joj
3 responses | 0 likes
Started by metmike - Aug. 29, 2019, 8:39 p.m.

Rather than mess up a great electoral college discussion going on here, I decided to transfer this junk to its own thread.

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Electoral College            

            

                By metmike - Aug. 29, 2019, 7:51 p.m.            

            

joj,


https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/37245/

                By metmike - Aug. 22, 2019, 2:25 p.m.            

I'm still waiting for you to respond to my question about why you made up this statement about me. Is this the 5th time that I asked now?


"But criticizing Obama is WHAT Mike?   

'Cause you were dishing it out pretty good there for the last few years."

                      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++              


            

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Electoral College            

       

                By metmike - Aug. 29, 2019, 8:24 p.m.            

                                        

If I wanted to dish it out to Obama, there certainly would have been plenty of ammo in my area of expertise...........climate change.

For instance, did you read the news this week about the house that they are buying on Martha's Vineyard for 15,000,000 ?

I won't include any of the bashing articles........just the pictures and my/his comments.

Note all that beautiful blue in the background.

Yeah, that's the ocean. Topography pictures suggest that his house is 10 feet above sea level. 

Kind of strange for him to spend that sort of money on something, if he really believed what he told us because if true, the ocean will be almost to his house by the end of this century.

I think he's a smart man and knows that oceans are really only increasing at just over 1 inch/decade and his property will be safe during his life time, his kids, grandkids and down the line for generations. 





Barack and Michelle Obama buying $14.85M Martha’s Vineyard estate



               ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++                                                    

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Electoral College            

            

                            

                By metmike - Aug. 29, 2019, 8:26 p.m.            

         

Tweet

Barack Obama

@BarackObama

Sea levels are rising due to #climate change, potentially threatening U.S. cities: http://OFA.BO/sacMyb We have to #ActOnClimate.

10:28 AM · Jul 31, 2013·Twitter Web Client

                            

Comments
Re: joj
0 likes
By metmike - Aug. 29, 2019, 8:49 p.m.
Like Reply

In major shift, Obama administration will plan for rising seas in all federal projects

  

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/30/in-major-shift-obama-administration-will-plan-for-rising-seas-in-all-federal-projects/


In the graph below. Look at the huge spread in model forecasts for the rising seas.

Can you guess which color the line is of the model projection of sea level increase that the MSM and one side tell us is going to happen?

The actual increase has been a bit over 1 inch/decade for the last 100 years.


It's possible that could go higher. 

  

×

Re: Re: joj
0 likes
By metmike - Aug. 29, 2019, 9:08 p.m.
Like Reply

Actually, the red line on the graph on the previous page is small potatoes to some of the stuff we are fed by MSM sources.

Sea Levels Could Rise At Least 20 Feet

Published: July 9th, 2015

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea-levels-rise-20-feet-19211


"Even if world manages to limit global warming to 2°C — the target number for current climate negotiations — sea levels may still rise at least 6 meters (20 feet) above their current heights, radically reshaping the world’s coastline and affecting millions in the process.

That finding comes from a new paper published on Thursday in Science that shows how high sea levels rose the last time carbon dioxide levels were this high."


metmike:

A couple of things to note regarding this guys statement.

1. The most obvious one is that number, 20 feet. Despite there being no credible science to substantiate that, wild speculative numbers like that in many realms of climate area thrown out there recklessly to scare people. 

2. You may not have noticed but the date of this article was 2015 and the magical number to save the planet was still at +2.0 deg. C.  The same one used for the Climate Accord that year.

When they picked +2.0 C as the temperature for the planet to be lost a couple of decades ago, they thought the global temperature was going to increase faster..................like the climate models were projecting and people would see how quickly Armageddon was coming.

But the real world didn't cooperate and the warming rate has been slower so they had to lower that temperature of Armageddon down to +1.5 deg. C...the current most useful one (most of us will be dead when +2.0 C happens) and to cover up for the slower increase, tell us that its actually worse then expected and the original  deadline, that was set by the United Nations , 2000, then changed to the settled science/debate is over deadline of 2015 by Al Gore/IPCC(United Nations) and company, and now the 2030, honestly we really mean it this time deadline that includes the Green New Deal..............that comes to us compliments of the United Nations again.

          Welcome to the United Nations                                       

                                           

                                                    

Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld

Re: Re: Re: joj
0 likes
By mcfarm - Aug. 30, 2019, 9:59 a.m.
Like Reply

ohhh MM did you ever catch the great one in a typical liberal position of do what I say not what I do....Algore is the best at this behavior but now we have biden running thru artillery shells to pin medals on wounded soldiers, Hillary getting shot at as she landed and Bill risking his life while molesting young girls