Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on April 07, 2022, 11:43:38 AM
-
Are those allowed or is that political?
My question involves term limits
Can that be discussed here?
Eagler
-
Are those allowed or is that political?
My question involves term limits
Can that be discussed here?
Eagler
right up until those who dont like what you say report it. Want to guess what 4 will be first to do so?
-
If you are asking if discussing the Constitution is political in nature..hmm...I'd venture to say yes. :confused:
Why not discuss in a place where politics are allowed like Flamewarriors? You'd fit in better.
-
If you are asking if discussing the Constitution is political in nature..hmm...I'd venture to say yes. :confused:
Why not discuss in a place where politics are allowed like Flamewarriors? You'd fit in better.
I would disagree, more Historical, than political.
What the heck is Flamewarriors?????? Some liberal think tank?
-
I would disagree, more Historical, than political.
What the heck is Flamewarriors?????? Some liberal think tank?
:rofl :rofl
-
You wanting a 3rd term for Obama?
-
I would disagree, more Historical, than political.
What the heck is Flamewarriors?????? Some liberal think tank?
Aaaaand now it's political. :aok
-
Aaaaand now it's political. :aok
and stinky bait as well.
-
Your Politicals have got rid of the bible so your 300 year old Amendment is on borrowed time :rofl
-
Being bad at history, math and political science should be hidden in shame, fattie. :D
-
You wanting a 3rd term for Obama?
That is happening now...
Was wondering if a two term president could be vice president elected or otherwise
What I read it is not clear
Eagler
-
That is happening now...
Was wondering if a two term president could be vice president elected or otherwise
What I read it is not clear
Eagler
If a VP term limits isn't stipulated then there isn't one. Clearly. Harris is VP. Former POTUSes giving requested advice is not new. Why the new poli-lock bait, E? :headscratch:
-
Are those allowed or is that political?
My question involves term limits
Can that be discussed here?
Eagler
we have term limits, but few people use them. it's called an election, don't vote for somebody more than twice in a row.
the reason we have term limits on president is due to Roosevelt, they thought back then a president would become so popular that eventually might become a tyrant.
right now somebody may be president for a long as 10 years minus one day. and we have had 1 president who was never elected to vice-president or president.
semp
-
If a VP term limits isn't stipulated then there isn't one. Clearly. Harris is VP. Former POTUSes giving requested advice is not new. Why the new poli-lock bait, E? :headscratch:
Because I was actually curious and thought someone here would know the answer
It seems to be a yes or no answer
Eagler
-
Because I was actually curious and thought someone here would know the answer
It seems to be a yes or no answer
NO. BO can't. He has had 2 terms.
MO could, and could technically pick BO as VP. But BO, could not ascend to pres if MO died. Succession would have to skip over him. So they would never do that. He would have to settle for hubby-in-chief.
-
That is happening now...
Was wondering if a two term president could be vice president elected or otherwise
What I read it is not clear
Eagler
That's a pretty easy one.
Amendment XII states that no person may be Vice President if they are not eligible to be President. "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Thus, a two term former President may not be a Vice President because of Amendment XXII.
NO. BO can't. He has had 2 terms.
MO could, and could technically pick BO as VP. But BO, could not ascend to pres if MO died. Succession would have to skip over him. So they would never do that. He would have to settle for hubby-in-chief.
This is mostly false. Barrack Obama cannot be a Vice President. See above.
-
right up until those who dont like what you say report it. Want to guess what 4 will be first to do so?
Too easy to guess them :aok
-
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Is what I saw which doesn't cover vp
Thanks for the info
Eagler
-
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Is what I saw which doesn't cover vp
Thanks for the info
Eagler
Correct, you need both Amendment XII and XXII to get the clear understanding.
-
Because I was actually curious and thought someone here would know the answer
It seems to be a yes or no answer
Eagler
I think if someone ascends to the presidency in the fourth year of that term, that person is eligible for re-election two times. But if they ascend it the first year of that term, then they get one more term, of four years if elected. I'd go on, but I think this thread is likely to get locked before I hit send. You've been on a roll lately, Eagler. :salute
-
Correct, you need both Amendment XII and XXII to get the clear understanding.
Thanks for the clarity!
Eagler
-
I think if someone ascends to the presidency in the fourth year of that term, that person is eligible for re-election two times. But if they ascend it the first year of that term, then they get one more term, of four years if elected. I'd go on, but I think this thread is likely to get locked before I hit send. You've been on a roll lately, Eagler. :salute
No. If you become President in the fourth year, that counts as your first term, even if it is for one day. After which, you may be elected once or ascend once more as the VP.
It is likely worth mentioning that in the build up to Amendment XX, there was once a section that died. This section was about ascendency during the lame duck session. It would have spelled out what constitutes a term and what does not in this very situation. It would have stated that if the lame duck Vice President should ascend to President, it would not count as a term because it is in the lame duck session. Alas, this was not placed in the Amendment and so, if it were to happen, would still count as a term served.
-
I think if someone ascends to the presidency in the fourth year of that term, that person is eligible for re-election two times. But if they ascend it the first year of that term, then they get one more term, of four years if elected. I'd go on, but I think this thread is likely to get locked before I hit send. You've been on a roll lately, Eagler. :salute
a vice-president who takes over as president can be elected twice as long as his first term is 2 years minus 1 day.
semp
-
No. If you become President in the fourth year, that counts as your first term, even if it is for one day. After which, you may be elected once or ascend once more as the VP.
it doesn't count as long as it's 2 years minus 1 day.
semp
-
it doesn't count as long as it's 2 years minus 1 day.
semp
In Amendment XXII, yes. You can be elected twice if you ascended to the presidency and served a shorter than two year term.
-
This is mostly false. Barrack Obama cannot be a Vice President. See above.
Ah OK. I stand corrected. They'd be dumb to try that anyway. The entire purpose of the VP is to stand in the wings to replace the POTUS (everything else is just busy work) so it would be ridiculous to put some one in that couldn't fullfil that purpose.
So it makes sense.
-
Aaaaand now it's political. :aok
LOL and why is that???/
-
"They'd be dumb to try that anyway."
They? And this is not political?
I B T L
-
They? And this is not political?
They as in MO and BO. If MO ran for pres and tried to to select BO as the VP. "They" as in that ticket of MO and BO.
I'm not saying "they" as in the Illuminati or Reptilians or something. :rolleyes:
What would be the appropriate way to word that? How about:
MO running as POTUS and trying to put BO as the VP would be a dumb move. And apparently unconstitutional which makes sense. Since he could not fulfil the purpose of that role since he can not be POTUS again. So doing something that could not work, would be a dumb move.
I can white wash it for you if you prefer.
An individual running for POTUS trying to select a VP that would have no possibility to fulfill the fundamental purpose of the role due to already reaching the term limit for that office, would be a dumb move.
-
They as in MO and BO. If MO ran for pres and tried to to select BO as the VP. "They" as in that ticket of MO and BO.
I'm not saying "they" as in the Illuminati or Reptilians or something. :rolleyes:
What would be the appropriate way to word that? How about:
MO running as POTUS and trying to put BO as the VP would be a dumb move. And apparently unconstitutional which makes sense. Since he could not fulfil the purpose of that role since he can not be POTUS again. So doing something that could not work, would be a dumb move.
I can white wash it for you if you prefer.
An individual running for POTUS trying to select a VP that would have no possibility to fulfill the fundamental purpose of the role due to already reaching the term limit for that office, would be a dumb move.
not sure if a president candidate running for office has to select a vicepresident. however I do know that a vice president needs to be able to fulfill the duties as president. so somebody that selects somebody as vice president if elected then that vice president cannot be intalled as vice president if it doesnt fulfill the requirements to be in office as per the constitution. so technically just for the sake of argument anybody can select bush jr as vice president but bush jr cannot serve as vice president if his mate gets elected.
this is similar to what happened under nixon, not exactly the same, but gerald ford who was not elected to vice president or president became the president. he was selected as vice president when agnew resigned then as president when nixon resigned.
semp
-
I have a modest proposal to replace our entire electoral process.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49445936052_1b167d4823_b.jpg)
-
Sounds like there is a lack of education in American schools about government.
-
Is Biden a good President?
Trump could not keep his mouth shut and this one cannot fathom what year it is.
-
Sounds like there is a lack of education in American schools about government.
There was a time one didn't think of such things .. how the government worked was the least of my thoughts
Today is different for many reasons.. being 63 in a week has a bunch to do with that for me :)
I got my response but feel free to continue until its locked...
Eagler
-
High school in the early '60s had us learn about government in history and civic classes. In geography, we learned how weather effected climate.
-
Interesting. Not trying to be a smart-aleck, but I was taught climate affects weather, not the other way around. Your climate determines your weather.
Weather is day-to-day conditions at a place; climate is composed of broad patterns over a larger area and a longer time period - i.e., it can be rainy and windy in Boston but partly cloudy and mild in New York City on the same day - these cities experience different weather, but overall they have the same climate, both being located on the East coast of North America at roughly the same latitude, with similar land geography.
<S>
-
Is Biden a good President?
Trump could not keep his mouth shut and this one cannot fathom what year it is.
Trump did what he said he would do.
Biden hasn't and doesn't know what he said.
-
Trump did what he said he would do.
:rofl
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer
-
Interesting. Not trying to be a smart-aleck, but I was taught climate affects weather, not the other way around. Your climate determines your weather.
Weather is day-to-day conditions at a place; climate is composed of broad patterns over a larger area and a longer time period - i.e., it can be rainy and windy in Boston but partly cloudy and mild in New York City on the same day - these cities experience different weather, but overall they have the same climate, both being located on the East coast of North America at roughly the same latitude, with similar land geography.
<S>
Yes climate is over a broader period of time. Like the natural warming and cooling periods of the earth. This also affects the ocean levels. Many years ago the oceans were much higher than they are now. There was much less water trapped in ice. Climate change? You bet, all the time. Always has, and always will. :aok
-
Interesting. Not trying to be a smart-aleck, but I was taught climate affects weather, not the other way around. Your climate determines your weather.
Weather is day-to-day conditions at a place; climate is composed of broad patterns over a larger area and a longer time period - i.e., it can be rainy and windy in Boston but partly cloudy and mild in New York City on the same day - these cities experience different weather, but overall they have the same climate, both being located on the East coast of North America at roughly the same latitude, with similar land geography.
<S>
Think of it like this. Weather is the clothes you are wearing today. Climate is the clothes in your closet.
-
:rofl
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer
Politifact :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Yes climate is over a broader period of time. Like the natural warming and cooling periods of the earth. This also affects the ocean levels. Many years ago the oceans were much higher than they are now. There was much less water trapped in ice. Climate change? You bet, all the time. Always has, and always will. :aok
No argument there. The concern is how fast it's changing (warming) this time, what is causing the rapid change.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-hasnt-warmed-this-fast-in-tens-of-millions-of-years/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-hasnt-warmed-this-fast-in-tens-of-millions-of-years/)
-
Bogus weather control and vp/president choices..
I can see the connection...
One believes in God and while the other side think they are God (actually doesn't believe in God) and can control the weather... :)
Eagler
-
Political opinion thread still chugging?
-
Aaaaand now it's political. :aok
It became political with the OP's original post.
-
Interesting. Not trying to be a smart-aleck, but I was taught climate affects weather, not the other way around. Your climate determines your weather.
<S>
Interesting... I think I was taught weather affects climate... more rain... less dry
:salute
-
We should ask algore. He has the stone tablets from the mount...
-
More trees in UK than there was 300 years
More trees in China than there was 35 years ago
UN report….they were disappointed with the facts
Carbon Dioxide encourages plant growth.
In the 13th century the global temperature dropped by three degrees.
In England malaria killed you in the 13th century.
In England they used to produce wine, they have now started again.
Apparently floods and storms started in 1967.
Billionaire and celebrity’s are your betters
-
Yep never understood carbon dioxide is now a bad thing..
Instead of planting more trees we close on strip mall to clear trees to build another 1 mile down the road on the opposite corner because some marketing survey (poll) stated they would sell 3% more widgets from the new location...
My theory is everytime you remove dirt and pour concrete or asphalt you are warming the planet..how can you not be?
All the conversations from fossil to new green energies doesn't touch that issue
Also the US is not Europe..our states are the size of some of their countries
They are built for bus train or walking
Our country nor the average American is built for neither
Eagler
-
"More trees in UK than there was 300 years"
More wooden ships back then.
"Carbon Dioxide encourages plant growth"
It also increases temperature which effects weather patterns and intensity of storms.
-
Yep never understood carbon dioxide is now a bad thing..
It was always a bad thing for life in too much or too little quantity. The Cambrian period effectively terminated when certain primitive forms of plants became too efficient at pulling it out of the air and shoving it underground reducing the global temperatures to the point it turned the earth into a largish ball of ice. We've been letting it out a bit too fast and present society is built on doing so. Economy, politics, borders, nations, technology, wars, food production, all of it.
-
Greed really...
Pretty sure if we all lived more simply and within our means we wouldn't be destroying the planet..
So are you saying plants froze the earth at some point?
Was that b4 or after the dinosaurs and the meteor strike?
Were dinosaur farts an issue like cows today? Inquiring minds want to know... :)
If plants can freeze the planet my guess is misguided corrupt governments and their policies can do the same...
Eagler
-
We are not destroying the planet.
-
Wonder what caused the previous warming trends. hmmmmm
-
Seems that a good all round basic education in the lower grades was lacking.
-
Wonder what caused the previous warming trends. hmmmmm
It does not happen automatically regardless of what the human race is doing if that's your attempted 'argument'.
We are not destroying the planet.
No you're right. It could comfortably destroy us though and go further with a minor hiccup. :old:
-
Greed really...
Well to be fair we didn't know when the Industrial Revolution began.
So are you saying plants froze the earth at some point?
Precisely. They essentially made themselves extinct by doing so (kinda). Pay attention Shuffler.
Was that b4 or after the dinosaurs and the meteor strike?
Yes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before. The Cambrian is the first time you see non-fractal animal structures, locomotion, eyes, jaws, armour and bilateral symmetry. Good job really or you'd not be able to operate your rudder pedals. :banana:
-
It does not happen automatically regardless of what the human race is doing if that's your attempted 'argument'.
No you're right. It could comfortably destroy us though and go further with a minor hiccup. :old:
If humans were not here, the earth would warm and cool just like it did before.... humans were ever here. Pay attention.
-
Only the sun and the earth's infrared heat are the things that heat up the earth. If there was too much C02, there would be a cooling effect because the sun would be blocked and dispursed by the compounds in the air. That is why a desert climate is much hotter, there are no compounds. At night it gets very cold due to no cloud cover and precipitation in the air. It's why tropical climates are cooler than deserts. There is more water and C02 in the air. Smog creates a cooling effect in the local region. Simple compounds break down over a distance with alt. It's why you don't feel the effects of a volcano from 1000 miles away. There is no way that an abundance of C02 in some local regions like cities in China or India are "increasing the earths temperature". The water vapor in the atmosphere is actually cooling it. Only the sun could cause a rapid global heating phenomenon because of the grand solar minimum cycle. That's just the truth.
All they care about is you living in fear and profiting and staying in power from that fear.
-
The fact that these people say WE and US in the climate narrative.
What about THEM the people who advocate population control and the evil of Human kind.
These are the same people who will justify anything to save THEIR planet.
Smoke your weed
The Chinese are laughing at you.
Do you people watch CNN and the nonce BBC?
-
Pay attention.
I must try harder! :banana:
If humans were not here, the earth would warm and cool just like it did before.... humans were ever here.
It's frankly a little surprising that someone would still propose such an argument in the 21st century for many reasons. Not-the-least-of-which being it is logical claptrap. I don't know if it's your self-created argument or you're just passing it along. It is correct, that the Earth has had periods of ice and fire. It is however not - as you appear to be implying - random. Even 550,000,000 (+/- a tolerance) -years ago the cause can be determined, let alone last week. There's always a cause and right now it is specifically you and Zack1234 with your seven litre V8 and 2-stroke Lambretta respectively :rofl
Only the sun and the earth's infrared heat are the things that heat up the earth...
The nice thing about science, or the un-nice thing about science, depending on your motivation and position is that whether you understand the relavent bits or not, or if you personally care to 'believe' it or not (what with the social media phenomena of personal opinion being entirely equal to facts or data (lolz)), or if is an obstacle to some goal you have or not, it is still binding.
An analogy on our one common ground Mr. Violator: ACM. If you apply more advanced ACM with reasonable execution against an opponent with inferior ACM (even with superior execution) you are applying leverage and squeezing and squeezing him until his eyeballs start to come out and he's all screaming and that, blood spurting from his tear-ducts and his desperate, sweaty-hand crushing his plastic joystick as he screams NOOOOOO! even if - on an egotistical foundation - he thinks he's better than you. Such as it is with actual knowledge, data, hypothesis, theory instead of the pretense of same*.
Apologies to the OP for the catastrophic derailment. The only honourable thing to do is retire behind the garden shed with my 455 Webley-Fosbery :rofl :bolt:
* and I really am trying to keep this light-hearted, entertaining and banter-aside, somewhat respectful
-
Only the sun and the earth's infrared heat are the things that heat up the earth. If there was too much C02, there would be a cooling effect because the sun would be blocked and dispursed by the compounds in the air. That is why a desert climate is much hotter, there are no compounds. At night it gets very cold due to no cloud cover and precipitation in the air. It's why tropical climates are cooler than deserts. There is more water and C02 in the air. Smog creates a cooling effect in the local region. Simple compounds break down over a distance with alt. It's why you don't feel the effects of a volcano from 1000 miles away. There is no way that an abundance of C02 in some local regions like cities in China or India are "increasing the earths temperature". The water vapor in the atmosphere is actually cooling it. Only the sun could cause a rapid global heating phenomenon because of the grand solar minimum cycle. That's just the truth.
All they care about is you living in fear and profiting and staying in power from that fear.
siberia had a temperature of almost 40 degrees above normal, 100 degrees. dont let it scare you. Antarctica had a big chunk of ice break off. some iceland glaciers are melting off.
dont worry we are cool. we have ice makers in our refrigitaros. we should be ok. we can make our own ice. dont worry about some usa states who have problems with loss of rain.
semp
semp
-
Wake Forest University 4th year medical school student misses vein in attempted blood draw on patient because:
"I had a patient I was doing a blood draw on see my pronoun pin and loudly laugh to the staff ‘She/Her? Well of course it is! What other pronouns even are there?’ I missed his vein so he had to get stuck twice."
-Kychelle Del Rosario tweeted.
In our RN clinicals on live patients we were doing both butterfly and IV blood draws 3/4 through first year. Sure everyone will miss now and then, which is almost always due to either deep veins, “rolly” veins or being nervous. Missing because the patient has distracted your attention is entirely unacceptable and potentially grounds for dismissal (failure/absence) of that clinical day. At my school 2 “absent” clinical days equal failure of the semester.
So this 4th year med student receives: “The university responded with a brief suspension but announced no further consequences in its latest statement.”
“For the event mentioned in the tweet, I was performing a blood draw on a patient and during our conversation they had shown dismay at my pronoun pin," Del Rosario wrote
Being distracted because you are upset about ANYTHING a patient SAYS to the point you can not complete a clinical skill and get less than a slap on the wrist is egregious, even more so for a medical student - soon to be doctor.
“Missing the vein” is often enough infiltration, which is the needle going all the way through the vein; usually nothing serious happens, however when it does…
Medical error(s) are the 3rd leading cause of death in the USA! Soon maybe #1…
Zack is right, China and much of the rest of the world is laughing at the US.
-
I must try harder! :banana:
It's frankly a little surprising that someone would still propose such an argument in the 21st century for many reasons. Not-the-least-of-which being it is logical claptrap. I don't know if it's your self-created argument or you're just passing it along. It is correct, that the Earth has had periods of ice and fire. It is however not - as you appear to be implying - random. Even 550,000,000 (+/- a tolerance) -years ago the cause can be determined, let alone last week. There's always a cause and right now it is specifically you and Zack1234 with your seven litre V8 and 2-stroke Lambretta respectively :rofl
The nice thing about science, or the un-nice thing about science, depending on your motivation and position is that whether you understand the relavent bits or not, or if you personally care to 'believe' it or not (what with the social media phenomena of personal opinion being entirely equal to facts or data (lolz)), or if is an obstacle to some goal you have or not, it is still binding.
An analogy on our one common ground Mr. Violator: ACM. If you apply more advanced ACM with reasonable execution against an opponent with inferior ACM (even with superior execution) you are applying leverage and squeezing and squeezing him until his eyeballs start to come out and he's all screaming and that, blood spurting from his tear-ducts and his desperate, sweaty-hand crushing his plastic joystick as he screams NOOOOOO! even if - on an egotistical foundation - he thinks he's better than you. Such as it is with actual knowledge, data, hypothesis, theory instead of the pretense of same*.
Apologies to the OP for the catastrophic derailment. The only honourable thing to do is retire behind the garden shed with my 455 Webley-Fosbery :rofl :bolt:
* and I really am trying to keep this light-hearted, entertaining and banter-aside, somewhat respectful
Yes, well I did take weather and science with a lab in college. Far more learning than most have on the subject. I also made an A. I learned quite a bit about why climates developed in the areas they did. Its why I believe the earth is round. I was blown away by how compounds and molecules work in the atmosphere. Also by how seasons work among other things. Heat causes molecules to shrink and break down as they climb. If they have water inside them, it releases the condensation and creates clouds. Clouds create rain. It's why during the day, cloud cover blocks the sun and creates shade. There is no shade or compounds in deserts, therefore less particles to block and disperse the sun. That's why It's a hotter climate. During the night, cloud cover makes it warmer because it traps the eaeths infrared heat. No cloud cover in deserts makes it very cold because the infraded heat cannot be trapped. There is nothing else warming it as the sun is on the other side of the earth. C02 has nothing to do with warming the planet. It's just a method of fascist fear control to change the way we live to their agenda.
It's why I don't believe in C02 is causing global warming. It's literally one of the building blocks to life. It's a natural compound in the earth. Green houses have more C02 inside them than places outside of greenhouses, life prospers there. The earth has wind, the earth breaks down those compounds. They don't just float for ever. They don't just sit over Antarctica and melt the snow. C02 doesn't build up over the ocean to create bigger storms. The ocean is freaking huge. 2000 miles to get to Hawaii from California. There are hardly any land masses in between. We can't even comprehend how big the ocean is.
Global warming is literally a fear tactic agenda by fascists to change the way we live to support their businesses and industry like electric cars, wind power, solar power, ect. It's all about shifting society to their businesses and how they want you to live. They will use Global warming as an excuse to manipulate your rights. It's so easy to see.
Science is science but it will always be pushed for an agenda by elites because it's easy to manipulate people who don't study and understand it. It's like the election statistical analysis and improbabilties that mathematicians have proved. Math is math, but of course it doesn't count when it doesn't jive with what the powers in charge want. Then they pay off actual scientist to turn a blind eye, or kill them if they don't.
My parents have a boat in Florida. There has been no increase in water depth. The storms are still the same.
Storms haven't been any bigger than they were in the early 1900s. C02 does not sit over oceans and build up to create bigger storms than ever. It's just not true.
Infact, we even have the former CIA leader talk about how they use aerosol injections from planes to block out the sun to prevent warming. He said it on record. If that is the case. Than putting more C02 and compounds in the atmosphere actually cools the earth because it's blocks and disperses the sun's heat rays.
-
Yes, well I did take weather and science with a lab in college. Far more learning than most have on the subject. I also made an A.
I'm sorry Violator, but despite your A, you don't seem to quite grasp the fundamentals. And I decline the standard invitation to an argument ad infinitum and in intense, irrelevant detail.
It's just a method of fascist fear control to change the way we live to their agenda.
You have a tendency to frame everything in an American-specific political context, bordering almost without fail on the point of conspiracy-theory. Have you not noticed the correlation between your posts and the spate of recent thread-locks? I mean we'd have to gather a lot of data, write a peer-reviewed paper, based on a formal and reproducable experiment to be sure...
It's why I don't believe in C02 is causing global warming.
I'm sorry, I really must stop you on this critical point: it doesn't matter what you believe. What has been arrived at by rigorous experimentation and research is not a belief, and what you personally choose to believe does not nullify that.
I don't mean to be rude to you. I know you mean well in your own way. You're just a bit off-the-reservation with your thinking methods old man.
-
Does anyone think the agenda is to save earth or just change what industries we throw our money at?
No way are we setup today to stop the use of oil
So we should drill our own and not become dependent on our enemies for it like Europe is now..
They basically have Ukrainian blood on their hands now due to that dependency
Eagler
-
I'm sorry Violator, but despite your A, you don't seem to quite grasp the fundamentals. And I decline the standard invitation to an argument ad infinitum and in intense, irrelevant detail.
You have a tendency to frame everything in an American-specific political context, bordering almost without fail on the point of conspiracy-theory. Have you not noticed the correlation between your posts and the spate of recent thread-locks? I mean we'd have to gather a lot of data, write a peer-reviewed paper, based on a formal and reproducable experiment to be sure...
I'm sorry, I really must stop you on this critical point: it doesn't matter what you believe. What has been arrived at by rigorous experimentation and research is not a belief, and what you personally choose to believe does not nullify that.
I don't mean to be rude to you. I know you mean well in your own way. You're just a bit off-the-reservation with your thinking methods old man.
I'm sorry, but could you please explain to me the goal of the WEF and its current agenda related to global warming? Or do you want to pretend it doesn't exist trying to effect the entire world to its agenda?
You say I am wrong without explaining your 'fundamentals'. Explain how a desert is hotter than a tropical climate which has more C02? Why is that climate hotter? Please I'd love to read your reasoning.
There are many other scientist who have written studies who do not believe in "industry" causing global warming or that it's C02. It hasn't "been proven" like you think. You can say that Co2 holds heat, but that is only for a short period of time until they break down and disperses in atmosphere. That heat comes from the sun. Heat rises and cools. C02 is not heavy enough to prevent heat from rising. Heat forces molecules to shrink as they rise and release condensation, if any. Overall, more compounds in the atmosphere create condensation which blocks the sun or causes rain, thus cooling the climate. It doesn't just "stay hot" and doesn't just "make the whole world hotter 10,000 miles away" because the levels of C02 are not the same from one region to the other. The earth is not a greenhouse and compounds break down. It's why you don't feel the effects from a volcanoe even 1,000 miles away.