Effect of human activity on climate change is insignificant

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 7447
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Effect of human activity on climate change is insignificant

Post by Walker »

Belinda wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:56 pm
Walker wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:13 am
Belinda wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:01 am Walker, you are not good at estimating risks. I'd not be advised by you if I wanted to put a bet on a horse.
Fact is, never had a car wreck and spent a good chunk of time working in literal high places where a misstep could cause serious injury and death. Early on went for years without health insurance because of confidence in risk assessment, and actually trained and worked for some years as a financial risk assessor of contractors. Also have walked the fine line between sustainability and ruin. There's a good chance a guardian angel watches over me. If you're betting with your own money you're wise to be cautious about squandering solely on the advice of others.
How is it a man with your experience, education, and resourcefulness is a climate change denier? Do you tell the lie for a political purpose? Did you stop taking in useful information after you retired? I am not being unpleasant I don't understand. In your professional life you must have taken advantage of the experience and knowledge of carefully selected others.
How do you define, "climate change denier?"
Walker
Posts: 7447
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: make of this what you will

Post by Walker »

Lacewing wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:15 pm
Walker wrote: Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:00 am Obamanites credit the savior they worship...
Wow, just noticed this. Fascinating that you would say this, and then say all that you said (in the FOUR HORSEMEN topic) to paint Trump as the savior you worship! Don't you see it, Walker? You're projecting your own extremist mentality... and not seeing it in yourself.

There are positives and negatives to everyone... including Obama and Trump. If you can't see that, you are being an extremist.
What are the positives of Trump?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9362
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: make of this what you will

Post by henry quirk »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:32 pm https://www.forbes.com/sites/doronlevin ... 92de686945
   
Global warming and post apocalyptic future. Climate change and melting of glaciers. Statue of Liberty collapses under water and new New York city skyline on an artificial island. Perhaps the catastrophic predictions are overblown.

The U.S. auto industry and regulators in California and Washington appear deadlocked over stiff Obama-era fuel-efficiency standards that automakers oppose and the Trump administration have vowed to roll back – an initiative that has environmental activists up in arms.

California and four automakers favor compromise, while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports the president’s position that the federal standards are too strict. The EPA argues that forcing automakers to build more fuel efficient cars will make them less affordable, causing consumers to delay trading older, less efficient vehicles. Complicating matters is California’s authority to create its own air quality standards, which the White House vows to end.

However the impasse is resolved, the moment looks ripe to revisit the root of this multifactorial dustup: namely, the scientific “consensus” that CO2 emissions from vehicles and other sources are pushing the earth to the brink of climate catastrophe.

In a modest office on the campus of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, an Israeli astrophysicist patiently explains why he is convinced that the near-unanimous judgments of climatologists are misguided.  Nir Shaviv, chairman of the university’s physics department, says that his research and that of colleagues, suggests that rising CO2 levels, while hardly insignificant, play only a minor role compared to the influence of the sun and cosmic radiation on the earth’s climate.

“Global warming clearly is a problem, though not in the catastrophic terms of Al Gore’s movies or environmental alarmists,” said Shaviv. “Climate change has existed forever and is unlikely to go away. But CO2 emissions don’t play the major role. Periodic solar activity does.”

Shaviv, 47, fully comprehends that his scientific conclusions constitute a glaring rebuttal to the widely-quoted surveys showing that 97% of climate scientists agree that human activity – the combustion of fossil fuels – constitutes the principle reason for climate change.

“Only people who don’t understand science take the 97% statistic seriously,” he said. “Survey results depend on who you ask, who answers and how the questions are worded.  In any case, science is not a democracy. Even if 100% of scientists believe something, one person with good evidence can still be right.”

History is replete with lone voices toppling scientific orthodoxies. Astronomers deemed Pluto the ninth planet – until they changed their minds. Geologists once regarded tectonic plate theory, the movement of continents, as nonsense. Medicine were 100% certain that stomach (ulcers) resulted from stress and spicy food, until an Australian researcher proved bacteria the culprit and won a Nobel Prize for his efforts.

Lest anyone dismiss Shaviv on the basis of his scientific credentials or supposed political agenda, consider the following: He enrolled at Israel’s Technion University – the country’s equivalent of MIT – at the age of 13 and earned an MA while serving in the Israel Defense Force’s celebrated 8200 Intelligence unit. He returned to Technion, where he earned his doctorate, afterward completing post-doctoral work at California Institute of Technology and the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics. He also has been an Einstein Fellow at The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.

In other words, he knows tons more about science than Donald Trump or Al Gore.

As for politics “in American terms, I would describe myself as liberal on most domestic issues, somewhat hawkish on security,” he said. Nonetheless, the Trump administration’s position on global climate change, he said, is correct insofar as it rejects the orthodoxy of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC’s findings and conclusions are updated every six years; the latest report, released this week, noted that deforestation and agribusiness are contributing to CO2 emissions and aggravating climate change.

In 2003, Shaviv and research partner Prof. Jan Veizer published a paper on the subject of climate sensitivity, namely how much the earth’s average temperature would be expected to change if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled.  Comparing geological records and temperature, the team came up with a projected change of 1.0 to 1.5 degrees Celsius – much less than the 1.5 to 4.5 degree change the IPCC has used since it began issuing its reports. The reason for the much wider variation used by the IPCC, he said, was that they relied almost entirely on simulations and no one knew how to quantify the effect of clouds – which affects how much radiant energy reaches the earth – and other factors.

“Since then, literally billions have been spent on climate research,” he said. Yet “the conventional wisdom hasn’t changed. The proponents of man-made climate change still ignore the effect of the sun on the earth’s climate, which overturns our understanding of twentieth-century climate change.”

He explained: “Solar activity varies over time. A major variation is roughly eleven years or more, which clearly affects climate. This principle has been generally known – but in 2008 I was able to quantify it by using sea level data.  When the sun is more active, there is a rise in sea level here on earth. Higher temperature makes water expand.  When the sun is less active, temperature goes down and the sea level falls – the correlation is as clear as day.

“Based on the increase of solar activity during the twentieth century, it should account for between half to two-thirds of all climate change,” he said. “That, in turn, implies that climate sensitivity to CO2 should be about 1.0 degree when the amount of CO2 doubles.”

The link between solar activity and the heating and cooling of the earth is indirect, he explained. Cosmic rays entering the earth’s atmosphere from the explosive death of massive stars across the universe play a significant role in the formation of so-called cloud condensation nuclei needed for the formation of clouds.  When the sun is more active, solar wind reduces the rate of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A more active solar wind leads to fewer cloud formation nuclei, producing clouds that are less white and less reflective, thus warming the earth.

“Today we can demonstrate and prove the sun’s effect on climate based on a wide range of evidence, from fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old to buoy readings to satellite altimetry data from the past few decades,” he said. “We also can reproduce and mimic atmospheric conditions in the laboratory to confirm the evidence.

"All of it shows the same thing, the bulk of climate change is caused by the sun via its impact on atmospheric charge,” he said. “Which means that most of the warming comes from nature, whereas a doubling of the amount of CO2 raises temperature by only 1.0 to 1.5 degrees.  A freshman physics student can see this.”

Nevertheless, the world of climate science has “mostly ignored” his research findings. “Of course, I’m frustrated,” he said. “Our findings are very inconvenient for conventional wisdom” as summarized by the IPCC.  “We know that there have been very large variations of climate in the past that have little to do with the burning of fossil fuels.  A thousand years ago the earth was as warm as it is today. During the Little Ice Age three hundred years ago the River Thames froze more often.  In the first and second IPCC reports these events were mentioned.  In 2001 they disappeared. Suddenly no mention of natural warming, no Little Ice Age. The climate of the last millennium was presented as basically fixed until the twentieth century.  This is a kind of Orwellian cherry-picking to fit a pre-determined narrative.”

Shaviv says that he has accepted no financial support for his research by the fossil fuel industry. Experiments in Denmark with Prof. Henrik Svensmark and others to demonstrate the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation were supported by the Carlsberg Foundation. In the U.S. the conservative Heartland Institute and the European Institute for Climate and Energy have invited him to speak, covering travel expenses.

“The real problem is funding from funding agencies like the National Science Foundation because these proposals have to undergo review by people in a community that ostracizes us,” he said, because of his non-conventional viewpoint.

“Global warming is not a purely scientific issue any more,” he said.  “It has repercussions for society.  It has also taken on a moralistic, almost religious quality. If you believe what everyone believes, you are a good person. If you don’t, you are a bad person.  Who wants to be a sinner?”

Any scientist who rejects the UN’s IPCC report, as he does, will have trouble finding work, receiving research grants or publishing, he said.

In Shaviv’s view, the worldwide crusade to limit and eventually ban the use of fossil fuels isn’t just misguided “it comes with real world social and economic consequences.” Switching to more costly energy sources, for example, will drive industry from more industrialized countries to poorer countries that can less afford wind turbines and solar panels.

“It may be a financial sacrifice the rich are willing to make, he said. “Even in developed countries the pressure to forego fossil fuel puts poor people in danger of freezing during the winter for lack of affordable home heating.  The economic growth of third world countries will be inhibited if they cannot borrow from the World Bank to develop cheap fossil-based power plants. These are serious human problems in the here and now, not in a theoretical future.”

For Shaviv, the rejection and closed-mindedness his minority view provoke may contain a silver lining.  Just think of the acclaim that awaits if his research -- and scientific reconsideration of the current orthodoxy -- one day proves persuasive.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4197
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: make of this what you will

Post by Lacewing »

Walker wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:19 pm
Lacewing wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:15 pm There are positives and negatives to everyone... including Obama and Trump. If you can't see that, you are being an extremist.
What are the positives of Trump?
He breaks the rules and stirs up a system that needs to be stirred if not completely overhauled. This in no way excuses him from all of the stuff I've already mentioned, and this in no way defines him as uniquely intelligent. But he did it, and I think that was useful.

Now that you can hopefully see that I'm not hung up on some platform, are you able to respond in kind and show that you, too, can see with some balance?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9362
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

that's what I've been sayin' from the start

Post by henry quirk »

"He breaks the rules and stirs up a system that needs to be stirred if not completely overhauled."

By Crom: she finally gets it!
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4197
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: that's what I've been sayin' from the start

Post by Lacewing »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:35 pm "He breaks the rules and stirs up a system that needs to be stirred if not completely overhauled."

By Crom: she finally gets it!
What do you mean "finally"? I posted about this when he was running for President (or right after he got elected).

When are you going to look beyond your own nose and start seeing and hearing what's really being said? Get off the fucking platform -- it's eating your brain in the hot sun! -- and recognize how much we all actually have in common. :twisted:

(If you think my words towards you are harsh, notice how you stopped "ignoring" me just long enough to make your little condescending remark. And it wasn't even accurate, as usual.)
Walker
Posts: 7447
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: make of this what you will

Post by Walker »

Lacewing wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:29 pm
Walker wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:19 pm
Lacewing wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:15 pm There are positives and negatives to everyone... including Obama and Trump. If you can't see that, you are being an extremist.
What are the positives of Trump?
He breaks the rules and stirs up a system that needs to be stirred if not completely overhauled. This in no way excuses him from all of the stuff I've already mentioned, and this in no way defines him as uniquely intelligent. But he did it, and I think that was useful.

Now that you can hopefully see that I'm not hung up on some platform, are you able to respond in kind and show that you, too, can see with some balance?
All what stuff? You have only mentioned your personal feelings and personal, relative truths unsubstantiated by any fact, and your personal truth is the type that ignores the basics of reasoning, e.g., a definition of divine that excludes reference to God.

The system does not need to be overhauled, btw.

Corruption of the system is the problem.

Criticism of Trump? He doesn't coddle the weak excuse makers, i.e., Progressives.
Last edited by Walker on Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9362
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"I posted about this when he was running for President (or right after he got elected)."

Post by henry quirk »

Really?

Over and over I've said: he's the spike in the tree, the sugar in the gas tank, the sharp jagged piece of glass, the sledgehammer, the pit bull, the radiative-/chemo-therapy, the cancer to defeat the cancer, and a whole whack of other descriptors, and not once when I described him in this way did you agree with me.

No, you've never said anything remotely like "He breaks the rules and stirs up a system that needs to be stirred if not completely overhauled.", not to me or anyone else in-forum (not that I'm aware of, and certainly not recently).

just sayin'


And: I took you and veg out of the penalty box a week or so back (cuz I felt, feel, sorry for you...go ahead: gimme reason to not).
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4197
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: make of this what you will

Post by Lacewing »

Walker wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:13 am
Lacewing wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:29 pm Now that you can hopefully see that I'm not hung up on some platform, are you able to respond in kind and show that you, too, can see with some balance?
...
No, of course you can't. You want your questions answered in a way that you will accept (which we both know you never will), and you refuse to reciprocate fairly and answer the questions put to you because you are an extremist, and dishonest and a coward (as extremists are).
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9362
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

(again) make of this what you will

Post by henry quirk »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:21 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:32 pm https://www.forbes.com/sites/doronlevin ... 92de686945
   
Global warming and post apocalyptic future. Climate change and melting of glaciers. Statue of Liberty collapses under water and new New York city skyline on an artificial island. Perhaps the catastrophic predictions are overblown.

The U.S. auto industry and regulators in California and Washington appear deadlocked over stiff Obama-era fuel-efficiency standards that automakers oppose and the Trump administration have vowed to roll back – an initiative that has environmental activists up in arms.

California and four automakers favor compromise, while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports the president’s position that the federal standards are too strict. The EPA argues that forcing automakers to build more fuel efficient cars will make them less affordable, causing consumers to delay trading older, less efficient vehicles. Complicating matters is California’s authority to create its own air quality standards, which the White House vows to end.

However the impasse is resolved, the moment looks ripe to revisit the root of this multifactorial dustup: namely, the scientific “consensus” that CO2 emissions from vehicles and other sources are pushing the earth to the brink of climate catastrophe.

In a modest office on the campus of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, an Israeli astrophysicist patiently explains why he is convinced that the near-unanimous judgments of climatologists are misguided.  Nir Shaviv, chairman of the university’s physics department, says that his research and that of colleagues, suggests that rising CO2 levels, while hardly insignificant, play only a minor role compared to the influence of the sun and cosmic radiation on the earth’s climate.

“Global warming clearly is a problem, though not in the catastrophic terms of Al Gore’s movies or environmental alarmists,” said Shaviv. “Climate change has existed forever and is unlikely to go away. But CO2 emissions don’t play the major role. Periodic solar activity does.”

Shaviv, 47, fully comprehends that his scientific conclusions constitute a glaring rebuttal to the widely-quoted surveys showing that 97% of climate scientists agree that human activity – the combustion of fossil fuels – constitutes the principle reason for climate change.

“Only people who don’t understand science take the 97% statistic seriously,” he said. “Survey results depend on who you ask, who answers and how the questions are worded.  In any case, science is not a democracy. Even if 100% of scientists believe something, one person with good evidence can still be right.”

History is replete with lone voices toppling scientific orthodoxies. Astronomers deemed Pluto the ninth planet – until they changed their minds. Geologists once regarded tectonic plate theory, the movement of continents, as nonsense. Medicine were 100% certain that stomach (ulcers) resulted from stress and spicy food, until an Australian researcher proved bacteria the culprit and won a Nobel Prize for his efforts.

Lest anyone dismiss Shaviv on the basis of his scientific credentials or supposed political agenda, consider the following: He enrolled at Israel’s Technion University – the country’s equivalent of MIT – at the age of 13 and earned an MA while serving in the Israel Defense Force’s celebrated 8200 Intelligence unit. He returned to Technion, where he earned his doctorate, afterward completing post-doctoral work at California Institute of Technology and the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics. He also has been an Einstein Fellow at The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.

In other words, he knows tons more about science than Donald Trump or Al Gore.

As for politics “in American terms, I would describe myself as liberal on most domestic issues, somewhat hawkish on security,” he said. Nonetheless, the Trump administration’s position on global climate change, he said, is correct insofar as it rejects the orthodoxy of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC’s findings and conclusions are updated every six years; the latest report, released this week, noted that deforestation and agribusiness are contributing to CO2 emissions and aggravating climate change.

In 2003, Shaviv and research partner Prof. Jan Veizer published a paper on the subject of climate sensitivity, namely how much the earth’s average temperature would be expected to change if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled.  Comparing geological records and temperature, the team came up with a projected change of 1.0 to 1.5 degrees Celsius – much less than the 1.5 to 4.5 degree change the IPCC has used since it began issuing its reports. The reason for the much wider variation used by the IPCC, he said, was that they relied almost entirely on simulations and no one knew how to quantify the effect of clouds – which affects how much radiant energy reaches the earth – and other factors.

“Since then, literally billions have been spent on climate research,” he said. Yet “the conventional wisdom hasn’t changed. The proponents of man-made climate change still ignore the effect of the sun on the earth’s climate, which overturns our understanding of twentieth-century climate change.”

He explained: “Solar activity varies over time. A major variation is roughly eleven years or more, which clearly affects climate. This principle has been generally known – but in 2008 I was able to quantify it by using sea level data.  When the sun is more active, there is a rise in sea level here on earth. Higher temperature makes water expand.  When the sun is less active, temperature goes down and the sea level falls – the correlation is as clear as day.

“Based on the increase of solar activity during the twentieth century, it should account for between half to two-thirds of all climate change,” he said. “That, in turn, implies that climate sensitivity to CO2 should be about 1.0 degree when the amount of CO2 doubles.”

The link between solar activity and the heating and cooling of the earth is indirect, he explained. Cosmic rays entering the earth’s atmosphere from the explosive death of massive stars across the universe play a significant role in the formation of so-called cloud condensation nuclei needed for the formation of clouds.  When the sun is more active, solar wind reduces the rate of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A more active solar wind leads to fewer cloud formation nuclei, producing clouds that are less white and less reflective, thus warming the earth.

“Today we can demonstrate and prove the sun’s effect on climate based on a wide range of evidence, from fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old to buoy readings to satellite altimetry data from the past few decades,” he said. “We also can reproduce and mimic atmospheric conditions in the laboratory to confirm the evidence.

"All of it shows the same thing, the bulk of climate change is caused by the sun via its impact on atmospheric charge,” he said. “Which means that most of the warming comes from nature, whereas a doubling of the amount of CO2 raises temperature by only 1.0 to 1.5 degrees.  A freshman physics student can see this.”

Nevertheless, the world of climate science has “mostly ignored” his research findings. “Of course, I’m frustrated,” he said. “Our findings are very inconvenient for conventional wisdom” as summarized by the IPCC.  “We know that there have been very large variations of climate in the past that have little to do with the burning of fossil fuels.  A thousand years ago the earth was as warm as it is today. During the Little Ice Age three hundred years ago the River Thames froze more often.  In the first and second IPCC reports these events were mentioned.  In 2001 they disappeared. Suddenly no mention of natural warming, no Little Ice Age. The climate of the last millennium was presented as basically fixed until the twentieth century.  This is a kind of Orwellian cherry-picking to fit a pre-determined narrative.”

Shaviv says that he has accepted no financial support for his research by the fossil fuel industry. Experiments in Denmark with Prof. Henrik Svensmark and others to demonstrate the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation were supported by the Carlsberg Foundation. In the U.S. the conservative Heartland Institute and the European Institute for Climate and Energy have invited him to speak, covering travel expenses.

“The real problem is funding from funding agencies like the National Science Foundation because these proposals have to undergo review by people in a community that ostracizes us,” he said, because of his non-conventional viewpoint.

“Global warming is not a purely scientific issue any more,” he said.  “It has repercussions for society.  It has also taken on a moralistic, almost religious quality. If you believe what everyone believes, you are a good person. If you don’t, you are a bad person.  Who wants to be a sinner?”

Any scientist who rejects the UN’s IPCC report, as he does, will have trouble finding work, receiving research grants or publishing, he said.

In Shaviv’s view, the worldwide crusade to limit and eventually ban the use of fossil fuels isn’t just misguided “it comes with real world social and economic consequences.” Switching to more costly energy sources, for example, will drive industry from more industrialized countries to poorer countries that can less afford wind turbines and solar panels.

“It may be a financial sacrifice the rich are willing to make, he said. “Even in developed countries the pressure to forego fossil fuel puts poor people in danger of freezing during the winter for lack of affordable home heating.  The economic growth of third world countries will be inhibited if they cannot borrow from the World Bank to develop cheap fossil-based power plants. These are serious human problems in the here and now, not in a theoretical future.”

For Shaviv, the rejection and closed-mindedness his minority view provoke may contain a silver lining.  Just think of the acclaim that awaits if his research -- and scientific reconsideration of the current orthodoxy -- one day proves persuasive.
Walker
Posts: 7447
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Effect of human activity on climate change is insignificant

Post by Walker »

The fact that corruption has been systematized can be laid at the feet of Progressives and their Rule of Man relativism in selecting which laws to ignore, and which to enforce, e.g. sanctuary cities for borderjumpers.
Walker
Posts: 7447
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: make of this what you will

Post by Walker »

Lacewing wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:22 am
Walker wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:13 am
Lacewing wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:29 pm Now that you can hopefully see that I'm not hung up on some platform, are you able to respond in kind and show that you, too, can see with some balance?
...
No, of course you can't. You want your questions answered in a way that you will accept (which we both know you never will), and you refuse to reciprocate fairly and answer the questions put to you because you are an extremist, and dishonest and a coward (as extremists are).
Well, as HQ noted, you're a demonstrated liar.

As president, Trump's honesty alienates Progressives which might be considered a fault for career politicians,which he is not, but Progressives either don't know the meaning of compromise, or they have their own personal definitions of the concept, much like those who redefine the concept of divine, so their alienation is their own affair, and he is the one blamed because they won't admit responsibility.

As Obama advised those concerned with the genocide of Christians, don't get on your high horse, or in your case, get off your high horse.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4197
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: "I posted about this when he was running for President (or right after he got elected)."

Post by Lacewing »

henry quirk wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:15 am Really?
Yes, really. I always look for what the "positive" might be that can be realized from any situation -- even if I have to get metaphysical to do it :) . And I have voiced this about Trump on this forum.
henry quirk wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:15 am Over and over I've said: he's the spike in the tree, the sugar in the gas tank, the sharp jagged piece of glass, the sledgehammer, the pit bull, the radiative-/chemo-therapy, the cancer to defeat the cancer, and a whole whack of other descriptors, and not once when I described him in this way did you agree with me.
Because these are your responses when I'm discussing his mistakes. Why don't you acknowledge his mistakes? Can you do so even now?

I want to know why Trump supporters are so one-sided? Where is the intelligence in defending something/someone that's only being viewed from one, self-serving angle? He clearly is showing himself in broad daylight. If a Democrat said or did what he does, Trump supporters would be all over it in a rage. What is this phenomenon of selective truth?
henry quirk wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:15 am And: I took you and veg out of the penalty box a week or so back (cuz I felt, feel, sorry for you...go ahead: gimme reason to not).
Good to know. I had a feeling you would miss me. :D
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4197
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: make of this what you will

Post by Lacewing »

Walker wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:38 am Well, as HQ noted, you're a demonstrated liar.
Someone's failure to remember what I said does not make me a liar.

And I'm REPEATING that I recognize a positive that has come from Trump.

You, on the other hand, remain an extremist who continually stews in your ignorant one-sided selective crap.
Walker
Posts: 7447
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: make of this what you will

Post by Walker »

Lacewing wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:50 am
Walker wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:38 am Well, as HQ noted, you're a demonstrated liar.
Someone's failure to remember what I said does not make me a liar.

And I'm REPEATING that I recognize a positive that has come from Trump.

You, on the other hand, remain an extremist who continually stews in your ignorant one-sided selective crap.
Demonstrated liar involves more than someone noting it, nitwit. Since you’re a lying coward you must have missed my two criticisms of Trump. He is too honest to be a career politician, and he doesn’t coddle the weak. This apparently drives Rule of Man Progressives insane, which is not good for the country.

I am definitely not an extremist.

I am an apolitical, impartial observer.
Post Reply