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

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Post deleted.  Moving on means just that.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

And I don't know what you think I said, but I have always meant the amount of coal and or oil we know about - known reserves.  After all you cannot call such carbon in the ground reserves unless you know its there.

And it's hardly irrelevent.  Doesn't matter if we cannot recover every drop of known reserves.  The amount we can recover is sufficient to increase temperature to critical levels.  Bottom line, there is more oil available in known reserves than we can afford to burn.  

So, why should we be searching for more if we cannot afford to burn all we already know about?

An increase in investments doesn’t mean we’re “searching for more.” It could mean that a reservation is ready for secondary recovery, and so on.

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

  Are you suggesting Trump's policies cannot possibly affect the environment?

Do you agree with halting NASA's earth monitoring programs?

I doubt the policies will change much of anything. Wish he could install some policies to keep it from getting so cold. Like it did this past winter in our warm south.

Guess that is why you guys went from "global warming" to "climate change". 

[homersapien 11,440]

40 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I doubt the policies will change much of anything. Wish he could install some policies to keep it from getting so cold. Like it did this past winter in our warm south.

Guess that is why you guys went from "global warming" to "climate change". 

So, straight out:  

1) Do you think humans are capable of changing the global ecology?

2) Do you accept AGW as a scientific fact?

 

[homersapien 11,440]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

An increase in investments doesn’t mean we’re “searching for more.” It could mean that a reservation is ready for secondary recovery, and so on.

Yes, but the greater point is do: Do we need to invest in exploiting  new sources - like Anwar and increased off-shore drilling - when we cannot afford to use what we are already sitting on?

(And please keep in mind that I am speaking from the "species" level, not from the perspective of any given oil company.)

Did you read the piece above from Rolling Stone?  Do you reject it?

(And please. Spare us the comments about Rolling Stone as a "source".  They didn't write the papers,  they just published them. Besides, other references are available.)

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

16 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Yes, but the greater point is do: Do we need to invest in exploiting  new sources - like Anwar and increased off-shore drilling - when we cannot afford to use what we are already sitting on?

(And please keep in mind that I am speaking from the "species" level, not from the perspective of any given oil company.)

As long as the demand is there, then certainly. But I hear your arguments. Eventually it becomes circular. Good discussion 

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So, straight out:  

1) Do you think humans are capable of changing the global ecology?

2) Do you accept AGW as a scientific fact?

 

Yes an no respectively Homie. Obviously humans effect our eco systems. Think I have stated before that God, IMO, did not create Florida to house 30 million people. Eco system is way to sensitive. 

I have yet to be sold on the AGW stuff.....you guys love to politicize it though. Just wait until the first hurricane of the season.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

@homersapienwhile reading back through our conversation, did I actually use the term “reservation?” You gotta correct me next time!

[homersapien 11,440]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

As long as the demand is there, then certainly. But I hear your arguments. Eventually it becomes circular. Good discussion 

You don't see the implications of that?   

Do you think simple "demand" is going to solve this problem?

[homersapien 11,440]

1 minute ago, SaltyTiger said:

Yes an no respectively Homie. Obviously humans effect our eco systems. Think I have stated before that God, IMO, did not create Florida to house 30 million people. Eco system is way to sensitive. 

I have yet to be sold on the AGW stuff.....you guys love to politicize it though. Just wait until the first hurricane of the season.  

Why do you reject AGW theory in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus?

Do you simply reject the science as presented? 

Or in different terms, do you think the science does not have the support by the overwhelming number of scientists in a position to have a respectable opinion?

And seriously, you think it's being "politicized"?      As if it shouldn't be? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You don't see the implications of that?   

Do you think simple "demand" is going to solve this problem?

Will it solve climate change? No. 

[homersapien 11,440]

8 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

@homersapienwhile reading back through our conversation, did I actually use the term “reservation?” You gotta correct me next time!

  you tell me.

[homersapien 11,440]

11 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

As long as the demand is there, then certainly. But I hear your arguments. Eventually it becomes circular. Good discussion 

Sorry, but I don't see how investing more money in discovering new reserves we can't use - strategically speaking - is a good investment for our species.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Sorry, but I don't see how investing more money in discovering new reserves we can't use - strategically speaking - is a good investment for our species.

Understood. But the investments, like many investments, aren’t “for our species” in the first place. Why invest in any company?

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Why do you reject AGW theory in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus?

Do you simply reject the science as presented? 

Or in different terms, do you think the science does not have the support by the overwhelming number of scientists in a position to have a respectable opinion?

And seriously, you think it's being "politicized"?      As if it shouldn't be? 

Never said I rejected it. I am very suspicious of anything so politically embraced by you guys...why not shut up and walk the walk. ride bicycles or walk. tell your spokesman to burn his learjets   

[AUFAN78 3,926]

On 5/21/2018 at 9:02 PM, homersapien said:

Evangelicals are totally debasing themselves with their support of Trump.  Your mileage might vary.

And voting Hillary would have altered that view?

[homersapien 11,440]

4 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Never said I rejected it. I am very suspicious of anything so politically embraced by you guys...why not shut up and walk the walk. ride bicycles or walk. tell your spokesman to burn his learjets   

Irony.

You hang out on a political forum and then tell people to shut up and advise them to get off it.  Do you ever listen to yourself?   

Do I need to post another story about life in the wilderness to prove I'm just as real as you are?  

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,440]

9 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

And voting Hillary would have altered that view?

What view?

[AUFAN78 3,926]

Just now, homersapien said:

What view?

Evangelicals are totally debasing themselves with their support of Trump. 

[homersapien 11,440]

11 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Understood. But the investments, like many investments, aren’t “for our species” in the first place. Why invest in any company?

Good point.  

IMO, it's not a good idea to invest directly in any given company, but no doubt, I have a piece of many of the companies in question via mutual funds and indexes.

But that's a different subject.  The current topic is AGW and the consequences.

[homersapien 11,440]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

Evangelicals are totally debasing themselves with their support of Trump. 

I don't understand your point. 

The debasement of evangelicals by embracing Trump has nothing to do with Clinton.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I don't understand your point. 

The debasement of evangelicals by embracing Trump has nothing to do with Clinton.

Uh, there was a choice homes.

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

Irony.

You hang out on a political forum and then tell people to shut up and advise them to get off it.  Do you ever listen to yourself?   

Do I need to post another story about life in the wilderness to prove I'm just as real as you are?  

 

 

 

Sorry Brother Homer...did not actually mean for you to shut up. I shouldn't have said that and feel awful about it.

[homersapien 11,440]

11 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Uh, there was a choice homes.

I have no idea how evangelicals might have behaved had Hillary won.  But Trump is president and they are debasing themselves in their unqualified support of him.  I fail to see how Hillary comes into play regarding that.

[homersapien 11,440]

23 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Sorry Brother Homer...did not actually mean for you to shut up. I shouldn't have said that and feel awful about it.

It's OK.  I can handle it.