Leftfield

Not in the least. You've mentioned before you have confidence the younger generations will be able to work it all out. Again, so nice that you have no problem leaving our mess for them to clean up. Doing something you don't agree with is not "abandoning all reason." Nobody has suggested bankrupting the country in an all out effort to tackle CO2 emissions, but yes, there will be some increased burden on consumers as we move that way. As, auburnatl1 pointed out, there is a sane middle ground, and as technologies advance and more people and countries come on board things will get easier. Lead and invest in development and it will be this country that is at the forefront of new technologies that can be sold to others. Don't invest and watch China dominate energy in the future. Which of those looks like abandoning reason to you? https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/ That gives a good rundown of the whole "global cooling" myth, including examples frequently cited by skeptics here. Basically, what skeptics push as a huge number of scientists going crazy about our impending doom is selective memory. There was plenty of uncertainty because of the impact of aerosols that caused a temporary cooling phase in the middle of the century, but the warnings of warming began well before that, and models evolved very quickly toward the end of the 70's. There was never anywhere close to a consensus that cooling was a problem, and in fact those predictions were well in the minority, but they made for sensationalistic headlines and some in the media ran with it. As the link points out, most of the articles themselves were fairly reasonable, as juxtaposed to their headlines. Nobody said you can't question, but the questioners keep coming up with dead ends that don't disprove anything. I bitch and moan because everything you present is either irrelevant or bunk. I'd be perfectly willing to look at other explanations, but if you've posted one I haven't seen it. All I've seen you post is attacks on the prevailing theory, not an alternate explanation. By less global temperatures I assume you mean the increase will plateau, because it won't drop. Not for a long time, anyway, because there is already additional CO2 in the atmosphere, and will be for decades, if not longer. Somewhere between two and three million people didn't adapt to Covid, but I guess f*** them, right? And you're completely naive to think that even if humans adapt to the climate, everything will be ok. Every other species of plant and animal on Earth has to adapt, as well. If they don't, it can severely affect us. You post this exerpt, which admits the population decline will come too late for the global warming battle....and then say relax. I just.....

No, it's to stave off more pronounced effects. The goal is to keep warming less than 2 degrees Celsius above the baseline. It's been pointed out in the past that many of the front people for these issues are prone to sensationalism and using worst-case scenarios, which ends up being a disservice to the attempts to make people aware because it makes them skeptics when those scenarios don't happen. That part is understandable - I completely agree with it. What isn't understandable is that you continue to ignore the actual science of it, even when it's handed to you in this forum (often to rebut the incorrect assertions from the scientists you find that disagree). It almost assuredly won't reduce temperatures, because CO2 levels have already jumped. What it will do is keep temperatures from spiking further and causing even worse conditions. I see you got your usual jab in at *the scientists*. Just can't help yourself, even when it's talking heads that are misusing the data that well-meaning scientists are producing. Wait and see what? Hardcore denialists will never admit there's a problem. Even if the predictions come true, some of them will find something else to blame it on. The others will blame the government for not doing something sooner. You are also continuing to ignore the fact that if we "wait and see" it will be too late to prevent catastrophic effects. You leave no room that you may be incorrect, otherwise you wouldn't be saying this. This is such an idiotic blanket statement. It's demonstrably false, so I can't understand why you write it. Climate models have actually proven out to be quite accurate in their predictions, even models from the early 80's (including Exxon's), yet you say nothing has come true? Do you have any desire to have an honest debate about it? And once again, you're misstating. This is not about controlling the weather, it's about cleaning up our mess and allowing nature to follow it's normal cycle. That $50 trillion figure was from a Morgan Stanley report and it referred to worldwide action, not just America. Yes, America would shoulder a large portion of that burden, but don't misstate it. You also discount the costs of inaction. How many trillions will be spent fighting the effects of warming? What effects would we not even be able to effectively combat? Your statement of fiscal responsibility is predicated upon nothing happening even if we don't do anything. Who is discounting China and India? Their emissions make it even more imperative that we do something. We're in a hole - no reason to make it any harder to climb out. As the article homer posted points out, we are disproportionately to blame for all this. We led the world in developing many of the industries that led to the lives of relative comfort we lead, and other countries simply began to adopt it. Other countries are also supplying many of the goods we buy that we really don't need, and that adds to the problem. Do you not think we have a responsibility to lead the way out if we can? Do we want someone else cleaning up our mess? Misstatement. Will be a lot more than "poor people" needing to be saved if nothing is done. If it doesn't happen in your lifetime, then it's not worth it? How selfless of you. I'm sure your progeny appreciate it. Your reliance on this is nauseating. The fallacy of using it has been pointed out many times. I'm sure they would welcome any input. All the efforts I've seen from denialists have been to refute current scientific consensus. I haven't seen anyone put forth an alternate explanation. Please enlighten us when you find it, as I'm sure you're looking.

Gets so tiring policing these people that minimize what happened that day. Post link after link debunking the garbage they spew, but they'll never believe it, and then they pop up in another thread saying the exact same things.

This is true. Fox News told me so. Can't remember exactly when. I'd look up the article but I'm not letting those Trump Derangement jerks lead me down THAT rabbit hole again.

Stroke?

Yeah, I do wonder why Columbia is being so weak on this. Not like they're struggling to find people that want to go there.

"Experimenting" with Kirk Cameron?

Stroke?

And maybe you should watch a news service that isn't a proven liar. I already told you that reports of people not being allowed to observe were debunked, but you're so damn lazy that you couldn't even look up the very clip you were talking about to prove your point. Guessing it doesn't exist, or if it does you know it's garbage and easily proven wrong. Your willful ignorance is really a sight to behold. Wasn't enough to be laughingstock on the sports boards - you have to prove it here, too.

You're absolutely right, and I had actually come back in to make this point. I do give Johnson some credit, and he has earned some respect, but it may have sounded more praiseworthy than I meant it to earlier.

Agreed. Just speculating. Honestly I have no idea what the Democrats' next play will be. Maybe they don't have one. Could be that Johnson is just like some of the other Republican leaders recently and is fed up enough he doesn't care if he gets voted out, so the Dems didn't have to give him anything.

Mikey if the "poor voter eligibility leading to suspicion" had been your only argument, none of the rest of this conversation would have taken place, but then you went on about (and still are, based on the above) people not being allowed to observe, just throwing out what you "heard" and with nothing to back it up. I understand the voter ID thing causing suspicion. Your argument about oversight is complete BS, and that's what I was pointing out. I barely even addressed the voter ID part (and when I did I said I didn't oppose it, though it would depend on how it's implemented). What don't you get about that?

Agreed. I see Dub's point - Johnson really should have allowed this to be done months ago - but I'm going to hope this has been a turning point for him. He's been immersed in MAGA for a while, and when you're that deep it's hard to see out of it. As Speaker he's got a different perspective. I'm not going to hold my breath that he's suddenly going to hug everyone on the other side of the aisle, or vice versa, but maybe we can have a quasi-functioning House.

Considering the crazy of MAGA these days, I do. Whether or not he survives as Speaker, he's still got to go back to a state where a large percentage of people will likely be pissed at him. Wouldn't be surprised, particularly by the latter. Maybe Dems promised to capitulate on a few items in an immigration bill?

What I have trouble grasping is the mindlessness that contributes to the distrust of our institutions. What you're referencing has nothing close to facts to back it up, yet you happily parrot it as the system being corrupt and pat yourself on the back for not having the wool pulled over your eyes. If you were to read anyone else put up arguments like you have in this thread, you would be embarrassed for them, and rightfully so.

I was pleasantly surprised. Certainly I'm not going to agree with many of his social stances, but he earned some respect today. It's much easier to be an ideologue when you aren't in the big chair, and can rail without consequence against the person that is. Once you're there it's a far more difficult job. Most of us see it as him doing the right thing, while the MAGA wing immediately called him a sellout. Props to him, since he knew that was coming. Hopefully they can use this momentum to come to an agreement on immigration.

O,,,,,k? Why the hell would I think your referencing the remarks of people in Alabama would have to do with voter fraud in other states that they couldn't possibly have witnessed? Are you seriously saying that people in Alabama telling you about voter fraud in other states are "legitimate" sources?

Good point....Fox News has definitely proven themselves to be legitimate, especially when it comes to the 2020 election! As to shady things going on with voting in Alabama...sounds legit. After all, if you were a Democrat, don't you think it would make sense to get any edge you could in such a closely contested state? Why? Because you couldn't find anything? Or because it was immediately debunked? Can't speak for Democrats. As for me, I'm not opposed to it, I'm just not convinced we don't have it already. Voter fraud is exceedingly rare, and it's done about the same amount on both sides. The Heritage Foundation, hardly a liberal organization, keeps track of voter fraud. Check out their site: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/#choose-a-state. Even in swing states, the number of cases of voter fraud during the 2020 election can usually be counted on one hand.

Lol...how can I get it? You didn't even have a point. You can't identify a single, legitimate claim to back up your position, and when asked for it you said you'd be a nerd if you knew. Is that somehow "checkmate" in your mind? You've chosen what to believe, and that's fine, but don't be surprised when you get called out for wasting other people's time with substanceless arguments (by the way, that's what an ideologue does).

And a facepalm, to boot! You're swell, Mikey.

That's what gets me here - I thought he'd at least post a link to a Fox News article about at least one instance of "fraud," but he couldn't even be bothered with that. Maybe Fox News has retracted them? No idea - I stopped checking in with them when the Dominion/Smartmatic info came out.

Started discussing this over on the main board. On the surface, I tend to agree with the move, though I'm curious why someone indicated a few days ago that the required changes had largely been met. That would have signaled to me that they had been moving in the right direction. I can understand coming down to push them further along, though, as their election is in three months. Lifting sanctions would mean Maduro could continue to abuse his power to get re-elected, and then when we clamp down in six months or so it won't matter to him. I'm sure @Son of A Tigeris happy about this. I wonder if he, and the seven Republicans that urged Biden to re-impose the sanctions, will continue to back Biden when gas prices increase?

There's this thing called the internet where you can pull up news articles that support your assertions. It's pretty nifty. That way you don't have to remember, and you're safe from being a (*shudder*) nerd. If you aren't going to bother to have an honest debate, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously? Might as well just leave and keep your head in the sand, because you're not going to believe anything other than what you want, anyway.

So you can't point to any specific examples, just a nebulous "it happened." This is the problem - the rumors get started and people who want to believe it do, no matter if it's true or not. You're correct, there were a good number of complaints by Republicans. They were investigated and found to be garbage. One of the biggest uproars was in Michigan, where they claimed poll workers blocked windows so observers couldn't see anything. Turns out, there were already more than 400 observers (from both parties, as well as some bipartisan) in the room, and the limit was supposed to be something like 170 or so. So they closed the room and only let people out so they could eventually get to the correct number. Those stuck outside started taking pictures and video through the windows, which is prohibited due to voter information privacy. They wouldn't stop when told, so workers covered some, not all, of the windows.