ADVERTISEMENT

Harris is a complete joke Republicans and climate change?

HJCane

SuperCane
Gold Member
Jun 2, 2007
14,279
17,327
113
Goes to Guatemala, hands out cookies on the plane with her picture on them, gets ripped by protestors, gets ripped by Guatemala President, blames Climate Change (like a liberal FOOL) and then tells the people don't come don't come as if that has ANY impact whatsoever. When asked by a reporter when she will visit OUR border she said.

“On the issue of Republicans’ political attacks, or criticism or even concerns: The reason I am here in Guatemala as my first trip as vice president in the United States is because this is one of our highest priorities,” Harris said in response to a reporter from the Associated Press.

“And I came here to be here on the ground to speak with the leader of this nation around what we can do in a way that is significant, is tangible and has real results. And I will continue to be focused on that kind of work as opposed to grand gestures.”

GRAND GESTURES? HIGHEST PRIORITIES?
Won't go talk to OUR OWN BORDER PATROL?

Such a completely out of touch Administration.
 
https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fe96ea801-5f50-4d96-b8f6-0b28bd3e1572_960x960.jpeg
 
Obviously climate change is the "root" cause. It isn't hot in South Texas or Arizona, just in Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico
Our Genius VP is writing a childrens book about climate. Through her travels she has discovered:

1. It is hot along the Equator.
2. It is cold near the poles.
3. It is wet in the Brazillian raid forrest
4. It is dry in the Sahara Desert.

She is one of the best and brightest:eek: Hey, she is smarter than AOC.
 
LMAO at Climate Change...another unsolvable problem that doesn't even exist. These people are deplorable.

Notice they don’t use global warming anymore, just say climate change it’s harder to pin down, and like you said it’s a never ending problem. Death and destruction from fossil fuels is right around the corner.
 
Notice they don’t use global warming anymore, just say climate change it’s harder to pin down, and like you said it’s a never ending problem. Death and destruction from fossil fuels is right around the corner.
Hadn't really thought about the transition from Global Warming to Climate Change but you're spot on...
 
  • Like
Reactions: HJCane and grbcane
Notice they don’t use global warming anymore, just say climate change it’s harder to pin down, and like you said it’s a never ending problem. Death and destruction from fossil fuels is right around the corner.
Anymore? As in 30+ years? The IPCC was founded in 1988. Guess what the “CC” stands for?
 
Just someone who listens to them
Yeah. The scientists paid by the global warming , oh excuse me the climate change movement. The same people running the man made climate change racket have made a million predictions since the seventies, all have been wrong. Some privileged people have gotten very rich off this racket, Al Gore etc. This has always been about socialism under the guise of environmentalism.
 
Last edited:
Just someone who listens to them
Huh? You mean you don't listen to Trump supporters who think the election was stolen and climate change doesn't exist? Also believe Jan6 was either a normal tourist day or Antifa was responsible. I can't forget my favoites. Inject yourself with bleach to cure yourself of Covid and we have planes like wonder womans plane that are invisible
 
  • Like
Reactions: SolarCane
Yeah. The scientists paid by the global warming , oh excuse me the climate change movement. The same people running the man made climate change racket have made a million predictions since the seventies, all have been wrong. Some privileged people have gotten very rich off this racket, Al Gore etc. This has always been about socialism under the guise of environmentalism.
This is all typical stuff from climate deniers

“models aren’t perfect”
Here’s the thing: models don’t have to be 100% accurate (and never intended to be, nor claimed to be) to prove global warming, which rests on two main points: that a) global surface temperatures are increasing rapidly and that b) carbon is the cause of the increase. This is just a red herring meant to distract from the actual issue that not one denier has brought forward a separate argument that explains the warming.

That’s why you have to resort to straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks because when it comes to actually refuting the science, you have nothing.
 
Goes to Guatemala, hands out cookies on the plane with her picture on them, gets ripped by protestors, gets ripped by Guatemala President, blames Climate Change (like a liberal FOOL) and then tells the people don't come don't come as if that has ANY impact whatsoever. When asked by a reporter when she will visit OUR border she said.

“On the issue of Republicans’ political attacks, or criticism or even concerns: The reason I am here in Guatemala as my first trip as vice president in the United States is because this is one of our highest priorities,” Harris said in response to a reporter from the Associated Press.

“And I came here to be here on the ground to speak with the leader of this nation around what we can do in a way that is significant, is tangible and has real results. And I will continue to be focused on that kind of work as opposed to grand gestures.”

GRAND GESTURES? HIGHEST PRIORITIES?
Won't go talk to OUR OWN BORDER PATROL?

Such a completely out of touch Administration.
She is as worthless as tits on a bull frog…
Way out of her league …
 
  • Like
Reactions: jpboca and grbcane
This is all typical stuff from climate deniers

“models aren’t perfect”
Here’s the thing: models don’t have to be 100% accurate (and never intended to be, nor claimed to be) to prove global warming, which rests on two main points: that a) global surface temperatures are increasing rapidly and that b) carbon is the cause of the increase. This is just a red herring meant to distract from the actual issue that not one denier has brought forward a separate argument that explains the warming.

That’s why you have to resort to straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks because when it comes to actually refuting the science, you have nothing.
Climate warming is all horse shitt… If you just take time to do ur research..

Weather is no better or worse than it was from the time they started to track it..

California droughts have been going on since the early to mid 1800…
Where was the carbon foot print than..??

Its all horse SHITT…!!!
 
Climate warming is all horse shitt… If you just take time to do ur research..

Weather is no better or worse than it was from the time they started to track it..

California droughts have been going on since the early to mid 1800…
Where was the carbon foot print than..??

Its all horse SHITT…!!!
Cool typical denier talking point.

“weather is no better or worse than it was”
Maybe do your research and look up the difference between weather and climate. Dummy.

“California droughts have been going on since the early to mid 1800”

Another typical denier talking point void of critical thinking. See previous remark about weather and climate.

Also, nice try with the straw man. No climate scientist is claiming that global warming is “causing” droughts. They’re saying that it can make them worse.

Again, denier can’t refute the science so they resort to straw men arguments and ad hominem attacks.
 
Cool typical denier talking point.

“weather is no better or worse than it was”
Maybe do your research and look up the difference between weather and climate. Dummy.

“California droughts have been going on since the early to mid 1800”

Another typical denier talking point void of critical thinking. See previous remark about weather and climate.

Also, nice try with the straw man. No climate scientist is claiming that global warming is “causing” droughts. They’re saying that it can make them worse.

Again, denier can’t refute the science so they resort to straw men arguments and ad hominem attacks.
Hahaha … What don’t they claim it’s because of climate warming.. Are u freaking kidding me… Still waiting on this one… JOKE..!!
Early 70 they said in 25 years all coastal cities will be under water…

You climate warning nut cases need mayor help…
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jpboca and grbcane
Solar you say you listen to scientists, but do you Understand ? Science IS specific and reproducible. It uses Data not polls, Not supposition, nor assumptions. Why isn't there a consensus of scientists (not a clique , not a group of people with the same interests) giving credibility and mandate behind this ? Why are historical norms in weather patterns NOT front and center. Why is the only solution to all of it the USA ? Why , if the science is so clear, is there no world pressure on CHINA, India, Russia, N.Korea, and the constant smoke and destruction of conflicts in the middle east? It seems to me that the pressure placed on USA Citizens and it's government is Misplaced and wasted. What good is it to shut down a country, That already is among the world leaders in conservation, and leave the worlds biggest offenders uncheck, unregulated, and unmodified ?
ps- you wouldn't happen to sell solarpannels would yha ? I'd love a deal :) ;)
 
Hahaha … What don’t they claim it’s because of climate warming.. Are u freaking kidding me… Still waiting on this one… JOKE..!!
Early 70 they said in 25 years all coastal cities will be under water…

You climate warning nut cases need mayor help…
Except they didn’t say that. Again, another straw man argument.
 
Sure they did… Just like they are claiming the California fires and the hurricanes are because of climate warming..

It’s freaking ridicules…. Here the best one of all ..
Biden said that climate warming is our biggest national security threat … LOL..!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: grbcane
Sure they did… Just like they are claiming the California fires and the hurricanes are because of climate warming..

It’s freaking ridicules…. Here the best one of all ..
Biden said that climate warming is our biggest national security threat … LOL..!!!
Man, you live straw men arguments. Can’t even honestly represent what the other side is saying. But that makes it easier for you to never actually challenge your beliefs. Oh well, ignorance is bliss.
 
Last edited:
Solar you say you listen to scientists, but do you Understand ? Science IS specific and reproducible. It uses Data not polls, Not supposition, nor assumptions. Why isn't there a consensus of scientists (not a clique , not a group of people with the same interests) giving credibility and mandate behind this ? Why are historical norms in weather patterns NOT front and center. Why is the only solution to all of it the USA ? Why , if the science is so clear, is there no world pressure on CHINA, India, Russia, N.Korea, and the constant smoke and destruction of conflicts in the middle east? It seems to me that the pressure placed on USA Citizens and it's government is Misplaced and wasted. What good is it to shut down a country, That already is among the world leaders in conservation, and leave the worlds biggest offenders uncheck, unregulated, and unmodified ?
ps- you wouldn't happen to sell solarpannels would yha ? I'd love a deal :) ;)
Mahb, you actually make some solid points there man. You’re right, science IS specific and results have to be repeatable. That’s the thing; one side has data from multiple data sources, with repeatable results. The deniers don’t. In science, if you say “carbon isn’t the cause of the warming” you have to be able to explain, with data, what is causing the warming. The earth’s atmosphere is a closed system, so either the sun is increasing it’s output or the earth is trapping more of the sun’s radiation. It’s not solar activity (been decreasing for decades), weather events like El Niño (otherwise the warming would’ve stopped), and it’s not long term cycles (those take thousands of years and we should be headed towards another ice age. Instead we’re seeing record warming).

Here is the article I posted earlier where they look at scientific papers denying global warming.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

Here is an explanation of said paper in the guardian in a more readable format.

Again, the denier’s results were not repeatable.

To answer some of your other questions…
“Why isn't there a consensus of scientists (not a clique , not a group of people with the same interests) giving credibility and mandate behind this?”

Well, there is. Every branch of the national Academy of Sciences accepts AGW.

As to the other narrative behind your question, every field of science has specialists that work within a given field. They conduct and interpret research. This happens in medicine, engineering, physics, chemistry, etc. Climate Science is no different. A medical doctor’s opinion on climate change should hold about as much weight as a climate scientists opinion on heart disease.

And make no mistake, 97% of climate scientists believe in AGW.

“Why are historical norms in weather patterns NOT front and center.”

Well, I’m no climate scientists but I think one of them would say that generally weather, because it’s short term, has a very high variability. Climate is all the weather events aggregated together. It’s far more predictable, or at least has been since humans inhabited earth. And their predictions aren’t for weather, but for climate (average global surface temperatures).

“Why is the only solution to all of it the USA?” Not sure where you heard that. It’s not. To tackle global warming, we have to cut global emissions. That’s everyone. That said, the US is one of the largest emitters of CO2, and the highest per capita. We’re a world leader. We need to lead.

“Why, if the science is so clear, is there no world pressure on CHINA, India, Russia, N.Korea, and the constant smoke and destruction of conflicts in the middle east?”

This is more a geopolitical question than one that pertains to the veracity of the global warming argument. China is investing far more in clean energy than we are. Not even close. To your point, they can and should do more. I think we should put pressure on all countries to curb emissions. But how can we do that when we’re not doing it in our own country?

“you wouldn't happen to sell solarpannels would yha ? I'd love a deal”

Ha! My best friend does. Depending on your state it can be cheap. Send me a DM.
 
LOL I knew it ! :) please take me off their dialer list ! 😂
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a Theory. Maybe a good one, still not proven, and there is no consensus. Needs time. I mentioned the use of the historic weather cycles, because it contradicts AGW, and releases heat retained in the Earth in its cyclical manor. Makes sense to me , since the earths been dealing with the retention of heat for about 4.5 and change billion years.
What is alarming is the spike that's seen over the last @50yrs . The US isn't anywhere where close to being among the worse offenders (asia, china, meddle east, india, South America) , we're more in the top 25 Countries for lowest Co2 emiction.
I'm not anti anything Solar. I recognize there is heat retention by the earth I recognize there is historic evidence of how the earth has dealt with it in the past. I recognize we are in a Co2 / Heat production spike, and that it is main man made. What I don't recognize are the solutions being put forth, the lack of observation/ patience without any documented signs of urgency, and the lack of credibility/ bad optics when Green Climate Advocates and Figurines just bought multi Million $$$ Mansion on The Beach, and Kerry takes a Heli to the Plane to maximize time ($$$ doesn't sleep), not to mention infringements into civil liberties and the rest of the political stuff . On Science I'm not sold yet, but when you add the authoritative thuggish way people are treated,,, makes you lose credibility, interest, and seriousness. I'm not there yet, this is worth being vigilant of, just not duped over.
 
Sorry, but the attackers of Kamala Harris come across as old, angry, frustrated white guys attacking a South Asian/Black woman. Viscious. Sexist (especially the Neanderthal, BreakingCane) in the extreme.

Ridiculous. Sad. Pitiful.
 
@mahb just saying there isn’t a consensus doesn’t make that true.


Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them.

Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.
 
@mahb
“I mentioned the use of the historic weather cycles, because it contradicts AGW, and releases heat retained in the Earth in its cyclical manor. Makes sense to me , since the earths been dealing with the retention of heat for about 4.5 and change billion years.”

I believe you’re a smart guy, but you haven’t actually done all your homework on this.

To begin, you’re misunderstanding weather and climate.

Historic weather cycles in no way contradict AGW. See other post on El Niño and long-term cycles. Trust me, the looked into this and taken all factors into account.

Last, yes the earth’s atmosphere has been retaining heat since it had an atmosphere. This is the greenhouse effect. The difference is there hasn’t always been a species digging up CO2 and releasing it into the atmosphere. Hence the Anthropogenic part of AGW.
 
Nightly brainwashing by the demagogues of right wing media tends to yield this sort of narrative. These are the same people who are claiming the insurrection was just friendly tourism.
Your ignorance is expounding
SO hard to believe…
First it was defending the Palestinians over Israel is absurd claims. you were were totally neutered, embarrassed, called out, & eviscerated.
I have no issues with differing opinions.
I despise differing opinions based on preconceived, uninformed, close minded thoughts.
Pfffffffffffffffffffffft
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT