Welcome to the forums!

Our encouraging community is a dedicated resource for innovators everywhere.

Learn about industry trends, common questions,
and stay informed of the latest happenings at Edison Nation.

Trump V Clinton

sunto's Avatar

Watching this from across the pond i know it's a big deal.  I voted for change here in the UK. So that makes me a brexiteer . It's about time the US had some positive changes . Best wishes from across the pond.

Kim L
Charlie Lumsden
Elizabeth Crouch
posted    Report this topic
Reply
bobf's Avatargold

The first thing that was drained: The market value of a Clinton speech.  

David Pope
Kim L
James Chapman
posted    Report this post
kdc's Avatar

That was a nail biter for sure.  May God bless and protect our new President, Mr. Trump!

You know he is in it for the American people...What other person in history was willing to take a pay cut and downsize their home to become President?

Mary Kisko
Kim L
Elizabeth Crouch
Rob F
posted    Report this post
kabuj's Avataree_badge

What a Country!! Only in America!! Just like when Obama won (twice) his "haters" swore the end of our country/democracy, the country would be destroyed and the sky was falling...So is the Trump "haters" claiming the same today.

The Republicans will likely overreach (just like the Democrats did when Obama first won) and the people will eventually bring us back to reality (just like this election did)..  Unfortunately it seems our country cannot make progress unless we go to the opposite "extremes" (over statement).

The country will be fine, the people will learn to live with it and life will contnue to go on in this GREAT COUNTRY.

I have no problems admitting I voted for Hillary (both candidtaes were not very attractive) and was shocked and briefly disappointed as the results came in, but you know what... I live in the GREATEST country in the world where the person in charge (President) really has VERY LITTLE (if any) significance to my ability to succeed, be happy, enjoy life, friends and loved ones. Generally speaking, our possibilities and circumstances in life are only limited by our own priorities, values and willingness to execute.

I know we have some issue, but we are still by FAR the best country in the world.

SO REALLY, how much do we really have to complain about (on either side).

IMHO

Best to All

Mary Kisko
Vee R___
Alli G
Saletta .
Michelle Sartori
posted    Report this post
kabuj's Avataree_badge

Lastly, I remember when Obama took office as George, Laura Bush and Barack & Michelle all shook hands and hugged. After a pretty bitter campaign fight. the helicopter was loaded on the White House lawn as the Obama's waved good-bye (I distinctly remember getting a bit emotional at the time). The same will likely happen here. We should all be proud and never take for granted how the exchange of leadership/power takes place in America.

Mary Kisko
Kathy Day
posted    Report this post
en1501's Avatar

Trump Breaks Final Glass Ceiling: a business person in the White House.  This is the sort of election outcome that is considered "CRAZY" by the dinosaur media.    

posted    Report this post
bobf's Avatargold

Elections are much like marketing a product where efficiency often determines the outcome. My old knife cuts fine, but that new one on the shelf features a new style handle and blade that appears more efficient. Since it's new, there are no bad reviews and it also has that unused shine. Besides, we may have cut ourselves with the old one and would like to forget about that episode. Trump had the benefit of appearing more efficient without the negative political history/product reviews.

For a country to be successful, the government officials and citizens must both ask "How can "I" help the country be as efficient as possible?"

posted    Report this post
lewdog's Avatar

I'll just say I was a Bernie supporter so I didn't care for either candidate in this election, but as an inventor and an intellectual, I find it hard to see how inventors on this board could support Trump.  I'm not trying to start a debate by any means, but knowing some of the things he has promised to do, like wiping out all government involvement in working on renewable energy including battery technology, and that he wants to shrink education in the U.S. including getting rid of the Sec. of Education and much of that government department, and cutting educational funding... I just find it hard how a group of creative minds like those here would support a person with those beliefs and ideals.

K J
posted    Report this post
speedbump's Avatar

William ... I wasn't a big Hillary fan either but the playing field wasn't level between the two candidates. 

The oil companies and other rich privileged are dancing in their mansions now. Trumps supporters are happy to know that they were able to take out one of their many guns and shoot themselves in the foot once again. You forgot to mention that Donald doesn't believe in Global warming and there's so much more probably best not mentioned here.

The conservative white is very happy now. Republicans have a majority in both the house and senate with a republican president, that much like Gorge W., would appear to have an I.Q. not much above 100. Donald doesn't seem to be able to think far enough through any problem so that he can to even surround himself with advisers that will allow him  to know if he's getting good information thus allowing him to make an informed decision..I think we're fixing to get a short slender metal pin, with a raised helical thread running around it, and a slotted head. You didn't like turning back the clock to go off daylight saving times ....well hang on ... we're going back a few decades now. 

Who knows I could be wrong.

posted    Report this post
brmarq's Avatar

KJ - I want to frame your post and hang it in my living room! That was something.

William - some inventors in these forums are also small business owners, military/law enforcement/first responder, tradesmen, blue collar, so on...just to name a few. The current administration has been fairly unfavorable to the mentioned cohorts. You explained your motivation to vote the way you did and I respect your decision, but don't assume everyone here shares your rationale to select a candidate.

Cheers!

K J
posted    Report this post
lewdog's Avatar

Roger I don't like Common Core, I think it is stupid and unnecessary.  I also think that things are too PC in our times and that kids need to be taught right from wrong, and trying to eliminate their interaction with things that are wrong inhibits that learning process.  Why you bring up things like shrimp running on a treadmill is beyond me, that has absolutely nothing to do with studying renewable energy, and is just a Red Herring to the discussion, a common Conservative tactic, I'll leave it at that.

Trump plans to stifle the creative process of our country, focusing more on mid-to-lower level skill jobs in factories, which is not going to help our country catch up with the more educated markets and countries like those in Asia.

Sure he'll give tax breaks to the wealthy and large businesses, and more than likely raise import taxes to get large corporations to bring their factories back to the U.S., but then what?  Those factories will be mostly automated and produce little to no jobs.  I'm sorry, but in the next year his supporters will soon find out he made a lot of promises he can't keep, or won't keep.

BTW, I've worked as a public servant as Corrections Officer, and I'm a Senior Criminal Justice major...  

Archie .
posted    Report this post
speedbump's Avatar

Roger were you surprised and disappointed when you saw many of the candidates who ran against Trump and that he insulted and bullied yet they campaigned for him after the public humiliation? 

Trump was right when he said that he could shoot someone in the middle of fifth avenue and his supporters would still support him. 

posted    Report this post
allig's Avatarg8_badge

I wasn't thrilled with either candidate as well (though admittedly less thrilled with Trump.)  But the great thing about time is that it is always changing, and we've created a constitutional structure that allows for change with time (as opposed to having lifetime monarchs).  If time bears out a big enough need or want for change, then it will also bear out the opportunity.  No matter what or who, the sun will still rise every day and life will go on.


Cities and thrones and powers

Stand in Time's Eye

Almost as long as flowers;

Which daily die.

But, as new buds put forth

To glad new men,

Out of the spent and unconsidered Earth

The Cities rise again.

~Rudyard Kipling

Michelle Sartori
posted    Report this post
lewdog's Avatar

Roger... I don't know about where you live, but where I live, July, August, and September were the hottest months on record since they started keeping record of such things.

posted    Report this post
speedbump's Avatar

Roger I agree the media fuels the nonsense because that's how they make a living. What I don't understand how the government can spend so much money in areas that simply drain the bank account like there is no limit to OUR resources and while making the rich richer but refuse to provide for the basic needs for those at home because we're told the funds aren't available. Do you think they could be lying to us?

I have relatives who are EMT's, several in corrections and my father in law was in law enforcement and served as police chief the last 18 years of his career. Many in my family were and are in the military. I was a blue collar business owner for over 30 years. From what I know about my family there are several on both sides of the fence with their political support based on how they choose to view the situation. In many cases where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit. I understand how it's possible to view things differently. 

What I don't understand is how you can support someone like Trump if you look at what he has said his views are in the past versus what he was obviously told to he should say to get the most votes. In most cases the views don't match. 

Not to mention that he doesn't possess even the most basic of common decency when it comes to dealing with situations and people. He has spent his life bullying others and racking up 3500 law suits along with his many bankruptcy's.. It appears his business philosophy is to let the little take guy the fall knowing that they didn't have the means to fight him in court. I'm sorry but that offends me.

Trumps foundation was told to cease operations as he bought paintings of him self and while settling personal lawsuits with the money donated with only a small portion of the donations going to charity. If you don't have a problem with that but you have a problem with the Clinton foundation only having 87% of their moneys reaching those in need .... I don't understand your logic

We saw how Trump would handle foreign policy with his trip to Mexico. Such an embarrassment for the American people 

How do you support someone who has the support of the Russians so much so that it helped decide the outcome of the election. That's spooky in it's self. Would you have cried fowl if all the documents from the republican side had been released instead? I'm going to hazard a guess that they're not lily white either.

Were you angry with Hillary's email scandal but you didn't have a problem with the 22 million emails lost on a private server set up by the Republican national party for Cheney and Bush, which included info concerning the Iraq war and the firing of federal judges who opposed the war as well as Cheney's involvement while his company Halliburton that was making billions.with a war effort that was based on a lie. And unlike Hillary's "email scandal" it was against the law for a sitting president and vice president to do such but they tied it up in the courts with hardly a mention. 

I do understand how you can view thing differently based on your situation and how you wish to view it what I don't understand is the apparent double standard.

I feel better now ... thanks!!

posted    Report this post
kabuj's Avataree_badge

Just a thought... I TRULY believe that it's very easy for all of us to form opinions about the presidency (rightfully so as is our rights as citizens), but notice that regardless of how hostile presidential campaigns are, the elected person seems to ALWAYS become humbled as they learn how vast and complex our world is and how it's such a sensitive balance between chaos and civility. I notice that each subsequent President tends to empathize more and more at some point with their predecessor. Imagine what our Presidents have been exposed to and what they know about the various circumstances around the world. It's truly an AWSOME responsibility.

We all form our opinions and positions based on our particular backgrounds and exposure, so it's no surprise to me when people have varying opinions (in fact I expect it).. which is why I never put out much effort into trying to change anyones opinion or argue/debate too much to do same. I figure if I simply clearly state my position/opinion than it's up to the other person to agree or not.

Too many times, people present their positions as FACT (when it's really just an opinion) and are surprised when others think differently.

"Political Correctness" is a relative term... One person's "political correctness" is another persons "morality" and vice-versa. Political correctness is truly in the eye of the beholder.

IMHO

Best

posted    Report this post
speedbump's Avatar

Some places may have more snow because with the warmer temps it increases the amount of moisture in the air as the oceans warm. In the winter there could be more snow in certain areas. You can't look outside to see if it's snowing to tell if there's actually climate change. If you want to look somewhere look at the yearly Global temperature map it's actually very sobering. The top 15 years in global temperature ever recorded are all since 1998. It lists 2015 and 2014 as 1st and 2nd hottest with the year 2016 looking to be hotter yet.

posted    Report this post
speedbump's Avatar

Roger if you'll go to charity watch dot org and look up the Clinton foundation you'll see the foundation has an "A" rating with 88% of their money's going to their programs. It appears you may have been given some unreliable info. Charity watch is a non profit organization that operates from donations and was founded in 1992 that helps donors make informed decisions concerning philanthropy.. They rank all the non-profits. Lots of useful info there.

Trumps charity isn't listed there as it is a private charity

posted    Report this post
speedbump's Avatar

I hope you're right K.J. and the the real Donald Trump has some humility hidden somewhere in there.

posted    Report this post
chappy75's Avatar

Archie,

Everything the Clintons touch turns to a pile of.... Her foundation has much unscrupulous/suspect dealings all around. Now that she does not have her safety net around her things might turn out differently and if the FBI still finds nothing without Obama's interference, I will accept that... she is rotten to the core though.

I don't like his idea of environment. He is from NY and has spent a lifetime tearing Nature down to make more money. I mean, I developed a watercraft that runs on electricity generated by the sun... His environmental policies don't benefit me or my company at all.

When he says drain the swamp, I have to wonder if his lack of care for the environment is going to negatively impact the Everglades. A lot to be worried about there if your a Floridian. 

Her corruption though and the blatant lies and her meanspirited methods of handling competition along with her elitist attitude is dangerous to the democratic system. There is not another Democrat that would have lost to Trump. She did because she is scandalous. 

posted    Report this post
lewdog's Avatar

Not to mention, Trump has already started to promise high ranking positions in his cabinet to his friends.  People should also pay serious attention to two things he plans on doing.  As investors you should know he plans to cut oversight over banks and get rid of Dodd-Frank.  He also plans to make someone from a Private sector financial company Sec. of the Treasury... and allow them to keep their private sector job.  That's clearly a conflict of interest.  When people thought Clinton was the establishment candidate and Trump would drain the swamp, they are going to get a rude awakening soon.

posted    Report this post
bobf's Avatargold

Sanders was way ahead of Trump in the projection polls, but the DNC preferred Clinton. If the FBI and DOJ had removed her, then Sanders may have won it for the DNC.

Oh what a tangled web of poetic justice.   

posted    Report this post
speedbump's Avatar

Chappy ... I stated earlier that I wasn't a big fan of Hillary and I wasn't sad that she lost .... I was just disappointed that the other option was Trump and he won if that makes sense. I don't know enough about the Clinton foundation to decide if there is some wrong doing there but wouldn't be surprised if trump doesn't have charges brought against him before Hillary for things he's done with his foundation or elsewhere (trump university etc.) if we're wanting to hold everyone equally accountable..

I hope Trump is the best president the the good ole USA has ever seen and we see great things for the lower and middle class. I'm a little dismayed that oil gas and coal stock has soared since his election due to the deregulation coming there and then to hear that he is bringing in lobbyists for key posts in his cabinet was a bit of a shock.....  I thought he didn't like lobbyists.

The republicans are in charge of the house, senate and office of President so it's going to be hard to continue to sit of their hands and blame the other guy. I'm just afraid the republicans are going from their obstructionist strategy to giving a token tax cut for the middle class and then more trickle down economics that only helps the rich get richer. 

The balls in your court guys ... don't disappoint..

posted    Report this post
bobf's Avatargold

US Debt about $20 Trillion

US Unfunded Liabilities $144 Trillion

If you lined upped $1.00 bills end to end, the debt would reach Uranus. 

If you lined upped $1.00 bills end to end, the unfunded liabilities would reach Pluto almost three times over.

That is my main concern.

posted    Report this post
beszeditz's Avatar

As always sorry for my translation (anything not clear let me know please). Do not fotget that First World Countries are run by ECONOMIC powers. No really maters who is President an his Party all of them has to align theirself with that power. In this case for example that 'WALL' as presented by Mr. Trump will NEVER become a reality, Latins basically Mexicans (Thousands undocumented) are NEEDED for the hard work, the ones who 'saw and reap' in the inclement Sun, in the USA for a very cheap pay, this is why we always have available every where fruits and vegetables fresh and inexpensive. This power do not care about their or not Religious believes if they are in favor or not of the so called 'Homosexual Agenda' (Gay marriage, transgender rest rooms, abortion even up to the 9 th month! (by the way, Hillary's proposal) or if they go for family, Christian VALUES. We are the ones who should take our pick according to our own values when both candidates let's say they are even not worthy, but what their Parties stand for about VALUES. Any way, my opinion.  

Charlie Lumsden
posted    Report this post
kimmyk's Avatargold

The Climate debate always amuses me when people talk about breaking records that have stood for decades...  how the heck did those records get set to begin with if Climate Change/Global Warming is the only thing that could have caused it now? 

When I was in school in the '70's, they told us all about the Global Cooling cycle that was headed our way and would coat half of the US in an ice flow.  So far, so good on that.  The Earth goes through heating and cooling cycles, and although it may be uncomfortable at times, is just a part of Nature that we can't change.  (ever try to stop an earthquake or tornado?  Not so easy...) 

Invest in sunscreen and a fan; we'll be fine.

Mary Kisko
posted    Report this post
lewdog's Avatar

For those of me that believe in Global warming, there is no reason to debate that here because those that don't believe in Global Warming will not change their minds.  It's similar to trying to tell a Christian God doesn't exist.  Facts like some 90% of scientist believe in Global Warming doesn't matter.

Roger, take for example your last post, your article is from 2015.  Here is an article from THIS month, showing that Arctic ice is not freezing over as normal and even in places it is, it is thinner than it should be.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Oh, and a record on carbon pollution.  This article from September of this year.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/world-passes-40...

And what caused pollution on Earth before man?  Well that was because of the number of active volcanoes after Pangea broke apart.

posted    Report this post
lewdog's Avatar

But Roger, the plates aren't moving right now at anywhere near the same pace as they did before.  Thus why there is so much less volcanic activity.  But to be quite honest all of this isn't going to matter, because once Yellowstone Park blows up we all die, and that could be at any given time.

posted    Report this post
speedbump's Avatar

Frank ..... you hit the nail on the head. That pretty much sums it all up and how we ended up here with two sides fighting over social issues while the politicians, lobbyists and the media rob us blind..

Sal ... good post I understood your translation perfectly and can't say I would disagree with anything that you've said. 

Roger N Kim ... I'm with William there's no need to argue the point concerning Global warming. If you don't believe in it and only look at the "facts" (using the term very lightly) to prove your point and don't bother dig any deeper to see if what you're copy and pasting is a good representation of the overall picture then it turns in to a moot point. I hope Global warming isn't occurring due to what man is doing to change the environment but on so many fronts that doesn't seem to be the case. Try looking at the graphs and charts concerning CO sometime. they indicate that something is happening. Maybe you have an explanation.

posted    Report this post
speedbump's Avatar

Roger I did a quick check of the numbers you posted concerning the Clinton foundation and below is a brief explanation for the discrepancy between the 6% number you posted and the actual 88% that is used to help others with their charity 

The 6% number you listed above only refers to the amount of money donated by the Clinton Foundation to outside charities and ignoring the fact that most of the foundations charitable work is done in-house. One independent watchdog group did an analysis of the Clinton foundation and found that about 89% of it's funding went to charity.

Simply put the Clinton foundation is not a private foundation .... which typically acts as a pass through for private donations to other charitable organizations. 

Rather it is a public charity. It conducts most of it's activities directly. 

There's lots written and I'm limited by being unable to copy and paste (that's a blessing for everyone I'm sure) but it looks like there's lots of valid information for those who want to search it out concerning the foundation.

posted    Report this post
speedbump's Avatar

Roger was I pretty certain you wouldn't look at anything concerning climate change that disputes you mindset. What amazes me is that so many copy and paste stuff that can be proven wrong in 60 seconds about a specific subject yet when they run on to something that is valid they always try to dismiss it do to some sort of deep seated ulterior motive. Your response reminds me of the quote from "Flo" from progressive insurance ..."rabies was created from the government .... look it up!!" ....lol

They never seem to disappoint.. 

posted    Report this post
vitaminguy's Avatar

Can we pleas bring this to a discussion relevant to our common interests here. I wasn't a Trump supporter, but now that he is in, I would like to see him make good on protecting our intellectual property rights from pirates and infringers abroad.  Can this be done while maintaining good relations with countries like China, where the problem is rampant? 

Ralph Machesky
Michelle Sartori
posted    Report this post
inovate's Avataree_badge

Sal,

I believe you hit the ball out of the park. I love the way people from other countries understand our government, better then some born here. Do they somehow get real news?

Archie .
posted    Report this post
speedbump's Avatar

Rafael it appears that Trump may not be quite as hard on China as he stated during his campaign. Wilbur Ross a senior policy adviser helping Trump with his first 100 days when asked about Trumps plans to place a tax on goods from China denied Trump had made the suggestion. Ross said that Trump had been misquoted concerning the specifics concerning China.

posted    Report this post
vitaminguy's Avatar

Well I hope he at least tries to improve enforcement of intellectual property laws and international agreements. Right now it's the wild West over there.

posted    Report this post
vitaminguy's Avatar

I'm starting a new topic since few people want to get into political debate. I want to know what other serious inventors think about the impact of Trump on us. How Will Trump Affect Inventors - https://www.edisonnation.com/forums/patents/topics...

posted    Report this post
kimmyk's Avatargold

Charlie, I know a lot of folks that read foreign news online because they report things that we aren't allowed access to here in the US.  Good old media keeping us in the dark!

posted    Report this post
en1501's Avatar

Inventing is a form of truth-seeking: how stuff works, how to build things, and coming up with new products to improve the lives of as many people as possible to create wealth (the process known as capitalism).  

In the interest of truth, I'm inviting you to take a look at a list of 1,000+ scientists who have debunked one of the two main CO2 hoaxes, the AGW hoax (Anthropogenic(Man-caused) Global Warming).  This group of 1,000+ scientists is just barely the tip of the iceberg of truth.  I'll save the other CO2 hoax for another day.   

Google:  Climate Depot 1000  Scientists

www.cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

Human-caused CO2 (from coal, oil, etc.) is responsible for roughly 0.0001% of the greenhouse effect on Earth.  If you can't explain how to derive this number, you need to do some homework.

Jacob Downey
posted    Report this post
jdowney9000's Avatargold

I thought the o-zone hole was shrinking now...

posted    Report this post
allig's Avatarg8_badge

It's my understanding that the hole in the ozone is constantly shrinking and re-expanding.  This is probably due to the decomposition and re-synthesizing of O3 and Cl atoms.  Basically, UV in the upper atmosphere is a catalyst for decomposition reactions, which require energy to break down otherwise stable compounds.  Cl from CFCs is released from man-made compounds and, being a highly reactive element, then reacts with O3 (ozone) to break it down into ClO2.  And then the decomp reactions cycle again using energy from UV recreating and again decomposing the compounds.

Rafael Avila
Jacob Downey
posted    Report this post
jdowney9000's Avatargold

Alli G: "KAZA'AM!"

Jacob: "Thank'y!"

Rafael Avila
Alli G
posted    Report this post
allig's Avatarg8_badge

Lol - By happenstance I'm in Chemistry as we speak.  I saw your comment and I'm like, "Oh! Oh! Oh!  I know this one!!!  Pick meeee!!"

Jacob Downey
Rafael Avila
posted    Report this post
en1501's Avatar

Ozone is a perfectly fine topic to discuss, but it's not a CO2 hoax, in my opinion.  I was referring to something else.  I felt the need to mention the "other" CO2 hoax while discussing the AGW hoax in case someone with scientific knowledge comes along and points out that there are TWO CO2 hoaxes.  

1,000 or 2,000 ppm CO2 would be awesome!  The increased flora, fauna, and fuel would be a huge benefit to the poorest 2,000,000,000 people on Earth.  The increased plant growth would also help conserve topsoil, from wind and water erosion, for example.  

I noticed that on this (EN) board the initial reactions from you inventors contain what I call "science content".  Every other forum (outside EN) results in  ad hominem attacks and long-debunked cliches from the 200X's and exactly ZERO science content.   

posted    Report this post
allig's Avatarg8_badge

I don't know that I'd call either side of climate science a "hoax."  It's an area of science in which a lot of study has been done and that very intelligent people have formulated evidence-based theories wherein reasonable minds can differ.  I think calling it a hoax trivializes science and allows politics to inform our knowledge instead letting knowledge inform our politics.  

Seems like both sides are doing what they are supposed to be doing, studying, testing, publishing, peer reviewing... looks like science to me.

K J
posted    Report this post
kabuj's Avataree_badge

VERY Well said Alli

Alli G
posted    Report this post
speedbump's Avatar

Looking at the link for the Minority report that was published by "The climate depot" which Steven has posted and seeing that The climate depot .... as well as most of the other sites like this .... are funded by companies such as Exxon/mobile, chevron, and Peabody coal it leads me to believe that the information contained in the report might be just a tad biased. I googled the 0.0001 number that was posted and is supposed to represent the amount of human caused greenhouse effect on earth and the only place I see this minuscule number posted by the climate deniers was where it was used as a representation of the amount of increase in the CO2 levels if the keystone pipeline was allowed to proceed and run at capacity. Not being a scientist .... I'm going to have to hazard a guess that if the deniers were saying that 0.0001 was a correct number for the keystone pipeline by itself .... if you factor in all the other refinery's. manufacturing plants, gas and electrical generators, automobiles etc the number will actually be much larger than 0.0001 of the entire earths man made contribution.

Glancing at the "Minority report" and seeing that much of the information posted there is 8 to 10 years old or older and maybe not real accurate to start with ... I would have to compare what is written there with what was initially posted by the CFC (chlorofluorocarbons)  deniers concerning CFC's effects on the ozone layer. Dupont and many of the larger chemical companies argued that the CFC's in their spray paint, air conditioner refrigerants and foams weren't the cause for the ozone depletion.  There came a time when the ozone depletion and it's causes were no longer something that could ignored and the cause was realized and corrected. 

I think if anyone looks at the difference between the numbers used in the minority report from just a few years back and what we're seeing now it's getting harder to deny that there may be a correlation. Our planet can heal it's self up to a point but there comes a time when it reaches a tipping point. Then the problem is like a snow ball rolling down hill.....  catching it towards the top of the hill gives you the best chance to stop it... if you wait to long it may be to late. I would be happy to find there wasn't any correlation between man and climate change due to CO2 levels but I'd have to say that's not the case. Just as in the case for man contributing to ozone depletion ....  arguing a case for mans contribution to CO2 levels is rapidly reaching the point that the only sound reason that can be listed is for monetary or political gain..

posted    Report this post
allig's Avatarg8_badge

I haven't taken the time to look at the science on either side, and I'm not a climate scientist, but I know we do have a track record of bungling up the environment due to compounds released from man-made activities.  Acid rain from coal-powered electrical plants, CFCs tearing up the ozone, non-biodegradable MTBE additives to oxygenate fossil fuels turning up in the water supply.  The ecosystem is a delicate balance.  There's no denying that.

Would more CO2 in the atmosphere make more plants grow?  I'm not a biologist (yet), but I know in life and in biology there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.  Humans need oxygen to live, but too much'll kill ya!  Same thing with Na+.. or Cl-... or Fe... or a lot of other stuff.  There's a tipping point at which too much of needed elements will cease homeostasis.

There's a loooooot of moving parts when it comes to ecological biology.  Saying plants need CO2 so therefore more of it will increase plant life is only looking at it in a vacuum. The reason why so much damage has been done by man-made compounds in the past, as in the examples mentioned in the first paragraph, is because nobody took the time to look at all the other moving parts in the equation.  Any and all conflict-free organizations that have documented evidence of negative CO2 effect on the environment has a duty to present it to the world.

And.... some really cool new scientific discoveries have been spawned by concern over too much CO2, such as a recent study published where scientists in Tennessee have discovered how to convert CO2 into ethanol, which can then be used for fuel, which would then combust on consumption and convert back into CO2 and water, recapture the CO2 from the atmosphere, converted to ethanol again, wash, rinse, repeat.  

posted    Report this post
en1501's Avatar

Alli, I understand your comment but this is not a normal situation where actual science is used by both sides to discuss an issue.  We have a political situation where a flimsy wisp of nonsense is being used to justify restructuring the world.  If the CO2 hoaxers had any science to point to, they would point to it.  Maybe I'm poking them to force them to come up with some science.  All they have is personal attacks and their famous line: "It's settled.  We can't talk about it.".  

The AGW hoax is so flimsy it can be debunked 25 ways.   

Let's pick one topic: is warming and cooling due to "Mother Nature" OR is it anthropogenic(Man-caused)?  That's the biggest question, of course, because why pay trillion$ to politicians if Mother Nature is in charge. 

Hold onto your seats!  The UN IPCC completely glosses over this most-important issue.  See screen grab below from the official UN IPCC 2007 Synthesis Report Topic 1, Paragraph 1. (sheet 8 when printed)  highlight box on the left side of the page.  

For the CO2 hoaxers to ignore the MOST important issue of them all tells you a lot.  I listed a 321-page document with countless blurbs debunking al-Gore and I could provide countless more.  

In any other area of endeavor, pointing out that one side totally ignores the MAIN POINT would bar them from scooping up hundreds of billion$.

As always, I invite al-Gore and his flock to provide ANYTHING scientific to back up their claims.  

Seriously, I just destroyed their entire hoax by quoting one sentence from their own document.  They know that the public and the clueless media will never read the IPCC documents.     

Also, the hoaxers consider changes in variability to equal climate change.  So if the average number of Atlantic hurricanes goes from 10 per year, with standard deviation = 4, to 6 per year with standard deviation = 2, they will call that "climate change", which entitles the politicians to hundreds of billion$.  AGW is a CLASSIC political FLIM-FLAM!

posted    Report this post
allig's Avatarg8_badge

Eh, it just looks like they're defining climate change.  All legal documents have a definitions section that defines the terms referred to in the document.  It looks like this is just saying for the purposes of this discussion, the definition of climate change is____.  And it looks like the same definition of climate change that you would find just Googling the term.  They're saying a change is a change regardless of the catalyst.  If the mean and st. dev. of hurricanes changes over a period of time, that's a change.  It's also differentiating that climate change can be either natural or man-made.  There's no smoking gun in that excerpt.

posted    Report this post
en1501's Avatar

I see people grappling with many basic scientific questions, like: do plants benefit from higher CO2 (spoiler alert: YES they do).  These issues are well-studied and well-documented and the answers are readily available.  The CO2 hoax was debunked in the 1990s so there is a ton of information available.   

Over these many years, this AGW CO2 hoax has only become more ridiculous.  

There is simply no reason to speculate about so many underlying questions.  The answers are available.  

Also, pipelines are the most efficient way to transport large volumes of liquids between two points.  Using trucks and trains uses roughly 4X as much energy.  That's why pipelines are used: they are extremely safe and efficient compared to the next option.  

posted    Report this post
speedbump's Avatar

Steven you actually made me LOL

posted    Report this post
allig's Avatarg8_badge

So just in a quick research (I really don't have time for any of this, but oh well lol), it seems that increasing CO2 in a lab setting will increase photosynthesis; however, it's a different story in the natural setting as light/temperature is a limiting factor.  Plants would need more light to synthesize higher levels of CO2, which would be a boon for plants and really, really, really bad for everything else.  But even with an increase in CO2 converted through photosynthesis, the increased light needed would raise the temperature, which will eventually denature the enzymes, which would also be really, really bad for the rest of us.  The naturally occuring CO2 in the environment is at/around the saturation point for which the available light can catalyze photosynthesis.  Again with all those moving parts!

posted    Report this post
en1501's Avatar

Archie, your welcome, you have to laugh!  This AGW CO2 hoax is like MONTY PYTHON times 100!  

Do some homework on it; I'm not 5% into my pile of debunking ammo.   

Alli, There is a smoking gun there.  If climate change is due to Mother Nature (NOT Mankind), why would the public pay billion$ to politicians (huMans).  They can't pass legislation to change Mother Nature. 

Or, send me a billion dollars and I'll make the sun come up in the morning, same logic. 

posted    Report this post
allig's Avatarg8_badge

Hmmmm.... no, still sounds like a straw man argument.  The proof might be in the pudding, but the pudding is never found in a definitions section.  The definition is simply saying a change is____, which can be natural or man-made.  It's very straightforward.  Legal documents, academic journals, peer-reviewed studies, they all have definitions sections to ensure everyone is of the same understanding regarding the material presented.  

And even so, science studies all kinds of naturally occurring phenomena that is due to mother nature (disease, for example) and sometimes comes up with ways to reduce the negative consequences even when they're due to nature (medicine, for example).  Climate change, natural or man-made, affects everyone on the planet.  Why wouldn't we fund its scientific research?

 

posted    Report this post
en1501's Avatar

This entire AGW CO2 hoax should have been buried in the 1990s.  I was at a major technology conference in 2007 and the hoax was an open secret by then.  Believe me, behind closed doors, the people falling for the hoax are laughed at and considered XXXXheads and big companies have decided to "play along".  I'm encouraging everyone to get up to speed on this topic because it is in the news and the politicians are trying to ram through some legislation while the hoax is still working.       

posted    Report this post
speedbump's Avatar

Steven please don't post the other 95% ,,, the first 5% of debunking info has no validity. I had the exact same reaction as Alli when you said that you were destroying the entire hoax of climate change by posting a definition of climate change. It's a definition of climate change. It can be effected by either natural variations or possibly by man. Some are concerned that indeed man may be contributing to the problem and all agree we can't do anything concerning natural causes but many think we possibly can contain the man made part. I'm pretty sure the whole thing wasn't wrapped up back in the 90's since valid data is still coming in and seems to be pointing in that direction of a serious problem. Look at the data from the last 8 years and see what you think.

posted    Report this post
allig's Avatarg8_badge

Wait a minute, the foundation of this discussion is science from the 90s?  I was rocking out to NKOTB and kissing my poster of Jonathan Taylor Thomas back in the 90s while my dad filmed holidays on a camcorder the size of a rocket launcher.  Science and I have both grown since then.  (Still love you though, JTT, in case you're reading this.)

Joe Kurtenbach
Michelle Sartori
posted    Report this post
speedbump's Avatar

Quote from yesterday.... "Trump admits that humans have "some connectivity" to climate change......

posted    Report this post
kabuj's Avataree_badge

Alli G ... yet again VERY well said.  EOM  :-)

Charlie Lumsden
Alli G
posted    Report this post
en1501's Avatar

If you don't differentiate between the "Mother Nature" portion of climate change and the "Human" portion of climate change, then you are missing the boat, especially when the "Human" portion = zero.    

That's just axiomatic, which is math and logic.  Maybe someone can explain it better, but it's a math statement and stands on its own and is not an opinion.   

Since various legal means are contemplated to fight climate change (laws and taxes), the distinction is very important.  I think the confusion arises because those legal means are not spelled out in the same paragraph.     

Clearly, at least to me, if a law says: ...driving a car, which may cause climate change which may be due to natural variability OR human activity, will be taxed at the rate of $x per mile..., makes no sense.  There is a flim flam in there.     

You will notice the haphazard substitution of the word "carbon" for the phrase "carbon dioxide".  Of course, both are essential terms when discussing the burning of fossil fuels, which are mainly carbon.  This purposeful pollution of the language suggests that scientific clarity is the LAST thing on their agenda.   Real scientists prefer to use non ambiguous terms.

I worked for many years in a big corporate, big data, modeling group.  Someone using such horribly ambiguous terminology wouldn't last one day in a real modeling situation.  The absolute last naming convention you would use would be to use the same term for the input and the output of a chemical process.  If they can't muster the energy to type "carbon dioxide", they could use "CO2".    

As I mentioned earlier, the AGW CO2 hoax has only become more ridiculous in recent years.  If there was a shred of science to support the idea, it would have been brought to light by now.        

Many things have been studied throughout the 1990s and right up through the present time.  That's not a bad thing.   In climate science you'll see the hoaxers squirm to explain their horrible models as certain unexpected (to them) things happen.  For example, the huge plateau in recent years.  The debunkers of the AGW CO2 hoax have been shown to be right on so many fronts.   

Judging by the comments on this thread, many of you have no idea how nutty the AGW CO2 hoax really is.  The real question is how did anyone fall for it?  There is a certain comedic value as you discover that a politician and his bought-and-paid-for scribes have nothing but flimsy lies and non sequiturs to justify their silly ideas.

posted    Report this post
chappy75's Avatar

Okay Steven... Let's conduct an experiment... We can do it virtually since the outcome is obvious.

You are in a room pumped full of Oxygen for survival and not other reason. In this room you burn a log. the rooms air fills up with smoke but there is still plenty of oxygen. while you are turning the log into its gaseous form by burning it the log is deconstructed  by heat. What happens? What is the quality of life? 

See, the world is merely a large room. It is comprised of everything known to man on earth. Nothing more will ever be created we will manipulate what is here.

All matter exists in Liquid, Solid or Gaseous form. In the current state of existence there is a balance of the 3 states of matter. This is no a delicate balance either. Nature can take a sustained assault. While we manipulate the world and burn fossil fuels and shale and coal the particles are still in our "room". Every gallon of gas we burn transforms liquid into gas and the shale used to create the gas from solid to liquid. 

This is how we are assisting the earth with climate change. I agree that climates are temporary and the state of the earth is too.  I sort of like the climate we have. I think it's sort of important to breath air with less particles in it. 

the passing of the glaciers is fueled by world trade and China busting glaciers. 

We need to get off the Oil Teet before it is too late!

posted    Report this post
allig's Avatarg8_badge

I don't know why people get so angry and conspiratorial about climate science. (Well, probably because it's been politicized.)  I surmise that laypersons haven't raised this much of a stink over science since Darwinian evolution.

Jacob Downey
posted    Report this post
allig's Avatarg8_badge

James - while I pretty much agree with what you're saying, the balance is more delicate than it seems.  The ecosystem is like a web (or the moving parts example from earlier). While it's true that nature will act to re-balance large shifts, there are still consequences rippling throughout the web that disturb the systems at each juncture.  For instance, the ocean can help absorb a lot of CO2, but in turn that increases acidity and affects aquatic life (Columbia University).  Increased CO2 has a negative effect on human cognition (Harvard/NASA/SUNY).  It ripples well beyond just a temperature change.  Nature can work over time to correct a sustained assault, but not without getting cuts and bruises along the way.  Again, lots of moving parts here under the thin blue line.  The balance is actually quite delicate in order to sustain optimum conditions for ecosystems around the globe.

Joe Kurtenbach
Jacob Downey
posted    Report this post
jdowney9000's Avatargold

I hope he doesn't fall on his "Ow-zone"

Alli G
posted    Report this post
chappy75's Avatar

Alli,

We are in agreement. The difference though is that Nature will normalize. I have watched it with the everglades as people are pushing deeper and deeper. Really, it ticks me off badly. There are entire communities that I avoid as a realtor. Not easy being a realtor and an activist at the same time.

Nature will claim all of this back as we build so to will nature destroy or reclaim. The Army Corp of Engineers take license and screw things up all the time. 

What I learned from the election is that more than half of the US population is in very confined areas. The climate will change and we are helping it with CO2 emissions from our fossil fuel burning contraptions. I mean Fossil fuel is one step beyond peddling a bike as far as evolution of transportation goes. We can do better! we should do better! We will do better!

posted    Report this post
allig's Avatarg8_badge

It's true we haven't come very far in terms of energy production from the first time mankind lit a fire to stay warm.  I don't get it?  Don't we want to fund research to discover renewable, cheaper, and possibly even free sources of energy and how to replicate it on a large scale to power our homes and vehicles?  I mean, I do!!  Why do people insist on fighting on behalf of the oil and gas industry?  They're the ones who profit if the science gets buried under a bunch of rhetoric.

I don't belong to any political party and I never will, so I can say with all independence that I wish Al Gore would have stayed out of it so it wouldn't be so polarized.  If the science would have been presented to the world on a PBS special hosted by Bono or a resurrected Elvis--heck! Even Erik Estrada!--we'd all be peachy and making progress by now.  Thanks a lot, Al.  You just couldn't take a backseat and let Poncherello be the spokesman.

posted    Report this post
allig's Avatarg8_badge

I think Elon Musk would be the best man for the job.

posted    Report this post
kabuj's Avataree_badge

Frank... be careful what you wish for (non-politician).... we will see my friend as there are risks and possible negative consequences associated with both. Let the private sector run unfeterred you get the Financial Crisis, Savings & Loans and ENRON debacle... let the politicians run unabashed and you get pork and entitlements (among other things)..

System seems to operate best with all side in moderation. One does not automatically negate the other. Despite arguments to the contrary, the country is NOT a business it's a democracy which by design is required (among other things) to consider the rights of the minority (in the truest sense of the word) and a shared interest.  

A CEO has only to answer to him/her self, customers, shareholders. and the board (which is usually stacked for the CEO). A President has to answer to the entire country.

This country has done pretty darn well so far with "Politicians" (good and bad).  As I always emphasize in most of my post. the BEST country in the world (or the worst, with the exception of ALL others).

posted    Report this post
jdowney9000's Avatargold

I'm going to change my name to Thumb.

Then I will claim Antarctica.

Then all who come to Antarctica will live under the rule of Thumb.

posted    Report this post
inovate's Avataree_badge

Thanks David for starting this thread my friend. I have really loved all the well read, thought and felt, the community shared.

Is there anything that will just that will allow us to work together as one piece/thing/heart?

 Thank you EN Family! 

Happy Thanksgiving and blessings to you

Warmest aloha Charlie

posted    Report this post
en1501's Avatar

The truth will set you free.  If you are assembling a list of the TOP 500 Scientists who have debunked the al-Gore-promoted AGW CO2 hoax, Dr. Fred Goldberg must be on that list!  

He even spilled the beans on what I named as the "other" CO2 hoax (He reveals it in the Q and A section, which is mostly bland otherwise.).  

Search in Google/Youtube:  Dr. Fred Goldberg Squashes Climate Alarmism

He crushes the hoaxers like roaches!

That other document, certainly not the longest list:

cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

posted    Report this post
en1501's Avatar

CO2 hoax #2 (see 1:10:00 to 1:13:00 in Dr. Fred Goldberg Squashes Climate Alarmism) is scary/bad ocean acidification.  This one is so nutty that if you make a bet you could give the other guy five orders of magnitude and you will still win by a mile!  

Each year huMankind blesses the atmosphere with an additional 1% of CO2, compared to the existing CO2.  Plants: you're welcome!  

How heavy is the atmosphere: 1/250 the ocean.  How much of the atmosphere is CO2: 1/2500.  How much of the CO2 is huMan-made: 1/100.  How much CO2 escapes the hungry plants and reaches the ocean (guesstimate): 1/2.  Multiplied = 1/125,000,000.  Roughly approx 1 of 125,000,000 by weight: huMan-made CO2 to seawater is going to drop the PH and cause shelled critters to dissolve?  Crazy!  How did all those same critters survive when CO2 was 10X or 20X higher for millions of years?  I'll not even mention how CO2 is consumed by aquatic life.  

Seriously, this CO2 ocean acidification hoax could be a hoax of 6+ orders of magnitude!  Maybe a teaspoon of seltzer can dissolve a ton of concrete??? No.   

posted    Report this post
speedbump's Avatar

David I hope your experiment with change across the pond is going a lot smoother than our experiment with change Hopefully your elected leader has a comprehension level and temperament greater than that of a six year old. Ours doesn't seem to have what it takes to understand and function at any level  I stand by my original statement that he's not smart enough to see the bigger picture and doesn't listen to anyone except his few yes men that will work for him.  Many positions aren't being filled because no one wants to be associated with this disaster. One shoe has already hit the floor and I think the other shoe is going to drop for this administration shortly.

posted    Report this post
kabuj's Avataree_badge

Roger, I commend you for your tamed response and agree completely (well said).  When I saw Archie's posting (whether I agree or not), My first thougt was... "Let the fireworks begin"  :-)

Best to All

John Vilardi
posted    Report this post
jdowney9000's Avatargold

There is always room to bandy an analogy.

Personally I'm a Nullifier with Federalist tendencies. (Is that snowflake enough for ya'? lol)

Kim L
posted    Report this post