No no no! You miss the point. Choosing this 4th Bush brother is sure to guarantee that he will be assassinated.
No no no! You miss the point. Choosing this 4th Bush brother is sure to guarantee that he will be assassinated.
Ghosttrain, it just occurred to me that we are interpreting Trumps speeches differently. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that he is calling all illegal Mexican immigrants criminals BECAUSE THEY ENTERED THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY. Right?
And on this point, I agree. By definition, an "illegal" immigrant is - well, illegal. (Duh)
If this is all Trump ever meant, then I wouldn't believe he was prejudiced. But I don't agree that this is what he means.
Why mention rape, murder, or drugs, when speaking about illegal immigrants from Mexico? If your point is that they are criminals because the are here illegally, then that is your case - full stop. But the fact that Trump felt the need to also imply that they are murders and rapists is where my claim of prejudice lies. Why conflate the term "illegal immigrant" with "rapist", "murderer", or "drug dealer"?
Legal immigrants are actually quite a bit more rare than you would imagine. But nonetheless, I look upon the crime of illegal immigration with less severity than I do rape or murder. I would expect most citizens would agree with this. Not saying that it's not a crime, mind you.I do think people should understand the difference between illegal and legal immigrants and stop ironically demonizing people who they merely think are demonizing immigrants.
I am not one of those people.Many people start yelling "racist" when anyone suggests that illegal immigrants should be deported.
Indeed I do. And yes, at some levels, nearly all of us are whores. Nearly every man has his price, although it's not always expressible in dollars. To fight against that takes great integrity, which is sorely lacking in our society today.
I guess I am still an optimist though, because while I have no doubt that scientists on both sides of the issue can be (and have been) bought, I still feel that the consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of anthropomorphic global warming even with the corruption. Not every nation suffers from the same science funding politics that we do, and even nations with a lot to lose are still agreeing that the problem is real. (And really, acknowledging the problem is trivial when compared to actually trying to solve it. I believe our efforts will be better spent on adapting to it / mitigating the effects of it, to be honest, but I am not an expert in the economics of climatology.)
In the interest of full disclosure, I should admit that I was once a staunch denier. (You think I'm insufferable now? Trust me, you have no idea...) It took years of me looking at the issue before I came around. (Actually close to 20 years since I first started arguing about it on USNET and BBS forums) The 97% study I linked to above was the final straw in my conversion.
I agree with all of this. I would only add that of the majority who are pressured not to oppose (on either side), most were not opposed to start with. I would also say that if there were studies that grossly contradicted the prevailing view, they would be published despite such pressure, simply for the prestige it would bring the author. (Thanks a lot, Pons and Fleischmann...) Essentially it means that there is room to debate the degree that the climate is warming and the severity of the effects, but to deny the issue entirely is no longer a defensible position in my mind.I will say that a majority of science is pressured not to oppose the funding sources. Scientists are human and fallible. Some scientist's dissertations are a huge contribution while others are just good enough to get buy.
Well, in Christie's case I think he absolutely was looking for a VP nod, because he knew he didn't stand a chance on his own. Not sure if Cruz could expect to get that sort of favor this late in the game though. (I still agree that it would be a brilliant move on Trump's part.)Remember, after the heated debates that Christie still endorsed Trump. The same reconciliation could occur with Cruz.
Adam
True. But, the risks with that "maverick" view point are very much higher than sticking with the consensus. This will significantly affect the willingness to publish this research. Furthermore, don't assume that the bias is working only on researchers that are studying climate. The climate change bandwagon is where many researches go to get funding for barely relatable projects. The astronomy community that I am most familiar with uses this excuse without shame.I would also say that if there were studies that grossly contradicted the prevailing view, they would be published despite such pressure, simply for the prestige it would bring the author
Something else to ponder. This is not any proof that anthropomorphic climate change is occurring or not, but have you noticed that the consequences of climate change are presented as almost universally bad? Think about this. Unless the global climate with all its local weather is at its absolute pinnacle of perfection, then why would change be so relentlessly negative? I raise this because it suggests that there is an agenda where someone will profit from the economic changes in policy will be required. It is a little like religion. "You might not see any changes in the climate and the proofs are doubtful , but trust me me they are happening and to avoid the horrible (but unseen) consequences (of Hell) pay me some carbon tax (say a few hail Mary's) or pay for inefficient green energy programs". That is why the word "denier" makes me smile. It sounds so heretical.
"You might not see any changes in the climate and the proofs are doubtful , but trust me me they are happening and to avoid the horrible (but unseen) consequences (of Hell) pay me some carbon tax (say a few hail Mary's) or pay for inefficient green energy programs". That is why the word "denier" makes me smile. It sounds so heretical.I share a similar experience- I believe it was after watching Tyson's Cosmos remake that I got to thinking there is much else at play here. The oceans hold plenty of CO2 like a bottle of pop- even if the CO2 we have added only raises the temp just a little, this would cause the ocean to belch up it's share, making the problem worse; then with the higher temp you would also get more water vapor, yet another greenhouse gas to make it even worse still. The point is that there are matching contributions from nature to amplify the effects of the carbon emissions that we make.In the interest of full disclosure, I should admit that I was once a staunch denier. (You think I'm insufferable now? Trust me, you have no idea...) It took years of me looking at the issue before I came around. (Actually close to 20 years since I first started arguing about it on USNET and BBS forums) The 97% study I linked to above was the final straw in my conversion.
An interesting web site:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/gw-b...s-changed.html
McD dumped the Big N Tasty some time ago, but even after 14 years you can still get a McChicken for a buck in some places.
There are also compensatory contributions from nature that mitigate these fluctuations such as increased snow cover from increased precipitation at higher latitudes and increased plant uptake and sequestration.The point is that there are matching contributions from nature to amplify the effects of the carbon emissions that we make.
What about my question? Why do all the press, the political class and the environmentalists follow the same litany, climate change = bad? The focus is always on whether you BELIEVE or are you a denier.
If you live in New Hampshire and the duration of the Winter season is shortened by a few weeks, would this be nice?
If northern Canada had longer growing seasons could more food be grown for the starving world?
If you lived in Patagonia would you be able to raise a wider range of farm animals?
Would the Gobi become less arid.
Would the productivity of farms around the world increase?
Would phytoplankton production increase, generating more primary food for endangered whales as well as a resource supporting fish for human consumption?
The majority of energy use by the third world is for heat and the second largest use is to cook food. If there were even a little less energy needed for heat this would decrease a source of human generated CO2 production.
I'll stop here, but the point is that the issue of balance never comes up and that's why I asked my question.
No not at all, I think I interpret it the same way.
Yes, illegal immigrant is illegal and it's an issue by itself (that's what I mentioned in my previous post) but that's noy my main issue here and I also don't see Trump being racist or prejudiced in his speeches. He could be just plain wrong and we could discuss that as well, but then he would just be wrong on the statistics, not be a racist.
We discussed this already, didn't we? I linked to his speech where he talked about murderers and rapist and there wasn't anything about mexicans specifically, nor anything about all of the illegal immigrants. We also discussed about use of the word "some" instead of "most". I also said that if you mean another speech to please let me know.Why mention rape, murder, or drugs, when speaking about illegal immigrants from Mexico? If your point is that they are criminals because the are here illegally, then that is your case - full stop. But the fact that Trump felt the need to also imply that they are murders and rapists is where my claim of prejudice lies. Why conflate the term "illegal immigrant" with "rapist", "murderer", or "drug dealer"?
So do I. So does the law. The issue is weakly controlled border attracts human traffickers, smugglers, terrorists, in other words crimes or criminals where a weak border is essential or very helpful.But nonetheless, I look upon the crime of illegal immigration with less severity than I do rape or murder. I would expect most citizens would agree with this. Not saying that it's not a crime, mind you.
It also attracts criminals from one country who might be facing prosecution in their home country.
Probably to a lesser extend it allows the "source" country to take less action and responsibility. Were those criminals engaging in criminal activity in their own countries rather than taking it to the US it would be a bigger concer for them.
Pointing this out does not make you prejudiced.
It's funny how so many people are making fun of the guy for saying "build a wall" as if you're not aware of the borders across the world and you've forgotten how Hillary was saying the same thing years ago. Well, more of a "fence" but come on.
Last edited by ghosttrain; 03-20-2016 at 00:31.
Because it's not that things get a little warmer or you get more sunlight so farms are more productive or things are nicer in Patagonia - there was a point when they thought it would just raise temperatures and sea levels would go up but it turned out that was over-simplistic and naive
The warming manifests as more energy in the system - increased strength and incidence of extreme weather events. longer and more powerful storm systems, more precipitation and flooding due to more evaporation and more moisture carried in the warmer air, greater rates of desertification as pre-existing imbalances are worsened.
The disruption to infrastructure and economic function of this kind of event is well known - the very best you can hope for is substantial change and even if that is survivable the economic and personal consequences would be huge and not desirable. Thinking this would come down to it costing a little less to heat your dinner or home is like watching a tidal wave coming in and thinking "ooooh i'd thought about having a pond"
Dynamics/EasyLase LC/FD820/RGB 400mW Homebrew w/EMS4ks