Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "Golden State Times" channel.

  1. ?!?! ... So... the Saudis has not given us reasons to trust them... but suddenly when the also not-to-be-trusted Trump talks to them, they are suddenly OK. Jesus!... don't you guys have any critical sense?
    6
  2. The best argument against democracy is 5 minutes conversation with the average voter. ... like the above comments. Honestly ... you people are scary. History is repeating it self these days...
    4
  3. I call BS - he doesn't give a sh*t.
    3
  4. Hey Republicans ... Keep him. Europe doesn't want him back.
    3
  5. Joyce Bagby What on earth makes you think Trump cares for you and your family? Trump cares for Trump. .. .well... and the ones he owes favors.
    2
  6. maxpol007 I know about the history and I know about the US being a federal republic. I also know that the word "democracy" can both refer to the actual system and organization of rule (Constitution, government,...)  AND it can refer to whether or not each person has influence over the government via his vote. ... and that you are trying to construct a virutal argument by exploiting the ambiguity. When Roland Regan referred to the US as a democracy, he OBVIOUSLY didn't mean to say that the didn't know the US was a republic. He meant to say that there was a democratic political process. Try not to dumb down the discussion with etymological fallacies.
    2
  7. So .. this guy is a boy scout. One can only hope that he will adjust he moral compass now, to remember the scout oath of protecting and conserving nature and will not lead the way to doom the planet to a chaotic climate situation for coming generations.
    1
  8. JuliaB1955 ... speaking of "the great leader".
    1
  9. joyce d Well... living in a real democratic country I never actually thought the US was especially democratic.... but Americans once in a while praise their country as democratic. Here's an example: "Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man."  --  Ronald Reagan But sure ... if you want to take pride in not having a democracy... by all means.
    1
  10. Dayna Nichols "Troll" ?.... do you have a hard time with real facts? Try tell me one thing.... when (if at all) Trump starts to build that wall and he funds it by taxing YOU, will you them realize you have been bamboozled? Think about it... How would Mexico ever get to pay for that stupid useless wall? How would Trump force that? ... He can't!. His last pulled-out-of-the-ass explanation was that it would be in some "complex way". It's not possible and he can't... this bullshit plan about a 20% border tax will have the effect that YOU are going to pay. It's a TAX on YOU. ... but he doesn't get that, since he hasn't get a clue about economics. You have been bamboozled.
    1
  11. ... you might need that. - at the speed these guys are dooming the planet.
    1
  12. ***** ... nahh... I just know physics.
    1
  13. questioneverything2 I assume you meant "present". Ok ... it's not as simple as that. There's a lot of inertia in the climate system, but what we do in the coming few years will determine whether we in the end manage to get control of the climate or it will spiral out of control. People alive today won't live to feel the ultimate consequences, but if we want a livable planet for the descendants of our grandchildren we need to act now. And wrt. to the physics.... it's actually really simple. When you burn hydrocarbons, you release CO2 (or when you emit CH4). CO2 is a dipolar molecule and will trap infrared radiation as heat. When present in the atmosphere it blocks the earth from radiating heat to space and thus creates an energy unbalance - currently around 0.6 Watt per square meter. Which makes the atmosphere, cryosphere and oceans heat up. The warming is currently measured to around 1.2 degree C When ice heats up - it melts. The last time the climate was so much warmer (during the Eemian), sea levels were 6-9 meters higher. ... but we haven't seen all the warming due to the CO2 already emitted yet because of the inertia. The last time the atmosphere had the current composition (in the Pliocene) temperatures were 2-3 degree C higher and sea level 25 meters higher. We will get to that temperature before the end of the century. Ice takes time to melt, but it's only a matter of time ... so we will get to that sea level within a couple of centuries too if we proceed with the politic the Trump administration has been laying out the last week.
    1
  14. questioneverything2 > "where are your physics? 650000 years ago when CO2 levels were much higher temperatures were cooler." This is just silly ... If you want to argue, start with facts. Don't invent them. The 650.000 years ago number is a pretty useless number. It was in the middle of MIS 16 - a glacial period - so of course it was colder. CO2 levels were NOT as high as today. I don't know why anyone would pick the 650.000 number - maybe to sound conservative, but the last time CO2 levels were above 400ppm (as they are today) was around 3 million years ago in the Pliocene. ... and sea levels were 25 meters higher.
    1
  15. questioneverything2 > "Current CO2 levels are .04%, 150 years ago CO2 levels were .028%, that is a increase of .012% in 150 years. Now I remind you that.012% is a tiny tiny tiny bit of Trace gas." This is simply just bad math. ... bad enough to flunk primary school. If you pay 1% in taxes and the government increases the tax rate to 2% then your taxes has DOUBLED - risen by 100% - NOT by 1%. They have risen by 1 percentage point - yes. But that's not 1%. The CO2 levels has risen ~40% in 150 years. Not "0.012%". Get your math straight.
    1
  16. questioneverything2 "it is not bad math..." Oh boy... doubling down... The "trace gas" argument has no bearing on the validity of your math. You just got primary school percentage calculation wrong. It's as simple as that. And the trace gas argument is a fallacy. As I said ... try walk into a room with 300ppm HCN and you'll find out what a trace gas can do. Different compounds has different physical and chemical properties. Bipolar gas molecules trap IR radiation. Regardless of what your stomach thinks about the size of the numbers used to measure its concentration by. Science is not about having subjective feelings about numbers. It's about calculating the actual effect. And Svante Arrhenius did that more than 120 years ago. Not much has changed since. Except now we are carrying out the experiment live in the only lab we have. Your grape example is simply stupid. It doesn't matter how much bushel you have. What matters is that the effect of the grapes has changed to whatever a doubling of the concentration causes. (logarithmic in the case of CO2)... Try walk into a room with *400*ppm HCN - and find out. "This is how you can wrongly take the statistic and completely misrepresent it because a percentages of a fraction is not an accurate mathematical process." This has nothing to do with "statistics" - it's about you not understanding physics and basic primary school math. ... and what you just wrote is hilarious.
    1
  17. > JebBlack2010 No Europe want people who care about facts and are man enough to not run like a pussy when you suddenly gets what you wanted. Farrage ran like a chicken when BREXIT happened. A real statesman would have taken responsibility and seen it through. The only thing this guy can is cry like a spoiled brat. ... and I'm member of a leave-EU party. Farrage is just a fact-free hypocrite making us all look bad.
    1