What to expect from Joe Biden
8 responses | 0 likes
Started by GunterK - July 9, 2020, 1:30 p.m.

From Biden's website.... it's official !!!!

The link below lays out what to expect from a Biden presidency. This plan is called the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force Recommendations. It’s a very long document… I only scanned through it.

Here are some tidbits I noticed…..

On top is AOC’s New Green Deal. This one has been discussed by metmike multiple times. Everything will be better for our children… air, water, etc. Things like the Flint water crisis will never happen again under Democr. leadership. But we need to act quickly, before it’s too late.

The corona crisis will be taken care off by Biden. Trump has caused the deaths of 10,000s of corona victims.

Biden and his team will prevent the Trump Recession from turning into a Trump Depression. They will bring jobs back into the USA. All products should have a “made in USA” label. [I can imagine some pretty blue MAGA hats ]. They will improve unemployment rates in the black community.

On immigration, they want to turn everything around done by Trump. They want to open the country to all asylum seekers from all over the world. [ please be aware of the difference between Legal Immigrants and Asylum Seekers. Immigrants have to have a job to get in. “Refugees” are put on complete welfare ]. Our 47 mill unemployed will not be happy about this.

The population of the US is expected grow to over 1 billion.

This mirrors the UN mass-migration efforts [ the goal of which is the Islamization of Europe.]. Maybe I should attach some video clips of the burning cities in Europe.

Not mentioned in this document [unless I overlooked it], is the dismantling of the US Republic, as proposed by certain members of the Democratic Party.

https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/UNITY-TASK-FORCE-RECOMMENDATIONS.pdf

again… I only scanned through it. If I overlooked something, or misinterpreted something, I apologize 

Comments
By metmike - July 9, 2020, 2:30 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks much Gunter!

Here's how they lead off the 110 page document:


1BIDEN-SANDERS UNITY TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS COMBATING THE CLIMATE CRISIS AND PURSUING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 


Climate change is a global emergency. We have no time to waste in taking action to protect Americans’ lives and futures. From Houston, Texas, to Paradise, California; from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to Davenport, Iowa, the last four years have seen record-breaking storms, devastating wildfires, and historic floods. Urban and rural communities alike have suffered tens of billions of dollars in economic losses. Dams have failed catastrophically in Michigan. Neighborhoods have been all but wiped off the map in Florida. Farmers’ crops have been drowned in their fields across the Midwest. Thousands of Americans have died. And President Trump still callously and willfully denies the science that explains why so many are suffering.Like so many crises facing the United States, the impacts of climate change are not evenly.


metmike: Not only are we NOT having a climate crisis(now elevated to the new term that they think sounds even scarier......climate EMERGENCY) but we are having the complete opposite............a climate OPTIMUM by all authentic scientific definitions.

The last 40 years has featured the best weather and climate for life on this GREENING planet in the last 1,000 years.

In 2030, the year when we will lose the planet to the apocalypse if we do nothing, I predict with high confidence, that  doing nothing will result in the earth being even GREENER, much of life doing BETTER and the sea levels a bit more than 1 inch higher.

They've been saying this stuff for over 30 years(for the socialist political agenda of the UN) and with the exception of heavy rains, have been wrong about almost all of it.



U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

PETER JAMES SPIELMANNJune 29, 1989

https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

   UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. 

   Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. 

   He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control. 

   As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday. 

   Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study. 

   ″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said. 

   UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone. 

   Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. 

   Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says. The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse. 

   The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown. 

   The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago. 

   Brown said if the warming trend continues, ″the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, we have an opportunity to start the stabilizing process.″ 

   He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees. 

   ″Anything beyond that, and we have to start thinking about the significant rise of the sea levels ... we can expect more ferocious storms, hurricanes, wind shear, dust erosion.″ 

      UNEP is working toward forming a scientific plan of action by the end of 1990, and the adoption of a global climate treaty by 1992. In May, delegates from 103 nations met in Nairobi, Kenya - where UNEP is based - and decided to open negotiations on the treaty next year. 

   Nations will be asked to reduce the use of fossil fuels, cut the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as methane and fluorocarbons, and preserve the rain forests. 

 

   The treaty could also call for improved energy efficiency, increasing conservation, and for developed nations to transfer technology to Third World nations to help them save energy and cut greenhouse gas emissions, said Brown. "

metmike: Biden/Sanders could have saved alot of time/trouble by just copying this same false climate crisis narrative that we've been fed the past 30 years........actually, they did alot of that. 

There is a climate crisis.........it's a crisis of authentic science, objectivity and use of politics to hijack climate science for the socialist/Marxist agenda.

It does exist too............on computer models going out 100 years with hand picked faulty mathematical equations that greatly exaggerate warming and extreme, worst case scenarios.

Extremely low odds of worst case scenarios not supported by the science are sold to us as SETTLED SCIENCE.

The Biden/Sanders team wants you to believe in their settled science and they already have a massive number is the climate religion/cult(belief in something not real based on faith, not science). 

Along with AOC and others, this is our future and part of the cultural revolution that includes changes in the economy, that are never going back to the old culture and economy.

Ironically, even though Trump represents the complete opposite of these policies, massive hatred of him has fueled even more support for the fake climate emergency(as Bernie calls it to scare us).

Whatever Trump is for............the other side is vehemently against........even if, once upon a time they used to be for it. 

If Trump says there is no climate crisis..............there must be a climate apocalypse right around the corner like Sanders tells us.

The  internet and broadcast media has taken over peoples brains. The internet has wonderful things/opportunities that allow us to educate ourselves with authentic knowledge for those that want to really learn. 

 No need to go to a library and do research anymore........its right here at our fingertips using electronics that follow us everywhere that we go. 

Problem is that many people go to their favorite sources to get the information about everything they need to know. Who would go thru the trouble of actually doing the research/homework on all these topics when all they need to do is click onto CNN's site and watch them. The MSM does all the hard work for us and all we need to do is let them pass all that information on to us. 

Problem is that they add and subtract critical pieces of information to the product before passing it on. And they sneak in editorial comments and personal opinions, while representing it as objective and telling both sides.


By wxdavid - July 9, 2020, 4:03 p.m.
Like Reply

too bad  Gunter K   you never did that with the  Trump platforms 

By mcfarm - July 9, 2020, 4:10 p.m.
Like Reply

hi david. Please let us all know how you fairing in your horse and buggy, going home to your house with no heat and no air conditioning, carrying water up from the creek and beating you under wear clean on the banks. Cause if you are an elite like the Clintons, Obama's or Biden's that is exactly how you will living with Biden's no oil, environmental, lunatic policies. Good luck with that,

By wxdavid - July 9, 2020, 4:12 p.m.
Like Reply

   MET MIKE   went on a  anti science  rant here. Which is kind of odd since one  would think  Met mike  should know better.
sually professional scientists don't end up  going out of their way to show that they don't grasp how science actually works.

 This particular individual from the UN from 1989 was catastrophically and disastrously wrong.  out that there is no doubt whatsoever.

 But here  is  a clue for you Mike. Science is filled with people ...other scientists Highly educated Well published  with  peer review studies who have claimed certain things and  have made certain predictions which have turned out to be absolutely 100% disastrously wrong in every possible way.

 That doesn't mean the field or the science that they are studying is crap.

Yet in your tirade you go on and on about how all of climate science is controlled by socialists from the UN which of course is absurd.  

 You of course make this claim without any proof of any kind whatsoever.
Again you said it therefore it must be the truth that's pretty much the way you operate.


 but the fact remains that this disastrously bad prediction from this one  inept scientist does not mean climate science is not valid.



...climate EMERGENCY) but we are having the complete opposite............a climate OPTIMUM by all authentic scientific definitions.

The last 40 years has featured the best weather and climate for life on this GREENING planet in the last 1,000 years.

In 2030, the year when we will lose the planet to the apocalypse if we do nothing, I predict with high confidence, that  doing nothing will result in the earth being even GREENER, much of life doing BETTER and the sea levels a bit more than 1 inch higher.

They've been saying this stuff for over 30 years(for the socialist political agenda of the UN) and with the exception of heavy rains, have been wrong about almost all of it.



U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

PETER JAMES SPIELMANNJune 29, 1989

https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

   UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

   Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

   He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

   As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

   Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

   ″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.

   UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone.

   Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

   Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says. The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse.

   The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.

   The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago.

   Brown said if the warming trend continues, ″the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, we have an opportunity to start the stabilizing process.″

   He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees.

   ″Anything beyond that, and we have to start thinking about the significant rise of the sea levels ... we can expect more ferocious storms, hurricanes, wind shear, dust erosion.″

      UNEP is working toward forming a scientific plan of action by the end of 1990, and the adoption of a global climate treaty by 1992. In May, delegates from 103 nations met in Nairobi, Kenya - where UNEP is based - and decided to open negotiations on the treaty next year.

   Nations will be asked to reduce the use of fossil fuels, cut the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as methane and fluorocarbons, and preserve the rain forests.

 

By metmike - July 9, 2020, 4:26 p.m.
Like Reply

wxdavid was banned for 10 rule violations for foul language, calling others names and mean personal attacks  and 4 separate warnings since I became moderator that he completely ignored(after Alex banned him permanently and I allowed him to come back) but I'm letting certain posts of his thru like this one.


Dave,

Refer to my recent response to you on the fake climate crisis.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/54938/


                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Historic Heatwave?            

           

                By metmike - July 4, 2020, 6:18 p.m.            

            

                             

This must be to good to be true! 

A debate with a meteorologist that thinks that we are having a climate crisis! A rare opportunity granted to this climate denier(because the other side says the science is settled and us non believers just can't catch on and  aren't worthy of their valuable time)

I'm almost exited enough to pee my pants.......oh, wait, that's just overactive bladder/old age(-:

Seriously Dave, I greatly appreciate you sharing your views on this with us/me.

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

Dave,

Let me address each of your points, one at a time. 


1. Dave: "So...      just to be sure about  this C02  .... according to YOU ....is NOT a   greenhouse gas ?also this ....    sorry that just wrong"

metmike: I made a point to say the exact opposite to provide clarity to you at the end of my previos response to you. Let me put the quote in bold this time so that you can't miss it.  "Since the irrefutable  physics/science  of CO2 tell us that its a greenhouse gas that keeps more warmth in, as long as CO2 continues to go up, we should expect the slight, mostly beneficial(to life) warming to continue."


2. Dave:  "Perhaps I am bothered by the term beneficial gas. I don't believe that atmospheric gases are either beneficial or harmful per se.   In his particular case while it is true that are benefits to increased CO2 for biology and plant life.. increased  CO2 for the human body causes ya  know like um  DEATH.   So I am not really sure why you state categorically that CO2  IN ANY AMOUNT is always beneficial to everything across the entire planet and entire spectrum of life.
I think that is a ridiculous assertion. "

metmike:  We are talking about AMBIENT ATMOSPHERIC levels of CO2..............you know, the level that matters with regards to climate change and the amount that effects all life on this planet and is currently around 415 parts per million concentration. As I thought was made clear from my statement: We are barely half of the optimal level and life on this greening planet is telling us that more would be better.

With regards to it being a beneficial gas. Life starts on earth with the proven law of photosynthesis

Sunshine +H2O +Minerals +CO2 = O2 +Food(sugars)  

Not Sunshine +H2O +Minerals +Pollution =O2 +Food(sugars)

All animals either eat plants or something that ate plants........all crops and food production happens because of CO2. In that equation above, when you add MORE CO2......up to double the current ambient atmospheric amount.............most plants grow faster and bigger. The planet greens up, other creatures have more food. If you don't want to call it beneficial, that's ok with me but I will continue to use that term.

Is it possible, to find a couple of exceptions to that rule? Sure but we are referring to the overwhelming scientific RULE as it applies to climate change and biology,  not any exceptions that one could possibly find.

I challenge you me to show where this is wrong? Not by showing computer simulated projections  for the next 100 years that have ALL been too warm and wrong. In the last 30 years, show me evidence that increasing CO2 caused great harm to life on this planet. I have reams of data that PROVE the agricultural benefits to humans alone, on this greening planet were in the $$$trillions. Here is one of dozens of links:

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/the-social-benefit-of-carbon-3-5-trillion-in-agricultural-productivity/


3. Dave: The other issue  I have here is the reasoning that you have employed. Again it's an argument I see from many conservatives but one which fails of critical thinking test.

 Yes the Earth was significantly warmer in the medieval  era.  
Absolutely. Without a doubt.

 So what?  How does that in itself prove anything one way or the other that the warning going on now is not anthropologically driven?  

 It doesn't.   So  WHAT?  Why make that point ?
Talking about the fact that the Earth was warm in the past is a distraction and a logical fallacy which is used to convince people who don't have adequate critical thinking skills that the current warming has to be natural variability because the Earth was warmer in the past."

metmike: There are several reasons for this Dave.

a. Do you know what caused the warming in the Medieval/Roman/Minoan climate optimums/warm periods? I sure don't and I haven't read anybody that does in the last 2 decades. If we don't know what caused those warmings at roughly 1,000 year intervals that were similar to today's warming, 1,000 years later, how do we know that there isn't a natural cycle involved that is CONTRIBUTING to the current warming. You agree that there are natural cycles, right? How many of them are represented with the equations in the climate models? Exactly none. So we know for sure that there will be natural climate cycles and we know for sure the climate models will be wrong about them.  The models are all about increasing CO2 and using increasing H2O to greatly (over)amplify the affect by a factor of 3. They can't properly model the affect of clouds either but thats another issue. On this one, I am very confident that at least half of the beneficial warming has come from the physics of greenhouse gas warming(CO2)...............but its very possible that a natural cycle.......related to the Grand Solar Maximum last century caused half of it. There is some evidence for this but not  conclusive so I am just being open minded/objective and scientific......until we can RULE OUT what caused the similar beneficial warmings 1,000 years ago and 2,000 years ago........ect.

b. If it was this warm before and scientists almost universally saw it as climate OPTIMUM then.......up until climate science was hijacked for the political agenda over 3 decades ago(by the UN and IPCC), why are the same conditions now a climate CRISIS? They aren't of course. Just like it was then, these same conditions now are a climate optimum.

As I mentioned, the benefits to this warming have outweighed the negatives by 10 to 1 for the planet. This will continue, until it maxes out at around 2 deg. C warmer than this. At the current rate of warming of .14 deg. C/decade that would be  around 140 years.  So based on the authentic science and observations, we should be having a climate optimum FOR LIFE the next 140 years before things go the other way for life. Granted, sea levels COULD start accelerating higher at some point but they have NOT yet, despite predictions.  This would threaten trillions in coastal properties/structures  NOT LIFE and certainly not the planet

c. Showing that it was this warm before means that  this is not unprecedented. It also proves the fraudulence of the UN and IPCC, who, shortly after they hijacked climate science they frickin REWROTE climate history to wipe out the Medieval Warm Period to fake people into believing that THIS warming was unprecedented.............which you agree, it isn't.  You are surely aware of the hockey stick graphing done by the IPCC's climate charlatan,  Michael Mann using a selected tree ring study to wipe our the warming from 1,000 years ago. Again, even if all the warming this time is from the CO2 and the warmings before were from natural cycles.............we are still having a climate OPTIMUM by all objective standards of science regarding the affects on life. 


4. Dave:  "It's like saying well 80 million people died in World War II and we are still having Wars today where people are
dying so I guess World War II is still continuing.

It is same kind of thinking. And it is flawed. Deeply."

metmike: To play off your analogy Dave, I am not saying that the Medieval Warm Period is continuing today. We know it ended abruptly and global temperatures plunged us into The Little Ice Age, which you know from history was a rough time for life on this planet. Cold is what kills most life.  Now we have warmed back to MWP levels again and I am asking, "besides the greenhouse gas warming from increasing CO2 this time, is the same natural cycle(Grand Solar Maximum or something else at play?  To adjust your war analogy, it would be like me analyzing the CAUSES of WW2 and looking at current wars to see if there are any similar causes for these wars(not the same war continuing).  Not saying there are or are not..........just looking at the objective data and facts and in the case of climate, the science of natural cycles included in that. Unlike what one side keeps insisting, the climate science is nowhere close to being settled. We must continue to gather data/observations and analysis and for crying out loud, we need to greatly adjust the broken models downwards to match reality not upwards to scare and motivate political actions. 


5. Dave: "One last Point. Yes the Earth was warmer in the  9000 years ago. we also did not have a highly Advanced technologically driven fragile Society which does not handle events at the end of the bell curve very well"

metmike: You make a strong point here Dave. This is why I mention the main potential threat would be if sea levels were to accelerate higher(which they haven't). Trillions in property losses would occur along the coastlines. The rest of life could be doing fabulous for the next 100 years but if the seas went up by, let's say 5+ feet, it would be a MAJOR, very costly problem. It's POSSIBLE(based on broken models) they could go up by that much but the science right now tells us it won't happen. Using hand picked and  flawed mathematical equations to represent the potential extreme scenario(s) of a speculative theory in the form of computer simulations is not science. What is science are observations, empirical data, facts and measurements of the REAL world, not the simulated world. We hear projections of sea levels going up  20+ feet to scare us to get us to act. This is junk science, anti science. It's politics.   Tell us the truth please is all I ask of the gatekeepers, not what you want us to hear to get us to act because the truth won't do it.

The truth is this. The sea levels have been going up around 1 inch/decade for the past 100 years. Currently, that rate is still just a bit over  1 inch/decade. We are being told that all sorts of apocalyptic type things will be happening by 2030 if we don't act immediately. The truth is that in 2030, sea levels will have increased by just over an inch. By the year 2100, sea levels could be around 1 foot higher if they continue at this current rate.  This is why we don't hear the truth...........because it's not scary enough to get political results.

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

Another item that you did not mention is that warmer air holds more moisture and so we have more high end flooding events with global warming. I know some skeptics don't believe this but its basic meteorology. All things held the same, if you increase the moisture by 6%(from our 1 deg C of global warming) then rain making systems will dump out more rain and this will ADD to extreme, local/isolated flooding events but again, the benefits to LIFE are 10 times greater and we are dealing with a 6% increase in available water vapor NOT a 600% or even a 60% increase.  When we had recent rainfall records of more than 30 inches from a couple of hurricanes, we heard that it was from climate change. Well, the first 28 inches would probably have fallen with the old climate but yes, another 2 inches likely came from climate change. 

I'm sure all the residents that had flooding from 30 inches of rain were screaming "Dang climate change! If not for the climate crisis, we would have only received 28 inches of rain!"

Let me finish by reminding you of what still happens to life every Winter in the mid and high latitudes. Plants/trees all go dormant(or die) for almost half the year to survive the KILLING cold. Many creatures can hibernate(bury themselves deep into the ground or shut down their bodies to survive the KILLING cold and LACK OF FOOD because plants can't survive when its cold. Some creatures migrate thousands of miles south, so they can benefit from the additional warmth. Some creatures tough it out thru the harsh Winter months with losses from cold AND lack of food pretty high in colder Winters. 

If those creatures could speak for themselves and we asked 100 of them if they would like the planet to be warmer or colder or to stay the same, what do you think the poll would say..............keep in mind that the polar bear population has increased 30% since 2005.........so even the global warming mascot that was supposed to be threatened by melting Arctic SEA ice just told us their species has enjoyed massively procreating with abundant food the past 15 years. 

Also, we are led to believe that conditions on this planet were optimal, around a century ago when the atmospheric CO2 was under 300 PPM(vs 415 PPM now) and the global temp was around 1 deg cooler.........because that is when the evil humans began burning fossil fuels at an increasing rate.

So lets imagine what would happen to the humans if we could magically revert back to the levels of when humans could not have had an affect on the climate yet........go back in an atmospheric time machine to the OLD climate?

Crops yields and food production would drop more than 30% immediately. The current great surplus that we have in every food stock would rapidly be depleted, with widespread shortages and price rationing of the short supply. 

Within 3 years, close to 1 billion people would starve to death and prices for all crops would more than triple.

This is why the last 40 years has featured the best weather/climate since the Medieval Warm Period and is an irrefutable climate OPTIMUM.....again, like it was then. 

So with this new  and improved climate, for humans, if we had the choice to take it or leave it today we might have this to decide.

Have 6% more moisture that adds to rains in flooding events and feed 1 billion more people with the new climate? Or,  with the old climate, have 6% less rains in flooding events and have 1 billion people on the planet starve within 3 years.  What would be your choice?

For the rest of the animal kingdom and plants, we know from observations, that they almost all like this new climate much more. 

                                    


By metmike - July 9, 2020, 4:36 p.m.
Like Reply

The reason that I'm allowing this one thru is that its not political bs it's science.........that can be indisputably proven.

Dave claims to be for science and thinks that we are having a climate crisis. He is a meteorologist with access to all the same information that I have.

One thing that I enjoy the most is people questioning my science, so there is no way I can turn down this opportunity with Dave. Either I have to prove what I'm stating is correct with data/science........or I have to adjust my position/science.


I have been gathering data and doing research on climate science for over 2 decades but have much to learn........as we all do about climate science. Hopefully, Dave will teach me something.............since his side claims the science is settled and they are the ones that know how to control the climate.

I previously asked Dave to look at my data/research/discussions and tell me what I have wrong but to this point, he has declined to do so.

Here is it again Dave. You should be able to find at least a few things wrong in those 3 dozen articles/discussions and hundreds of posts that define my work. 

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/27864/


Where is your proof in the real world of the crisis Dave?

By GunterK - July 9, 2020, 6:30 p.m.
Like Reply

david, you wrote "..too bad  Gunter K   you never did that with the  Trump platforms "

actually, I didn't see a 110- page manifesto from any of the 2016 candidates.

If I remember correctly, Hillary's manifesto could have been written up on half a page, but what stuck in my mind was the fact that she stated she wouldn't hesitate to start a nuclear war. After that comment, one really didn't need to know much about the other candidate.

Nevertheless, one thing that stood out in Trump's campaign speeches was his plans for stopping the never-ending invasion of illegal aliens (as reported, some 140,000/month)

And looking at Biden's planned immigration reforms..... OMG !

By metmike - July 9, 2020, 10:56 p.m.
Like Reply

Gunter,

Earlier this year, I thought that Biden would have to resign by the Summer(for health reasons) and let Sanders take over, with Biden throwing his support to Sanders.

Biden is just not capable of leading or doing the job of president.

However, by hiding for 3 months and letting Trump shoot himself in the foot several times and the MSM bombarding us with non stop anti Trump stuff, he has built up a double digit lead...............by hiding out, to keep us from seeing his deteriorating cerebral functions.

This document that you showed is more evidence that instead of being a leader, Joe Biden is being led. In this case, by socialist Bernie Sanders and his Twilight Zone, made up climate emergency and Green New Fairy Tale.

Socialist, extreme left AOC is also running part the show/agenda for him. He wants the young voters and is letting them dictate his agenda to get it.

Make no mistake, this is NOT and NEVER WAS Joe Bidens agenda.

He is  just a figure head that is being controlled/manipulated like a puppet by the party and especially the extreme left. 

No need for him to resign under these circumstances. His lead is double digits and he will get the Sanders/AOC vote and of course the black vote.

And most importantly, he is NOT Donald Trump, which is, by a very wide margin, the main reason that most people will have to vote for him.