Sins Forums
What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in 
I'd like some global warming back...
Hope is lost! 
If Trump thinks it's a 'crock of shite' then that pretty much PROVES it's a reality....;p
If Trump thinks it's a 'crock of shite' then that pretty much PROVES it's a reality....
Thing is, Trump DOESN'T think.... hence the "complete idiot at best".
Born with a silver spoon in his mouth [not to mention his foot], people have been paid to do his thinking for him... meaning his brain is used only for life support and nought else.
Nah...his brain is just blank skull padding to prevent his toupee from sagging...;)
If I said anything like this about the President, would that be a violation of the politics rules? Or are we just making an exception because it is Trump? I know he's an easy target but his perspective has no affect on the science that backs up either side. I'm sure he believes man landed on the moon too.
Unlikely he believes that then...;p
For a comment to be 'political' it has to reference a person's political bent....whether or not a person lacks sufficient IQ points to maintain a coherent conversation is not 'political' at all ...;)
I'll pay that one! Though he denies it's a toupee, it doesn't look real enough to be natural hair.... unless it's that Ashley and Martin implant stuff they take from a horses arse.
Um, Trump isn't the president [and hopefully never will be] No, we're talking about a rich wannabe who just wants a finger in another pie to throw his weight around even more. Hence it is a non-political swipe at a buffoon with zero appeal in any department... poor Ivana, what could she have seen in him.
A non-political Q and A....
Q: Why doesn't Donald Trump pick his nose?
A: He's scared his head 'll cave in and his toupee will disappear in the vacuum. 
So I am free to say, with an emphasis on his character not his politics, the President is a schlub looking to create some kind of positive legacy by any means possible, including devastating the U.S. economy so that we can reduce the projected global temperature 0.02 degrees over the next century. And if he succeeds, he and his friends are poised to become filthy rich(er), cause he's such a man of the people.
Oh and for the record, Trump is no better in this regard.
It can't be a toupee. It's his natural hair, zero possibility otherwise.
The reasoning behind this is simple, you can see his shiny bald head through the epic comb over he has going. The dude is damn near bald on top, but it's his hair from the sides that you're looking at, not a wig. If he were wearing one, it would look better. Same deal on implants and whatnot, if he had them, they'd look better.
So I am free to say, with an emphasis on his character not his politics, the President is a schlub looking to create some kind of positive legacy by any means possible, including devastating the U.S. economy so that we can reduce the projected global temperature 0.02 degrees over the next century. And if he succeeds, he and his friends are poised to become filthy rich(er), cause he's such a man of the people.
Oh and for the record, Trump is no better in this regard.
No...because you leave an inference that his party policy at fault with reference to economy devastation.
It's a thin line between attacking a person and attacking his policies. The former is prejudice but the latter is political prejudice...;)
Think...."I don't like [someone] because he's a dick." versus "I don't like [someone] because he's a Democrat dick." [or Republican - whatever].
Ah....probably still not his own...but taken from sacrificed virgins...sacrificed to the God Donald...;)
I don't like Democrats any more than the next right wing crazy, but that's shoddy reasoning. The last president did damn near as much damage, economically, as our current one has.
Bush 41 fucked the economy with the Clean Air act giving the EPA massive authority, Bush 43 fucked the economy with Ethanol requirements that actually pollute more, cost more, and damage engines all at once. Even the reasonably conservative Ronald Reagan helped pass environmental legislation that had harmful economic impacts of extremely arguable environmental worth. The original conservationist president, Teddy Roosevelt, was also a Republican.
Our current state of insanity where life cycle gases are classified as pollution, a blocked drain pipe or a berm from the county grader gets your property classified as wetlands, and the ethanol added to your gasoline makes even a new car use more petroleum than it would without it, did not come from Democrats. It came from Republicans reaching across the aisle to advance an agenda started by Republicans in the first place.
It's definitely a difference of ideology, collectivism versus individualism, but that's never been a party line breakdown. Progressive collectivists, dangerous fucking morons that they are, are pervasive throughout both parties in the US. They simply disagree on the various details about what the government should be doing in particular once it's running our lives for us.
No...because you leave an inference that his party policy at fault with reference to economy devastation.
It's a thin line between attacking a person and attacking his policies. The former is prejudice but the latter is political prejudice...
Think...."I don't like [someone] because he's a dick." versus "I don't like [someone] because he's a Democrat dick." [or Republican - whatever].
So with this definition it must be difficult to discuss policies regarding climate change, leaving only discussions about dumb people and science, and in many cases both. I think the President is dumb to consider only the evidence that supports his beliefs, especially when that evidence has to be tweaked from time to time to continue to be used as evidence. Makes me question his IQ.
Of course your comment re the moon landings makes me question your age.
Typically it is the young who assume some ancient artifice of pre-Cambrian Photoshop falsified reality...;p
Of course your comment re the moon landings makes me question your age.
Typically it is the young who assume some ancient artifice of pre-Cambrian Photoshop falsified reality...
Another bad inference. I'm 35, born 10 years after 1969, and I have no doubt man landed on the moon. The point was, just because Trump has a particular belief doesn't mean he's wrong. Doesn't mean he is right either. His belief has nothing to do with the truth or the evidence. X believes Y so Y must not be true is a funny meme, but depressingly many people follow that philisophy.
And it was lost in the making, hence my responses.
Your comment inferred the landings did not happen.
Just as with jokes....if you have to explain it/them they didn't work....;)
Still....a debate re moon landings would be just as equally cerebral as the past 103 pages of fail re global warming....
There will be loud voices on both sides of whatever arbitrary fence...;p
Ah, the year I sacrificed my first virgin.... and shoot, I forgot to harvest some of her 'hair' for toupee making not too far from now.
As for the moon landings, they happened for everybody who believes they happened.... and for those who don't believe..... they STILL happened.
And it was lost in the making, hence my responses.
Your comment inferred the landings did not happen.
Just as with jokes....if you have to explain it/them they didn't work....
To be clear, the word you are looking for is "implied", not "inferred". My comment implied the exact opposite, you made the incorrect inference. We all do this from time to time, so no harm no foul. I did understand the joke. Unfortunately with the naivety of much of the population today, the joke is likely to mimic reality, and that is disturbing more than funny. But I guess all jokes have to have some reality basis, so nevermind.
Good news folks. All the new tree growth (as shown in the image below) is soaking up all the CO². Global warming will be over by christmas...
Been there twice, played around on the sea ice next to the park entrance, climbing glaciers frozen in the sea was a blast when I was a little kid. Now it's a really long walk from the parking lot to get to where the ice is.
Muir glacier lost 7 miles between those two pictures, out of a total 18, a catastrophic loss by AGW reasoning. 
Unfortunately, it covered the whole of the glacier bay basin a century before that, which is about 65 miles long. When the retreat started in the late 1700's, following the end of the mini ice age, it had an utterly massive loss rate considering it was supposed to be well over a centigrade cooler then.
Slightly off topic but this is one of the most epic videos I have ever seen. The scale of this calving is hard to comprehend.
Oh Boy! Australian Scientist Just Found MAJOR ERRORS in Climate Change Models...
And Based Milo @ 2h35m30s
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
GalCiv3 Forums
WinCustomize Forums
JoeUser Forums
AshesoftheSingularity Forums
Stardock Forums