1D09-491D-8B37-49B2229F6A7F.jpeg
240C42E3-674D-4A14-AEF4-C89CB6F5B5AC.jpeg
VideoCapture_20230816-174522.jpg
ADAA9964-E4B3-42D0-BB0B-5D0E1157EA82.jpeg
A0FD6B8E-169E-4A95-A4A9-3DBBDC8BDE83.jpeg
802DB358-4E05-4684-90F3-AB66D6897ADF.jpeg
7325677B-1D36-48BC-AFBC-D10167EAC00B.jpeg
draft_31826652_1686693057_1b43ad0c-93e5-480b-b508-cdeeec75a4e6.mp4
374748A9-275B-4801-986E-F1B2F512C679.jpeg
19375.jpeg
IMG_4780.JPG
Back
Top Bottom