monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

Quote:
THE MOST RECENT POLLING HAS TRUMP AT 50%

If you cherry pick a Rasmussen poll, sure... meanwhile, today, Gallup has it at 41% and Reuters/Ipsos at 43%, and yesterday Pew had it at 42%. Rasmussen, as so often, is out on its own again.

Exactly what CI does.

0 Replies

@nimh,

Though one has to acknowledge that Rasmussen is a busy fellow, what with his regular celebrity gig on those Weekly Standard "Meet Important Conservatives On A Cruise To Alaska" things and so if some of the day to day work of polling and analysis gets set aside, there's a reasonable justification.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Baldimo, what is it about "global" that you fail to understand? Climate affects everyone — every living thing — on the planet. There's no reason that countries can't work together to achieve the necessary reductions in carbon emissions independent of establishing worldwide "socialism". Sometimes countries have to cooperate with each other. Why such hostility to international treaties?

Some people won't believe in climate change until a clear climate -related calamity touches them personally. Of course, by then will be too late. It may already be.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Quote:

If they can't predict the weather 2 months from now with only about 60/40 accuracy I'm not buying this 100 years from now crap.

"Weather" isn't the same as "climate".

2 Replies

@snood,

Quote:

Some people won't believe in climate change until a clear climate -related calamity touches them personally. Of course, by then will be too late. It may already be.

Climate change related calamity? You mean like all those hurricanes that were predicted to increase in number and severity? It never happened... Like a majority of the CC predictions, they have missed the mark by a wide margin.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote:

You assume that I believe CC/GW, whatever they want to call it, is man made.

Where's the increase in atmospheric CO2 coming from?

2 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

"Weather" isn't the same as "climate".

That always seems to be the defense of the CC groups when their predictions fail. They keep changing the predictions and the predictions refuse to play along. How much ice is there currently in the North Pole? We were told just over a decade ago that there would be no ice at the NP by 2015... Another prediction that has been proven to be junk. How many islands were we told would be covered in water? None have been covered by water and in fact if you check beach water levels, they are pretty consistent from where they were 20 years ago.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

Where's the increase in atmospheric CO2 coming from?

You assume the very thing plants need to grow is dangerous to the Earth...

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

Where's the increase in atmospheric CO2 coming from?

I'm pretty sure it's from New Jersey. But again, it's a people thing.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

We used our nukes responsibly, in lawful self defense. We have no bad Karma over that.

Is this the perception of all other countries or is this your personal perception?

1 Reply

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Quote:
It is not clear who you presume to be addressing here.
You, for one.

Quote:
However, it is clear that during the Obama Administration, the civilian leadership of the DoD did just that.

Clear to whom? Once again george you decline to forward any supporting evidence or documentation to support the charges you make. One might have thought you'd had time to reflect on your earlier "ex cathedra" comment.

The DoD report to which you referred and which you linked is dated July 2015. That's during Obama's 2nd term: Gates had already departed as SECDEF; and Obama had quietly eliminated any discordant voices in the Pentagon.

That, of course, should have been obvious to you at the start.

blatham wrote:

But aside from your continuing failure to do discussion with integrity, what the hell is your claim here? That the US military just rolled over and lubricated their bums to make it easier and more comfortable for elitists in suits?

There's nothing lacking in my discussion, certainly not integrity. You can draw any conclusion you like from the obvious facts. Your lack of real experience in these areas is quite evident here.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

Quote:
If they can't predict the weather 2 months from now with only about 60/40 accuracy I'm not buying this 100 years from now crap.

"Weather" isn't the same as "climate".

But computer modeling is computer modeling...i.e. a wild assed guess.

Also, co2 doesn't cause GW...The sun does.

And BTW..We'll all be dead in 100 years so what are ya getting your panties in a bunch for?

2 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

What the **** is wrong with you people?

What leads you to believe that you know more than anyone else does? Because you read the New Yorker?

What research have you done to show anything even remotely scientific in the field of climate change?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Obama had quietly eliminated any discordant voices in the Pentagon.

Provide credible evidence for that charge otherwise neither I nor anyone else needs to bother with it.

Further, as it stands, that seems a tad ludicrous.
1) Which discordant individuals did he get rid of?
2) How do you know Obama did this?
3) How many such discordant voices were eliminated?
4) From which branches and agencies?
5) How does that number of discordant voices compare to the number who were not discordant and so were not eliminated? Did America loose 70% of its military and intel leadership? Or did it lose some fraction of 1%? And if that's the case, why would you or anyone sane presume that fraction of 1% had it right and all the others had it wrong?

And you did not even begin to address the question I put to you regarding the Pentagon, the three branches and we need to add the intel community must have (in your formulation) simply laid down and let Obama walk all over them even while doing obvious (in your formulation) and real damage to the defense of the US. Is your military community so bereft of quality people?

1 Reply

Nothing like a bunch of rubes on the internet trying wax intellectual about something which they're barely qualified to guess

So let's see, it's something like.. Dem dur sciencers was wrong sometimes, so dem'ns must be wrong whenever I feels like eet.. right?

2 Replies

@thack45,

As I noted the other day (referencing/linking the NASA climate literature) some 3% of scientists deny global warming and man's role in it. Obviously, the 3% are right because the courage to stand up against a reigning consensus is the real evidence of scientific excellence (even when that 3% are mostly being funded by the petroleum industry).

2 Replies

@blatham,

I admit I don't know shite about CC – aside from the ridiculously large consensus in the science community, so you won't see me making any stink about it one way or another. But I do get a chuckle out of observing others bending over backwards to jam their heads in the sand

2 Replies

@thack45,

And that is a big mistake because, as countless geologists have found, the sand is getting hot.

0 Replies

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

Quote:
THE MOST RECENT POLLING HAS TRUMP AT 50%

If you cherry pick a Rasmussen poll, sure... meanwhile, today, Gallup has it at 41% and Reuters/Ipsos at 43%, and yesterday Pew had it at 42%. Rasmussen, as so often, is out on its own again.

Yet, again, you've cherry picked Gallup that is historically anti-Trump as a counter. At least you added some other ones this time.

0 Replies

Uday and Qusay are costing us mucho bucks!

Donald Trump's sons' secret service protection on business trips could cost millions for US taxpayers

Quote:

Protecting Donald Trump’s immediate family is costing American taxpayers millions and his sons' business travels are quickly racking up the bill.

0 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know