Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Thom Hartmann Program" channel.

  1. The big donors finance BOTH parties. the Dems are paid to win primaries against progressives. Dems do not want poor people to participate in the primaires any more than the Repubs want them to vote in the general.
    1
  2. NOTHING is more important for Dems than keeping the big donors happy, not even winning the general. Dems would like to win the general of course but they cannot offend the big donors with running on economic populism. Not all will lose their races in the general (although it gets harder in the Senate), the districts for House seats are more often safely blue. If they lose - the big whigs are getting a golden parachute. So if needed they use the same voter suppression strategies as Republicans in the general, albeit not at the large scale like Republicans. But if there even IS a challenge to the status quo, Dems mean business. They can fight and be sneaky - they just never use that against Republicans. Closing polling stations at universities, closing other polling stations, kicking lots of minority voters from the rolls. Greg Palast remembers one of the most brazen purges he has ever seen in New Mexico (and he has seen a LOT) in order to disenfranchise poor Latino voters when a neoliberal Democrat was challenged in the primaries. Or the "mistake" that happened in Brooklyn in the D primaries in 2016. They were not sure if Sanders could win in New York (Clinton had been a Senator there, that would have been embarrassing), and they took no chances. In the end she would have won NY, but likely with a much closer margin. The polls had been off in Michigan. Like I said the party machine jumped into action. No one was punished, the civil servant happened to make a VERY favorable real estate deal later. (Selling well over market value). Big donor serving Democrats typically run (and typically lose) on a lame Republican Lite platform (see the lost Senate seats of "conservative" Democrats) The leadership tries to eek out a NARROW win in Congress. That suits them just fine, then they can always blame Republicans if they do not make good on campaign promises (the few populist they make). The bluedogs are gladly tolerated, they do not get the hositility that progressives get. Manchin and 2 other Senators with a D to their name undermined the attempt of the Obama admin to pass an infrastructure bill with simple majority (of course the Repubs were not on board). That was in 2013. In 2009 Lieberman and a few like him killed the Public Option. Now the same playbook regarding filibuster and federa minimum wage (15 in 2024 and 9.60 soon).
    1
  3. But became of contempt for "Political correctness" ?
    1
  4. the cities pay for the settlements and the lawsuits, they will raise taxes, reduce services, or target poor people relentlessly with fines to recoup that money. If the police would have to pay for the settlements (out of their pension funds) and all lawsuits that they lose, they might start to put pressure on their collegues to behave better. They NEVER lose, they can afford to get sued, so what ? They do not end up in prison, get help with lawsuits, and a settlement that is taken from the funding of a city with low income people does not harm the perpetrators - nor does it replace the eye of a journalist. It is very telling that this happend in a BLUE city. (always blue since 1978). And not a peep by the Obama campaign (at least that is what I strongly suspect).
    1
  5. 1) FBI investigation was ongoing. they cleared her only on JUNE 14th - the own goal of her illegal private email server. She was reprimanded for gross negligence (something like that) - it was either harebrained or intentional to hide a lot of communication. I believe the latter, but at best it showed poor judgement and an inability to grasp the dangers of being hacked while being a prime target and being married to a prime target. Even for her private communication she should have EXCELLENT security. When her private emails are compromised hostile actors can find out where the former president (with Secret Service protecton for life, there is a reason for that) and his wife and sitting Secretary of State of the United States are going.   Anyway: she was not prosecuted (convention was beginning of July - so very few weeks earlier only). 2) As we all knew and as the leaked Podesta emails confirmed: the DNC partially coordinating with Corporate media tipped the scales against him, some prominent figures had to step down. (Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile were the most prominent). 3) Sanders CONSISTENTLY polled better against Trump, especially in the Rustbelt states that turned out to be critical. Clinton also beat Trump according to polls of early spring till summer but with less margin and sometimes with only 1 - 2 % - so within the margin of error. At the convention ALL delegates of some states that Sanders had won went to Clinton (pete was a delegate for Indiana, guess what, he too delivered the votes from Sanders to Clinton) - to sugar coat that her win wasn't all that decisive in earned delegates.
    1
  6. GROWING trees take out a lot of carbon - a mature forest is in balance (decaying biomass releases as much as the trees absorb, allegedly some is bound in soil - I guess wildfires release that as well. There are rainforests in Indonesia or Malaysia that have peet forests and have been burning for months a few years ago). Ambitious reforestation could buy us time - a few decades. In that time we can develop other technology (to sequester carbon). it would be helpful if the polar icecaps stay somewhat intact (even if the ice is thinner) as long as there is ice on the surface to reflect. of course there is a lot of ice and CO2 in the oceans - so that is bound to be released.
    1
  7. The carbon cyle goes on on a daily base for trees, certainly in the warm season ! There are a lot of trees w/o leaves. And most of the biomass of a tree is stored in the stem not in the leaves. So that is released during wildfires or when the tree dies and decays.
    1
  8. The most important elections in the U.S. are the D primaries, that is the ONLY race where you might have the chance to vote for a We The People candidate. (and legally they are not elections but a selection process of a private org, the Democratic party). This is March 2021: Yes Joe Biden and Dems throw money around, I am not complaining, but that is a temporary fix. But no fighting for STRUCTURAL CHANGE, that would cost the big donors, so far it is all added to debt. (again: I do not want to fear monger about debt and deficit, on the other hand at the current levels they need to have an eye on it, and it is crucial to spend the money wisely). Federal minimum wage USD 15 till 2025 (and 9,60 soon) was pathetically abandoned. (It should be over 10 since 2018 if the U.S. would only have 1968 levels ! in purchasing power) * Medicare for the uninsured ? (It would have been the chance for an experiment, and it is time limited, so what was the reason not to do it ?) Nope ! The 1.9 trillion package gives plenty of subsidies to COBRA so unemployed can have low cost health insurance. Which is good for them, but of course the prudent and rational way would have been to not hand over those customers to the for-profits with 20 - 30 % overhead but to Medicare agency with 3 % overhead and the much better rates. That would have cost less (it is added to the debt pile after all), they could have tested it with a no too large but substantial number of insured. 2 millions and likely family members but younger folks (working age), so they are less likely to need it than the over 65 year old (they are the most costly group among the insured). And as this was only for the pandemic time even the professional pearl clutchers need not worry (that their big donors are getting permanent competition).
    1
  9.  @elijahjames8837  Global. Average. Yearly. Temperature ! two thirds of the planet are covered by oceans which absorb a LOT of heat. Was the Southern hemisphere warme or cooler than average in 2018 ? (It has more water and less land than the Norther hemisphere).
    1
  10.  @elijahjames8837  The 12 hottest years on record were between 1998 and 2018 (so in 21 years). 2018 is number 4. For snowfall one needs a wall of cold air (maybe breaking out from the poles which in turn are way too warm). and the cold air must hit warmer air that holds moisture. It must not be especially cold for SNOW. Higher up all droplets freeze, it matters how war or cold the air is near the ground where they fall down.
    1
  11.  @elijahjames8837  the weather networks and reporters do not always get it right (I am friendly here). That said: WHEN did they say the Arctic ice was lost ? One CAN report about the general development - even in winter. Of course everyone who has the slightest idea KNOWS that the ice losses happen in the summer. The temps in Canada in winter do not matter - the question is if the ice losses in summer have changed, and what about NET losses over the years ! Some melting in the summer has been going on for millenia, it is normal, the question is: is there more ice lost in summer compared to decades and centuries ago - and if so does it at least fully recover in winter ? Answer: No, and more open water in summer has feedback effects so you must look at summer more closely. Never mind they have a NET loss anyway: more is lost in summer than gained in winter - VOLUME of ice (but even if winter would bring back all that has melted a few months before - that still would not be good - see Albedo effect). So any respectable informed outlet would explain about the averages of the yearS. Or show the charts of September comparing the years (and at the minumum they need to show 10 years, better more to get a clear picture). In September you see the maximum loss after the Arctic "summer". They also should compare the months when Arctic spring breaks out - so how does the region come back - with how much ice ? (summer loss is more important though). And then there is the huge question: Ocean water temperature. Maritime versus continental climate: that refers to the fact that large bodies of water (lakes, even more so oceans) even out the temperature spikes because water stores so much more heat and for so much LONGER than land mass.  So it is crucial what goes on with the average temperature of the ocean water. Answer: NOT good, not good at all.
    1
  12.  @elijahjames8837  The ANOMALY OF WATER: Compare ice at 0 degree Celsius (freezing point) and then add heat so it will melt but the water still ! has 0 degree Celsius. And then you add the exact same amount of energy again. Result: you will heat up the water from 0 to 80 degrees. (if you do not operate in Celsius: zero is freezing point freshwater and 96 degrees is boiling point - depends a little on the height, never mind. The temps for saltwater are at another point but the dynamic, the ANOMALY of water is the same whether it is fresh or salt water). So in other words it takes huge amounts of energy for the transition from PHASE ice to PHASE water. Ice is a heat buffer (and is industrially used for that purpose). So once large volumes of ice have melted (net !) the next input from the next summer will make a sudden noticeable impact on the Arctic, especially on the ocean water temperature.
    1
  13.  @elijahjames8837  Melting changes the salinity, the salinity drives the ocean currents. And then the loss of ice means less reflection in summer on top of it (less albedo). You always have to consider WHAT ice they are talking about: summer ? winter ? land ? in the ocean ? think flimsy cover that is gone quickly (still better than open water because even thin ice reflects solar radiation back in summer). Ice loss must not only consider the area but the VOLUME. Thin ice can form with strong steady wind (cooling things down and shoving thin ice together to help form a surface cover. (They also have storms in summer, "warm" Arctic does not mean cozy). While a thin ice cover in summer is better than nothing - is easily gone whenever the weather pattern shifts or in the next year. You have to pay attention to the huge volumes of ice NET LOSS (look at all of the year and at many years), these NET VOLUME LOSSES are an indicator for how much energy the system has absorbed already. A professor from the university of Manitoba has been going to the Arctic for decades. Always in summer, year for year. He says they were in an area that according to satellite data (then this is maybe 8 years ago) was covered in ice. Yes it was - barely ! He said that area should have had THICK ICE (and had it when he was there years ago). Instead the ship (an icebreaker) could go at almost top speed, it was only a flimsy cover. Satellite data hadn't shown that, the ice looked good on the images. So it was much worse than expected in that area. There is a global initiative they are launching new satellites right now that can also measure the THICKNESS of the ice and will be much more precise regarding temperature measurments (with climate it is the tiny differences that matter, the weather satellites do not need to be so precise). The Trump admin initially wanted to defund it - what is wrong with having MORE and more accurate information ! Once enough ice has melted it speeds up, no more buffer effect and lack of Albedo.
    1
  14.  @elijahjames8837  The extreme cold temperatures in the Arctic also create atmospheric currents that encircle the Arctic. It is supposed to be very cold there in winter and fairly cold in summer and that feeds aircurrents (Jet streams) that will "fence off" the cold. Especially in the late fall to early summer. These aircurrents get weaker - the temperature differences are not as extreme as they used to be - because if the ocean (surface) water is warmer than it will of course also affect the temperature in the atmosphere over time. So you have breakouts of cold air, they are called Polar Vortex. These have happened before but they become more frequent and last longer. Which explains the cold snaps in Georgia, Florida etc. The Arctic is less cold than it used to be and the regions that were ususally fenced off now are hit by these outbreaks and are too cold - at least for a short time. I remember one day where Florida was colder than the Arcitc (around freezing poin). It was an extreme event - but that should not happen at all. a related dynamic also prolongs weather patterns. Lots of rain or long lasting periods of sunshine (hot temperatures, no rain). The weather fronts were moving faster and that was good. Some rain but no floodings followed by some more sunshine. Now the weather patterns stabilize and are not moving on. Record heat waves, or record rain etc. The Arctic OCEAN temperature is even more important, because water can store so much heat. HOT Arctic can mean temperatures near the freezing point when it should be 20 or 30 degrees colder. A too mild winter in Arctic influences what happens next summer.
    1
  15.  @elijahjames8837  How is "cool" temps in Australia going (in December 2019) ?? - Record snowfall in New Foundland : it does not need to be very cold to have snow. No one said there wouldn't be cold temps in the North.
    1
  16.  @elijahjames8837  Global average temp and ocean surface temp up - MORE MOISTURE in the air. So more snowfall in regions that are in the North (Global warming does not mean no winter in Canada). - no heavy snowfall does not contradict global warming anymore than heavy rain (if you have at least around freezing point on the surface you get snow).
    1
  17.  @elijahjames8837  in the years with the cold snaps in GA or the snowfalls in Newfoundland - the Yearyl Global Average temperature was STILL going from one record high to the next. (or remained high and showed the stable upwards trend of temps).
    1
  18. +coryluke Have you been alive when the Great Financial Crisis hit ? - the oligarchs were scared for a short time. But: they got a bailout and after that QE to the tune of trillions. Literally ! look it up what Fed, ECB and BoE pumped into the system by buying up the "assets" of the banks with money they created for the transaction. The assets no capitalistic institution would have bought (the cental banks for the most part STILL hold those "assets") The fear of the Capitalistic bankers did not last long - they and the mediaact like nothing had happened. (The advantage of being at the top of the food chain: you can totally mess it up ... and still game the system in a way that it will turn out to be an advantage - for the top. and it was not only the U.S. real estate bubble with a massive speculation bubble( on the default risk of the housing loans) on top of it. Bill Clinton had finished the project "let's deregulate Big Finance" around 1998 or 1999 - that was taken as cue by many large banks worldwide that it was time to get crazy. Did not take them long to completely mess it up - incl. with the independent crises in Ireland, irresponsible loans of European banks to Greece. Also in Ireland, Austria /Germany with Hypo Alpe Adria, Cyprus, the Spanish real estate bubble, ....
    1
  19. + @johnnypenso9574  the top 10 % or 50 % pay a major part of income tax (but they get much more of the national income !!). And that does not account for the accumulated and inherited income. Tax free or tax reduced unearned income. Same with the unearned income form capital gains (from those fortunes). - It is true the ratio of GDP versus tax revenue remained the same. Much more of the revenue comes form income tax (the middle and upper middle class is squeezed relative to their capacity as well). Of course the rich pay a good chunk of income tax. But these people are often also OWNERS of companies (directly or via shares - stocks are owned for the overwhelming ! part by rich people). Corporations contributed much more to tax revenue. And the rich people invested in them still get a very sweet deal. 80 - 90 % of the gains of the economy go to them. Only paying 50 % of the income tax and not much or zero on accumulated fortunes and capital gains is a sweet deal indeed.
    1
  20. Scientist KNOW and have studied it - it is NOT THE SUN. - potholver54 youtube channel - if interested in FACTS. (he has the professional training)
    1
  21. +John Miranda may be a bot spouting that nonsense randomly on such videos - anyway - do check out potholer,he is good, only 5 - 10 minutes. A good source to recommend to the deniers.
    1
  22. In low income areas especially with a Native population the police does not care, the land is sparsely settled. Predators KNOW they get away with murder. Girls and women might flee (be trafficked). Not to forget the men in their life might take advantage of the lawless situation.
    1
  23. Minneapolis is a BLUE city, the police should be reigned in by the mayor. One can watch the sorry spectale of Bill De Blasio, the mayor of New York is a powerful positions, or so one would think. - but the 1 % do not mind if their police shows "those" people their place, and they have an inkling they might need the stooges at some point. And police is certainly trained in the us versus them mentality.
    1
  24. Minneapolis has been a blue city in one row since 1978. I do not think that the instigation of Trump make much of an impct, obviously they were brazen in the last year of GWB (not best buddies with the Obamas), and it is not like police has been reigned in under Obama.
    1
  25. Important study Ben cites: Authoritarian officers are much more likely to use deadly force, a racist one will be unfair - but if tested they will talk down a black man tha is (or seemst to be) unruly.
    1
  26. They are not getting rid of their dictator in NK anythime soon (Qatar, Brunei, KSA, China, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Jordan - anyone ?) the next best thing is to give them some carrots. And PUSH for better human rights (that is that the West NEVER can be bothered to do with the "good" brutal dictators. WHILE the dictator or authoritarian leader can feel safe from external "regime change". Even dictators have to solve the problem of the economy. AND: if the dictator feels less threatened that foreign forces will assassinate him there is a chance they will be less brutal and paranoid. Maybe the BRUTUAL genocidal bombing of Korea, especially NK explains something about the NK psyche. The "need" to have a god like "dear leader". How many admitted plots to assassinate Castro do we know ? I may have contributed to internal suppression, spying and paranoia in Cuba. Little unimportant, Cuba. Weak regarding the economy and the military. They did not send terrorists to the U.S. - but the U.S. committed acts of terrorism against Cuba (bombs in shipping containers, civilian goods, the iconic Che photo was made during the burial procession for the killed dock workers). in 2002 the U.S. backed a coup of right wing forces in Venezuela. They did not dare to kill Chavez - and it failed. What business had the U.S. to meddle with Venezueal ? As for Cuba: U.S. could have just ignored them and let them do their thing. No one cared when dictator Batista and the mob ran the place. Instead the U.S. placed sanctions on Cuba longer than on any other nations - and rabidly forced other nations to keep those unjustified sanctions as well. Whch of course made the Cubans circle the wagons. And rendered Castro paranoid. The West knows only two ways to deal with dictators: sell them everything they need to brutally suppress their own people, as long as they cooperate with the U.S. and let Westenr Big Biz explit the country. OR - for some reason the dictator stands for some reason in the way (geopolitics, has crazy ideas to use natural resources for the citizens, is allied with countries which the U.S. considers adversaries). Then xyz has to go. Often these countries are not real democracies - but it does not matter. selective coverage and making stuff up or ramping up some invented danger will do just fine (Red Scare for mildly left leaning Chilenan policies in the 1970s).
    1
  27. Burning fossil fuels is the most important factor ! - as far as Global warming goes (not talking about other things). Steam engines have an efficiency of under 24 %, most of the energy of the fuel (coal, gas, oil ) goes into heat not motion, (combustion engines are also very inefficient, in that range). Replacing a LOT of that electricity with help of increasingly cheap solar panels and falling battery prices goes a long way. In sunny regions the providers already have a hard time competing with solar, so when the realistic costs for energy are put on the fossil fuels (it is not only the costs of GW, also the risks for accidents / oil spills, and also the pollution and healthcare costs), then every spot on roofs that is a good fit, will be covered by solar panels. Electricity from gas powered plants etc. will not be able to compete, they have a hard time alrady in sunny regions if the electricity is not dirt cheap. In the United Arab Emirates they installed solar anels in 2012 (around that time before beg. of 2014, I heard a speech), that was cheaper than building a gas fired plant. They have excellent conditions for solar (and need most for A/C when supply is high) but they also have the gas for practically nothing. Falling prices and mass deployment of solar power will help with electricity and fuel for cars. Homes can be insulated - if done right it helps against cold and heat. (heat: the windows must be shaded and of course no single pane windows. The strategy is to keep the windows closed from late morning till sunset and to only open them during night. It also helps so have MASS that sotres hear and acts as a buffer - in summer and winter). The deforestation, factory farming, big ag methods comes from the same mindset that hindered rational action regarding GW. Meat is another part of the equation, but fossil fuel BURNING has more impact (on GW). Dairy is a fairly efficient use of land, btw - i think with optimized methods (smaller farms, rotational grazing cows only eating GRASS) it may be able to beat even plant production per acreage. One aspect is that it is easier to maintain fertility with manure. So even farmers that mainly produce plant food (for humans) have some animals, to help with that. Animals (a few cows, some pigs, chickens) provide synergies, that is especially important for SMALL farms (which are desirable for many reasons). The advantages can only be gained if a farm does not get too large, and it gives the smaller operations an edge. They do not use the huge machines, they have trees and niches on the farm (which is good for a roubst ecosystem, but stands in the way of conventional "efficiency"). So they need to benefit from the other advantages they have - and integrating animals into growing plant food is one of them.
    1
  28. Social housing* to bring rent down, universal healthcare (you are barely scraping by, but eventually someone gets sick in the family - then the trouble really starts). Guaranteed jobs, and promoting co-ops (they have the right to buy first when a company wants to sell or is bankrupt - the state creates money *to help them with funding). That means that normal businesses have to pay good wages too, or they will not find workers. * See Prof. Werner debt and interest free money. The problem is: there are areas where costs of living are low - but then in that area there are not enough jobs. And where the jobs are, the rent is high. Plus( foreign) rich investors were allowed to price everbody out of the housing market. The Chinese for instance are everywhere (in the U.S. Australia, UK - in Berlin, capital of Germany they passed laws, real estate only for people LIVING there. Keep the city for the citizens !! Or foreigners who have a stake there because they work in the city of have a business there. Not just buying up empty appartments as "investment". (Of course creating jobs in the rural low-costs-of-living areas would be a good thing, it would revitalize those regions AND there are already too many people in the cities).
    1
  29. Hi exparts - hope you also vote in the Democratic PRIMARIES. the most important elections in the U.S.
    1
  30. Are you sure it is not enough to change registration soon enough (meaning NOW for instance well ahead) ??
    1
  31. Many Dems use the same tactics as the GOP - but in PRIMARIES. To get neoliberals into office instead of progressives (who want to do something for the citzens). Greg Palast: Dems steal primaries, the Republicans steal general elections. - And both are funded by the SAME donors. This is BTW the role the Big Donors have assigned to the Dems: to hold back progressives if there ever is a strong movement emerging. They just about managed that with Sanders. I think they would prefer the GOP to win (certainly with a more mainstream GOP candidate like Rubio of Bush) instead of winning with Sanders. And he would have won in the GE. If given the choice between Sanders and Trump (if Clinton would have been unfit for health reasons for instance) - I am not so sure what they would prefer. When Clinton had health problems in Sept. 2016 the big shots of the Democratic Party met - and it seems they discussed Joe Biden as replacement. ??? Who is not younger than Sanders and had not even run ? that was the last chance for the country to get a decent president - oh, well. Progressives would never listen to the GOP, but the corporate Dems can keep them busy, sideline them, dilute and drain their energy, ask them to wait, just not YET the time to ask for xyz, .... See the current circus. For the Corporpate Dems one thing is even more important than winning elections: not to be cut off from the money of the Big Donors. This is not only about campaign finance. If they served their masters well while in offic,e they will be provided with cushy jobs when they lose the seat or want a change of careers. The donors WILL HONOR that obligation - at least with the big shots in the party. It increases their leverage when those who still hold a political office KNOW they can rely on the Big donors as ex-politician. They will never dare to annoy them.
    1
  32. You shouldn't keep it to the youtube comment section: Write a rebuttal paper and subject it for peer review. The QUALIFIED and PUBLISHING scientists do not hang out here - the global community of experts pays attention to peer reviewed studies and that is your turf. - and since you contradict almost all of them, you could definitely get famous by proving them wrong. Never mind the special interests would fall over themselves to finance you.
    1
  33. It is backed by the promissory note of the borrowers (= the loan contract). And by the punitive authority of the government. Banks are gatekeepers to the (untapped) resources of the economy. so there must be a mechanism to make sure the banks have economic and legal ! incentives to scrutinize the loan projects * for which they use their privilege of money creation. * it used to be in the good old days, not after 2000 - 2007 obviously, no financial consequences (before a bank - small fish - would go under occasionally. The capital of the owners was lost, management had a blemish on their CV, and lost the job. And then there was danger of criminal prosecution. See 1980s S & L crisis, which was the first major crisis after 1933. The resources of the economy are not unlimited. If you start a restaurant - you get a good chunk out of the economy - it is like an advance given by the economy. The furniture, you pay rent, wages. The receivers of those payments - made possible by the loan - then go and get other prducts and services that are already ! provided by the economy. The productive participants of the economy have an interest that there is a process in place that makes sure that the "advances" are going mostly to projects that will GIVE BACK to the economy (in form of products and services that are sought after - that is essentially what enables the borrower to "pay back")
    1
  34.  @SclountDraxxer  the banks roughly need to have 10 % of any loan - it is not more. And that high leverage is not new either. If the projects are in the PRODUCTIVE economy, if the banks spread risks, if they do not finance real estate bubbles - it is no problem.
    1
  35. Did Thom forget to say that the 73 year old woman has DEMENTIA ? (Or is this another 73 year old, the one I mention was abused last summer, but now the footage has been released, her family sues). The morons of Walmart called the police on her, when she wandered off with an unpaid article of not even 14 USD. And judging from the interaction with police she "wandered off" and did not try to shoplift. Like a child would do that does not know better. And police should have realized that she wasn't completely there, she is also very frail. so frail that a person coming by and calling the hoolingans in blue out, thought police was roughing up a kid.
    1
  36. Thanks for the link - unbelieveable that 8 Dems voted in down in the Senate (VERY gladly tolerated by Biden).
    1
  37. God willing - some folks REALLY have been WANTING WAR with Iran (the neocons financed by Israeli interests, the "Israel before the U.S." crowd in the U.S., the current government of the State of Israel, maybe also the Saudis). - I read that the Pentagon kept GWB from going to war with Iran - the war against Afghanistan started in 2001, the military leadership was not too happy about the escalation in Iraq in 2003 - likely recognizing the military implications - and with Iran they said No..
    1
  38. No it isn't - and you cannot find any scientific paper to support your claim. But you can find some (peer reviewed) regarding the jet streams.
    1
  39.  @127cmore  Piers Corbyn is NOT famous. you get a _reputation in the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY by presenting PEER REVIEWED studies and exposing your findings to the critique of the experts in the field. Not by making your case to the laypersons (be it in books, on a blog, or even on TV as beloved pop science presenter). - Piers Morgan is a name in the denier community, but not among CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. Not sure about his training (astro physicist ?). If so, that does not qualify him to contradict scientists who work in the field. Climate science is complex, encompasses many fields, is very split up among many experts. A scientist that presents peer reviewed studies for let's say ocean streams and how they impact surface water temperature would be very careful about contradicting other scientists that examine the glaciers of Greenland or that work at a partial issue regarding the atmosphere. Not because they do not dare - but because they know how specialized their own field is and how much work, expertise goes into their studies. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread - if you get what I mean. Since science and especialy climate science is so specialized and is covered by so many fields there is little chance that an unrelated person / scientist with expertise and WORK in another field can make a contribution - or find flaws in a study that the experts have overlooked. The experts (and the universities) worldwide subscribe to the very specialized peer-review magazines (the subscriptions are very expensive. Studies are often behind a paywall, only the abstract is public . Today they are all on the internet (not sure if they still print, the most famous journals might). Scientists makes an impression (and work towards tenure) by 1) publishing in peer reviewed magazines (and they have to find ones that think your work is up to standards and provides insights. That can be confirming or contradicting other studies. No one proves or denies climate change btw - they work at small parts of the puzzle. Climate is hihgly complex. You cannot pay your way into publishing, not with the respected journals. With the interntet some magazines publish that accept payments for that - and there have been problems, that they will accept sloppy or biased work) 2) ripping a study of a collegue apart - or at least finding a flaw ;) so they have swarm intelligence of highly trained experts going on. That process is not perfect - but the arch bends very much towards finding the most obvious flaws, bullshitting is not possible, and over time the insights get better, more accurate. PEER REVIEW is a major element of the scientific method. Scientiest are not necessarily much more ethical (although hardly anyone becomes an astro physicist or biologist as a get rich quickly scheme). But they keep each other straight. If memory serves Piers Corbyn had a for profit company where he tried to predict the weather for a few months (as data base to speculate on crop prices). Seems to have worked for a time and he became known to investors (not sure about the big guys), but it wasn't an ongoing success. He can make money by authoring a book or holding speeches that contradict that there is problematic warming going on or that it is a manmade issue - of course alway adressing the laypersons not the experts. That can generate much more income than working as a scientist in the field and meeting the rigorous standards. If he is a useful surrogate for special interests (because a degree in ANOTHER field gives him credibility with laypersons) - that does not help him with the scientific community. It is still a meritocracy. Also being good in communicating and tricks in presentation and changing graphs or cherry picking ("Lord" Monckton) - might impress viewers but not scientists. The shorter the time the more erratic the predictions are. Climate is the averaged weather (over regions and time). You cannot say what the temperature will be on March 2nd 2023. But you can confidently assume that March in 2023 (or 2021) will be on average warmer than January (in the Northern hemisphere). And there is a good chance that the highest temperature in January is lower than the highest one in any March. Statistcis, large numbers, longer periods of time. Versus trying to predict weather beyond 5 - 10 days.
    1
  40. And it would need 60 votes in the Senate and will never, ever be passed. Such a shame. - Mission accomplished.
    1
  41. The fall of the U.S. in full display (aside from the pandemic handling). Two corrupt judges. A corrupt government (Trump), another corrupt government (Biden admin). Open conflict of interest of the private prosecutor, they do not even feel the need to hide it. Well, they are right, they are getting away with it in broad daylight. - ALL of mainstream media silent on this. Can you imagine either MSNBC or FOX taking up the cause ?? Lots of powerful politicians that have a following staying silent. Also FORMER politicians. Think Obama would bother to make a stink about it. But Sanders and The Squad also stay clear of the case - for fear they will be torpedoed in the current battle ?? That the corporate Dems would shoot down the 3.5 trillion bill if they dare offend the big donors. (it is not only Chevron, the other corporations also LIKE that kind of outcome, and would be dismayed if public outrage would reign in Chevron.)
    1
  42. Merkel is not "beloved", people got used to her, and tolerated her - her unassuming attitudie covers for a clever opportunist. Her way to preside over stagnation and the slow economic decline (from former glory) meets a fairly conservtive, self absorbed relatively old population. Where 30 % are still well off. And the young that don't do too well can still hope to inherit from the parents. She is a staunch neoliberal, a sellout. See how she dealt with the financial crisis. True some help for the masses (or it would have been the pitchforks and lost elections) but after the immediate crisis it was austerity for the masses. Joseph Ackerman of Deutsche Bank was her "advisor". Mr. 20 % ROI set up the bank to its current problems (with a lot of shady derivatives in the boods). The way economically harmful austerity was forced on Greece. This was ideological and to "discipline" France, Italy and Spain (same structural problems), and to preventively take the side of big biz and finance (who of course got bailed out). Germany knew it did not make sense economically, austerity would even reduce their chances to get the loans ever paid down - and it would devastate Greece. (Wolfgang Schaeuble and Varoufakis). They did not care. This was not about the economy and not even about protecing the interests of German citizens. And last but not least the "energy" reform. If a person has the average wage in Germany they will be just above poverty line with their old age pension (Social Security). They have been talking about old age poverty in Germany for 15 years now. the red-green Social-Democratic / Green Party coaltion (a force for neoliberalism btw - like Bush1 could not pass NAFTA it needed Bill Clinton to screw the working class, this was the era when types like Clinton, Blair and Schroeder were at large) passed an orderly transition out of nuclear power. slowly shutting them down. that was the only thing the Greens were good for in that government. They supported the lies that led to the CRIMINAL NATO boming of Serbia (there were no massacres going on at the time, and no planning. They had ONE source for the alleged plan of ethnic cleansing - driving out one minority group. a colorful character to put it mildly.). The bombing escalated the situation and sidelined the moderates on all sides. Clinton WANTED war. But with Germany NOT going along he could not have had it. Germany did not share a border with Yugoslavia (little Austria is in between), but the bases were necessary and the MORALE support. The Green party had also absorbed the anti war movement of the 1980s, it was shameful that they supported the war mongering. Economic help would have gone a long way to ease the tensions. Would have been also cheaper - but setting a bad example (other nations in Europe would also have needed a "Marshall plan" and totally against the neoliberal ideology. The Greens could have ended the coalition over it, and challenged the government on the necessity of war. Instead they styled the Serbs as new Nazis (Never again) in order to justify the betrayal. The Serbian rhetoric was inflammatory, some atrocities happened (on ALL sides) but there were no massacres nor were they planned). Then - after the bombing - of Servian civilians, TV stations the scene was set up for further escalation and masscres. Sending in Islamic extremists from Afghanistan (they were done fighting the Soviets) helped with the escalations. The Croats had a fascist group that fought the Serbs. German media (undermined by Nato loyal think tanks and CIA) fell in line. Internationally red is the color of the Lefties, unions and Social Democrats, only in the U.S. it is the Conservatives that have that as signature color.
    1
  43. Thom is wrong - 9/11 war the Reichtagsbrand of the U.S. - And Erdogan of Turkey would really miss Gullen if he would die of old age now (Gullen is in the U.S.) Erdogan literally has ten of thousands of people arrested or kicked out of public office of from the justice or police system under the pretext they the support the terrorist Gullen (a former ally of Erdogan).
    1
  44. 4:43 Trade Representative Robert Lane - strategic plans to improve the trade deals and 6:41 Highly interesting - ZTE and Huywey phone companies forbidden on military bases (spy devices Backdoors). Forbidden in the U.S., and they get no more parts from the U.S. - then the Chinese Gov. funds Trump Hotel in the verge of bankrupcy with 1 bn USD and Ivanka gets 14 trademarks that are worth hundreds of millions , and ZTE was fined over 1 bn for trading with Iran and North Korea (Secondary sanctions on Europe anyone ?)
    1
  45. They do not have the technological skills to maintain a civilzation like ours. How many of the 1 % ers are engineers ? electricians, doctors of medicine ?? They never experience their dependency from the system and other (lowly) humans - the money gives them the top position, prestige, they make their voice heard. These lawyers, managers, heirs of fortunes, and financial or marketing "wizards" really think they are god's gift to mankind.
    1
  46. Ask him 1) WHY Trump goes along with the narrative when HE controls the admin, can fire the heads of agencies, and cabinet members. Either he is not in control and the other forces have taken over. 2) Or he knows they are wrong and lies about it. 3) Or the virus is a problem. So much so that he had to admit it (after he initially said otherwise, in the hope it would be over soon). Trump admittin git even though the does not want to shut down the economy. Like China or any other politician. That did not want to endure that economic impact, but had to admit the pandemic.
    1
  47. Well the Dems kept a deafening silence on Operation Cross Check (GOP cleansing voter rolls of ethnic names) and hackable voting machines. Maybe NOW something can be done ? Paper ballots and handcount !
    1
  48.  @sheilachambers6671  In case you have wondered about the threats against Venezueala !
    1
  49. Yep, and those families would go wild if the Republicans EVER tried to take it away, count on Utah to protect that benefit once it is established. Not all children of Evangelicals stay that way, and not all of them are mean people. They also can afford to stay in the rural areas. Or do some homesteading (sequestering CO2 away in the soil in form of complex molecules containing carbon - Humus).
    1
  50.  @Dobviews  they have hospital equipment with UV C light where they can sterilize very efficiently and effectively a whole room. They just have to remove all things standing around so it can shine on all surfaces. The light comes from above (I seem to remember for 1 minute or so, maybe up to max. 5, in that range. They can have very high intensity in a hospital setting). And definitely no one can be in the room. But it is much faster and also secure than humans with masks and gloves wiping down all surfaces. (and no need to use aggressive substances). These rooms often also have higher than usual pressure. So no air will stream in from outside. I saw a video clip on it. I have never heard of mobile equipment for normal environments though. I think they might now use UV-C light in airplanes (but that would be a fix installment) to sterilize the air that is circulated on the plane. Which would be ideal conditions for spreading CoVid-19. And for the future - this was not the last potential pandemic, if global travel and production overseas continues.  I guess air travel and the conditions in planes helped to spread it last year from China to the U.S. and Europe.
    1