Trump now accused of colluding....

[*PhilHos*]

(09-17-2018, 01:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Funny how when everyone who was squealing about this "fake news" was asked what was fake about it they had ZERO facts to back up their opinion that Trumps policies have not contributed to global warming already.  They just think it has not.

To be fair, the article in the OP gives ZERO facts to back up the claim that Trump policies have contributed to global warming already.

[fredtoast]

(09-19-2018, 03:37 PM)PhilHos Wrote: To be fair, the article in the OP gives ZERO facts to back up the claim that Trump policies have contributed to global warming already.

To be fair you have already admitted that the do (or will).

[*PhilHos*]

(09-19-2018, 05:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: To be fair you have already admitted that the do (or will).

Yes, but you can't complain that people aren't giving facts to support their claims in rebuffing an article in which the author doesn't give facts to support his or her claim. Well, I guess you can, but then you look kind of hypocritical in doing so.

[fredtoast]

(09-19-2018, 05:37 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Yes, but you can't complain that people aren't giving facts to support their claims in rebuffing an article in which the author doesn't give facts to support his or her claim. 

Sure I can.

We all agree that Trumps policies will effect global warming.  

So the people who try to claim it clearly will but it clearly hasn't are the only ones who look like hypocrites.  They are the ones trying to take two opposing positions at the same time.

I, on the other hand, have been completely consistent with my position, i.e. Trumps policies contribute to global warming.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-19-2018, 05:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So the people who try to claim it clearly will but it clearly hasn't are the only ones who look like hypocrites.  They are the ones trying to take two opposing positions at the same time.

So, by your logic, anytime any policy is enacted, it's effects are felt immediately. Got it.

[fredtoast]

(09-20-2018, 01:15 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So, by your logic, anytime any policy is enacted, it's effects are felt immediately. Got it.

No.  But when everyone agrees that a policy will have a certain effect they should not be able to say it has not had that effect without some evidence to the contrary.

You agree it will have an effect.  If you can say 100% certain that it has not had the effect yet then you should be able to tell me when it will begin.  Otherwise you have no proof that it has not had that effect already.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-20-2018, 02:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  But when everyone agrees that a policy will have a certain effect they should not be able to say it has not had that effect without some evidence to the contrary.

You agree it will have an effect.  If you can say 100% certain that it has not had the effect yet then you should be able to tell me when it will begin.  Otherwise you have no proof that it has not had that effect already.

You do realize that there's a difference between saying something "will have an effect" versus "has had an effect", right?
You do realize that when policy changes are made, that the effects of said changes do not happen instantaneously, right?
You do realize that if effects of changes take time before they felt, it may be impossible to know exactly when the effects actually started, right?
You do realize that this particular debate started because you whined about those disagreeing with the author in the OP's article not providing any facts in their rebuttal, yet you nor the author in the OP's article provided any facts in the first place, right? You want to point out that those in disagreement didn't reply with facts? Go right ahead, but when no facts were presented to begin with, well, it kind of weakens your complaint about them not providing facts of their own.

[*bfine32*]

(09-20-2018, 03:28 PM)PhilHos Wrote: You do realize that there's a difference between saying something "will have an effect" versus "has had an effect", right?
You do realize that when policy changes are made, that the effects of said changes do not happen instantaneously, right?
You do realize that if effects of changes take time before they felt, it may be impossible to know exactly when the effects actually started, right?
You do realize that this particular debate started because you whined about those disagreeing with the author in the OP's article not providing any facts in their rebuttal, yet you nor the author in the OP's article provided any facts in the first place, right? You want to point out that those in disagreement didn't reply with facts? Go right ahead, but when no facts were presented to begin with, well, it kind of weakens your complaint about them not providing facts of their own.

You do realize we currently have such a good economy currently right now because of Obama, but the possible effects of global warming right now is because of Trump?

You need to quit listening to the echo chamber  

[GMDino]

(09-20-2018, 04:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You do realize we currently have such a good economy currently right now because of Obama, but the possible effects of global warming right now is because of Trump?

You need to quit listening to the echo chamber  

Personally I don't think any POTUS has a tremendous effect on the economy in the short term.  I'm sure a lot of big businesses were happy with the GOP being in charge as they anticipated tax cuts, deregulations, etc.

But the Trump camp's echo of the economy didn't "turn around" until he was inaugurated is a false narrative.

the other point would be that if the current administration rolls back a bunch of environmental regulations then it is safe to assume they will have an effect eventually.  Deciding that it is okay to dump mine waster into creeks, for example, may not pollute the entire waterway immediately, but it is bad in the long run.

The biggest problem with Trump's "decisions" is that he doesn't seem to base them on anything other than he wants them.  And there doesn't seem to be any looking at the long term.

So Trump is wrong about the economy being his and there is probably little effect on the environment from his policies so far either.

Long term that is probably a different story.

[fredtoast]

(09-20-2018, 04:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You do realize we currently have such a good economy currently right now because of Obama, but the possible effects of global warming right now is because of Trump?

That is exactly what I am saying.

Obamas policies went into effect and immediately the economy improved.

Trump policies went into place and immediately effected global warming.  

Phil istrying to argue that none of Trumps policies have effected the economy yet.  Bet he is surprised that you took my side on this one.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-20-2018, 06:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Phil istrying to argue that none of Trumps policies have effected the economy yet. 

Here we go with fred making shit up again. I wasn't talking about the economy AT ALL. I was talking about Trump's policies effecting the weather, you know the topic of this whole thread?

I am surprised that you're giving Trump credit for the economy doing so well, though.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-20-2018, 06:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Trump policies went into place and immediately effected global warming.  

That's an interesting opinion you have there, fred.


I'm just going to put this here:
June 2017
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201706

Quote:Overall, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature for June 2017 was 0.82°C (1.48°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F)

Now, it is still my opinion that Trump's policies did NOT contribute to global temperatures being lower in June 2018 than in 2017, but if you want to give him and his policies credit for it, well, don't let me stop you.
June 2018
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201806

Quote:The globally-averaged temperature across land and ocean surfaces was the fifth highest on record for June at 0.75°C (1.35°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F).

[fredtoast]

(09-21-2018, 04:42 PM)PhilHos Wrote: That's an interesting opinion you have there, fred.


I'm just going to put this here:
June 2017
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201706

Now, it is still my opinion that Trump's policies did NOT contribute to global temperatures being lower in June 2018 than in 2017, but if you want to give him and his policies credit for it, well, don't let me stop you.
June 2018
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201806

Rep.

Solid response Phil.