Trump wins in a convincing manner, winning the electoral college, winning the popular vote, winning the senate, and likely holding the house. This is the greatest political journey ever. Congratulations to President-elect Trump!
Trump gave a great unifying speech afterwards.
Democrats (and the Uniparty war-mongering corrupt deep state) were soundly and correctly spanked. Democrats went to bed and sulked after their spanking, with Kamala not even having the decency to concede on election night.
Mass mail-in voting did not seem to be nearly as prominent this time, lessening the chances of rigging as likely happened in 2020. I am hoping that this administration can somehow ensure future elections are un-riggable and completely auditable.
Those who have been fed the propaganda that “Trump is Hitler” can relax. The majority of voting Americans have called bullshit on that. You should listen to them. I am hoping the Dems will accept the results with good grace and support the new administration, and soundly condemn any violent protests coming from the left.
The Democrats were a hot mess. It started with running and electing a mentally enfeebled Joe Biden in 2020, and choosing a very bad DEI hire for VP who they were then forced into running when Biden’s dementia could no longer be hidden. In their TDS-driven fervour to undo all things Trump, they undid many popular initiatives, such as the border wall, allowing mass illegal immigration; re-introducing racism under the guise of DEI; ridiculous COVID-level spending even after COVID was done and dusted thus creating a surge in inflation; getting embroiled in two massive global conflicts that they effectively encouraged (Ukraine by not compromising on NATO membership, Palestine-Israel by backing off on Iran who funds it all), and the disastrous pullout from Afghanistan); pursuing state-sponsored censorship on social media platforms; pursuing idiotic “Green New Deal” policies with zero benefit to the massive detriment of the US; weaponizing the DOJ to go after their political opponents; the transing of the kids; and I could go on.
The mainstream media jumped the shark with the constant diarrhea of fake news against Trump and JD, promoting hoax after hoax after hoax to the point where they lost all credibility with 85% of the population.
A plethora of high profile brilliant people came out for Trump, many of whom will play a role in the future administration.
We can now look forward to:
- An end to the foreign conflicts.
- Economic growth with reduced inflation and even some rollback of prices via regulation, tax, and energy policies.
- Elimination of state-sponsored censorship on social media.
- An end to racist DEI policies, the transing of children, and biological men in women’s sports.
- An end to the climate catastrophe scam.
- An end to illegal immigration, the deportation of illegals, especially criminals and terrorists, who jumped the line.
- Sane, merit-based legal immigration
- A significant reduction in government spending.
- A significant improvement in chronic disease by removing harmful chemicals from the food supply and unproven, overprescribed drugs.
- A return to “Justice is blind” principles.
For the first time since November 2020, I am hopeful for the world.
So I guess we're just going to overlook the "massive cheating" in Philadelphia then? Got it.
ReplyDeleteLet’s let the dust settle. If there was, let’s hope it’s aggressively prosecuted.
DeleteYou are so beautiful to me (sung by Wemedge)!
ReplyDelete🙏
DeleteHere is a thought, we in the United States are so tired of this, a break is needed. It would be nice to read something other than Trump, a person can take so much. Are you going back to the purpose of your Blog or is it best I stay away and check back now and then and see if there is anything worth reading other than the United States Political News. Jack
ReplyDeleteI did my thing to get out the vote and wrap it up. I expect I’ll go back to writing about spanking, though I make no guarantees, as always. You punch the link, you take your chances!
DeleteIt a shame that its takes a presidential election to get people out to vote. The other elections people don't come out to vote. This is a good thing, this is when taxes are put up to a vote and so they get passed because of lack of turn out. I vote in all election and insure the tax measure pass. Jack
DeleteI think it’s equally important that people don’t vote as if they were sheep, believing whatever they are told indirectly from an evil, greedy group of elites. Don’t trust any reporting, go to the source. If there is a bill, read the bill. If somebody says somebody said something, go listen for yourself. If someone claims something about a court case, read the transcript. It’s not hard nowadays.
DeleteGolden Age! Good news, haters: You, too will be able to participate in the coming peace and prosperity, the likes of which we’ve never seen before…unless you don’t want to. Now, I’m really curious about what happened to 15 MILLION Democrat voters who disappeared between 2020 and 2024, enabling Trump to win the POPULAR VOTE with 3 MILLION fewer votes than he got in 2020. It would almost convince me that Biden’s 81 Million votes weren’t real. No, that’s just a conspiracy. Obviously, 15 Million Democrats were abducted by aliens. The ones from space. Not the illegals. - david
ReplyDeleteThere’s still some more votes to come in (disgracefully).
DeleteAnon, it seems to be inconceivable for you that people vote sometimes Republican and sometimes Democrat and that there are still votes counted and so the Popular Vote is not complete. Trump did great in voter mobilization, Harris less so. No need to abduct 15 million Democrats. If one follows your logic 3 million Republicans were also abducted? How did that happen?
DeleteI say wait for the final totals to come in, and if there’s a weird irregularity, throw it on the pile of weird irregularities that occurred in 2020 and look into them all.
DeleteWill someone please explain to me why dead people always vote Democrat?
Delete😂
DeleteHopefully he’s hanged for treason first.
ReplyDeleteThat’s nice (not).
DeleteThank you julie for all you did. Its a shame because now all the haters will have a meltdown and who knows what kind of shenanigans they are going to try now. They just need to let him be president and do his job. They are dragging their feet on the house and who knows maybe a couple million democrat will come out of the shadows and just vote for a single house seat. lol Hang in there I think your wonderful. Give us more femdom please. Thanks again for all you've said. MAGA. Firefighter Steve
ReplyDeleteYes, sir!
DeleteSteve, it is the presidents job to do the presidents job, not the job of the opposing party. Nobody left Biden to do his job, or Obama, or the Bushes or Clinton or anybody else outside of maybe times of war. The opposition will use the tools at their disposal to prevent unfavoured policies and the governing party will try to execute their policies by building majorities and maintain unity. Trump and his future government need to focus on delivering and not be angry at the opposition doing it's job. Otherwise the country needs to be re-named the Royal States of America under King Donald Trump I.
DeleteI think we need to distinguish “shenanigans” from regular order opposition. The whole Russian Collusion hoax was illegal shenanigans. I hope they don’t do more of that.
DeleteThat last one! "A return to “Justice is blind” principles."
ReplyDeleteBwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Oh. Wait. You're serious.
The rest are pretty stupid, too.
Your “hyena laugh” is not persuasive.
DeleteWhat is persuasive is looking at the details of the court cases and understanding that they are all unique legal theories (to put it mildly) that nobody else in the US has ever been convicted of.
The fact that you present zero substance to back up your “hyena laugh” tells the sad tale of your mental handicap.
Calling Trump's speech "unifying" and then immediately following it up with string of insults and continued lies is what I expect from a trump supporter and trump himself.
ReplyDeleteI really do hope for the best for the county. It is to bad that half of that list of things to look forward to are things that the Trump admin has no interest in pursuing.
What string of insults are you referring to? The one that followed the hyena laugh and the “stupid” comment? If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
DeleteIn English, there is a difference between "too" and "to".
DeleteLow IQ you.
Clearly, a White-hating harris voter.
Julie sometimes you are better off just not trying to explain to rhese far lefties because it doesn't matter. They are consumed with hate because of what the mainstream media has been pounding in their heads for the last 8 years you're not going to change their minds. I wonde how many or these people would feel if the government was going after them for laws that were past the statute of limitations and were being twisted to be able to prosecute them. And you know whats weird it's always the Democratic Attorneys that do this as well as setting up funding to bail people out of jail that riot, burn buildings and injure people. You would be better off just hitting the delete button and not dealing with them. That's what they do to us Normal people. Thanks for the support for Trump and you know what!!!! THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!!!!! Bwahahahahaha MAGA, Firefighter Steve
ReplyDelete🔥
Delete"Kamala not even having the decency to concede on election night."
ReplyDelete????
Do you remember 4 years ago when Trump never conceded at all?
Self-awareness much?
Yes, because there was a good chance it was rigged and investigations were required.
DeleteThere was NO CHANCE! His own people said so!!! He was too much of a petulant, self-pitting, clinical narcissist - to even show up for the transfer of power! For the first time in American history! He DID that!
DeleteI disagree re. the election. “His own people” did not agree, only Uniparty shills.
DeleteWas it a smooth “transfer of power” when Obama handed the White House to Trump? Knowingly having launched the phony Russiagate investigation based on lies that he knew were bought and paid for by Hillary?
I prefer the knife in front, Trump style, rather than in the back, Obama style.
As a young man I’m super pumped about MAGA 2.0. First job is to ban baby killing and deport Mexican illegals. Trump will do it!
ReplyDeleteI’m excited that the constitution is being followed and abortion regulation is now subject to democratic voting in the states.
DeleteDeport criminal and terrorist illegals, regardless of country of origin. After that, then see.
Thank god I don’t live in the US. What a shit show.
ReplyDeleteDon’t worry, it’s going to become a global phenomenon, the defeat of the globalists and the return to normal.
DeleteYou can't see in this photo whose naked butt KH is spanking
ReplyDeletehttps://news.dayfr.com/trends/3894158.html
I don’t see the photo…
DeleteWe'll see what happens to Trump's popularity over the next years, when the negative effects of tariffs and mass deportation shows up, and Project 2025 starts being implemented.
ReplyDeleteHe’ll only get more popular.
DeleteWe'll see Julie. If he goes hard on the tariffs, as he's said, he'll increase inflation and drive up consumer prices, which is the direct opposite of what he's promised, and likely contrary to what people have voted for. Tariffs will cost US jobs, and the countries whose products he elects to apply tariffs to are liable to respond with their own tariffs on US products in turn.
DeleteIf he goes as hard on deportations as he's stated, it means deporting millions of people with jobs, regular lives and families in the US. The loss of workers will lead to a reduction in the US GDP, which will increase the budget deficit. I wonder how many people will love him for deporting their parents, a partner, or other loved one, or how many business owners will thank him for deporting employees they can't easily replace.
And as for Project 2025, I doubt very many of the people that voted for him, have actually sat down and looked at just what exactly is in that program.
But we'll see.
Project 2025 was not his platform. That was the work of the Heartland Institute. It’s a typical think tank piece, as there always is, on both sides, every election. The fact that you’re even mentioning it means you got suckered by the propaganda. Sorry. His platform is Agenda 47, spelled out clearly on his website.
DeleteIt is said of Trump that one should take him seriously, but not literally. He is a nuanced thinker but he expresses himself in simple, unnuanced ways, e.g. “build the wall”, “they’re eating the cats” to appeal. We’ve seen exactly this pattern before the last time he was President.
He will govern responsibly with great advisors, and will modify as he goes.
Yea, he distanced himself from Project 2025 during the campaign. What makes me question the validity of that statement by him, however, is what various conservatives are being quoted for saying something akin to them "now being able to talk openly about Project 2025 as being an actual thing that will happen", along with the below statement on Wikipedia. (Yes, I know what you think of that site, but anyway.)
Delete"The project's president, Kevin Roberts, said in response that no one at Project 2025 had "hard feelings" for Trump because they knew "he's making a political tactical decision there".[61] Critics dismissed Trump's claims, pointing to the various people close to Trump who helped to draft the project, the many contributors who are expected to be appointed to leadership roles in a future Trump administration, his endorsement of the Heritage Foundation's plans for his administration in 2022, and the 300 times Trump himself is mentioned in the plans.[62][63][64][65]
62 - Dent, Alec (July 10, 2024). "Trump 2024 vs. Project 2025". Intelligencer. Archived from the original on July 12, 2024. Retrieved July 10, 2024. "Of the 37 authors of the project's core agenda, 27 came from Trump's orbit...'It's totally false he doesn't know what P25 is,' one former senior adviser said of Trump's remarks. 'Privately, he is of course talking to Heritage, and [Heritage president] Kevin Roberts has reportedly even met with Trump on P25.'...There is a good chance, though, that he will use at least the project's list of loyalists to staff a second administration."
63 - Smith, Hayley (July 28, 2024). "Project 2025 plan calls for demolition of NOAA and National Weather Service". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on October 9, 2024. Retrieved July 28, 2024.
64 - Bump, Philip (June 18, 2024). "Trump has unveiled an agenda of his own. He just doesn't mention it much". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on June 28, 2024. Retrieved June 25, 2024. "The most detailed articulation of what a second Trump term would look like was cobbled together by the right-wing Heritage Foundation. Called 'Project 2025,' it is a book-length presentation of a sweeping overhaul of government and governance. It is also, in the current view of the Trump campaign, an annoyance: It gives Trump's opponents something to point to and elevate to voters as unacceptable, even though it isn't actually offered by Trump himself."
65 - Durkee, Alison. "Project 2025 Explained: What To Know About The Controversial Right-Wing Policy Map For Trump—As Director Steps Down". Forbes. Archived from the original on August 3, 2024. Retrieved August 3, 2024. "Trump has also seemingly endorsed Heritage's policy work in the past, saying at a 2022 dinner for the Heritage Foundation that the group was "going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do … when the American people give us a colossal mandate.""
But as I said before, let's see what happens when he gets going. With sufficient luck he'll die of old age, before taking office ;-)
I follow the people who joked about now being able to say Project 2025 being the “real agenda”. I can confirm they were jokes.
DeleteProject 2025 has a lot of good ideas, some good ideas that take it too far, and some bad ideas. All we know from Trump is that he’ll follow Agenda 47, his published platform. Saying anything more is propaganda intended to mislead.
Bring a specific item forward from Project 2025 and it can be debated. Saying every word in it is definitely Trump’s agenda is ridiculous on its face.
Re. NOAA, it’s a vastly bloated $6.5B agency that pushes the climate hoax relentlessly. It should be got gone and it’s relatively few useful functions moved elsewhere.
Can't say I've had the time or desire to read through 900 or so pages worth of political goals that don't directly pertain to my country. So I doubt we'd be able to have a meaningful discussion on the topic. I agree with some of the anti-DEI stuff there's supposedly in it, but going by the Wiki overview and the few points listed on the landingpage of https://www.project2025.org/, I find quite a few things I'd be worried about, if I were living in America. But let's spare ourselves that argument, until we see what Trump ends up doing in practice.
DeleteAs for NOAA, I'll abstain from commenting on just what work they do, or their budget. But let's agree to disagree on the climate change question. I believe we've discussed it before, and you think I'm a blind goat following a politically motivated agenda by some form of shadow government, and I believe you are very sadly electing to ignore what the vast majority of people with actual degrees and decades of experience with the subject, are saying. The truth is probably somewhere in between somewhere. Fact is that you don't see evidence of climate changes, or at least not any you are willing to ascribe to being caused by humanity, and I do. Time will show who is right. I genuinely hope that you and the other climate change deniers are correct, but unfortunately I think we'll discover to our global dismay, that the climate alarmists were right in being concerned.
Agenda 47 is a much quicker read, and it is the actual published policy, and is plenty radical in itself (in a good way). I do not understand why the Project 2025 stuff ever had any legs at all, as claiming it was his platform was pure propaganda from the start.
DeleteI think you don’t know what the science on climate change actually says. For example, the IPCC report says there is no link between increased CO2 and increased extreme weather. It says it in black and white. I do not disagree with scientists, I disagree with the hyper-politicized Summaries and the news articles that exaggerate even them. The whole flimsy house of cards is built on the results of computer models. There is no underlying atmospheric physics or observations that says increased CO2 must increase surface T, it’s all from super complex models that have countless assumptions and approximations.
I skimmed over the headlines for the Agenda47 on https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47. While I haven't bothered digging into whatever details might exist in the videos or possible supplemental text, I seem to see some similarities with elements of Project2025. In any case I see a couple of possibly positive things, a bunch of stuff to worry about, and some stuff that sound good on the surface, but the outcome of which will massively depend on how it's implemented in practice. But again. We'll see what actually happens.
DeleteI'm not a scientist Julie, but I probably have a greater belief in what I've heard about climate change across a broad swath of media outlets (including social media and www. debates etc.) over the past 25 years, than you have. I know I can't change you opinion on this, and I'm sure you can come up with some links to support what you say. I also agree that some media sources probably dial up the rhetoric a bit to make the "product sell better", and summations of hundreds or opinions across various studies are bound to leave out a variety of nuances and differences in opinions. So sure. The claim that 97% of climate scientists agree is probably an exaggeration, but even if it's only 80%-90%, it's still a very significant majority of people that know what they talk about, who agree on the statement that "the burning of fossil fuels is causing a global climate change on the Earth, and that is bad".
Hm. Comment is apparently too long...
I agree that nobody has a 100% correct crystal ball, which can tell us for certain what will happen in the future. And yes, every mathematical climate model we have, is based on a variety of assumptions and approximations, and like all chaotic systems, the further out into the future we get, the less reliable the predictions become. But...when that's said, we can look at the different models we've used over time, and then compare their predictions from i.e. 10-20 years ago to what has actually happened. And when we do that, we get an indication of how the different models performed. And some of those models used, have been fairly accurate, compared to what actually has happened. We can also reliably measure i.e. CO2 concentrations in the air today, and compare it with measurements we can get from ice core samples and tree rings, and then look at how those concentrations change over time. That's hard numbers we can plot on graphs, from which we can derive trends. And those trends point towards an unusually fast spike in the presence of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and the spike correlates with the the start of the industrialization of human society. Sure, that's not proof, as correlation isn't the same as causation. But it's a noticeable correlation, and a probable indicator of causality, when you factor in that there are no other periods in history, where we have seen a similar development. We can also look at actual weather and temperature measurements across the world, and look at precipitation patterns, storm frequencies etc., and compare the results with what we have in terms of historical records. That will obviously yield less reliable results rgd. the weather, as we can't go back in time as far, and thus can't look at such results across thousands of years or more. But we can still derive indications and possible trends. And at the end of the day, we can pool all the "circumstantial evidence", and look at it in its totality. And at this point, the majority of the scientists that study these different fields are pointing at alarming trends in such studies, and predictions made by models that have proven relatively correct over the past generation or so. It's overwhelmingly likely that no prediction will be spot on, and especially not a century out. But the trend is the important part. I.e. if the models are warning of a possible +4 degree C increase of the global average temperature, it's not essential if the reality will be +2.5 or +5. The importance is the trend, and the fact that it points beyond the threshold it's been agreed we'd rather not cross (note, I'm pulling numbers out of the air here, so don't quote me on those). (Sure, it will make a massive difference if it's +2.5 or +5C, but not for the sake of my argument here.)
DeleteAs for CO2, we know it's a greenhouse gas. That particular issue simply isn't up for debate. I've seen the statement I suspect you are referring to, and it doesn't hold water. (https://science.feedback.org/review/simple-measurements-demonstrate-that-co2-is-a-greenhouse-gas-tim-ball/)
I doubt we'll find much agreement on this, but I'll leave you with a couple of links on the climate change question.
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/debunking-eight-common-myths-about-climate-change
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/
You put up some strawmen and then knock them down, and your links are full of misinformation, such as the “99% consensus” which I’ve debunked elsewhere and is a very poor man’s proof!
Delete1/ Yes, the world has been warming since the end of the little ice age in 1850.
2/ Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and all else being equal, increasing it would warm the surface.
3/ Yes, CO2 has been increasing and most of it is caused by humans.
But the amount of warming is not unprecedented, even in the modern temperature record. The warming up to 1940 was the same rate as the warming since 1980 (when you correctly exclude urban heat island effects).
The cooling from 1940 to 1980 argues agains your theory, as manmade CO2 was spiking then, but T dropped (just as T rose precipitously from 1900-1940 with negligible man made CO2).
The models have assuredly NOT correctly predicted anything very well. Climate Change nonsense has a vast history of missed predictions.
There is no correlation of worsening extreme weather with CO2 according to the IPCC even.
The behaviour of the climate system as a whole to the forcing caused by manmade CO2 is unknown. It is only derived from flawed models.
Here is a link debunking all your myths:
https://strictjuliespanks.blogspot.com/2020/12/there-is-no-climate-catastrophe.html
Yes, the Earth has been warmer than it is today before. The key difference between previous and today's warming, is the SPEED at which it happens.
DeleteIf the average global temperature increases by +4 degrees over the span of 1.000.000 years, nature and creatures have time to evolve and adapt to the changes. If it happens over 100 years, there isn't time to adapt to those changes, and then ecosystems get screwed up.
Rgd. CO2 emission and temperature developments, take a look at this:
https://www.wri.org/insights/history-carbon-dioxide-emissions
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures
The warming of the planet isn't a theory, and certainly not mine. It's based on actual measurements made by people that know how to do it. And picking a 40 year period that looks like it supports your narrative isn't serious Julie. Look at the different measurements from the past 1000+ years. Starting at around the time of the Industrialization you get a hockey stick when you plot the greenhouse gas emissions and global temperature averages. Sure, you get variations on the local scale, and within limited periods, when you zoom down far enough. But the overall trend, when seen over the long period, is the relevant one.
Rgd. the validity of the models, you'll have to excuse me if I take the word of the IPCC and University of California over the words of a Canadian spanking blogger. However attractive and kinky she might be.
From: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/debunking-eight-common-myths-about-climate-change:
"Myth #7: Climate models are unreliable.
Climate skeptics have long argued that the computer models used to project climate change are unreliable at best and completely inaccurate at worst.
But the IPCC, the world’s leading scientific authority on climate change, says that over decades of development, these models have consistently provided “a robust and unambiguous picture” of planetary warming.
Meanwhile, a 2020 study by the University of California showed that global warming models were largely accurate. The study looked at 17 models that were generated between 1970 and 2007 and found 14 of them closely matched observations. "
With regards to your link to an earlier post from you, I'll refer to my earlier comment from back then.
The “temperature of the earth” is an ill-defined concept.
DeleteYou can look at the temperature of multiple single places and draw conclusions. If you look at the Greenland ice cores you see multiple warmings since we came out of the ice age about 11,000 years ago. The Minoan warm period, the Roman warm period, the Medieval warm period. We don’t have the granularity in the data to know the speed of warming.
In the modern thermometer data, the speed of warming was the same 1890-1940 as it was 1980-now and CO2 was not responsible for the first warming. And there was cooling from 1940-1980 (just when CO2 started being emitted in much greater quantity), so much so that the next ice age was predicted.
Kyrel, you rely too much on argument by authority and not enough on base facts and reason.
"The “temperature of the earth” is an ill-defined concept."
DeleteReally Julie...
Strictly speaking we can't look at the actual temperatures throughout history, so we go by analyzing the contents of the air retained within i.e. ice core samples, and through that we then get a picture of how the composition of the air changes over time, and as a result therefrom, the resulting temperature. We may not be able to determine the exact years in question, but we do get a pretty good idea of how fast changes happen. And right now things are changing faster than we've seen before.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/blogs/national-museum-of-natural-history/2018/03/23/heres-how-scientists-reconstruct-earths-past-climates/
As for your reference to the 1940-1980 period:
"The leveling off of temperatures in the middle of the 20th century can be explained by natural variability and by the cooling effects of aerosols generated by factories, power plants, and motor vehicles in the years of rapid economic growth after World War II. Fossil fuel use also increased after the war (5 percent per year), boosting greenhouse gases. Cooling from aerosol pollution happened rapidly. In contrast, greenhouse gases accumulated slowly, but they remain in the atmosphere for a much longer time. According to former GISS director James Hansen, the strong warming trend of the past four decades likely reflects a shift from balanced aerosol and greenhouse gas effects on the atmosphere to a predominance of greenhouse gas effects after aerosols were curbed by pollution controls."
I might have more confidence in authorities than you, but I'd argue that you have too little. The thing is, that just because you can see potentials for bias, it doesn't mean that they are wrong. Or to use a metaphor, "just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean you aren't being followed."
The “average temperature of the earth” - take the temp at every square foot of the earth and ocean surface, every cubic foot of atmosphere and ocean, all at once, instantaneously, all over the globe, average it every second, average over a year. Sure. Very well-defined. Any measurement that purports to be an average temperature of the earth is some ridiculously coarse approximation that omits many important elements of the above (e.g, ocean temps at any granularity).
DeleteYou are being hoaxed if you think averaging a handful of thermometers, most of which are located at airports, is any useful approximation at all.
I mean, really, Kyrel, use your brain.
You have put forth a hypothesis of why the supposed raise in T due to CO2 is offset into the negative by these other factors. Pure speculation as no model has ever been able to reproduce it. Those effects are just not strong enough.
Proxy records do not have the granularity to compare the rates of historical warming to current warming.
Your entire “argument” is 100% based on you trusting political summaries of “science “. Mine is based on reading the science.
You trust Trump and your own ability to interpret the science, more than you trust the professionals that work with said science for a living. Personally I prefer to believe in the professionals. Because even if I were to take politicians with some salt, the fact that so many scientists and scientific institutes across the world seem to agree on the issue, is enough to convince me that there's reason to take it seriously.
DeleteBut ultimately time will tell who was right. People like you, or the scientific community.
You’re being misled as to the view of the “scientific community” by some politicians, media types, and a few loud, captive so-called scientists. There’s another point of view from increasingly many scientists that are humble enough to say humans are likely responsible for some of the modern warming, but it’s impossible to say how much given the current state of the research.
DeleteWell now. Foundational Black America has spoken our displeasure with the Democratic party.
ReplyDeleteNow let's see if Trump is willing to sit down to the table and discuss, with the full intent of applying beneficial solutions, all of the agendas and issues the Democrats ignored us when it came to voting negotiations.
Trump seems to believe in treating everybody equally. Hope that’s good enough for Foundational Black America.
Delete