Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
The Attic
Trump saving lives at southern border!
Page 1 of 7 next> last>>
Jul 20, 2019 04:33:56   #
LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America
 
According to statistics compiled by the United States Border Patrol, there were 298 border deaths in 2017 and 283 in 2018, making it an average of 291 per year. The average yearly deaths under President Obama stood at 372 and 382 under the Bush administration.

LWW ... Reporting what the lying liars of the f**e news industry just wont report.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/border-deaths-declined-trump-first-two-years

Reply
Jul 20, 2019 05:39:55   #
tshift Loc: Overland Park, KS.
 
LWW wrote:
According to statistics compiled by the United States Border Patrol, there were 298 border deaths in 2017 and 283 in 2018, making it an average of 291 per year. The average yearly deaths under President Obama stood at 372 and 382 under the Bush administration.

LWW ... Reporting what the lying liars of the f**e news industry just wont report.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/border-deaths-declined-trump-first-two-years



Thanks for the information LWW. We don't get enough of the t***h very often.
Tom

Reply
Jul 20, 2019 05:47:03   #
dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida
 
LWW reported above... " 291 per year <under Trump>. The average yearly deaths under President Obama stood at 372 and 382 under the Bush administration."

And the Global temperature is cooling and the CO2 is decreasing and 20 regulations have been removed for each new one added. Do things really improve with under-reporting... yep. Or perhaps it is true info. If True how was death reduction accomplished... what positive steps were taken to prevent deaths. Did the troops and machine guns at the border help?

Reply
 
 
Jul 20, 2019 08:32:16   #
LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America
 
dpullum wrote:
LWW reported above... " 291 per year <under Trump>. The average yearly deaths under President Obama stood at 372 and 382 under the Bush administration."

And the Global temperature is cooling and the CO2 is decreasing and 20 regulations have been removed for each new one added. Do things really improve with under-reporting... yep. Or perhaps it is true info. If True how was death reduction accomplished... what positive steps were taken to prevent deaths. Did the troops and machine guns at the border help?
LWW reported above... " 291 per year <unde... (show quote)


My guess is in treating them humanely, unlike keeping them in unsanitary cages as the Obama regime did.

Sorry that the t***h upsets you so.

BTW ... the troops at the border started under Obama as well: https://www.bbc.com/news/10159363

You really should stay away from your f**e news deliverers.

Reply
Jul 20, 2019 13:22:12   #
Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio
 
dpullum wrote:
LWW reported above... " 291 per year <under Trump>. The average yearly deaths under President Obama stood at 372 and 382 under the Bush administration."

And the Global temperature is cooling and the CO2 is decreasing and 20 regulations have been removed for each new one added. Do things really improve with under-reporting... yep. Or perhaps it is true info. If True how was death reduction accomplished... what positive steps were taken to prevent deaths. Did the troops and machine guns at the border help?
LWW reported above... " 291 per year <unde... (show quote)

Boy, you can't accept any good news at all if it means praising Trump in any way. You apparently are so non-caring that the deaths of people is a good thing as long as it tarnished Trump.

At least you got the thing about the Planet cooling right!

Reply
Jul 20, 2019 14:08:41   #
Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast
 
Steven Seward wrote:
...At least you got the thing about the Planet cooling right!

Try telling that to the vast majority of Americans sitting under the huge heat dome over the United States this weekend with the heat indices running upwards of the 100° to 115°+ degree mark.

Try countering the HOTTEST June on record in 2019.

The planet is not cooling by any means when crops along the equator are failing year after year due to HIGH heat and a lack of water.

Soybeans grown in Brazil have less protein in them this year than in previous years.

A decrease in CO2, causes the Ozone levels to rise, contributing to an increase in skin cancer.

Where do you get your propaganda?

Reply
Jul 20, 2019 15:28:46   #
EyeSawYou
 
Shutterbug1697 wrote:
Try telling that to the vast majority of Americans sitting under the huge heat dome over the United States this weekend with the heat indices running upwards of the 100° to 115°+ degree mark.

Try countering the HOTTEST June on record in 2019.

The planet is not cooling by any means when crops along the equator are failing year after year due to HIGH heat and a lack of water.

Soybeans grown in Brazil have less protein in them this year than in previous years.

A decrease in CO2, causes the Ozone levels to rise, contributing to an increase in skin cancer.

Where do you get your propaganda?
Try telling that to the vast majority of Americans... (show quote)


"A decrease in CO2, causes the Ozone levels to rise..."??

Reply
 
 
Jul 20, 2019 16:19:40   #
Shutterbug1697 Loc: Northeast
 
EyeSawYou wrote:
"A decrease in CO2, causes the Ozone levels to rise..."??

This is my response from a topic last weekend.

You're just another C*****e C****e Denier!
https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/carbon-dioxide-emissions
Main sources of carbon dioxide emissions

“There are both natural and human sources of carbon dioxide emissions. Natural sources include decomposition, ocean release and respiration. Human sources come from activities like cement production, deforestation as well as the burning of f****l f**ls like coal, oil and natural gas.
Due to human activities, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has been rising extensively since the Industrial Revolution and has now reached dangerous levels not seen in the last 3 million years.1 2 3 Human sources of carbon dioxide emissions are much smaller than natural emissions but they have upset the natural balance that existed for many thousands of years before the influence of humans.
This is because natural sinks remove around the same quantity of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than are produced by natural sources.4 This had kept carbon dioxide levels balanced and in a safe range. But human sources of emissions have upset the natural balance by adding extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere without removing any.

“Deforestation has been responsible for the great majority of these emissions.” “Trees act as a carbon sink. They remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere via photosynthesis. When forests are cleared to create farms or pastures, trees are cut down and either burnt or left to rot, which adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Since deforestation reduces the amount of trees, this also reduces how much carbon dioxide can be removed by the Earth's forests.”

“Ocean-atmosphere exchange
The largest natural source of carbon dioxide emissions is from ocean-atmosphere exchange. This produces 42.84% of natural carbon dioxide emissions.“


https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

“Scientists attribute the g****l w*****g trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.”

” Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning f****l f**ls. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of c*****e c****e.”

“The Role of Human Activity
In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.
The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.“

Reply
Jul 20, 2019 17:16:05   #
EyeSawYou
 
Shutterbug1697 wrote:
This is my response from a topic last weekend.

You're just another C*****e C****e Denier!
https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/carbon-dioxide-emissions
Main sources of carbon dioxide emissions

“There are both natural and human sources of carbon dioxide emissions. Natural sources include decomposition, ocean release and respiration. Human sources come from activities like cement production, deforestation as well as the burning of f****l f**ls like coal, oil and natural gas.
Due to human activities, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has been rising extensively since the Industrial Revolution and has now reached dangerous levels not seen in the last 3 million years.1 2 3 Human sources of carbon dioxide emissions are much smaller than natural emissions but they have upset the natural balance that existed for many thousands of years before the influence of humans.
This is because natural sinks remove around the same quantity of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than are produced by natural sources.4 This had kept carbon dioxide levels balanced and in a safe range. But human sources of emissions have upset the natural balance by adding extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere without removing any.

“Deforestation has been responsible for the great majority of these emissions.” “Trees act as a carbon sink. They remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere via photosynthesis. When forests are cleared to create farms or pastures, trees are cut down and either burnt or left to rot, which adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Since deforestation reduces the amount of trees, this also reduces how much carbon dioxide can be removed by the Earth's forests.”

“Ocean-atmosphere exchange
The largest natural source of carbon dioxide emissions is from ocean-atmosphere exchange. This produces 42.84% of natural carbon dioxide emissions.“


https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

“Scientists attribute the g****l w*****g trend observed since the mid-20th century to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.”

” Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning f****l f**ls. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of c*****e c****e.”

“The Role of Human Activity
In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.
The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.“
This is my response from a topic last weekend. br ... (show quote)


Composition of air
According to NASA, the gases in Earth's atmosphere include:

Nitrogen — 78 percent
Oxygen — 21 percent
Argon — 0.93 percent
Carbon dioxide — 0.04 percent
Trace amounts of neon, helium, methane, krypton and hydrogen, as well as water vapor

'Empirical Evidence Shows Temperature Increases Before CO2 Increase in ALL Records'

The question is how does the Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e (IPCC) determine that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature? The answer is they assumed it was the case and confirmed it by increasing CO2 levels in their computer climate models and the temperature went up. Science must overlook the fact that they wrote the computer code that told the computer to increase temperature with a CO2 increase. Science must ask if that sequence is confirmed by empirical evidence? Some scientists did that and found the empirical evidence showed it was not true. Why isn’t this central to all debate about anthropogenic g****l w*****g?

The most important assumption behind the hypothesis that human activities are causing g****l w*****g is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The assumption became almost the total focus of the IPCC because of the definition of c*****e c****e given them by the United Nations Framework Convention on C*****e C****e (UNFCCC).

The definition predetermined the method and procedure of the IPCC, which in turn, eliminated a logical scientific approach to consider human impact on climate and c*****e c****e in the larger context of natural, that is without the human portion, climate, and c*****e c****e. The definition and the structure of the IPCC excluded the scientific method, which requires the hypothesis be disproved. Instead, everything was done to prove the hypothesis. The definition did not allow for consideration of a null hypothesis. The structure accepted the very limited, untested, conclusion of Working Group (WG) I as the basis for the research done by Working Groups II and III. This means WG II only considered the negative impact of warming. They did not consider the positive impact of warming, nor the possibility of g****l c*****g. As a result, WG III only offered policies and remedial actions on the negative impact of g****l w*****g.

The definition given to the IPCC should have required them to examine the entire issue of climate and c*****e c****e. Then and only then, should they have considered the possible human-caused portion of c*****e c****e. Apparently, after the debacle of the 2001 Report in which a deliberate attempt was made to rewrite climate history, the IPCC acknowledged the problem of the definition by offering a better one. However, it only appeared as a footnote in the 2007 Summary for Policymakers (SPM), the simplified and exaggerated Report produced for the politicians. It said,

“C*****e c****e in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on C*****e C****e, where c*****e c****e refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

The problem is this appeared in the SPM not in the WG I Report. It was impossible to apply it to “IPCC usage” in the 2007 WGI Report because that document is cumulative and built on the limited material of all previous Reports. To apply it in the 2007 Report required starting the entire process over. It appears it was presented to mislead the policymakers reading the SPM. It appears it was included so IPCC could point to it and say to those who questioned the limitations created by the original definition that their work was a result of consideration of, “natural variability or as a result of human activity.” It is, in effect, a most remarkable phenomenon, a retroactive deception.

As I recall, nobody at the time challenged the assumption that an increase in CO2 caused an increase in global temperature. Rather, the challenges focused on how the definition allowed the IPCC to downplay the much greater volume and importance of water vapor as a greenhouse gas. It allowed the IPCC to effectively overlook it because while humans produce water vapor, the amount is insignificant relative to the total atmospheric volume.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/09/empirical-evidence-shows-temperature-increases-before-co2-increase-in-all-records/

Reply
Jul 20, 2019 17:16:05   #
Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio
 
Shutterbug1697 wrote:
Try telling that to the vast majority of Americans sitting under the huge heat dome over the United States this weekend with the heat indices running upwards of the 100° to 115°+ degree mark.

Try countering the HOTTEST June on record in 2019.

The planet is not cooling by any means when crops along the equator are failing year after year due to HIGH heat and a lack of water.

Soybeans grown in Brazil have less protein in them this year than in previous years.

A decrease in CO2, causes the Ozone levels to rise, contributing to an increase in skin cancer.

Where do you get your propaganda?
Try telling that to the vast majority of Americans... (show quote)

Hottest June is irrelevant. We just had the mildest Winter in 60 years. All you have to do is look at the Global Temperature chart on this website. It is the Global Lower Atmosphere temperatures taken by the satellite that NASA put up in 1979 to supercede the primitive ground-based measurements.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2019_v6.jpg

This shows that there was a tiny bump in 2016 and then the planet cooled a smidgen for the next couple of years, and has risen a tiny bit in the last few months. Nothing to get excited about. Unfortunately, the G****l W*****g alarmists use the primitive ground-based measurements and ignore the more accurate satellite measurements because the scientists are able to "tweak" the ground-based measurements to fit their desired result. If they didn't tweak the results, you would see only half of the miniscule warming that they are reporting now.

Reply
Jul 20, 2019 17:26:08   #
Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio
 
Shutterbug1697 wrote:
Due to human activities, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has been rising extensively since the Industrial Revolution and has now reached dangerous levels not seen in the last 3 million years.

Dangerous levels of CO2? This is BS. The reason they are telling you it's the highest level in only 3 million years is because CO2 levels were higher than that throughout pretty much the entire history of the Planet. 3 million years is only 1/1,800th of Earth's history, a mere split second in geologic time. CO2 levels were as much as 30 times higher in the past, and the World did not end. We are actually living in a geologic era in which CO2 levels are dangerously low, just barely high enough to sustain plant life.



Reply
 
 
Jul 20, 2019 17:40:57   #
Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio
 
Shutterbug1697 wrote:
” Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning f****l f**ls. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of c*****e c****e.”

CO2 is the weakest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It has almost no detectable effect on G****l W*****g. In fact there is no observation in practice of CO2 levels rising and the temperature rising after it. The only observations we have are of temperature rising first and then CO2 levels rising after, by about 800 years.


CO2 has the peculiar property of lessening its effect in a falling logarithmic pattern the more there is of it, so its maximum warming capacity is estimated at no more than a fraction of a degree Celsius. The actual warming theory that the scientists propose is that this tiny bit of warming due to CO2 will cause some other unforeseen feedback event to occur that will cause runaway G****l W*****g on its own.

Methane gas is 34 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Water vapor accounts for more than 90% of all greenhouse warming effects on the Planet.

Reply
Jul 20, 2019 17:45:40   #
LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America
 
The Earth is in a carbon drought historically.

Reply
Jul 20, 2019 17:47:23   #
Steven Seward Loc: Cleveland, Ohio
 
EyeSawYou wrote:
The question is how does the Intergovernmental Panel on C*****e C****e (IPCC) determine that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature? The answer is they assumed it was the case and confirmed it by increasing CO2 levels in their computer climate models and the temperature went up.

This is the crux of the problem, that all this G****l W*****g hysteria is based not on observation, but on computer models, none of which has ever made a single accurate prediction so far. This is the epitome of foolishness when scientists keep saying over and over for 30 years straight, "Well, the last hundred computer models were wrong, but this one is gonna be right!" Isn't this the definition of insanity?

Reply
Jul 20, 2019 17:47:37   #
LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America
 
Shutterbug1697 wrote:
Try telling that to the vast majority of Americans sitting under the huge heat dome over the United States this weekend with the heat indices running upwards of the 100° to 115°+ degree mark.

Try countering the HOTTEST June on record in 2019.

The planet is not cooling by any means when crops along the equator are failing year after year due to HIGH heat and a lack of water.

Soybeans grown in Brazil have less protein in them this year than in previous years.

A decrease in CO2, causes the Ozone levels to rise, contributing to an increase in skin cancer.

Where do you get your propaganda?
Try telling that to the vast majority of Americans... (show quote)


We both know that your rant is an attempt to change the topic away from the f**e news industry's lies that Trump and only Trump has been behind border deaths.

Grow up.

Reply
Page 1 of 7 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
The Attic
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.