CNN, NYT, ABC News, C-SPAN Take Trump Out of Context to Falsely Suggest He Called Immigrants ‘Animals’

[homersapien 11,387]

Here's a detailed discussion on the physical and economic implications of 'unburnable' reserves of carbon.

THE CARBON BUBBLE: CARBON TRACKER’S WORK IN 2013

https://www.bcsea.org/blog/guy-dauncey/2014/01/30/carbon-tracker’s-work-2013

excerpt:

Our global analysis, Wasted Capital and Stranded Assets, revealed that approximately two-thirds of global fossil fuel reserves are unburnable if we are to keep to the internationally agreed 2°C target, confirmed in the IPCC’s Working Group 1 report. Of this ‘unburnable’ stock we concluded that it is the coal reserves that are most at risk of becoming stranded because they are the most CO₂-intense of the three carbon assets. Our report went on to show that despite our already excessive stock of global reserves, the top 200 listed companies are spending $674 billion to find more coal, oil and gas reserves.

[homersapien 11,387]

Another good article explaining the reality of consuming known reserves of carbon:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

excerpts:

.....Scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by midcentury and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees. ("Reasonable," in this case, means four chances in five, or somewhat worse odds than playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter.)

This idea of a global "carbon budget" emerged about a decade ago, as scientists began to calculate how much oil, coal and gas could still safely be burned. Since we've increased the Earth's temperature by 0.8 degrees so far, we're currently less than halfway to the target. But, in fact, computer models calculate that even if we stopped increasing CO2 now, the temperature would likely still rise another 0.8 degrees, as previously released carbon continues to overheat the atmosphere. That means we're already three-quarters of the way to the two-degree target.

How good are these numbers? No one is insisting that they're exact, but few dispute that they're generally right. The 565-gigaton figure was derived from one of the most sophisticated computer-simulation models that have been built by climate scientists around the world over the past few decades. And the number is being further confirmed by the latest climate-simulation models currently being finalized in advance of the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Looking at them as they come in, they hardly differ at all," says Tom Wigley, an Australian climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "There's maybe 40 models in the data set now, compared with 20 before. But so far the numbers are pretty much the same. We're just fine-tuning things. I don't think much has changed over the last decade." William Collins, a senior climate scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, agrees. "I think the results of this round of simulations will be quite similar," he says. "We're not getting any free lunch from additional understanding of the climate system."....

....In fact, study after study predicts that carbon emissions will keep growing by roughly three percent a year – and at that rate, we'll blow through our 565-gigaton allowance in 16 years, around the time today's preschoolers will be graduating from high school. "The new data provide further evidence that the door to a two-degree trajectory is about to close," said Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist. In fact, he continued, "When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of about six degrees." That's almost 11 degrees Fahrenheit, which would create a planet straight out of science fiction...

 

The Third Number: 2,795 Gigatons

This number is the scariest of all – one that, for the first time, meshes the political and scientific dimensions of our dilemma. It was highlighted last summer by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, a team of London financial analysts and environmentalists who published a report in an effort to educate investors about the possible risks that climate change poses to their stock portfolios. The number describes the amount of carbon already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies, and the countries (think Venezuela or Kuwait) that act like fossil-fuel companies. In short, it's the fossil fuel we're currently planning to burn. And the key point is that this new number – 2,795 – is higher than 565. Five times higher.....

 

Which is exactly why this new number, 2,795 gigatons, is such a big deal. Think of two degrees Celsius as the legal drinking limit – equivalent to the 0.08 blood-alcohol level below which you might get away with driving home. The 565 gigatons is how many drinks you could have and still stay below that limit – the six beers, say, you might consume in an evening. And the 2,795 gigatons? That's the three 12-packs the fossil-fuel industry has on the table, already opened and ready to pour.

We have five times as much oil and coal and gas on the books as climate scientists think is safe to burn. We'd have to keep 80 percent of those reserves locked away underground to avoid that fate. Before we knew those numbers, our fate had been likely. Now, barring some massive intervention, it seems certain.

Yes, this coal and gas and oil is still technically in the soil. But it's already economically aboveground – it's figured into share prices, companies are borrowing money against it, nations are basing their budgets on the presumed returns from their patrimony. It explains why the big fossil-fuel companies have fought so hard to prevent the regulation of carbon dioxide – those reserves are their primary asset, the holding that gives their companies their value. It's why they've worked so hard these past years to figure out how to unlock the oil in Canada's tar sands, or how to drill miles beneath the sea, or how to frack the Appalachians.

 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

8 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I imagine you'll be fitted for a cheerleader outfit and pom-poms any day now.

You're obsessed with Proud. You literally follow him around in almost every other thread he posts in and most of the topics he post on here.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

3 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

You're obsessed with Proud. You literally follow him around in almost every other thread he posts in and most of the topics he post on here.

Imagine that, another equivalency fail by Auburnfan91.

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

14 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

You're obsessed with Proud. You literally follow him around in almost every other thread he posts in and most of the topics he post on here.

That is factually true. If you look at my profile it says I have one follower.....TitanTiger. But it's OK I just have to discipline myself not to respond to his childish posts.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

That is factually true. If you look at my profile it says I have one follower.....TitanTiger.

Yep.  Because you sometimes require a babysitter.  

[TitanTiger 20,499]

17 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Imagine that, another equivalency fail by Auburnfan91.

Just as a demonstration, I took a look just now at the most recent three pages worth of posts from PT.  Any thread he started or commented in.  It covered roughly 29 different threads.  Of those 29 threads...

I didn't even comment in 17 of the threads (58.6%)
I did comment and was replying to or referring to Proud Tiger in 7 of them.  (24.1%)
I was already in the thread before PT came along in 4 of the threads.  (13.8%)
I joined the thread after PT but my comment didn't address him at all in 1 thread.  (3.4%)

So 76% of the time, I've either ignored him altogether, was already in the thread before he got there or I wasn't talking to or about him at all.  And I'm being generous here.  Some of those threads I did reply to him, he started the thread.  It's typically hard not to speak to someone when they are the one starting the conversation, if you're going to participate at all.

This is why I don't take you more seriously.

 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

21 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Yep.  Because you sometimes require a babysitter.  

I’ll also note, you aren’t the only person I follow on the forums. Such is the life of an admin at times. Perhaps if I didn’t have septuagenarian problem children I could decrease that list by one.  

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Imagine that, another equivalency fail by Auburnfan91.

 

Imagine that Titan deflecting.............  So you don't follow Proud around in different threads and put him down or post your opposing views to his posts?

These are most of Proud Tiger's threads that he started in 2018 in the Political forum and you somehow managed to find them and wander into them:

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/162416-now-mccain-blasting-obama-admin/?do=findComment&comment=2856574

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/162495-more-evidence-of-no-russian-collusion/?do=findComment&comment=2859678

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/162494-crooked-wasserman-schultz-machine/?do=findComment&comment=2859675

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/162540-nyt-revises-trump-story/?do=findComment&comment=2861363

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/162370-nbc-has-to-correct-more-fake-news/?do=findComment&comment=2855037

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/162093-professor-blasts-cnn/?do=findComment&comment=2843295

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/161874-hillary-blame-game-continues/?tab=comments#comment-2835293

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/161677-is-the-mueller-team-biased/?do=findComment&comment=2828029

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/161578-more-comey-confusion/?do=findComment&comment=2824438

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/161569-abuse-of-power-by-obamas-fbi/?do=findComment&comment=2823478

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/161417-sotu-polls/?do=findComment&comment=2817532

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/161363-how-sick-can-hollywood-get/?do=findComment&comment=2816079

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/161377-sharp-drop-in-grammy-ratings/?do=findComment&comment=2816172

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/161352-hillary-loves-name-calling/?do=findComment&comment=2815694

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/161276-sad-days-at-the-fbi/?do=findComment&comment=2813160

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/161416-trump-approval-rating-makes-big-jump/?do=findComment&comment=2817424

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/161259-from-the-wapo-opinion-page/?do=findComment&comment=2812630

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/161230-abuse-of-power/?do=findComment&comment=2811726

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/161213-trump-makes-fake-news-awards/?do=findComment&comment=2811381

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/161075-obama-wh-enjoyed-lavish-gifts/?do=findComment&comment=2806804

 

A lot of your critiques were based solely around Proud posting FOX News articles.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I already gave you the breakdown of how often I respond to PT. Sorry, you’re still sucking at drawing comparisons. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

27 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Just as a demonstration, I took a look just now at the most recent three pages worth of posts from PT.  Any thread he started or commented in.  It covered roughly 29 different threads.  Of those 29 threads...

I didn't even comment in 17 of the threads (58.6%)
I did comment and was replying to or referring to Proud Tiger in 7 of them.  (24.1%)
I was already in the thread before PT came along in 4 of the threads.  (13.8%)
I joined the thread after PT but my comment didn't address him at all in 1 thread.  (3.4%)

So 76% of the time, I've either ignored him altogether, was already in the thread before he got there or I wasn't talking to or about him at all.  And I'm being generous here.  Some of those threads I did reply to him, he started the thread.  It's typically hard not to speak to someone when they are the one starting the conversation, if you're going to participate at all.

This is why I don't take you more seriously.

 

And what's the percentage that you respond to any other individual poster's threads the way you do Proud?

It's obvious that Proud's topics draw your ire more than anyone else's. That's just a sincere observation, that's not bs or making up a false equivalency. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 minute ago, Auburnfan91 said:

And what's the percentage that you respond to any other individual poster's threads the way you do Proud?

It's obvious that Proud's topics draw your ire more than anyone else's. That's just a sincere observation, that's not bs or making up a false equivalency. 

Your powers of observation are faulty, sincere or not. You see what you want to see. I showed you that your perception isn’t reality. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

Your powers of observation are faulty, sincere or not. You see what you want to see. I showed you that your perception isn’t reality. 

What forum are we in? Political.... 

I wasn't talking about the other forums. I thought that was obvious. You don't see me responding to you in the other forums do you?

 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

4 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

What forum are we in? Political.... 

I wasn't talking about the other forums. I thought that was obvious. You don't see me responding to you in the other forums do you?

 

If I’m obsessed with PT, it wouldn’t limit itself to one forum.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I already gave you the breakdown of how often I respond to PT. Sorry, you’re still sucking at drawing comparisons. 

In the political forum you follow Proud around a lot............... You've responded to Proud in 4 of his last 8 topics that he's posted in the political forum. 

This is Proud's last 8 topics he posted in the political forum:

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/162544-did-fed-agents-infiltrate-trump-campaign/ - You responded  (1)

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/162546-doj-ig-report/ - You didn't respond

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/162495-more-evidence-of-no-russian-collusion/ - You responded (2)

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/162530-trade-win-for-pres-trump/ - You didn't respond

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/162540-nyt-revises-trump-story/ - You responded (3)

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/162487-seattle-liberals-go-left-to-right/ - You didn't respond

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/162494-crooked-wasserman-schultz-machine/ - You responded (4)

https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/162496-collusion-after-all/ - You didn't respond

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

If I’m obsessed with PT, it wouldn’t limit itself to one forum.

You don't respond to anyone else in any of the other forums at the frequency that you respond to Proud in the political forum. 

Your ire is drawn towards Proud more than anyone else on the board across all forums. Even though you only exclusively follow Proud in the political forum, it's still more scrutiny than anyone else on this board receives.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

5 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

You don't respond to anyone else in any of the other forums at the frequency that you respond to Proud in the political forum. 

Your ire is drawn towards Proud more than anyone else on the board across all forums. Even though you only exclusively follow Proud in the political forum, it's still more scrutiny than anyone else on this board receives.

Even if that’s true, “more scrutiny” does not equal “you’re obsessed.”  Maybe he says more dumb things. Either way you’re still bad at recognizing equivalencies. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

And most of your scrutiny on Proud revolves around him posting FOX News articles. That really grinds your gears. I don't see any calls for 'better' sources when numerous VOX, The Atlantic, HuffPost, and even an occasional Alternet article that gets posted and somehow manages to escape your ire. You seek out Proud's topics but if someone else posts a very partisan source or non reputable source, you don't seek those topics out to chime in about posting 'better' sources.

 I've seen multiple Alternet articles posted on here in the last month and there hasn't been a peep from you in those threads about posting 'better' sources. You even responded in one of those threads but instead of calling for 'better' sources instead of Alternet, you just lambasted conservatives over FOX News in that thread. Seriously, that's how selective you are in going after Proud or conservatives over 'better' sources. Altnernet articles get posted and that somehow doesn't draw your ire........... But let Proud post a FOX News article and there's a good chance you're going to chime in about it.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

5 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

And most of your scrutiny on Proud revolves around him posting FOX News articles. That really grinds your gears. I don't see any calls for 'better' sources when numerous VOX, The Atlantic, HuffPost, and even an occasional Alternet article that gets posted and somehow manages to escape your ire. You seek out Proud's topics but if someone else posts a very partisan source or non reputable source, you don't seek those topics out to chime in about posting 'better' sources.

 I've seen multiple Alternet articles posted on here in the last month and there hasn't been a peep from you in those threads about posting 'better' sources. You even responded in one of those threads but instead of calling for 'better' sources instead of Alternet, you just lambasted conservatives over FOX News in that thread. Seriously, that's how selective you are in going after Proud or conservatives over 'better' sources. Altnernet articles get posted and that somehow doesn't draw your ire........... But let Proud post a FOX News article and there's a good chance you're going to chime in about it. 

Again, that was not your claim.  I'm not playing your game of 'move the goalposts' now after you've been proven wrong.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Your powers of observation are faulty, sincere or not. You see what you want to see. I showed you that your perception isn’t reality. 

This thread is a perfect example of you walking all over your own calls for 'better' sources so we can have better discussion. You were one of the first in this thread to derail the thread by your moral preening about the use of the word 'animals'. The thread was about taking Trump out of context but you chose not to engage that and instead let everyone know what you thought of calling a barbaric group 'animals'. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 minute ago, Auburnfan91 said:

This thread is a perfect example of you walking all over your own calls for 'better' sources so we can have better discussion. You were one of the first in this thread to derail the thread by your moral preening about the use of the word 'animals'. The thread was about taking Trump out of context but you chose not to engage that and instead let everyone know what you thought of calling a barbaric group 'animals'. 

Doubling down the dumb now?

I know what the original post was contending.  My point was, it doesn't matter if he was taken out of context and only said it about MS-13 or other thugs.  Even the thugs are human beings.  It's not moral preening, it's a statement of basic Christian doctrine.  And I didn't even rip Trump in doing so.  I simply and calmly stated my thoughts on the subject.

Move on.  You're digging a hole to China and wasting my time.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

Again, that was not your claim.  I'm not playing your game of 'move the goalposts' now after you've been proven wrong.

You haven't proven anything. You're so stubborn on all things moral or religious related that any opposing view is just not right to you and you won't cede a point on any of it. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just now, Auburnfan91 said:

You haven't proven anything. You're so stubborn on all things moral or religious related that any opposing view is just not right to you and you won't cede a point on any of it. 

I proved it not only with numbers, but showed that you made one claim then have tried to moderate your argument because the first one was debunked.

Move on.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

I proved it not only with numbers, but showed that you made one claim then have tried to moderate your argument because the first one was debunked.

Move on.

Oh so you haven't responded to 4 of Proud's last 8 topics in the political forum? That's been debunked?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just now, Auburnfan91 said:

Oh so you haven't responded to 4 of Proud's last 8 topics in the political forum? That's been debunked?

That wasn't your claim.  That's your 'moving the goalposts' claim now.

And I said move on.  This side discussion is over.