All Things US Politics Related: Biden pardons Hunter

[baigan]

We have a shield and God is a trini ...

Take that climate change! !!

Trini sheild "activate".

lol Trinidad is a large polluter. Temperature trends in the Caribbean over the past 50 years have mirrored observed global warming trends, with rises in annual average temperatures. Our average ambient temperature has been increased 1.7 °C over the period 1961-2008 and in rainfall observed in the months of June, July and August, has decreased by 6.1 mm per month, or (2.6 %) per decade.

[sMASH]

Abstractpoetic can i ask yu a question? If it were donald trump on the democrat ticket and hillary on the republican ticket... who would you vote for?

The candidate with policy ideas that do not reflect or support hate, xenophobia and misogyny.

And this person was hillary?

[Cough]superpredators[/Cough][Cough]basement dwellers[/Cough][Cough]deplorables[/Cough]

[Cantmis]

How hydrocarbon sales to the US looking ?

[bluesclues]

We have a shield and God is a trini ...

Take that climate change! !!

Trini sheild "activate".

lol Trinidad is a large polluter. Temperature trends in the Caribbean over the past 50 years have mirrored observed global warming trends, with rises in annual average temperatures. Our average ambient temperature has been increased 1.7 °C over the period 1961-2008 and in rainfall observed in the months of June, July and August, has decreased by 6.1 mm per month, or (2.6 %) per decade.

Thats not us. Global warming doesnt work that way. The effects are distributed. Even if trinidad was all bush and no emmisions the same would happen because of the massive contributors around us. China, russia, america.. these countries lead the charts. We need to stop being fooled by statistical relativity.

Check the real volume chart on carbon emissions. Not the relative comparison.

It needs to be made clear that carbon emmissions do not just damage and affect one's local area. The ozone layer absorbs it and spreads it out. The damage is distributed and creates thinning.

We have a cyclone storm shield.. we have no fkin sunshield. What little sunshield we have had as an equatorial country is being eaten away by a thinning ozone layer that letting it come thru full blast.

[baigan]

We have a shield and God is a trini ...

Take that climate change! !!

Trini sheild "activate".

lol Trinidad is a large polluter. Temperature trends in the Caribbean over the past 50 years have mirrored observed global warming trends, with rises in annual average temperatures. Our average ambient temperature has been increased 1.7 °C over the period 1961-2008 and in rainfall observed in the months of June, July and August, has decreased by 6.1 mm per month, or (2.6 %) per decade.

Thats not us. Global warming doesnt work that way. The effects are distributed. Even if trinidad was all bush and no emmisions the same would happen because of the massive contributors around us. China, russia, america.. these countries lead the charts. We need to stop being fooled by statistical relativity.

Check the real volume chart on carbon emissions. Not the relative comparison.

It needs to be made clear that carbon emmissions do not just damage and affect one's local area. The ozone layer absorbs it and spreads it out. The damage is distributed and creates thinning.

We have a cyclone storm shield.. we have no fkin sunshield. What little sunshield we have had as an equatorial country is being eaten away by a thinning ozone layer that letting it come thru full blast.

Yes, I know that it doesn't happen directly lol
I never said we are causing our own effects or that it's a direct to our own pollution lol
I should have prob stated it differently, didn't think it'll come off that way.
I just said we are also a contributor, a large polluter, and that we are receiving the effects of global warming and that it can be observed by giving a small example of the temperature increase statistic etc
: P

[Miktay]

Yes, I know that it doesn't happen directly lol
I never said we are causing our own effects or that it's a direct to our own pollution lol
I should have prob stated it differently, didn't think it'll come off that way.
I just said we are also a contributor, a large polluter, and that we are receiving the effects of global warming and that it can be observed by giving a small example of the temperature increase statistic etc

It behooves us 2 separate pollution from carbon dioxide.

Pollution certainly iza problem.

But CO2 iz not a pollutant. C02 iza trace gas in the atmosphere and necessary 4 life on planet Earth.

[bluesclues]

We have a shield and God is a trini ...

Take that climate change! !!

Trini sheild "activate".

lol Trinidad is a large polluter. Temperature trends in the Caribbean over the past 50 years have mirrored observed global warming trends, with rises in annual average temperatures. Our average ambient temperature has been increased 1.7 °C over the period 1961-2008 and in rainfall observed in the months of June, July and August, has decreased by 6.1 mm per month, or (2.6 %) per decade.

Thats not us. Global warming doesnt work that way. The effects are distributed. Even if trinidad was all bush and no emmisions the same would happen because of the massive contributors around us. China, russia, america.. these countries lead the charts. We need to stop being fooled by statistical relativity.

Check the real volume chart on carbon emissions. Not the relative comparison.

It needs to be made clear that carbon emmissions do not just damage and affect one's local area. The ozone layer absorbs it and spreads it out. The damage is distributed and creates thinning.

We have a cyclone storm shield.. we have no fkin sunshield. What little sunshield we have had as an equatorial country is being eaten away by a thinning ozone layer that letting it come thru full blast.

Yes, I know that it doesn't happen directly lol
I never said we are causing our own effects or that it's a direct to our own pollution lol
I should have prob stated it differently, didn't think it'll come off that way.
I just said we are also a contributor, a large polluter, and that we are receiving the effects of global warming and that it can be observed by giving a small example of the temperature increase statistic etc
: P

Ok but i find it misleading. IF trinidad had a population of 0.5-1billion people we would be a large contributor. That is true. But we're not.

In 2014 usa released 7Billion metric tonnes of carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

Now check out our 2013 study report.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/business ... 62871.html

So by the uwi study we contribute 53million tonnes annually. But 80% of that is from our petrochemical sector. Meaning we can basically write that off because we are an oil producing country. Unless we can process oil and gas through a mre environmentally friendly means.

Cars only accounted for 6% of the emmisions. So we are talking a country of 1.5 million ppl producing approx 10million tonnes. If we multiply that tothe relative population of america(not even talking china's contribution yet). America has a populatin of 350,million ppl. So let's multiply our emissions by 350. We get 3.5billion metric tonnes if we had the same population as america. Meaning america is still producing more than twice the emissions per capita compared to us.

Noone is doing the math. So i did it.

This means america has to reduce it's emissions by 50% to reach our level of contribution.

Minus the statistical relativity and they have no case. None whatsoever.

[baigan]

Right, I'm not denying that and I'm not saying that Trinidad is a larger contributor than USA or China etc lol

My whole point was that in Trinidad we also receive the effects of climate change, that we aren't immune to it, and we shouldn't leave it up to God is a trini.

[sMASH]

EVery drop fills the bucket. If we can, it could off set the others.... if at least in principle.

[bluesclues]

EVery drop fills the bucket. If we can, it could off set the others.... if at least in principle.

I totally agree. It's the one cent theory. There may be things we can do to reduce our carbon footprint marginally. But we cant take blame for the massive damage. And the world cant have it's cake and eat it. They cant want us to process oil to supply them so their country can keep running while blaming us for emissions. Look how much we have reduced production over the years. If u ask me that is what they want. We sell less oil.. they get to sell more by claiming the markets we fell off from supplying.

There are also efforts to repair the ozone layer which are currently scientifically feasible but not economically. End of the day trust me. Dont be fooled by talking heads and the same lobby groups mentioned in this thread. EVERYONE.. and that is EVERYONE who produces oil is trying to sell sell sell sell sell before it becomes obsolete.

[meccalli]

I guess you guys missed the bus on the points i'm making,
climate change is natural and mainly driven by our sun and cosmic radiation. It's how we adapt that's important.

[sMASH]

We didn't use the bus, its just that we do produce green house gases, and by reducing how much we produce, we manipulate that factor in the global warming equation.
And while it does fluctuate, it comes at the loss of a lot of habitats and species.


The biggest problem is, it is happening at an accelerated rate compared to that in the past. The rate of change in temperature is far exceeding the rate of adaptation of the flora and fauna.


If the equatorial regions going to inevitably become inhospitable to life, it is better it happens slowly to allow ecosystems to adapt to the changes, rather that as it quickly as it is now projected to be, and simply result in mass extinction.

[meccalli]

And that's why some extinctions are credited to climate change, it's nothing new. We can't control natural factors.

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

LIVE Trump meets Obama at the White House

[Cantmis]

[Miktay]

We didn't use the bus, its just that we do produce green house gases, and by reducing how much we produce, we manipulate that factor in the global warming equation.
And while it does fluctuate, it comes at the loss of a lot of habitats and species.


The biggest problem is, it is happening at an accelerated rate compared to that in the past. The rate of change in temperature is far exceeding the rate of adaptation of the flora and fauna.


If the equatorial regions going to inevitably become inhospitable to life, it is better it happens slowly to allow ecosystems to adapt to the changes, rather that as it quickly as it is now projected to be, and simply result in mass extinction.

That iz the theory as supported by the Big Climate lobby.

Speculative theories and proven theories are completely different things.

[bluesclues]

And that's why some extinctions are credited to climate change, it's nothing new. We can't control natural factors.

Using lithium hydroxide compounds we can convert the emissions suspended in our atmosphere and use chemical reaction to break the carbon and oxygen atoms apart to form new bonds with hydrogen creating water. Its already being done and has been done for a few years now in the form of chem trails.

The chem trail conspiracy has since been debunked. I played a part in that too.

Of course we need alot,, alottt of lithium hydroxide.. which is not very economically feasible at this point. But it helps. Especially if u believe in the 1 cent theory.

[Miktay]

The Economist tries to explain what went wrong with US polls.

Polling and prediction
Epic fail

How a mid-sized error led to a rash of bad forecasts

AS POLLING errors go, this year’s misfire was not particularly large—at least in the national surveys. Mrs Clinton is expected to win the popular vote by a bit over one percentage point once all the ballots are counted, two points short of her projection. That represents a better prediction than in 2012, when Barack Obama beat his polls by three. But America does not choose its president by popular vote, and three of Donald Trump’s bigger outperformances occurred in states around the Great Lakes that proved decisive. Mrs Clinton led the polls in Wisconsin by five points, and in Michigan and Pennsylvania by four; Mr Trump is projected to claim them all, albeit by narrow margins. He did even better in Ohio, where he turned a two-point poll lead into an 8.5-point romp, and Iowa, where a three-point edge became a 9.5-point blowout.

While pollsters correctly gauged the sentiment of most slices of the electorate, they underestimated Mr Trump’s appeal to working-class whites. Although it was clear that he would run up the score with these voters, he managed to exceed even pollsters’ rosy expectations for him: projected to win them by 30 points, the national exit poll showed him winning by 39, a larger edge than Mrs Clinton’s among Latinos. The share of a state’s electorate represented by whites lacking a college degree was an almost perfect predictor of how he did relative to polling (see chart).

It is possible that “shy Trump” voters didn’t want to admit their support to pollsters. However, there was no evidence of such a pattern during the Republican primaries, when Mr Trump did not generally beat his polls. And given his margin with working-class whites, it is hard to imagine that people whose friends and neighbours mainly backed him would be ashamed to say so themselves. A likelier cause is “non-response bias”—that working-class whites who backed Mr Trump were particularly reluctant to answer the phone. It is also possible that some decided to vote Republican after the last polls were completed. Lastly, Mr Trump’s blunt, targeted courtship of this demographic group, which historically has shown a fairly low propensity to vote, may have motivated them to turn out in greater numbers. Such enthusiasm is hard for pollsters to detect.

Whatever the cause, this miss was within the range of reasonable expectations, given that the margin of error is magnified when dealing with demographic subgroups. The key question for forecasters was how a midsized polling mistake led them to get the election so wrong. For models based on state polls, the core issue was how well an error in one state was likely to foreshadow one in the same direction elsewhere—and if so, where. Mr Trump’s six-point outperformance in Wisconsin had little bearing on his performance in Colorado, but spelled doom for Mrs Clinton in nearby Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Prediction models that either used weaker or less precisely targeted correlations between states were more bullish on her odds, and performed worse.

There is one family of forecasts that did better: those which ignore both polls and candidates and predict results based exclusively on structural factors like economic performance and incumbency. This approach suggested all along that the 2016 campaign was likely to be an extremely tight race. Yet because these models seemed unsophisticated, and because Mr Trump’s campaign was so unusual, they were largely overlooked.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-st ... -epic-fail

[Daran]

Smh @ ppl who deny climate change

The scientific method of validating or invalidating a theory requires proofs.

Where iz the proof?

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

http://www.naturalnews.com/055151_globa ... icism.html

Natural News? Seriously?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News

I thought you were in support of the scientific method?

Natural news has cited 30,000+ scientists who believe that do not believe the global warming theory.

They disagree with the Big Climate lobby 4 various reasons.

How iz that not science? How iz that not the scientific method?

because those 30,000 may not actually exist or may not be qualified, as with many other things Natural News states.

Define qualified. And if theyre not qualified...who iz qualified?

How about real scientist?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews

[Miktay]

The scientific method of validating or invalidating a theory requires proofs.

Where iz the proof?

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

http://www.naturalnews.com/055151_globa ... icism.html

Natural News? Seriously?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News

I thought you were in support of the scientific method?

Natural news has cited 30,000+ scientists who believe that do not believe the global warming theory.

They disagree with the Big Climate lobby 4 various reasons.

How iz that not science? How iz that not the scientific method?

because those 30,000 may not actually exist or may not be qualified, as with many other things Natural News states.

Define qualified. And if theyre not qualified...who iz qualified?

How about real scientist?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews

Define real scientist

[Daran]

A real trust worthy scientist is someone with peer reviewed academic publications who's highly respected in their field. You trust there word REGARDING their field.

[Miktay]

A real trust worthy scientist is someone with peer reviewed academic publications who's highly respected in their field. You trust there word REGARDING their field.

Its better that u cite a specific scientist that supports the theory of global warming.

But i see youre also relying on the peer review seal of approval that many climate scientists rely on.

The Theory of Relativity never went thru peer review. How did that little known theory become accepted science?

Peer review iz democracy. Not science.

The Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine as hosted by the National Institute of Health explains.

But does peer review `work' at all? A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that `the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts'.2 But the answer to the question on whether peer review works depends on the question `What is peer review for?'

...So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

[baigan]

https://youtu.be/e3svbmlMALM
Snowden live interview on elections

[sMASH]

Man should design security philosophies

[meccalli]

And that's why some extinctions are credited to climate change, it's nothing new. We can't control natural factors.

Using lithium hydroxide compounds we can convert the emissions suspended in our atmosphere and use chemical reaction to break the carbon and oxygen atoms apart to form new bonds with hydrogen creating water.

That's scrubbing and by removing carbon dioxide completely from the cycle rather than sequestration, you are crippling plant productivity potential. Besides, the major forcing is external in the form of solar and cosmic radiation. How do you propose we control solar activity like sunspots and the milankovitch variations?

[bluesclues]

And that's why some extinctions are credited to climate change, it's nothing new. We can't control natural factors.

Using lithium hydroxide compounds we can convert the emissions suspended in our atmosphere and use chemical reaction to break the carbon and oxygen atoms apart to form new bonds with hydrogen creating water.

That's scrubbing and by removing carbon dioxide completely from the cycle rather than sequestration, you are crippling plant productivity potential. Besides, the major forcing is external in the form of solar and cosmic radiation. How do you propose we control solar activity like sunspots and the milankovitch variations?

We are protected from CME's by our magnetosphere. That has to do with the rotation of the earth's molten iron core which generates a field that deflects and filters charged particles. If our core starts slowing down and our magnetosphere weakens then the answer is simple. We're fked. But if ur worried about frying in the sun from that, chances are u'd die from the earth exploding into space before the sun could cook u. Lol

The ozone layer effect is different and has to do with lensing of the sun's light. It is more like a magnifying glass over an ant in direct sunlight. At a certain distance, the light is distributed away from a central focal point. But as you move the magnifying glass further away the light concentration becomes focussed enough to create a laser effect generating so much heat that it can cook organic material. In the earth's case. The effects create imbalances in nature which are rebalanced with seemingly unpredictable changes of seasons and the rise of sea levels due to melting polar ice caps. All caused by an increase of surface heat due to ozone layer depletion as the magnifying glass moves slowly closer toward a focal point.

This we can control as the world advances beyond burning hydrocarbons for energy, nature will rebalance herself over time. That is what she does. She will redistribute all the carbon. She will set some to form bonds in chemical structures. She will spread it out among the seas, waterways and soil to be carried and absorbed by organisms. All it will take is time. We just need to wean ourselves off of our dependency on oil based energy before the damage has become too drastic. That means making sure we still have alot of trees for the repair process. Where global warming can threaten many areas and turn them into desert.

[meccalli]

You've missed the point. It's not about the sun cooking us, it's about the earth's natural variation in orbit (eccentricity, axial tilt and precession) and the interaction between random solar activity on the sun and cosmic rays that influence cloud formation as a forcing factor, drives climactic change. Those factors are beyond our control unless we use something like gigantic reflectors to mimic the net cooling effect of clouds during periods of low cosmic radiation that causes cloud formation. Ozone holes have been healing ever since the montreal protocol and the crackdown on ozone depleting compounds, CO2 has by and large, no influence on the change we experience and the projected temperature increases as shown by ice cores. Current CO2 constitutes 0.04% of our atmosphere.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

[MaxPower]

Any idea when trump supporters gonna stop participating in the protest?

Heard its a party on those streets..

[EFFECTIC DESIGNS]

Mr O is on the case of the lunatic liberals who want to start a civil war over this Trump win

Listen to the feminist wacko at 1:25 saying Trump supporters have to die for us to make a difference. WTF