Official LRC President Joseph R Biden Thread

Fat hurts wrote:

TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:

You pointing out your own baseless opinions isn't useful to anyone but you....

The models were laughably wrong until recently. They are only even remotely accurate recently because they went back and tailored the data to make the model say what they want it to say. It's literally garbage in garbage out.

The scientific community is made up of people who need money to operate. When the left attacks anyone who doesn't support the narrative you either toe the line or work on something else.

There is a TON of money in global warming.

The same "smart people" who you think are infallible today were wrong about virtually everything they told Al Gore for his idiotic movie.

Anyone who says they know how the climate works is a moron.

Know one actually knows which is why the models are all wrong. There's a reason they need over 100 climate models and none of them agree...

Imagine trying to get an airplane from New York to LA if there were 100 different equations for gravity floating around.

The more passionate someone is about the climate I promise you the LESS grounded they will be in reality.

Obama is not buying fully insured ocean front property because he actually believes it will be underwater in 10 years,

So you are going with both #1 and #2. You think you know more than the scientists and those scientists are engaged in a global scientific conspiracy.

Don't look up.

Vineyard Vines wrote:

I like Joe, but his presidency is basically over. We got a pretty good rollout of the covid vaccine, a stimulus (that may or may not have been needed), and an infrastructure bill. He got a Supreme Court justice, and she seems fine, but the Court is basically a joke at this point anyhow.

The Democrats will get killed in the midterms, inflation and gas prices are the death knell. We'll have divided government for two years, so nothing will happen. I do hope we won't have to live through any bizarre, Benghazi-like hearings where Republicans try to score points on a guy who probably won't even run for re-election. It's not needed.

This seems like a cycle that will continue until the middle picks a side and sticks with it. Americans seem to be willing to give a party control for two years, then immediately flip flop and hand back divided government. That means that little gets done, particularly the hard issues that are screaming out for new legislation, like immigration. It's a crap way to govern, mostly by executive orders that will inevitably be rolled back immediately by the next person to hold the seat. I just don't see it changing, the extremes are too divided, and the middle can't decide what it wants.

TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

The climate scientists don't think the models are wrong. What do you know about climate science that they don't.

The climate scientists you can't name even admit that the models cannot predict the climate's behavior.

Richard Lindzen is an actual climate scientist. He clearly explained this in the video you didn't watch.

There's countless hours of his lectures available online. There's thousands more like him. You've just never heard of any of them because you live in an echo chamber. Much like racism, the leftists NEED climate apocalypse to be promoted no matter what the actual truth is.

Stop being stupid.

Fat hurts wrote:

TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:

The climate scientists you can't name even admit that the models cannot predict the climate's behavior.

Richard Lindzen is an actual climate scientist. He clearly explained this in the video you didn't watch.

There's countless hours of his lectures available online. There's thousands more like him. You've just never heard of any of them because you live in an echo chamber. Much like racism, the leftists NEED climate apocalypse to be promoted no matter what the actual truth is.

Stop being stupid.

That dude retired almost 10 years ago. He's not likely to be up on the latest research. And apparently, he was a shill for Peabody Coal.

This is also kind of interesting about Lindzen:

The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason
magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global
average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are
now".[80] However, on June 8, 2005 they reported that Lindzen insisted that he had been misquoted, after James Annan contacted Lindzen to make the bet but claimed that "Lindzen would take only 50 to 1 odds".

Whatever the bet really was, Lindzen is clearly on track to lose.

Please, show me your list of 1000's of climate scientists who dispute anthropogenic climate change. I know another one who is also retired, but that's all my echo chamber has allowed me to hear.

Where is your list?

TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:

Real Obvi wrote:

Wait, so you don't know the difference between pop culture (was it Time Magazine in the 70's?) and science (current on-going research in climate change)? That's hilarious. And it (your pure, profound and proud ignorance) makes you perfectly qualified to discount the current science on the topic.

Good job!

This comment is stupid even for you which is saying something...

Time didn't put the story on the cover in the 70s because they beat Teen Beat to the scoop moron. It was on the cover because the "smart scientists" were literally worried about it.

Fun fact: the media starts their calendar in the 70s when it comes to global warming because we were in a cold spell and it makes the warming look more dramatic. It's a great trick to fool stupid people. Like you! It's real obvious. If you were a little brighter you might not have missed it. Bummer for you.

Real Obvi wrote:

TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:

This comment is stupid even for you which is saying something...

Time didn't put the story on the cover in the 70s because they beat Teen Beat to the scoop moron. It was on the cover because the "smart scientists" were literally worried about it.

Fun fact: the media starts their calendar in the 70s when it comes to global warming because we were in a cold spell and it makes the warming look more dramatic. It's a great trick to fool stupid people. Like you! It's real obvious. If you were a little brighter you might not have missed it. Bummer for you.

Wow, you are beautiful!

Here's a hint for you. There was NEVER a time when there was an overwhelming consensus of climate scientists that another ice age was imminent (there is general recognition that ice ages come and go and there may be another in the next few thousand years).

Time put what they did on the cover in the 70s because such spectacular stories sell magazines (I bet you didn't know that media companies were in the business of . . . selling magazines - at least back then). In other words, Time put that on the cover in the 70s because they knew that there are a whole lot of morons like you who eat that sh!t up and can't tell the difference between pop culture and actual science.

Were there a few scientists who were talking about the coming ice age at the time? Sure. Was there an overwhelming consensus among the community of climate scientists that such an ice age was imminent? No. But Time had no trouble finding a few to say a few things that would get morons to buy their magazine. This is how pop culture works. Lots of morons eat up lots of sh!t. Congratulations on keeping our economy going with your sheer stupidity.

You are beautiful!