Harris destroyed Trump in debate

[WestCanMan]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/some-undecided-voters-not-convinced-by-harris-after-debate-with-trump-2024-09-11/

So it's like I said at the beginning, Harris never won the debate by substantive standards. 

She managed to seem more focused than Trump, who seemed distracted by illegal immigration every time he got a turn to talk, but she never gave any answers of her own that were meaningful, and undecideds apparently preferred Trump.

1) Harris didn't manage to do enough to distance herself from the abject failures of the Biden regime: the world is at war, the US border is a joke, inflation was at all-time record levels (only WWI, WWII and the 1930s caused higher inflation rates than Biden did), and terrorists in the ME used American bases as punching bags for the past 2 years. 

2) Harris doesn't have any kind of successful record to back her, so undecideds really needed to see some meat and potatoes in her economic plan, and she just gave them hope and mirrors. Voters didn't want a couple of gimmicky promises.

I honestly don't know how there were any actual undecideds in America in Sept of 2024, but I guess the ones who were undecided truly did need to see real evidence of something before they joined the Harris camp. 

[Chrissy1979]

You know for sure you overwhelmingly won a debate when, nearly a week later, the Trumpees are still posting about how it wasn't such an overwhelming win. 😂 

[Deluge]

30 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Its a stupid question from a stupid person.
 

We are already experiencing disasters due to climate change and they will only get worse as time goes on, leading to resource shortages, more wars, more mass migrations, all of this will become the new normal. 

No, it's a great question for a braindead psychopath like you. 

Climate change is not causing wars, resource shortages, and mass migration. You're just using that shit to push your bullshit agenda. 

The truth is, you have no idea when climate catastrophe will kill everyone, because there's no such thing as climate catastrophe killing everyone.

Did you know that Hussein and Michael Obama live at sea level right on the coast? In light of all the climate scare that you a$$holes have been pushing, wouldn't you say that they're stupid ldiots for doing that? 

 

Edited September 14, 2024 by Deluge

[Chrissy1979]

A big advantage of the "climate change isn't real" argument is that it's so stupid, people are too embarrassed to even bother debating you.

[BeaverFever]

Woman whose post ignited false Springfield cat claim says it was based on rumor
 

Erika Lee, a Springfield resident, recently authored a post on Facebook, saying that her neighbor’s cat was lost and she was told it was because the pet was attacked by a Haitian immigrant. 

 

Kimberly Newton, Lee’s neighbor, acknowledged this week to NewsGuard, “I don’t actually know the person who lost the cat.” Newton added that the cat’s owner was “an acquaintance of a friend.” 

Now, Lee, has said she was sorry about the way the events unfolded, with the unfounded conspiracy theories about Haitian immigrants amplified by both former President Trump and his vice presidential pick, Ohio Sen. JD Vance (R). 

“It just exploded into something I didn’t mean to happen,” Lee said in an interview with NBC Newson Friday.

Lee, whose Facebook post has been deleted, stated she did not expect that local gossip would spiral into a national story. .. 
 

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4879994-springfield-rumor-haitian-immigrants-facebook-post/

How about don’t go posting dubious unconfirmed fourth hand rumours on Facebook that you got from your neighbour’s friend’s acquaintance (whom you and your neighbour don’t even know) as if it were a confirmed fact? Not to mention falsly embellishing thw story by claiming it happened to your neighbour.  Only MAGAs and simpletons do that, that’s why they’re such easy targets for fake news  If you don’t want to be labeled as one, then don’t act like one  

 

Edited September 14, 2024 by BeaverFever

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

We are already experiencing disasters due to climate change and they will only get worse as time goes on, leading to resource shortages, more wars, more mass migrations, all of this will become the new normal. 

Ok - cite the science.  How bad does it get. What wars.   Lets see the figures so we can judge if that's a fair statement. 

We've always had disasters. i'm sure they'll get better and worse over time. For sure this wouldn't be our first climate disaster, sudden climate change just about wiped out humanity in the 1300's causing mass starvation and the plague.  So it's not hard to believe climate change may be a threat -  show me the science that breaks it down. 

i see endless articles saying things like you just said - but virtually none going over how they got to those conclusions or the actual data and analysis that shows how bad it's going to get. 

I mean, any fool can say 'there is going to be more wars" and based on history they have about a 95 percent chance of being right over any reasonable amount of time. It's always been like that with humans. So - how much more will there be because of climate change specifically?     If we had stopped polluting in the 90's here in canada would hamas have invaded israel, or russia  the ukraine?  

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, Deluge said:

Climate change is not causing wars, resource shortages, and mass migration. You're just using that shit to push your bullshit agenda. 

It is already causing mass migration and water shortages and disasters which has been a contributing factor to wars in Africa and Syria   That’s only going to get worse, dumbass. 
 

3 hours ago, Deluge said:

The truth is, you have no idea when climate catastrophe will kill everyone, because there's no such thing as climate catastrophe killing everyone.

You are such a dumbass.   First of all climate change causes lots of catastrophic consequences already, long before “killing everyone”. Like are you suggesting that if centuries of disaster and turmoil only kills half the planet while the rest somehow manage to survive in some post-apocalyptic mad max world then its not a problem?  Are you suggesting that if wildfires floods and droughts become normal everyday life for everyone then it’s not a problem?

As for predicting the exact time and date how can I explain this in a way someone with your low IQ could understand?  For example everyone knows that if you don’t change the oil in your car then EVENTUALLY the engine will fail. But even the best mechanic couldn’t tell you exactly when the engine is going to fail.  Do you think that means it’s a hoax?

 

4 hours ago, Deluge said:

Did you know that Hussein and Michael Obama live at sea level right on the coast? In light of all the climate scare that you a$$holes have been pushing, wouldn't you say that they're stupid ldiots for doing that? 

The Obamas live in Kenwood Illinois, you idi*t.  In case you’re too stupid to understand, that is not the coast.  They own and rent various properties around the country for personal leisure and as investments. Not every coastal property is facing immediate short term climate risks especially not the high end properties they own. For example while sea levels are expected rise by up to 4 ft by the year 2100, on that timeframe I doubt the Obamas, whose multimillion dollar vacation property in Marthas Vineyard is 20ft ASL but likely has all sorts of remediation measures, are concerned. The house is also far back from the water. 

[Old Guy]

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Ok - cite the science.  How bad does it get. What wars.   Lets see the figures so we can judge if that's a fair statement. 

Here are a few for you. BTW it is so easy to find answers to questions. You see there is this thing called google and all you have to do is type in a question. I asked, Is there good science to support climate change   I took the top choice which you will find here

Why do you think so many migrants are moving north both in Europe and North America?

[Old Guy]

41 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If we had stopped polluting in the 90's here in canada would hamas have invaded israel, or russia  the ukraine?  

Wow how clever a deflection is that? Here's one for you. If the dentist tells you, "you have a cavity" how much of it is caused by the candy you've eaten in the past year and how much is caused by the candy you've eaten in the last 5 years or is it all caused because you don't brush your teeth.  There is rarely an all or nothing simple answer no matter how much we wish it were.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

It is already causing mass migration and water shortages and disasters which has been a contributing factor to wars in Africa and Syria   That’s only going to get worse, dumbass. 

Every time you say that you get asked for the science, either by me or by others. And every time you fail to deliver it.

If it gets worse adapt. That's what humans have done for a little over 4,000 years now. If it's not a crisis and you can't even prove it with science then it's not worth worrying about. Learn to cope and you'll be fine

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Old Guy said:

Here are a few for you. BTW it is so easy to find answers to questions. You see there is this thing called google and all you have to do is type in a question.

 

ummm... here are a few what? You didn't cite anything. 

Were you perhaps citing the voices in your head or something?  Telepathy isn't a REAL thing, you know that right?

Quote

  I asked, Is there good science to support climate change   I took the top choice which you will find here 

Not a science document at all. It's a un propaganda sheet.  I asked to see the science. 

I'm not shocked to see you don't know the difference between science and a promotional page. 

Quote

Why do you think so many migrants are moving north both in Europe and North America?

You're right, that's never happened before has it.  The white people here have ALWAYS been here, there's never been waves of immigrants before.

You must be kidding me.  Or stoned. Or both.  This has been a prime destination for people from all over the world for centuries now. Hell they have a statue for it in new york harbour.  People are coming her because until recently this is an excellent economic base with tonnes of room and living space, top of the line  education and a (previously) solid health care. It has nothing to do with climate. There's historically a tonne of opportunity for immigrants and until recently they were very welcomed.  10 years of trudeau has made some of those things false but they don't know that. 

Edited September 15, 2024 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Old Guy said:

Wow how clever a deflection is that?

VERY clever if you're as stupid as a leftie i'm sure  

how stupid do you have to be to think that a race which has had so many wars that basically you could say peace is a theoretical concept whose existence we only postulate because there has been the occasional pause between wars will somehow have more wars because of climate change.

And how stupid do you have to be to suggest that somehow it's ridiculous to ask how this would look? And what wars that we're having currently which was the claim were caused by climate change.

Quote

Here's one for you. If the dentist tells you, "you have a cavity" how much of it is caused by the candy you've eaten in the past year and how much is caused by the candy you've eaten in the last 5 years or is it all caused because you don't brush your teeth.

A dentist and a scientist could probably tell you that. It wouldn't be that hard, you calculate the rate of tooth decay that is caused by sugary treats, you determine how many sugary treats you have eaten, and you can come up with an answer. You can further calculate the effectiveness of brushing at removing sugary treats or reducing their effect on your teeth and then calculate how much you're brushing or lack thereof played a role in the tooth decay

So it would actually be very easy to figure that out.

Quote

  There is rarely an all or nothing simple answer no matter how much we wish it were.

That was a totally simple answer. Most things in life have simple answers. Occasionally we are missing data that is necessary to calculate it but most of the time it's not complicated.

Now let me give you a little life lesson or two. If somebody comes to you and claims that they have the answers and when questioned on them then turns around and says gosh it's really hard to come up with answers, That person is probably trying to sell you something and it's probably snake oil.

Further, when those same people constantly say you should rely on the science and then can provide no science at all (and even better link to a propaganda page that links to no science) Then what you are probably dealing with is somebody who does not have the mental capacity to determine whether or not the ideology that they are spouting is accurate or not.

Sorry Gramps, you completely and utterly failed that one. In these days most answers can be relatively easily worked out. If they can't then you have to admit you don't actually have an answer and what you are claiming is fact is not

[BeaverFever]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Ok - cite the science.  How bad does it get. What wars.   Lets see the figures so we can judge if that's a fair statement. 

There are many wars where scarcity caused by climate change has be a contributing factor. The actual term is “threat multiplier” meaning it exacerbates existing tensions between groups and makes conflict more likely.

Here’s Chat GPT’s short list of such conflicts:
 

    1.    The Syrian Civil War (2011–present): A prolonged drought from 2006 to 2010, devastated agricultural production, leading to mass migration from rural areas to cities. This, combined with other political and social factors, increased tensions and contributed to the outbreak of civil war.

    2.    Darfur Conflict (2003–present): Environmental degradation, including desertification linked to climate change, intensified competition for scarce resources like water and arable land between nomadic herders and farming communities. This heightened tensions, contributing to the violent conflict in Sudan’s Darfur region.

    3.    Lake Chad Basin Conflict: Climate change has caused the shrinking of Lake Chad, a vital resource for millions in Central Africa. The reduction of water availability has fueled tensions among communities and contributed to the rise of extremist groups like Boko Haram, which exploit grievances related to resource scarcity.

 

4.  Somalia (1991–present)

    •    Climate Factor: Prolonged droughts and desertification.
    •    Impact: Somalia has experienced recurring droughts that have severely affected agriculture, livestock, and water resources. This has worsened food insecurity and intensified conflict between different clans and militant groups, such as Al-Shabaab, as they compete over scarce resources.

5.  Yemen Civil War (2014–present)

    •    Climate Factor: Water scarcity and reduced agricultural yields.
    •    Impact: Yemen is one of the most water-scarce countries in the world, and climate change has exacerbated this condition by affecting rainfall patterns and causing prolonged droughts. The resulting resource shortages have intensified pre-existing political and social divisions, contributing to the ongoing civil war.

6.  South Sudan (2013–present)

    •    Climate Factor: Flooding, drought, and changing rainfall patterns.
    •    Impact: Climate change has worsened both droughts and flooding in South Sudan, leading to food insecurity, displacement, and competition for resources between communities, particularly pastoralists and farmers. This has fueled ethnic tensions and exacerbated the country’s civil war.

7.  Afghanistan (1978–present)

    •    Climate Factor: Drought and reduced agricultural productivity.
    •    Impact: Afghanistan’s ongoing conflict has been worsened by climate change-driven droughts, which have devastated agriculture and increased poverty in rural areas. These factors contribute to social instability, pushing people to join militant groups such as the Taliban in search of livelihoods.

8.  Ethiopia-Eritrea Conflict (1998–2000)

    •    Climate Factor: Drought and resource scarcity.
    •    Impact: While the primary causes of the Ethiopia-Eritrea war were political and territorial, climate change-exacerbated droughts in the Horn of Africa region put additional pressure on food supplies and resources, contributing to tensions and conflict.

9.  Conflict in the Sahel Region (Ongoing)

    •    Climate Factor: Desertification and shifting weather patterns.
    •    Impact: The Sahel, a region across northern Africa, is highly vulnerable to climate change, experiencing desertification and irregular rainfall. This has led to resource scarcity and competition between farming communities and nomadic herders. These conditions have fueled conflicts across several countries, including Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, and Chad, where extremist groups exploit instability to expand their influence.

10.  Rwandan Genocide (1994)

    •    Climate Factor: Land scarcity and agricultural stress.
    •    Impact: While the Rwandan Genocide was primarily driven by ethnic tensions and political factors, the growing pressure on arable land due to population growth and environmental degradation played a role in increasing social tensions between Hutus and Tutsis. Climate change-related stresses on agriculture exacerbated land competition and food insecurity, contributing to the underlying grievances.

11.  Pakistan-India Tensions (Ongoing)

    •    Climate Factor: Water scarcity and glacial melt.
    •    Impact: Climate change is affecting the Himalayan glaciers, which feed the Indus River system, a vital water source for both Pakistan and India. As glacial melt accelerates and water availability fluctuates, tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbors have risen, particularly over the shared river system and disputes related to water resources.

12.  Bangladesh-Myanmar Rohingya Crisis (Ongoing)

    •    Climate Factor: Rising sea levels and natural disasters.
    •    Impact: Bangladesh is highly vulnerable to rising sea levels and flooding, which has displaced millions of people over the years. Climate migration is increasingly a factor in the region, with competition for resources like land and water contributing to tensions, including between the Rohingya ethnic minority and the Myanmar military, which led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya people.
 

 

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

We've always had disasters. i'm sure they'll get better and worse over time.

It is a fact that we are having more severe and more frequent disasters 

 

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

For sure this wouldn't be our first climate disaster, sudden climate change just about wiped out humanity in the 1300's causing mass starvation and the plague.

So we shouldn’t purposely cause something like that to happen again. 
 

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So it's not hard to believe climate change may be a threat -  show me the science that breaks it down. 

You’re asking for science that explains why increased frequency and severity of natural disasters, rising sea levels, mass dying of species and mass migration are bad?

 

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

i see endless articles saying things like you just said - but virtually none going over how they got to those conclusions or the actual data and analysis that shows how bad it's going to get. 

I see endless articles explaining how they got to those conclusions.  If you don’t see them in a format intended for the general public it’s because you’re not looking. I will provide you a link but first we need to cover off an explainer because I don’t think you even understand how science works so we need to address that first l  

As for “the actual data and analysis” of course if you’re not also a phd in science you likely won’t be able to make heads or tails of the data. It’s a climate denier meme that when they read articles intended for laypeople they say “show me the numbers so I can do my own  calculations!” But then when they re presented with the data and analysis , which is written by scientists for scientists using technical terms and references, mathematical and statistical models you wouldn’t even begin to understand, they go “this is indecipherable mumbo jumbo give it to me in plain English!”   You wouldn’t even be able to UNDERSTAND those studies let alone independently validate them  

There are hundreds of universities and scientific organizations around the world who each have dozens of scientists studying hyper-specialized topics like ocean acidification, ice core samples, soil samples old growth forests, specific plants, animals or ecosystems, weather phenomena, etc, each usually with a focus in specific regions of the world.  Then there are research papers that simply compile the findings of other original research papers. So as hypothetical example the existing scientific consensus on the topic of ocean acidification might actually have arisen from hundreds of papers on hyper-specific topics such as “acidification in the intertidal regions of the Gulf of Mexico as determined using xyz methodology” or “survey of peer-reviewed oceanic acidification studies 1993-2023” and so on. As I mentioned you wouldn’t be able to understand any of their research because it’s not intended for non-scientific laypeople. You then have other groups like IPCC among many others who also review and compile the research, formulate positions amd make the info available to the general public and policy makers. In addition the journalism industry and various scientific or interest groups and mainstream media employ science writers who “dumb it down” to plain English for a general audience and you can easily find those in outlets such as National geographic, Time Magazine and traditional news outlets.

Since you’re asking for data (for which let’s be honest you have neither the intellectual curiosity, lack of bias, or the scientific acumen to review or assess): Here is an example of where you can find reports.  Or again you can read scientific journals intended for mainstream audiences like National Geographic, Nature, Smithsonian and others

 

https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/technical-summary/

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

There are many wars where scarcity caused by climate change has be a contributing factor. The actual term is “threat multiplier” meaning it exacerbates existing tensions between groups and makes conflict more likely.

Here’s Chat GPT’s short list of such conflicts:
 

    1.    The Syrian Civil War (2011–present): A prolonged drought from 2006 to 2010, devastated agricultural production, leading to mass migration from rural areas to cities. This, combined with other political and social factors, increased tensions and contributed to the outbreak of civil war.

    2.    Darfur Conflict (2003–present): Environmental degradation, including desertification linked to climate change, intensified competition for scarce resources like water and arable land between nomadic herders and farming communities. This heightened tensions, contributing to the violent conflict in Sudan’s Darfur region.

    3.    Lake Chad Basin Conflict: Climate change has caused the shrinking of Lake Chad, a vital resource for millions in Central Africa. The reduction of water availability has fueled tensions among communities and contributed to the rise of extremist groups like Boko Haram, which exploit grievances related to resource scarcity.

 

4.  Somalia (1991–present)

    •    Climate Factor: Prolonged droughts and desertification.
    •    Impact: Somalia has experienced recurring droughts that have severely affected agriculture, livestock, and water resources. This has worsened food insecurity and intensified conflict between different clans and militant groups, such as Al-Shabaab, as they compete over scarce resources.

5.  Yemen Civil War (2014–present)

    •    Climate Factor: Water scarcity and reduced agricultural yields.
    •    Impact: Yemen is one of the most water-scarce countries in the world, and climate change has exacerbated this condition by affecting rainfall patterns and causing prolonged droughts. The resulting resource shortages have intensified pre-existing political and social divisions, contributing to the ongoing civil war.

6.  South Sudan (2013–present)

    •    Climate Factor: Flooding, drought, and changing rainfall patterns.
    •    Impact: Climate change has worsened both droughts and flooding in South Sudan, leading to food insecurity, displacement, and competition for resources between communities, particularly pastoralists and farmers. This has fueled ethnic tensions and exacerbated the country’s civil war.

7.  Afghanistan (1978–present)

    •    Climate Factor: Drought and reduced agricultural productivity.
    •    Impact: Afghanistan’s ongoing conflict has been worsened by climate change-driven droughts, which have devastated agriculture and increased poverty in rural areas. These factors contribute to social instability, pushing people to join militant groups such as the Taliban in search of livelihoods.

8.  Ethiopia-Eritrea Conflict (1998–2000)

    •    Climate Factor: Drought and resource scarcity.
    •    Impact: While the primary causes of the Ethiopia-Eritrea war were political and territorial, climate change-exacerbated droughts in the Horn of Africa region put additional pressure on food supplies and resources, contributing to tensions and conflict.

9.  Conflict in the Sahel Region (Ongoing)

    •    Climate Factor: Desertification and shifting weather patterns.
    •    Impact: The Sahel, a region across northern Africa, is highly vulnerable to climate change, experiencing desertification and irregular rainfall. This has led to resource scarcity and competition between farming communities and nomadic herders. These conditions have fueled conflicts across several countries, including Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, and Chad, where extremist groups exploit instability to expand their influence.

10.  Rwandan Genocide (1994)

    •    Climate Factor: Land scarcity and agricultural stress.
    •    Impact: While the Rwandan Genocide was primarily driven by ethnic tensions and political factors, the growing pressure on arable land due to population growth and environmental degradation played a role in increasing social tensions between Hutus and Tutsis. Climate change-related stresses on agriculture exacerbated land competition and food insecurity, contributing to the underlying grievances.

11.  Pakistan-India Tensions (Ongoing)

    •    Climate Factor: Water scarcity and glacial melt.
    •    Impact: Climate change is affecting the Himalayan glaciers, which feed the Indus River system, a vital water source for both Pakistan and India. As glacial melt accelerates and water availability fluctuates, tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbors have risen, particularly over the shared river system and disputes related to water resources.

12.  Bangladesh-Myanmar Rohingya Crisis (Ongoing)

    •    Climate Factor: Rising sea levels and natural disasters.
    •    Impact: Bangladesh is highly vulnerable to rising sea levels and flooding, which has displaced millions of people over the years. Climate migration is increasingly a factor in the region, with competition for resources like land and water contributing to tensions, including between the Rohingya ethnic minority and the Myanmar military, which led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya people.
 

 

It is a fact that we are having more severe and more frequent disasters 

 

So we shouldn’t purposely cause something like that to happen again. 
 

You’re asking for science that explains why increased frequency and severity of natural disasters, rising sea levels, mass dying of species and mass migration are bad?

 

I see endless articles explaining how they got to those conclusions.  If you don’t see them in a format intended for the general public it’s because you’re not looking. I will provide you a link but first we need to cover off an explainer because I don’t think you even understand how science works so we need to address that first l  

As for “the actual data and analysis” of course if you’re not also a phd in science you likely won’t be able to make heads or tails of the data. It’s a climate denier meme that when they read articles intended for laypeople they say “show me the numbers so I can do my own  calculations!” But then when they re presented with the data and analysis , which is written by scientists for scientists using technical terms and references, mathematical and statistical models you wouldn’t even begin to understand, they go “this is indecipherable mumbo jumbo give it to me in plain English!”   You wouldn’t even be able to UNDERSTAND those studies let alone independently validate them  

There are hundreds of universities and scientific organizations around the world who each have dozens of scientists studying hyper-specialized topics like ocean acidification, ice core samples, soil samples old growth forests, specific plants, animals or ecosystems, weather phenomena, etc, each usually with a focus in specific regions of the world.  Then there are research papers that simply compile the findings of other original research papers. So as hypothetical example the existing scientific consensus on the topic of ocean acidification might actually have arisen from hundreds of papers on hyper-specific topics such as “acidification in the intertidal regions of the Gulf of Mexico as determined using xyz methodology” or “survey of peer-reviewed oceanic acidification studies 1993-2023” and so on. As I mentioned you wouldn’t be able to understand any of their research because it’s not intended for non-scientific laypeople. You then have other groups like IPCC among many others who also review and compile the research, formulate positions amd make the info available to the general public and policy makers. In addition the journalism industry and various scientific or interest groups and mainstream media employ science writers who “dumb it down” to plain English for a general audience and you can easily find those in outlets such as National geographic, Time Magazine and traditional news outlets.

Since you’re asking for data (for which let’s be honest you have neither the intellectual curiosity, lack of bias, or the scientific acumen to review or assess): Here is an example of where you can find reports.  Or again you can read scientific journals intended for mainstream audiences like National Geographic, Nature, Smithsonian and others

 

https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/technical-summary/

Well now I am 100% certain you know you're wrong

Whenever you are certain that you are wrong you just post massive amounts of stuff that's absolutely not relevant. I looked at the first three or four and found that the statements that you made there were not true. Which is not surprising because they're not actually research papers or any official documentation, they're just chat gpt's take on things

 

So once again you were asked for evidence and provided zero. Virtually anything I claim I can provide clear and reasonably convincing evidence that what I'm saying is accurate. Yet for some reason you always wind up unable to provide one simple clear example of how you are correct and this is no exception.

 

So now that you've admitted that there is no research that backs what you say, It would appear that climate change simply isn't any kind of Crisis, there won't be any kind of wars, and everything you have said is basically a hoax spread for the purpose of trying to collect additional tax money and fool the weak minded 

Quote

I see endless articles explaining how they got to those conclusions.  

Yet you couldn't provide even one. 

Kid. All you've done is prove me right. 

[Rebound]

28 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well now I am 100% certain you know you're wrong

Whenever you are certain that you are wrong you just post massive amounts of stuff that's absolutely not relevant. I looked at the first three or four and found that the statements that you made there were not true. Which is not surprising because they're not actually research papers or any official documentation, they're just chat gpt's take on things

 

So once again you were asked for evidence and provided zero. Virtually anything I claim I can provide clear and reasonably convincing evidence that what I'm saying is accurate. Yet for some reason you always wind up unable to provide one simple clear example of how you are correct and this is no exception.

 

So now that you've admitted that there is no research that backs what you say, It would appear that climate change simply isn't any kind of Crisis, there won't be any kind of wars, and everything you have said is basically a hoax spread for the purpose of trying to collect additional tax money and fool the weak minded 

Yet you couldn't provide even one. 

Kid. All you've done is prove me right. 

What are you looking for?  Russia to announce they are invading Ukraine because of climate change?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

What are you looking for?  Russia to announce they are invading Ukraine because of climate change?

Sure, if that's what you've got. (not that i'd really trust putin to be honest anyway but....)

Here's the thing, if you're going to claim that a war started because of climate change, you have to show that is SPECIFICALLY why it started. And if the area in question has had wars forever regardless of climate change then you're REALLY going to have to show it. 

You can say something like "I believe that climate change will strain resources and that will probably lead to more wars but who knows" or the like, and fair enough. It's an opinion, you've presented it as such, you've logically defended it, but we're not pretending it's fact. 

But when you say wars are already being fought over climate change specifically if you can't present hard core proof or science then you're just spouting bullshit. 

And that's the problem with much of the so-called science behind climate change, there is no science. Generalized statements are made but there's nothing to back it up. How many billion times have people been asked on this very forum to provide scientific evidence of any type that it's a crisis and not once has any of these people who claim that there are tons of scientific research documents out there been able to produce a single one.

If the climate is changing we adapt. As always. There are going to be wars no matter what anybody does. As always. And fairly obviously the government doesn't believe that climate change is a crisis considering how they've handled it.

[Rebound]

On 9/14/2024 at 7:55 AM, WestCanMan said:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/some-undecided-voters-not-convinced-by-harris-after-debate-with-trump-2024-09-11/

So it's like I said at the beginning, Harris never won the debate by substantive standards. 

She managed to seem more focused than Trump, who seemed distracted by illegal immigration every time he got a turn to talk, but she never gave any answers of her own that were meaningful, and undecideds apparently preferred Trump.

1) Harris didn't manage to do enough to distance herself from the abject failures of the Biden regime: the world is at war, the US border is a joke, inflation was at all-time record levels (only WWI, WWII and the 1930s caused higher inflation rates than Biden did), and terrorists in the ME used American bases as punching bags for the past 2 years. 

2) Harris doesn't have any kind of successful record to back her, so undecideds really needed to see some meat and potatoes in her economic plan, and she just gave them hope and mirrors. Voters didn't want a couple of gimmicky promises.

I honestly don't know how there were any actual undecideds in America in Sept of 2024, but I guess the ones who were undecided truly did need to see real evidence of something before they joined the Harris camp. 

They’re called “undecided” for a reason. 

[Rebound]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sure, if that's what you've got. (not that i'd really trust putin to be honest anyway but....)

Here's the thing, if you're going to claim that a war started because of climate change, you have to show that is SPECIFICALLY why it started. And if the area in question has had wars forever regardless of climate change then you're REALLY going to have to show it. 

You can say something like "I believe that climate change will strain resources and that will probably lead to more wars but who knows" or the like, and fair enough. It's an opinion, you've presented it as such, you've logically defended it, but we're not pretending it's fact. 

But when you say wars are already being fought over climate change specifically if you can't present hard core proof or science then you're just spouting bullshit. 

And that's the problem with much of the so-called science behind climate change, there is no science. Generalized statements are made but there's nothing to back it up. How many billion times have people been asked on this very forum to provide scientific evidence of any type that it's a crisis and not once has any of these people who claim that there are tons of scientific research documents out there been able to produce a single one.

If the climate is changing we adapt. As always. There are going to be wars no matter what anybody does. As always. And fairly obviously the government doesn't believe that climate change is a crisis considering how they've handled it.

No, you’re just ignorant. The science behind climate change theory and the observed effects are rock solid.  And America should develop as much renewable energy generation as possible so that OPEC can pound sand.  
 

You say you care about the economy but you’re opposed to the one single thing that can make our economy strongest: Massively reducing our reliance on petroleum. 

[NAME REMOVED]

On 9/14/2024 at 9:57 AM, Chrissy1979 said:

You know for sure you overwhelmingly won a debate when, nearly a week later, the Trumpees are still posting about how it wasn't such an overwhelming win. 😂 

WestCan and others are still crying about the debate. Their tears of pain are delicious.

[Rebound]

On 9/12/2024 at 5:35 AM, Deluge said:

What Trump says is on him. I've never seen or heard anything that suggests windmills cause cancer so I'm walking all that shit back. 

What I AM going to do is have a discussion with you about WHY windmills and turbines are even in existence. So, as I've told robotard on multiple occasions, you and I are going to get granular.  

We'll start here: 

1. We both can agree that you believe humans WILL cause global climate disasters that will kill everyone if we stay on the present course. 

2.You ldiots have been crying about climate crisis for over 100 years, so how much time does humanity have left if we stay on present course? 

 

 

Why are turbines in existence?   
 

Turbines are in existence because every single source of electricity production, except solar, requires turbines.  Coal, natural gas, nuclear, geothermal and hydro ALL use turbines to generate electricity.  
 

Shouldn’t that fact alone tell you that you probably aren’t well-enough informed to be so sure that your ideas about this are correct?

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Rebound said:

No, you’re just ignorant.

You can't produce the science and I'm the one who's ignorant.   Sounds like you should go buy a dictionary as well

 

Quote

The science behind climate change theory and the observed effects are rock solid.

 And missing. Otherwise you could post it. Every single time this comes up we are assured by your ilk that the volumes of research would reach the skies and it is absolutely cast iron obvious!!!!!  And yet you can't produce any. 

Quote

And America should develop as much renewable energy generation as possible so that OPEC can pound sand. 

Sure. No reason in the universe we shouldn't be developing renewable energy. It just makes sense. More is better. But that has nothing to do with whether or not climate change is a problem.

Quote

You say you care about the economy but you’re opposed to the one single thing that can make our economy strongest: Massively reducing our reliance on petroleum. 

Where have I ever said I was against that?

See the problem with you is that you're not actually operating from a place of fact-based thinking. For you this is more of a religion. And you have been told those who don't buy into your religion are all against renewable energy and against progress and all want to burn oil and all want everybody in the world to die of heat stroke or some damn thing.

As renewable energy technology improves and becomes affordable and usable I absolutely think we should move to it. Sooner rather than later would be good. But that doesn't mean that there is a climate crisis but if I don't buy an electric car today that there is going to be an extra war tomorrow.

[WestCanMan]

12 minutes ago, Rebound said:

They’re called “undecided” for a reason. 

They're the people that Trump and Harris were targeting during the debate. 

Demi cultists would still vote for Kamala even if she turned green, projectile-vomited, and started praying to Pazuzu on stage: "Even Satan's own wh0re is better than Trump hahaha."

Trump's supporters all know better than to vote for another 4 years of defund police, open borders, mostly peaceful protests, record-level inflation, and European/ME wars. 

It was just a small percentage of people who were undecided, and both candidates wanted those voters.

At the end of the day people saw that:

• Trump is passionate about America
• Kamala, who has reinvented herself in the last few months but still hasn't deigned to explain herself to Americans in any sort of interview, doesn't have an actual plan... just 'hope and mirrors'. 

[Deluge]

On 9/14/2024 at 1:48 PM, BeaverFever said:

It is already causing mass migration and water shortages and disasters which has been a contributing factor to wars in Africa and Syria   That’s only going to get worse, dumbass. 
 

You are such a dumbass.   First of all climate change causes lots of catastrophic consequences already, long before “killing everyone”. Like are you suggesting that if centuries of disaster and turmoil only kills half the planet while the rest somehow manage to survive in some post-apocalyptic mad max world then its not a problem?  Are you suggesting that if wildfires floods and droughts become normal everyday life for everyone then it’s not a problem?

As for predicting the exact time and date how can I explain this in a way someone with your low IQ could understand?  For example everyone knows that if you don’t change the oil in your car then EVENTUALLY the engine will fail. But even the best mechanic couldn’t tell you exactly when the engine is going to fail.  Do you think that means it’s a hoax?

 

The Obamas live in Kenwood Illinois, you idi*t.  In case you’re too stupid to understand, that is not the coast.  They own and rent various properties around the country for personal leisure and as investments. Not every coastal property is facing immediate short term climate risks especially not the high end properties they own. For example while sea levels are expected rise by up to 4 ft by the year 2100, on that timeframe I doubt the Obamas, whose multimillion dollar vacation property in Marthas Vineyard is 20ft ASL but likely has all sorts of remediation measures, are concerned. The house is also far back from the water. 

Wrong again on all accounts, lol.

We had record snowfall here two years ago, and there is ZERO indication that humans are causing any kind of damage to the climate here. In other words, what you perverts have been pushing is FALSE. You lie, f*ckface, all day, every day.  

The Obamas have a home right on the coast in Martha's Vineyard. You know that and I know that, yet you had to push the braindead notion that Chicago is the only place where they have property. They have a home there in MV because they know climate change (as you see it, and they have been peddling it) is bullshit. 

See, nobody believes you shitheads. You've been kicking, and screaming, and weeping, and shedding tears for the trees in forests, and holding up traffic, and destroying private property, and destroying the economy but no matter how many automobiles you psychopaths set on fire, I STILL wake up the next morning to a perfectly normal day and say to myself, God those pronoun sluts are f*cking stupid....

 

Edited September 15, 2024 by Deluge

[Deluge]

54 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Why are turbines in existence?   
 

Turbines are in existence because every single source of electricity production, except solar, requires turbines.  Coal, natural gas, nuclear, geothermal and hydro ALL use turbines to generate electricity.  

They do? 

But how do those white monstrosities actually do it? Do builders build power plants next to windmill farms and then plug the power plants into the windmills to get their power? 

Edited September 15, 2024 by Deluge

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Trump is passionate about America

Wishful thinking. Nothing Trump did or said during the debate communicated any admiration for the US or positive aspirations for the country.