Hodad

You are just bog stupid. What do you think happens in Europe if Putin is allowed to take whatever land he wants and people like you encourage it through appeasement? We've been down that road, Tokyo Rose. Nazis? lol get a new schtick.

No, the majority of politicians are neither rich nor kooks. Or at least they weren't traditionally kooks. The Republican base started rewarding insane conspiracy thinking over the last couple of decades, so we've seen a considerable uptick. There has always been political fighting, and sometimes it has been dirty fighting, but it has never been by fundamentally attacking faith in the country. Think back. Newt Gingrich and Mitch McConnell played dirty as hell--full contact politics. But neither of them ever tried to win by sowing wholesale mistrust of American and its institutions. That's change--and dramatically so--with Trump. Trump told people that they can't trust the Democrats, they can't trust the Republicans, they can't trust the government, they can't trust the courts, they can't trust the media, they can't trust science, they can't trust our law enforcement agencies, they can't trust schools--and indeed, the only one they CAN trust is Trump. And they bought in. At this point they trust Trump (a pathological liar) more than they trust their own friends and family. <-- That's not an exaggeration, it's polling data. That's how far we've fallen. And most of the Republicans running in the primary are tapping into that same toxic, fundamental undermining of faith in all American institutions. Ramaswamy is among the worst. 9/11 an inside job? Jan 6 insurrection by govt. plants? COVID planned by our agencies? -- Ah, of course, he's "just asking!" It's going completely in the wrong direction. We will never heal as a country that way. You can't heal without at least a shared reality. That whole line of thinking only ends with a charismatic authoritarian dictator. If you can't trust anyone other than the latest savior, that's what inevitably happens.

You don't always say who or what you're quoting, but at least you're quoting! And that's something. Look, you can't reasonably complain about inflation and root for more expensive local manufacturing at the same time. Like you, the rest of the market is going to go with the cheapest equivalent product, and that's usually made in LDCs. Meanwhile, we continue to develop the knowledge economy. The service sector has grown as the manufacturing sector has shrunk. It's not an exact 1:1 trade off, but it's to be considered. And it should also go without saying that we may not have the perfect balance of domestic manufacturing vs offshore manufacturing, but it's simplistic and silly to say that all of one or all of another is the right answer. We live in a global marketplace, and always will. Unless you'd prefer a strictly controlled marketplace via authoritarian government, which could effectively limit the freedom of choice for citizens.

Maui is getting help. That was an unnecessary anecdote and I don't think it achieved the goal of connecting with his audience. He did make an effort, but perhaps he should have thrown rolls of paper towels. ?

Lol. You don't favor either side. You just think we should abandon Ukraine and that Ukraine should "negotiate" a surrender. No favoritism there, Tokyo Rose. ?

Are you capable of formulating a cogent reply to any point of conversation? Is that a thing you know how to do? -- And if so, why don't you do it? Everything I said there is true and simply accepted as fact in economics. You are welcome to present a heterodox argument, but your weird feelings don't constitute an argument. Frankly, after extensive talks about gas prices, I think you have almost no knowledge or understanding of economics and aren't equipped to formulate any opinion on globalization one way or another. In which case, my advice is that you should stop spouting off random, uninformed crap and go learn something.

Nah, Tokyo Rose, day after day you tell us the Ukranians should lay down their arms and surrender their country to the loving embrace of Vladamir Putin. Day after day you tell us we should not support a sovereign nation fighting for survival against one of our fiercest geopolitical foes. Day after day you tell us that Zelensky is a warmongering madman simply because he defends himself, while Putin, the aggressor, is wholly justified in attacking his sovereign neighbor. It's pretty clear where your loyalties lie. It's really just a question of whether you're a shill or a dupe.

You're not even a little embarrassed to be using 2nd hand data (with no provenance?) from some random Internet dude with no training or publishing in climate science? There wasn't a random Twitter or Pinterest post you'd like to cite instead? You're never going to get a grip on reality unless you venture outside the conservative echo chamber.

Willful ignorance?

Gibberish? No, just because something is beyond you dos not mean it is gibberish.

How does one get to be your age, not know anything about the world, and still have such calcified opinions? The US, Canada and other developed nations are absolutely the beneficiaries of globalization, exploiting low-cost production in other countries--sometimes to mutual benefit and sometimes not. It's why you can afford a closet full of clothing, a household full of electronics, and why you can buy strawberries in January. This isn't even a question or point of debate among economists. The global marketplace is how the US became the dominant economic power on the planet and how the population became materially spoiled. -- You're welcome.

This is exactly the level of empathy and engagement I expected. Just fark everyone else, as long as you get what you want. Okay.

You mean like the 9/11 was an inside job and the Capitol riots were and inside job and the vaccine conspiracy kookery? Oh, wait. He already did those things. He's a conspiracy nutter and luckily has no chance of getting a Republican nomination.

Houses gone. Freshwater contaminated. Crops and fields salted. Roads no longer viable. Some of those island nations are simply going to cease to exist. Tuvalu and Kiribati are poster children. These are places and people that have played little to no role in driving climate change, but will be among the first to face existential threat.

Caribbean and Pacific islands are already significantly impacted. Every lowland and coastal region should be preparing for similar pain.

You have no education, expertise or data to dispute what they CONSISTENTLY find regarding climate. Why do you feel entitled to dismiss, insult and contradict them? Why is it that you believe with certainty that you've been fed the right answers, and all the science is wrong?

Okay, so per your uneducated, unsupported opinion the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists aremmorons. ^^ Your crazy is showing.

Have you been in a coma for the last 10 years? The Democrats are the only party still trying to govern and the only party with a vision for the future. The Republicans stopped even publishing a platform. It's all spite, obstruction and promises to "repeal and replace with super secret plans that never materialize."

That's pure nonsense. The global economy has delivered you, and everyone else, a MUCH better standard of living. Even the people without skills are living better than their unskilled predecessors.

That's a phrase you made up. But nearly every major scientific body concurs with the IPCC. And again, none reject the findings. Has been that way for years. 2008 In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and reaffirming "that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems". Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to "[t]ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour". The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 joint statement.[61] 2009 In advance of the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a joint statement declaring, "Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change". The statement references the IPCC's Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts that "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid". The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 and 2008 joint statements.[52] Polish Academy of Sciences In December 2007, the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences (Polska Akademia Nauk), which has not been a signatory to joint national science academy statements issued a declaration endorsing the IPCC conclusions, and stating:[62] Additional national science academy and society statements American Association for the Advancement of Science as the world's largest general scientific society, adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:[63] Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies in 2008 published FASTS Statement on Climate Change[64] which states: United States National Research Council through its Committee on the Science of Climate Change in 2001, published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.[65] This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:[65] Royal Society of New Zealand having signed onto the first joint science academy statement in 2001, released a separate statement in 2008 in order to clear up "the controversy over climate change and its causes, and possible confusion among the public":[66] The Royal Society of the United Kingdom has not changed its concurring stance reflected in its participation in joint national science academies' statements on anthropogenic global warming. According to the Telegraph, "The most prestigious group of scientists in the country was forced to act after fellows complained that doubts over man made global warming were not being communicated to the public".[67] In May 2010, it announced that it "is presently drafting a new public facing document on climate change, to provide an updated status report on the science in an easily accessible form, also addressing the levels of certainty of key components."[68] The society says that it is three years since the last such document was published and that, after an extensive process of debate and review,[69][70] the new document was printed in September 2010. It summarises the current scientific evidence and highlights the areas where the science is well established, where there is still some debate, and where substantial uncertainties remain. The society has stated that "this is not the same as saying that the climate science itself is in error – no Fellows have expressed such a view to the RS".[68] The introduction includes this statement: International science academies African Academy of Sciences in 2007 was a signatory to the "statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change". This joint statement of African science academies, was organized through the Network of African Science Academies. Its stated goal was "to convey information and spur action on the occasion of the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany, in June 2007":[71] European Academy of Sciences and Arts in 2007 issued a formal declaration on climate change titled Let's Be Honest:[72] European Science Foundation in a 2007 position paper[73] states: InterAcademy Council As the representative of the world's scientific and engineering academies,[74][75] the InterAcademy Council issued a report in 2007 titled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future. International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) in 2007, issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth:[78] Physical and chemical sciences American Chemical Society[79] American Institute of Physics[80] American Physical Society[81] Australian Institute of Physics[82] European Physical Society[83] Earth sciences American Geophysical Union The American Geophysical Union (AGU) adopted a statement on Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases in 1998.[84] A new statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007,[85] and revised and expanded in 2013,[86] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America In May 2011, the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) issued a joint position statement on climate change as it relates to agriculture:[87] European Federation of Geologists In 2008, the European Federation of Geologists[88] (EFG) issued the position paper Carbon Capture and geological Storage:[89] European Geosciences Union In 2005, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the Joint national science academy statements on global response to climate change. The statement refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as "the main representative of the global scientific community", and asserts that the IPCC:[90] Additionally, in 2008, the EGU issued a position statement on ocean acidification which states, "Ocean acidification is already occurring today and will continue to intensify, closely tracking atmospheric CO2 increase. Given the potential threat to marine ecosystems and its ensuing impact on human society and economy, especially as it acts in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming, there is an urgent need for immediate action." The statement then advocates for strategies "to limit future release of CO2 to the atmosphere and/or enhance removal of excess CO2 from the atmosphere".[91] And, in 2018 the EGU issued a statement concurring with the findings of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C, with Jonathan Bamber, president of the organisation, noting: "EGU concurs with, and supports, the findings of the SR15 that action to curb the most dangerous consequences of human-induced climate change is urgent, of the utmost importance and the window of opportunity extremely limited."[92] Geological Society of America In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on 20 April 2010, with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction:[93] Geological Society of London In November 2010, the Geological Society of London issued the position statement Climate change: evidence from the geological record:[94] International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics In July 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) adopted a resolution titled "The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change". In it, the IUGG concurs with the "comprehensive and widely accepted and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and regional and national bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change". They state further that the "continuing reliance on combustion of fossil fuels as the world's primary source of energy will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related consequences to the environment and society".[95] National Association of Geoscience Teachers In July 2009, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers[96] (NAGT) adopted a position statement on climate change in which they assert that "Earth's climate is changing [and] "that present warming trends are largely the result of human activities":[97] Meteorology and oceanography American Meteorological Society The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:[98] A 2016 survey found that two-thirds of AMS members think that all or most of climate change is caused by human activity.[99] Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society has issued a Statement on Climate Change, wherein they conclude:[100] Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences In November 2005, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada stating that:[101] Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society In November 2009, a letter to the Canadian Parliament by The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society states:[102] Royal Meteorological Society (UK) In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society issued an endorsement of the report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as "[the] world's best climate scientists", they stated that climate change is happening as "the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get."[103] World Meteorological Organization In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change presented on 15 November 2006, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to "prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". The WMO concurs that "scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation". The WMO concurs that "the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years"; and that the IPCC "assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice". [104] American Quaternary Association The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated:[105] International Union for Quaternary Research The statement on climate change issued by the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) reiterates the conclusions of the IPCC, and urges all nations to take prompt action in line with the UNFCCC principles:[106] Biology and life sciences Life science organizations have outlined the dangers climate change pose to wildlife. American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians[107] American Institute of Biological Sciences. In October 2009, the leaders of 18 US scientific societies and organizations sent an open letter to the United States Senate reaffirming the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily caused by human activities. The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) adopted this letter as their official position statement.[108][109] The letter goes on to warn of predicted impacts on the United States such as sea level rise and increases in extreme weather events, water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. It then advocates for a dramatic reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases.[110] American Society for Microbiology[111] Australian Coral Reef Society[112] Institute of Biology (UK)[113] Society of American Foresters issued two position statements pertaining to climate change in which they cite the IPCC[114] and the UNFCCC.[115] The Wildlife Society (international)[116] Human health A number of health organizations have warned about the numerous negative health effects of global warming: American Academy of Pediatrics[117] American College of Preventive Medicine[118] American Medical Association[119] American Public Health Association[120] Australian Medical Association in 2004[121] and in 2008[122] World Federation of Public Health Associations[123] World Health Organization[124] The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and "Doomsday clock" In 1945, Albert Einstein and other scientists who created atomic weapons used in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki founded the "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" and created the "Doomsday Clock". The goal of the clock is to convey threats to humanity and the planet, and to create public awareness that will lead to solutions. In the beginning, the Doomsday Clock focused on the dangers of nuclear war, but in the 21st century, it has begun to deal with other issues like climate change and disinformation on the internet. On 23 January 2020 the organization moved the doomsday clock to 100 seconds before midnight, closer than ever. It explained that it did it because of three factors: Increasing danger of nuclear war, Increasing danger from climate change, and Increasing danger from disinformation in the internet regarding the issues in points 1 and 2 and other "disruptive technologies". The organization praised the climate movement of young people and called to citizens and governments to act to take greater action on climate change.[125] Miscellaneous A number of other national scientific societies have also endorsed the opinion of the IPCC: American Astronomical Society[126] American Statistical Association[127] Canadian Council of Professional Engineers [128] The Institution of Engineers Australia[129] International Association for Great Lakes Research[130] Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand[131] World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO)

Once again, you dispute data with nothing more than a wave of your hand. And you don't even seem to know how crazy that is. Did your mother tell you you were special a lot? Trying to figure out how a person comes to believe that their uninformed hunches are the best source of truth in the world.

There is not a single major scientific body on the planet that rejects anthropogenic warming. Not one. Regardless of title. Yet here you are, aggressively ignorant and full of confidence.

Lol. What world do you live in? Will you ever be more controlled and dependent than you are on fossil fuels? Do you suppose there are localists out there who talk about nationalists with the same befuddled scorn that you talk about globalists? We live in an increasingly global society. Welcome to progress. Get over it.

Thank you for the broadcast, Tokyo Rose.

Again, your bizarre claims are entirely contradicted by reality. Trump was the global laughingstock. They literally laughed at him at the UN. Esteem for US and the POTUS has rebounded dramatically under Biden. This is how out of touch you are. Biden literally 10x the approval of Trump in many countries. lol