homersapien

Well, it's not difficult to understand where the "repeal the 2nd" sentiment comes from, when gun fetishists want to openly carry assault rifles (for example) - and pass laws allowing it - all based on 2nd Amendment "rights". It's an amendment that we have outgrown as a society from a purely technical aspect (muskets v. assault rifles and semi-auto pistols). We refuse to interpret in a more restrictive way, as arguably the founders intended (see the preamble.)

The better question would be what percentage of those committing homicides own guns?

As far as I know, no one on this forum has had any formal instruction in the field. But plenty of us know how to conduct a literature review and understand what they are reading. This is not about arguing the science - which, practically speaking, is settled. Warming is happening and greenhouse gases are the primary cause. This discussion is about a given person's emotional/political reaction to that science and their conspiratorial delusions that arise from that emotional/political reaction, which is not relevant to the reality, at all. So if you are interested in talking about what we should do about that reality, it's a total waste of time and energy.

I'd say you understand his argument quite well.

Well, can't argue with a "myriad". You're getting too technical, I just can't keep up.

No you had it correct. (I'm pretty sure he identifies with "the right".) Just add "projection" to your list.

You've done it now. Better keep your AR15 ready. Now that you've outed them they'll be sending some assassins in black helicopters to take you out.

Since this thread has shifted away from science to politics, here's a relevant paper, even if a little dated: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/global-warming-skeptic-organizations Global Warming Skeptic Organizations (2013) Published Jul 16, 2008 Updated Aug 16, 2013 An overwhelming majority of scientists agree* — global warming is happening and human activity is the primary cause. Yet several prominent global warming skeptic organizations are actively working to sow doubt about the facts of global warming. * (Yea!! They used my terminology) These organizations play a key role in the fossil fuel industry's "disinformation playbook," a strategy designed to confuse the public about global warming and delay action on climate change. Why? Because the fossil fuel industry wants to sell more coal, oil, and gas — even though the science clearly shows that the resulting carbon emissions threaten our planet. Who are these groups? And what is the evidence linking them to the fossil fuel industry? Here's a quick primer on several prominent global warming skeptic organizations, including examples of their disinformation efforts and funding sources from the fossil fuel industry. Many have received large donations from foundations established, and supported, by the fossil fuel billionaire Koch brothers. American Enterprise Institute The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has routinely tried to undermine the credibility of climate science, despite at times affirming that the “weight of the evidence” justifies “prudent action” on climate change. [1] For years, AEI played a role in propagating misinformation about a manufactured controversy over emails stolen from climate scientists [2], with one AEI research fellow even claiming, “There was no consensus about the extent and causes of global warming.” [3] A resident scholar at AEI went so far as to state that the profession of climate scientist “threatens to overtake all” on the list of “most distrusted occupations.” [4] AEI received $3,615,000 from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012 [5], and more than $1 million in funding from Koch foundations from 2004-2011. [6] Americans for Prosperity Americans for Prosperity (AFP) frequently provides a platform for climate contrarian statements, such as “How much information refutes carbon dioxide-caused global warming? Let me count the ways.” [7] While claiming to be a grassroots organization, AFP has bolstered its list of “activists” by hosting “$1.84 Gas” events, where consumers who receive discounts on gasoline are asked to provide their name and email address on a “petition” form. [8] These events are billed as raising awareness about “failing energy policies” and high gasoline prices, but consumers are not told about AFP’s ties to oil interests, namely Koch Industries. AFP has its origins in a group founded in 1984 by fossil fuel billionaires Charles and David Koch [9], and the latter Koch still serves on AFP Foundation’s board of directors [10]. Richard Fink, executive vice president of Koch Industries, also serves as a director for both AFP and AFP Foundation. [11] Koch foundations donated $3,609,281 to AFP Foundation from 2007-2011. [12] American Legislative Exchange Council The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) maintains that “global climate change is inevitable” [13] and since the 1990s has pushed various forms of model legislation aimed at obstructing policies intended to reduce global warming emissions. ALEC purports to “support the use of sound science to guide policy,” but routinely provides a one-sided platform for climate contrarians. State legislators attending one ALEC meeting were offered a workshop touting a report by a fossil fuel-funded group that declared “like love, carbon dioxide's many splendors are seemingly endless." [14, 15] Another ALEC meeting featured a Fox News contributor who has claimed on the air that carbon dioxide “literally cannot cause global warming.” [16, 17] ALEC received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012 [18], and more than $850,000 from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [19] Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University From its position as the research arm of the Department of Economics at Suffolk University, the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) has published misleading analyses of clean energy and climate change policies in more than three dozen states. These economic analyses are at times accompanied by a dose of climate contrarianism. For example, BHI Director David Tuerck has claimed that “the very question of whether the climate is warming is in doubt…” [20] Claims such as “wind power actually increases pollution” can be found in many of BHI’s reports. BHI has publicly acknowledged its Koch funding [21], which likely includes at least some of the approximately $725,000 the Charles G. Koch foundation contributed to Suffolk University from 2008-2011. [22] Cato Institute Cato acknowledges that “Global warming is indeed real…” But when it comes to the causes of global warming, Cato has sent mixed messages over the years. Cato's website, for instance, reports that “… human activity has been a contributor [to global warming] since 1975.” [23] Yet, on the same topic of whether human activity is responsible for global warming, Cato’s vice president has written: “We don’t know.” [24] Patrick Michaels, Director of Cato’s Center for the Study of Science, has referred to the latest Draft National Climate Assessment Report as “the stuff of fantasy.” [25] The most recent edition of Cato’s “Handbook for Policymakers” advises that Congress should “pass no legislation restricting emissions of carbon dioxide.” [26] Charles Koch co-founded Cato in 1977. Both Charles and David Koch were among the four “shareholders” who “owned” Cato until 2011 [27], and the latter Koch remains a member of Cato’s Board of Directors. [28] Koch foundations contributed more than $5 million to Cato from 1997-2011. [29] Competitive Enterprise Institute The Competitive Enterprise Institute has at times acknowledged that “Global warming is a reality.” [30] But CEI has also routinely disputed that global warming is a problem, contending that “There is no ‘scientific consensus’ that global warming will cause damaging climate change.” [31] These kinds of claims are nothing new for CEI. Back in 1991, CEI was claiming that “The greatest challenge we face is not warming, but cooling.” [32] More recently, CEI produced an ad calling for higher levels of carbon dioxide. [33] One CEI scholar even publicly compared a prominent climate scientist to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky. [34] CEI received around $2 million in funding from ExxonMobil from 1995-2005 [35], though ExxonMobil made a public break with CEI in 2007 after coming under scrutiny from UCS and other groups for its funding of climate contrarian organizations. CEI has also received funding from Koch foundations, dating back to the 1980s. [36] Heartland Institute While claiming to stand up for “sound science,” the Heartland Institute has routinely spread misinformation about climate science, including deliberate attacks on climate scientists. [37] Popular outcry forced the Heartland Institute to pull down a controversial billboard that compared supporters of global warming facts to Unabomber Ted Kaczynski [38], bringing an early end to a planned campaign first announced in an essay by Heartland President Joseph Bast, which claimed “… the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.” [39] Heartland even once marked Earth Day by mailing out 100,000 free copies of a book claiming that “climate science has been corrupted” [40] – despite acknowledging that “…all major scientific organizations of the world have taken the official position that humankind is causing global warming.” Heartland received more than $675,000 from ExxonMobil from 1997-2006 [41]. Heartland also raked in millions from the Koch-funded organization Donors Trust through 2011. [42, 43] Heritage Foundation While maintaining that “Science should be used as one tool to guide climate policy,” the Heritage Foundation often uses rhetoric such as “far from settled” to sow doubt about climate science. [44, 45, 46, 47] One Heritage report even claimed that “The only consensus over the threat of climate change that seems to exist these days is that there is no consensus.” [48] Vocal climate contrarians, meanwhile, are described as “the world’s best scientists when it comes to the climate change study” in the words of one Heritage policy analyst. [49] Heritage received more than $4.5 million from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [50] ExxonMobil contributed $780,000 to the Heritage Foundation from 2001-2012. ExxonMobil continues to provide annual contributions to the Heritage Foundation, despite making a public pledge in 2007 to stop funding climate contrarian groups. [51, 52] Institute for Energy Research The term “alarmism” is defined by Mirriam-Webster as “the often unwarranted exciting of fears or warning of danger.” So when Robert Bradley, CEO and founder of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), and others at his organization routinely evoke the term “climate alarmism” they do so to sow doubt about the urgency of global warming. IER claims that public policy “should be based on objective science, not emotion or improbable scenarios …” But IER also claims that the sense of urgency for climate action is due not to the science that shows the real and growing conequences of global warming. Rather, IER suggests that researchers “exacerbate the sense [that] policies are urgently needed” for monetary gain, noting that “issues that are perceived to be an imminent crisis can mean more funding.” [53] IER has received funding from both ExxonMobil [54] and the Koch brothers [55]. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research The Manhattan Institute has acknowledged that the “scientific consensus is that the planet is warming,” while at the same time maintaining that “… accounts of climate change convey a sense of certitude that is probably unjustified.” [56] “The science is not settled, not by a long shot,” Robert Bryce, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow has written in the Wall Street Journal [57]. At other times Bryce has expressed indifference to the science on climate change. “I don’t know who’s right. And I really don’t care,” he wrote in one book. [58] The Manhattan Institute has received $635,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 [59], with annual contributions continuing as of 2012, and nearly $2 million from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [60] Sources and References 1 American Enterprise Institute. 2009. Climate Change Email Scandal Underscores Myth of Pure Science. 2 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), 2011. Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy. 3 American Enterprise Institute. 2011. Climategate (Part II) 4 American Enterprise Institute. 2010. How Climate-Change Fanatics Corrupted Science. 5 ExxonSecrets.org. 2012. Factsheet: American Enterprise Institute, AEI. 6 UCS. 2013. Unreliable Sources: How the News Media Help the Koch Brothers and ExxonMobil Spread Climate Disinformation. 7 Americans for Prosperity. 2013. AFP GA Activists Fire Major Shot Against Obama’s ‘War on Consumer Energy’ Agenda. 8 PR Watch. 2012. Koch's AFP Complains about Gas Prices, but Koch Speculation Helps Fuel High Prices at the Pump. 9 Koch Industries. 2010. Koch and Americans for Prosperity/Citizens for a Sound Economy. 10 Americans for Prosperity Foundation. About AFP Foundation: Directors. 11 Americans for Prosperity. About AFP: Directors. 12 Investigative Reporting Workshop. 2013. Koch database: donations to nonprofits. 13 American Legislative Exchange Council. 2011. ALEC Energy Principles. 14 The Cap Times. 2011. Brendan Fischer: CO2 is good for you, and other ALEC talking points. 15 Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. 2011. The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment. 16 PR Watch. 2013. A Side of Climate Change Denial with Your Coffee? ALEC Dishes up Some Hard to Swallow Spin with the Heartland Institute. 17 Climate Progress. 2012. WeatherBELL Chief Forecaster Joe Bastardi Denies Basic Physics: ‘CO2 Cannot Cause Global Warming’ 18 ExxonSecrets.org. 2012. Factsheet: ALEC – American Legislative Exchange Council. 19 Greenpeace. 2011. Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). 20 Carolina Journal Online. 2008. Friday Interview: Global Warming Policy Costs. 21 Washington Post. 2012. Climate skeptic group works to reverse renewable energy mandates. 22 Greenpeace. 2013. Koch Brother Fronts Flood into Kansas to Attack Wind Industry. 23 Cato Institute. Global Warming. 24 Cato Institute. 2005. Hot Enough for You? The state of the global-warming debate, and politicking. 25 Cato Institute. 2013. Federal Climatologists Pen Fantasy Novel. 26 Cato Institute. 2009. Cato Handbook for Policymakers. 27 Cato Institute. 2012. Cato Institute and Shareholders Reach Agreement in Principle. 28 Cato Institute. 2012. Cato Institute and Shareholders Reach Agreement in Principle. 29 Greenpeace. 2011. Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group: Cato Institute. 30 Competitive Enterprise Institute. 2009. 10 Cool Global Warming Policies. 31 Competitive Enterprise Institute. Global Warming FAQ. 32 Competitive Enterprise Institute. 1991. Why Worry About Global Warming. 33 UCS. 2009. New Disinformation Ads Argue for More Carbon Dioxide. 34 UCS. 2013. Timeline: Legal Harassment of Climate Scientist Michael Mann. 35 UCS. 2013. Fossil Fuel Industry Funders of Climate Contrarian Groups, 2001-2011. 36 Greenpeace. Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group: Competitive Enterprise Institute. 37 UCS. 2012. Scientists Who Had Emails Stolen Ask Heartland Institute to End Attack on Climate Science. 38 UCS. 2012. Who’s the Crazy One Here? 39 Heartland Institute. 2012. Do You Still Believe in Global Warming?’ Billboards Hit Chicago. 40 Heartland Institute. 2013. Heartland Institute Celebrates Earth Day with Release of New Book. 41 ExxonSecrets.org. Factsheet: Heartland Institute. 42 The Guardian. 2013. How Donors Trust distributed millions to anti-climate groups. 43 The Center for Public Integrity. 2013. Donors use charity to push free-market policies in states. 44 Heritage Foundation. 2013. Climate Change: The Cost of “Bold Action” 45 Heritage Foundation. 2013. With Climate Change Science Unsettled, a Carbon Tax is Even More Useless. 46 Heritage Foundation. 2009. Sen. Inhofe Discusses Climategate, “The Greatest Scandal in Modern Science” 47 Heritage Foundation. 2013. 10 Questions for DOE Nominee Ernest Moniz. 48 Heritage Foundation. 2010. How the “Scientific Consensus” on Global Warming Affects American Business—and Consumers. 49 Heritage Foundation. 2009. Global Warming Conference: The Science of Climate Change 50 Greenpeace. 2011. Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group: The Heritage Foundation. 51 ExxonSecrets.org. 2012. Factsheet: Heritage Foundation. 52 UCS. 2012. ExxonMobil Corporation. 53 Institute for Energy Research. Climate Change Overview. 54 ExxonSecrets.org. Factsheet: Institute for Energy Research. 55 Investigative Reporting Workshop. 2013. Koch database: donations to nonprofits. 56 Manhattan Institute. 2007. Realities and Uncertainties of Global Warming. 57 Media Matters. 2011. Who Is Robert Bryce? 58 Media Matters. 2011. Who Is Robert Bryce? 59 ExxonSecrets.org. 2012. Factsheet: Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Research. 60 Greenpeace. 2011. Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group: The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.

Uh, as the person who proposed that thesis, that's your job. And speaking of Google, why don't you tell us when the last polar inversion occurred?

"Using the data provided in the study, we show that the 99% consensus, as defined by the authors, is actually an upper limit evaluation because of the large number of “neutral” papers which were counted as pro-consensus in the paper and probably does not reflect the true situation." What did they determine was a more realistic - or lower limit - estimate??? Did they "define" consensus? What is the minimum (%) level of scientists - who believe it true - required to call it "consensus"? If, as they say, 99% is an "upper limit" what is the lower limit? 85%? 90%? 95% Should that number be weighted to account for experience/expertise? They don't know because they didn't attempt to determine it based on their own research. They simply parsed the weaknesses in a study that produced a result of 99%. They admit this discussion is really political. All of these studies - for or against "consensus" - are subjective. It's not really a scientific question, it's a political one, as they also acknowledge. I notice they are all from the same place. What's their political agenda? I suspect their personal agenda is simply getting published. Attacking an inherently subjective paper is an easy way to do that. All of the papers arguing against specific percentages are attacking those percentages based on the subjectivity inherent in the methodology. They never make an argument for or against the term "consensus" since they have no more of an objective definition than anyone else. This is all a red herring. The attempt to quantify it with a % is a worthy goal, but the objective data doesn't really exist. (By objective, I mean data that lends itself to statistical analysis.) I am content to use the term "vast majority" which to me is self-evident based on the simple lack of serious papers that make a scientifically valid case for refuting AGW. Let's discount the "neutral papers" and count only the papers that support the theory and the ones that refute it. Of course that will be subjective also. But if you want to cite papers that refute 97% or 99% as evidence AGW is false - which is apparently what you are attempting - have at it.

What's the matter? I suppose you believe they are one of the major hoax coordinators. Well, along with literally every scientific organization involved in the field - world wide: Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal Académie des Sciences, France Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada Academy of Athens Academy of Science of Mozambique Academy of Science of South Africa Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS) Academy of Sciences Malaysia Academy of Sciences of Moldova Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science African Academy of Sciences Albanian Academy of Sciences Amazon Environmental Research Institute American Academy of Pediatrics American Anthropological Association American Association for the Advancement of Science American Association of State Climatologists (AASC) American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians American Astronomical Society American Chemical Society American College of Preventive Medicine American Fisheries Society American Geophysical Union American Institute of Biological Sciences American Institute of Physics American Meteorological Society American Physical Society American Public Health Association American Quaternary Association American Society for Microbiology American Society of Agronomy American Society of Civil Engineers American Society of Plant Biologists American Statistical Association Association of Ecosystem Research Centers Australian Academy of Science Australian Bureau of Meteorology Australian Coral Reef Society Australian Institute of Marine Science Australian Institute of Physics Australian Marine Sciences Association Australian Medical Association Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Bangladesh Academy of Sciences Botanical Society of America Brazilian Academy of Sciences British Antarctic Survey Bulgarian Academy of Sciences California Academy of Sciences Cameroon Academy of Sciences Canadian Association of Physicists Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Canadian Geophysical Union Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Canadian Society of Soil Science Canadian Society of Zoologists Caribbean Academy of Sciences views Center for International Forestry Research Chinese Academy of Sciences Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia) Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences Crop Science Society of America Cuban Academy of Sciences Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters Ecological Society of America Ecological Society of Australia Environmental Protection Agency European Academy of Sciences and Arts European Federation of Geologists European Geosciences Union European Physical Society European Science Foundation Federation of American Scientists French Academy of Sciences Geological Society of America Geological Society of Australia Geological Society of London Georgian Academy of Sciences German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences Indian National Science Academy Indonesian Academy of Sciences Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK InterAcademy Council International Alliance of Research Universities International Arctic Science Committee International Association for Great Lakes Research International Council for Science International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences International Research Institute for Climate and Society International Union for Quaternary Research International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics International Union of Pure and Applied Physics Islamic World Academy of Sciences Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities Kenya National Academy of Sciences Korean Academy of Science and Technology Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal Latin American Academy of Sciences Latvian Academy of Sciences Lithuanian Academy of Sciences Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina National Academy of Sciences of Armenia National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka National Academy of Sciences, United States of America National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Association of Geoscience Teachers National Association of State Foresters National Center for Atmospheric Research National Council of Engineers Australia National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Research Council National Science Foundation Natural England Natural Environment Research Council, UK Natural Science Collections Alliance Network of African Science Academies New York Academy of Sciences Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences Nigerian Academy of Sciences Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters Oklahoma Climatological Survey Organization of Biological Field Stations Pakistan Academy of Sciences Palestine Academy for Science and Technology Pew Center on Global Climate Change Polish Academy of Sciences Romanian Academy Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain Royal Astronomical Society, UK Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters Royal Irish Academy Royal Meteorological Society (UK) Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research Royal Scientific Society of Jordan Royal Society of Canada Royal Society of Chemistry, UK Royal Society of the United Kingdom Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Russian Academy of Sciences Science and Technology, Australia Science Council of Japan Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics Scripps Institution of Oceanography Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts Slovak Academy of Sciences Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Society for Ecological Restoration International Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics Society of American Foresters Society of Biology (UK) Society of Systematic Biologists Soil Science Society of America Sudan Academy of Sciences Sudanese National Academy of Science Tanzania Academy of Sciences The Wildlife Society (international) Turkish Academy of Sciences Uganda National Academy of Sciences Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole Research Center World Association of Zoos and Aquariums World Federation of Public Health Associations World Forestry Congress World Health Organization World Meteorological Organization Zambia Academy of Sciences Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

Pay-to-play in Mar-a-Lago: “House Democrats are launching an investigation into Donald Trump’s meeting with oil executives last month at his Mar-a-Lago Club, where the former president asked the executives to steer $1 billion to his 2024 campaign and promised to reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental policies,” The Post reported. This news followed an earlier report that Trump said a $1 billion donation to his campaign would be a great “deal” because he could save the oil companies far more. The Post’s original report, according to people with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation, stated, “Trump vowed at dinner to immediately end the Biden administration’s freeze on permits for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports” and to “start auctioning off more leases for oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico” and to “reverse restrictions on drilling in the Alaskan Arctic.” If you’re thinking, Shouldn’t this be illegal? — you’re not alone. Once upon a time, a story like this would have caused an uproar and sparked criminal investigations. However, the Supreme Court has made it very tough to prosecute corruption cases. An April report from Just Security explained: In a series of cases decided over the past 37 years, the Supreme Court has systematically gutted the country’s public corruption laws, including by undermining the long-standing “honest services” doctrine. At its core, the honest services doctrine is an anti-corruption principle protecting the people’s right to an honest and impartial government and a fair provision of government services. Officials, in government or in other positions of authority, who misuse their positions to enrich themselves deprive the people of that right and are subject to federal wire and mail fraud charges. Taken together, these rulings formalized the idea that money moving from private hands to official pockets is not illegal in itself. According to the Supreme Court, the conduct is unlawful only when there is some tangible clear official action to which an exchange of money or property can be obviously tied. Most recently, the court overturned the conviction of former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell for accepting lavish loans and gifts from a businessman in exchange for arranging important connections with state and industry leaders. The Trump incident might be even more problematic than McDonnell’s case because Trump allegedly promised concrete action on specific items, although nailing down precisely what was said and proving a quid pro quo that meets exacting legal standards could be tricky. Meanwhile, the muted reaction from the political class and public speaks to how far we have defined political deviance downward. The incident serves to underscore the casual sleaziness that is routine in Trump’s inner circle (consider the New York trial involving the payment of hush money and business falsification) — and how low many in the press have set the bar for Trump. “Drain the swamp”? You must be joking! Perhaps the Justice Department will act swiftly. Maybe the rest of the media will give the attention this deserves and register appropriate condemnation of paying to bury off Earth-saving climate change measures. But don’t bet on either. - Jennifer Rubin

Well, that's partly true. The evidence was derived from papers on the subject in which data supported the thesis. It wasn't a direct poll. But if you demand actual, objective poll numbers here's a recent one: "Almost 80% of the respondents, all from the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), foresee at least 2.5C of global heating, while almost half anticipate at least 3C (5.4F). Only 6% thought the internationally agreed 1.5C (2.7F) limit would be met. May 8, 2024" https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature So, that's 80% foresee at least 2.5 Celsius increase while 50% anticipate at least 3C (5.4F) and only 6% think we will meet the 1.5C (2.7F) internationally agreed target.

The following is a direct quote of a letter to the editor from the latest "The Atlantic" responding to their piece on the Marjorie Stone Douglas High School, in which a 60-year-old policeman stood by while the mass shooting unfolded. I sums up the reality of guns and America nicely: "The American people relate to guns as addicts relate to drugs. Addicts change everything in their life to accommodate their drug use. They filter their relationships, alter their schedule, and change their living situation - all to facilitate their access to the substance. They blame everything and everyone for what goes wrong, but never the drug. And so it is with guns in the United States. Law enforcement officers should alter their techniques because of shootings. Teachers should carry weapons to protect themselves and their students. Sixty-year-old men should be trained to run into the line of fire. Children should learn when to duck and when to run. Everyone attending a public event should know where the exits are. We are willing to put everything second to our need for guns. The U.S. has a gun addiction. Until the American people wake up to the fact that our drug is killing us, until we stop enabling our addiction, we will continue to see tragedies like that at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Seriously, are you in the "top 1%" of income earners Mikey? https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-2017-trump-tax-law-was-skewed-to-the-rich-expensive-and-failed-to-deliver The 2017 Trump Tax Law Was Skewed to the Rich, Expensive, and Failed to Deliver on Its Promises .....As this debate unfolds, policymakers and the public should understand that the 2017 Trump tax law: Was skewed to the rich. Households with incomes in the top 1 percent will receive an average tax cut of more than $60,000 in 2025, compared to an average tax cut of less than $500 for households in the bottom 60 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center (TPC).[1] As a share of after-tax income, tax cuts at the top — for both households in the top 1 percent and the top 5 percent — are more than triple the total value of the tax cuts received for people with incomes in the bottom 60 percent.[2] Was expensive and eroded the U.S. revenue base. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in 2018 that the 2017 law would cost $1.9 trillion over ten years,[3] and recent estimates show that making the law’s temporary individual income and estate tax cuts permanent would cost another roughly $350 billion a year beginning in 2027.[4] Together with the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted under President Bush (most of which were made permanent in 2012), the law has severely eroded our country’s revenue base. Revenue as a share of GDP has fallen from about 19.5 percent in the years immediately preceding the Bush tax cuts to just 16.3 percent in the years immediately following the Trump tax cuts, with revenues expected to rise to an annual average of 16.9 percent of GDP in 2018-2026 (excluding pandemic years), according to CBO. This is simply not enough revenue given the nation’s investment needs and our commitments to Social Security and health coverage. Failed to deliver promised economic benefits. Trump Administration officials claimed their centerpiece corporate tax rate cut would “very conservatively” lead to a $4,000 boost in household income.[5] New research shows that workers who earned less than about $114,000 on average in 2016 saw “no change in earnings” from the corporate tax rate cut, while top executive salaries increased sharply.[6] Similarly, rigorous research concluded that the tax law’s 20 percent pass-through deduction, which was skewed in favor of wealthy business owners, has largely failed to trickle down to workers in those companies who aren’t owners.[7] Like the Bush tax cuts before it,[8] the 2017 Trump tax cut was a trickle-down failure."

Like all deniers you are totally ignorant of what you claim. The weather changes along with the climate. How do you explain the undeniable warming over the last two centuries?

It's been thoroughly researched and proven with data. I'd go to the trouble of citing the studies, but again, what does it matter? No amount of objective evidence is going to convince a conspiracist like you.

"Grandstanding"?? It would have passed if Republicans hadn't voted against it. This problem could be addressed with legislation. Republicans would rather it not change. ".....Not a single Republican voted for the bill, and it was never introduced in the then-majority Republican Senate. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called that iteration of the bill “a radical half-baked socialist proposal.”.... Pull your head out.

Free lunch too. Last kid that worked for us did so for like 5 years. Gifted him $1,000 for his HS graduation. He became like a godson to us, and credits us for a his financial education (which he didn't get at home). Did a stint in the Navy, followed by a college degree from U. of Illinois and now lives in Chicago selling business software. Still keeps in close touch with us.

https://www.axios.com/2024/05/16/desantis-florida-climate-change-law DeSantis signs bill wiping climate change references from Florida law The legislation I signed today—HB 1645, HB 7071, and HB 1331—will keep windmills off our beaches, gas in our tanks, and China out of our state. We’re restoring sanity in our approach to energy and rejecting the agenda of the radical green zealots. Furthermore, we’re going to ensure foreign adversaries like China have no foothold in our state. Why it matters: The bill that would also ban offshore wind turbines and bolster natural gas expansion after taking effect on July 1 comes as climate change's effects are already impacting Florida — notably a dangerous heat wave threatening the state's south this week that's already broken temperature records. The heat index in Key West hit a record 115°F on Wednesday and the National Weather Service warned South Florida could expect well-above average temperatures with "hazardous" heat index values this week. Florida is also facing climate change-related threats from rising sea levels and ocean temperatures, hurricanes and other severe storms, extreme precipitation, flooding and toxic algae blooms. The big picture: The legislation that deletes most mentions of climate change in state law reverses much of the policies and legislation that were introduced during the administration of the then-Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, a Democrat DeSantis defeated in the 2022 gubernatorial race. Now, the focus is on "an adequate, reliable and cost-effective supply of energy for the state in a manner that promotes the health and welfare of the public and economic growth," per a legislative analysis. Critics say DeSantis is using climate change as part of a broader culture wars drive and environmental group Sierra Club's Florida chapter issued a statement saying the law "jeopardizes" the health and safety of all Floridians. Yes, but: The law is largely symbolic as it doesn't prevent lawmakers from addressing climate change in energy policy. Florida is a U.S. leader in solar power and the legislation doesn't impact this burgeoning industry. And the state has no operational wind farms due to hurricanes and insufficient wind power.

Another recent article linking Climate change denialism to politics: https://news.umich.edu/nearly-15-of-americans-deny-climate-change-is-real-ai-study-finds/ Nearly 15% of Americans deny climate change is real, AI study finds Public figures such as Trump play outsized role in influencing beliefs

Interesting analysis of the climate change denial "community". (emphasis mine) https://www.asanet.org/footnotes-article/structure-and-culture-climate-change-denial/ The Structure and Culture of Climate Change Denial Jeremiah Bohr, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh As someone who has spent over a decade studying the climate change denial movement, many of the political tactics mainstreamed by Donald Trump and the populist right around 2015–2016 seemed familiar. Attack the experts. Launch personal attacks on opponents. Frame an email scandal to maximize political gain. Delegitimize mainstream media sources. Cast yourself as the savior of traditional American life. Climate change deniers practiced these tactics years before the Republican Party transformed from a Reagan coalition of social conservatives and small-government libertarians to a party of the populist right. While arguing against scientific consensus will always present an uphill battle, the organizers of climate change denial repeatedly prove their ability to strategically adapt to their political environment, seamlessly shifting between narratives of “climate change is not happening,” “climate change is happening but humans are not driving it,” and “climate change is happening but it is nothing to worry about.” Considering the economic incentives of continued fossil fuel development, I expect that climate change deniers will adapt to shifting political winds for years to come and will continue to employ political tactics. In this article, I review a few facts and events to illustrate this point. For a more comprehensive overview of the players involved in obstructing action on climate change, read “From Denial to Obstruction: A Sociological View of the Effort to Obstruction Action on Climate Change” by Robert Brulle and Riley Dunlap in this issue. Ultimately, members of the climate change denial movement do not concern themselves with building fact-based objections to mainstream scientific consensus. Rather, they are focused on how to coordinate political reactions to any sort of mitigation policy effort that detracts from fossil fuel-based economic growth strategies. Thus, in my view, the tactics used to frame scientists as corrupt, activists as antiprogress, corporations as “woke,” or journalists as liars, represent a crucial element of the contemporary climate change denial movement. The Economic Incentives of Denial Looking at the organization of climate change denial, we quickly recognize a familiar story of corporate actors pursuing private gain, hiding information from the public, and pushing negative externalities onto society. To do this successfully, industry actors coordinate public relations campaigns and prop up their own set of experts to deny their industries have contributed to harming public health. The playbook used by climate change deniers often parallels that used by the tobacco industry to deny carcinogenic links to their product, sometimes employing the very same people who had defended Big Tobacco to protect the fossil fuel industry. Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway documented this network of iconoclastic and politically connected scientists who promote uncertainty around climate science (and other environmental and public health issues) in their book Merchants of Doubt (Bloomsbury Press, 2010). A mixture of corporations in the fossil fuel industry (e.g., ExxonMobil), trade associations (e.g., National Association of Manufacturers), conservative philanthropists (e.g., The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation), and conservative think tanks make up the coalition of organized climate change denial. As part of this coalition, think tanks serve a key function in using funds from corporations and philanthropists to produce the narrative work of denial in the form of research reports, newsletters, podcasts, social media posts, and op-eds. These include widely recognized names such as The Heritage Foundation, but also smaller think tanks such as The Heartland Institute that have made climate change denial their niche. Ideologically, these think tanks unite through their libertarian commitment to free markets, low taxes, and opposition to “big government,” leading various corporate funders to view them as useful vehicles for obstructing proactive climate legislation. Indeed, organizations within the climate change countermovement that have received corporate funding produce more polarizing media than those without corporate funding, and they place greater emphasis on specific themes such as the purported benefits of increased CO2 concentrations. Various politicians representing constituents whose economic livelihoods rely on fossil fuel development and access to cheap energy also have incentives to engage in climate change denial. Treadmill of production theory in environmental sociology anticipates these types of alliances, wherein a coalition of corporations, labor, politicians, and (sometimes) consumers come together through mutual benefits realized at the cost of environmental degradation. Consistent with what my research shows, congressional representatives discuss environmental issues on their social media accounts along the political-economic lines that characterize their districts. Additionally, and unsurprisingly, legislators tend to vote against pro-environmental bills as they receive more money from industries associated with the climate change countermovement. Clearly, the alignment of near-term economic incentives with conventional fossil fuel economic development creates a receptive context for deniers’ attacks on climate science and efforts to mitigate global climate change. The Political Culture of Denial In my view, it is a mistake to assume that a principled commitment to libertarian principles in defense of free markets drives the climate change denial movement. Beneath the surface of the libertarian rhetoric that infused the early years of the denial discourse lay the forerunners of the modern right’s turn from libertarian-conservatism to right-wing populism. In my estimation, the mutual hatred of “the expert”—disdained as a tool of central planning in a Hayekian-inspired libertarian tradition as well as a symbol of educated elites that animates modern right-wing populism—allows these camps to find common ground in the field of climate change politics. Years before “fake news” became a regular phrase in our political vocabulary, deniers used a variety of now-familiar tactics to shape public discourse around climate change. At the outset of my interest in studying climate change denial, I attended a well-known conference organized by The Heartland Institute in 2010, part of an annual series set up as the denial movement’s version of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Upon arrival, I entered a large conference space where hundreds of attendees gathered for dinner and to hear a keynote speaker. Having spent months consuming climate change denial content at that point, I possessed a sense of what to expect at this conference, but the scene I walked into took me aback: hundreds of animated climate change deniers excitedly shouting “Lock Him Up!” Many of the attendees were waving small hockey sticks emblazoned with “Mann-Made Global Warming,” aiming their chants at climatologist Michael Mann, author of the well-known “hockey stick” graph, and whom the denial movement accuses of manipulating data (as they do of nearly every prominent climate scientist or research group). Of course, not too many years later, rowdy crowds at Trump campaign rallies would shout “Lock Her Up!” about Hillary Clinton. This parallel illustrates a political culture undergirding the denial movement, premised not on good-faith disagreements about the proper role of government, but a visceral hatred directed at anyone identified as the enemy. In this case, enemies include most climate scientists, but also anyone perceived as an opponent to the lifestyle made possible by access to cheap fossil fuel. While I understand the motives of corporate actors as a desire to protect profits, I would characterize many of the rank-and-file activists I encountered at this conference (who were almost all white men) as motivated by threats to their “industrial” masculinity. Another familiar parallel involves an email scandal. Perhaps no other event animated the climate change denial movement more than the infamous “Climategate” scandal. In 2009, ahead of the United Nations Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, hackers obtained emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Among thousands of emails, climate change deniers took a small handful out of context and used them to insinuate that researchers manipulated data and misled the public about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-OK), a political champion of climate change denial, pounced on the scandal to call for investigations into research sponsored by the United Nations’ IPCC. Climategate dominated U.S. news coverage of climate change for months, particularly among newspapers with conservative editorial leanings. Multiple independent investigations would later verify that no malfeasance took place and that the deniers’ narrative itself manipulated the emails, though these headlines would receive scant attention by comparison. In the end, the denial movement secured a victory: public trust in climate science eroded and belief in global warming among television meteorologists declined as a result of Climategate. Responding to Climate Change Denial Since the manufactured Climategate controversy, which I consider the zenith of deniers’ influence over public opinion (though their policy influence would later peak under the Trump administration), parts of the denial coalition began to suffer setbacks. As their attack tactics became progressively more hostile, climate change deniers began to lose support among corporate boardrooms. One significant moment came in 2012, when The Heartland Institute put up a billboard in Chicago equating global warming activists to the terrorist “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski. Months earlier, a climate scientist and activist leaked several internal documents that publicly exposed the funders of The Heartland Institute’s attacks on climate science. With pressure mounting from activists, corporations such as State Farm Insurance and General Motors cut ties with the small but influential think tank. Many other corporations would end up deciding they could no longer publicly associate with climate change denial (another familiar parallel with our current political moment). Scientists have spent years fact-checking misinformation and sometimes debating contrarian pundits. While the pursuit of “inoculating” the public from misinformation may necessitate such activities, fact-checking and communicating the scientific consensus regarding climate change insufficiently counters the power of misinformation campaigns, partly because climate change denial belongs to the same polarizing trends that establish “post-truth” discursive spaces. Despite inventive suggestions for how to leverage information technology in the battle against climate misinformation, and thoughtful strategies outlined by sociologists, the COVID-19 pandemic makes clear how readily huge swaths of our population will dismiss fact-checked statements or research coming from mistrusted sources. We currently see the resistance from millions of people to taking vaccinations prescribed by public health experts. While we can argue that the denial position creeps further to the fringe of mainstream culture as it increasingly associates with anti-science attitudes, it maintains a steady home among a sizeable and committed minority. Despite its setbacks, the denial movement does not lack teeth or influence. Prominent figures in this realm still have opportunity to exert power through their solid standing within the Republican Party. Myron Ebell of the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, for example, shaped President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency, an administration that withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement and consistently empowered industry at the cost of environmental protection. While I did not describe a comprehensive list of the political fights engaged by climate change deniers in the U.S., these accounts illustrate how the movement itself foreshadowed the entering of fringe political elements into the conservative mainstream. Financially, a coalition incentivized by fossil fuel extraction supports the climate change denial movement. Culturally, a type of identity politics embedded within carbon-intensive lifestyles animates it. Understanding these aspects provides insight into the social forces blocking action on climate change, as well as their robust power going forward.

I am trying to find a teenager for part time summer work at $20/hr. So far, no takers.

I noticed the same thing when they replaced my roof. I also asked the (white) contractor if they have them "slack off" a little in extreme heat (which we were experiencing at the time). He said it's hard to get them to slow down. I understand your point, I was just making a sex joke.

One who expresses their support for Trump indirectly.