Posts by Clyde

41) Message boards : Politics : Against ALL women - Infanticide, Slavery, Rape, Trafficking... (#3) (Message 1912680)
Posted 5 days ago by Profile Clyde
Post:
Attitudes towards women hasn't much in 4 decades :-(

"Until recently, Swedish law had ruled that any crime committed more than 25 years ago was barred from being prosecuted. In 2010, the Swedish parliament changed the cut-off date for prosecutions to 1 July 1985. Lundqvist suspects this date was chosen to make sure the still-unsolved murder of the Swedish Prime Minister, Olof Palme, in 1986 would never fall beyond the statute. "

However, if you're a male politiican...

... or copper for that matter.

Hmm... What have the BBC article and Swedish Statute of limitations has to do with attitudes towards women?
Swedish Statute of limitations
https://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fsv.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPreskription%23Preskriptionstider_i_Sverige&edit-text=&authuser=0
From 1 July 2010, there will no longer be a statute of limitations on the most serious crimes if committed on 1 July 1985 or later and if the offender was 21 years old at the time of the crime. [1] [2]
It concerns:
Murder or manslaughter and attempt to murder and manslaughter
Gross human rights violations
Genocide and attempted genocide
Terrorist offenses and attempts at terrorist offenses
However, data in respect of these crimes should be erased from the police database 70 years after the crime, which in practice will act as an informal statute of limitation period.
The time is counted from the day the crime was committed. An exception to this is sexual offense against children as time is calculated from the date the victim is 18 years old. [3]

Understanding that most crimes against women that we are referencing, are under the authority of The Individual States and in practice, there is no American Law.

There is no Statute of Limitations for Murder and more recently, the Sexual Abuse of a Child.

With Rape: Thirty-four states impose limits on when a rape case can be brought forward, ranging from 3 to 30 years after the assault. The rest have no limitations.
42) Message boards : Politics : Greatest Best Leader of ALL TIME Yep Dat BeeeZZZ Big BIg BIG Hands Golden Haired Long Black Coat Wearin; WINNING ALWAYS Prez #45 45ers Gots His Back. You, Not So Much.......Yap (Message 1912676)
Posted 5 days ago by Profile Clyde
Post:
So you have no objection to the rest of the world calling your country the biggest ****hole on the planet?
Again, begs the question...........

"THEN WHY THE HELL DO SO MANY OF THAT 'REST OF THE WORLD' WANT TO COME HERE?"

Just stay away............................PLEASE!

Stay in your own hole, be it rabbit, black or S*#T.....

JE... We do disagree about some issues. But don't respond to a poster who repeatedly uses disgusting profanity with another curse. You are just lowering yourself to their level.

Anyway... Why is it so hard for them to understand that we don't care, and very correctly, what the rest of the world thinks.

They think we are (fill-in the negatives).

We think they are (fill-in the negatives).

Now let's return, dismissing the profanity poster, to Trump's latest rant.
43) Message boards : Politics : Greatest Best Leader of ALL TIME Yep Dat BeeeZZZ Big BIg BIG Hands Golden Haired Long Black Coat Wearin; WINNING ALWAYS Prez #45 45ers Gots His Back. You, Not So Much.......Yap (Message 1912591)
Posted 5 days ago by Profile Clyde
Post:
BTW: Do you agree with me that all illegal immigrants presently in the USA , excepting serious criminals. Should be granted legal status?
I disagree, those brought here without choice(dreamers), certainly, those here on temporary permits or visas that have expired, only on a case by case basis. Those here as part of a limited period temporary immigration allowance again on a case by case basis.

Consideration needs to be given not only to criminal records but also subject to 'extreme vetting' and whether or not they have been a contributing element in society or a burden to it.

Mia Love, my most admired young Conservative, is Haitian 1st generation American. She has taken exception to Trump's comments(which I have not heard for myself and would not judge unless I heard them due to antitrumpet distortion of anything Trump). But if she feels they are genuine and is offended then so am I.

Trump does step over the line on a regular basis, and I do not believe him to be Racist, but like every walking human he undoubtedly has some prejudices and we all should know by now his stream of consciousness is connected directly to his mouth with no filtering mechanism. It doesn't excuse his remarks but it does explain them.

#1 - Agree that the 'source' of the allegation is very important.

#2 - From a moral and ethical standpoint, we should not attempt to detain then deport eleven million or much more people and their children.

Understanding how the yelling and crying mothers and their children will look on television. Fills me with utmost sadness.

Sometimes the choice is not between good or bad, nor between legal and illegal.

We may disagree about this.
44) Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions #2 (Message 1912587)
Posted 5 days ago by Profile Clyde
Post:
Solar activity is only one of the reason that climate change.
I'm quite sure that scientists are including that in their models how climate change behaves.
What's your point?

Why are you so sure?

Unfortunately, in the present politicization of this issue. Both sides have a vested issue regarding their side.

I said I'm "quite sure" :)
Anyway Solar activity is a natural reason to GW, right?

Net human and natural percent contributions to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years. The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), Wigley and Santer 2012 (WG12, dark green), Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink), IPCC AR5 (IPCC, light green), and Ribes et al. 2016 (R16, light purple). The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research.

Correct numbers. But those on both sides of the argument, Human vs. Solar, believe they are correct and point to their numbers regarding present and future climate change.

Personally wishing they could meet at a prestigious university and present their arguments in a public forum which is televised/internet worldwide.

With the following proviso: No name calling nor demonstrations inside or outside.

BTW: It would be enjoyable if the Climate Change Deniers were also invited. I believe they would very quickly 'slink off into the night'.
45) Message boards : Politics : Greatest Best Leader of ALL TIME Yep Dat BeeeZZZ Big BIg BIG Hands Golden Haired Long Black Coat Wearin; WINNING ALWAYS Prez #45 45ers Gots His Back. You, Not So Much.......Yap (Message 1912584)
Posted 5 days ago by Profile Clyde
Post:
Understanding we must limit immigration for economic reasons.

Do you?
I would have thought the opposite.
Boomer population retiring, birth rate declining.

Setting reasonably numbers for immigration limits would help, present limits are so low as to be farcical.

I see a difference between No Borders and Vetting/Limiting.

BTW: Do you agree with me that all illegal immigrants presently in the USA , excepting serious criminals. Should be granted legal status?

Considering that the US unemployment rate is very low and that the non-criminal illegal immigrants presumably have jobs to support themselves and their families, I would have thought it was obvious that they should have some sort of legal status.

It must also be pointed out that these illegal immigrants know that if they commit a serious crime, then it is liable to be a quick return ticket. Therefore the crime rate for illegal immigrants is less than half that of the general population,

The foundation of my wishing to legalize presently illegal immigrants. Is not from an economic viewpoint. But from my personal ethical and moral beliefs.
46) Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions #2 (Message 1912581)
Posted 5 days ago by Profile Clyde
Post:
How many of the climate change skeptics are funded by businesses that have a vested interest in resisting any global warming measures, such as ExxonMobil and Koch Affiliated Foundations.

We are not having a discussion, at this time, about the Climate Change Deniers, who we both dismiss. Just why there will be a change.

And possible vested interests from those respected scientists on both sides of the Human vs. Solar impact on our climate.

One side is correct, or possibly both sides are partially correct.
47) Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions #2 (Message 1912577)
Posted 5 days ago by Profile Clyde
Post:
Solar activity is only one of the reason that climate change.
I'm quite sure that scientists are including that in their models how climate change behaves.
What's your point?

Why are you so sure?

Unfortunately, in the present politicization of this issue. Both sides have a vested issue regarding their side.
48) Message boards : Politics : Greatest Best Leader of ALL TIME Yep Dat BeeeZZZ Big BIg BIG Hands Golden Haired Long Black Coat Wearin; WINNING ALWAYS Prez #45 45ers Gots His Back. You, Not So Much.......Yap (Message 1912573)
Posted 5 days ago by Profile Clyde
Post:
Understanding we must limit immigration for economic reasons.

Do you?
I would have thought the opposite.
Boomer population retiring, birth rate declining.

Setting reasonably numbers for immigration limits would help, present limits are so low as to be farcical.

I see a difference between No Borders and Vetting/Limiting.

BTW: Do you agree with me that all illegal immigrants presently in the USA , excepting serious criminals. Should be granted legal status?
49) Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions #2 (Message 1912566)
Posted 5 days ago by Profile Clyde
Post:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

#1- Numbers can be interpreted differently and the above only includes one portion of the Scientific Community.

Where are the percentages of the respected scientists who believe that other issues, Solar Activity as a example, may be involved.

#2 - Not "rejecting" doesn't mean agreement.

As with the 30% advocates. The above quoted, to anybody who understands human nature and its organizations. Is, by its use of particular descriptive words and failure to include other respected opinions outside of one point of view. Is just an opinion piece.

That being said.

I fail to understand why the above quoted author cannot admit that another respected side exists and may have a point.
50) Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions #2 (Message 1912551)
Posted 5 days ago by Profile Clyde
Post:
You believe accepted scientific consensus hasn't been proven incorrect and replaced? Or the 'correction' hasn't been proven wrong and replaced, and that 'correction' hasn't been proven wrong and replaced, and...

It happens all the time, but when in the case in GW the fraction of thousand scientists that don't belive that humans are the cause are so tiny, almost insignificant, I belive those 98% are probably right.
And no one in these forums has the expertise to choose between either, and respected, scientific side.

Politicians have not the expertise either but have to choose anyway.
Scary, but true!

Anyway to us AGW "belivers".
There are solutions.



The 97% did not include the Failed to Respond or Solar Induced Climate Change Scientists. It was specifically targeted.

This does not agree with the interpretation, also meant to deceive 'number', that 'only' 30% of those scientists polled agreed with Human Induced Global Warming.

Both sides are employing the same tactics.
51) Message boards : Politics : Greatest Best Leader of ALL TIME Yep Dat BeeeZZZ Big BIg BIG Hands Golden Haired Long Black Coat Wearin; WINNING ALWAYS Prez #45 45ers Gots His Back. You, Not So Much.......Yap (Message 1912542)
Posted 5 days ago by Profile Clyde
Post:
•Pew: US media bias ranks worst in the world•

The survey found that just 21 percent of Americans supportive of Trump and Republicans believe the media is fair. But it also found that just [sic] 55 percent of those who don’t back Trump also believe the media is not fairly covering politics in the U.S.

“The U.S. is also one of only a few countries where governing party supporters are less satisfied with their news media than are non-supporters. In most countries, people who support the political party currently in power are more satisfied with the performance of their news media than those who do not support the governing party,” said the study.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pew-us-media-bias-ranks-worst-in-the-world/article/2645644

Wonderful that the Anti Government Swamp and Anti Media Swamp American people do understand the truth about both.
52) Message boards : Politics : Greatest Best Leader of ALL TIME Yep Dat BeeeZZZ Big BIg BIG Hands Golden Haired Long Black Coat Wearin; WINNING ALWAYS Prez #45 45ers Gots His Back. You, Not So Much.......Yap (Message 1912536)
Posted 5 days ago by Profile Clyde
Post:
Those people who live in then want to get away from them and live next door to you.

Understanding we must limit immigration for economic reasons.

And repeating that those already here must, for moral and ethical reason. be allowed to stay.

Hopefully, those who 'whatever his name is today' despises. Does move next door to him. So he may realize that the vast majority of people he believes are (fill-in the negatives), are not really different from him.

Just people attempting to make a better life for themselves and their children.
53) Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions #2 (Message 1912533)
Posted 5 days ago by Profile Clyde
Post:
97% may be correct. Or just a consensus that is incorrect. As has happened many times.

Hehe:)
Name one example where a scientific consensus of 97% is incorrect.
Now we are talking about several thousand of scientists from all over the world!

Really?

You believe accepted scientific consensus hasn't been proven incorrect and replaced? Or the 'correction' hasn't been proven wrong and replaced, and that 'correction' hasn't been proven wrong and replaced, and...

When didn't that happen?

BTW: What would be the 'consensus' percentage of those respected scientists who believe Solar Activity is largely responsible for Climate Change?

Unlike the 'We know the truth' supporters of either respected side. I do understand we humans have not yet stopped the advance and correction of our knowledge. A journey which some apparently believe has come to an end.

BTW: This is not a support of what I believe to be a scientific (political?) fringe element of 'Warming Deniers'.

But an acknowledgement that 'Something is Happening'. And no one in these forums has the expertise to choose between either, and respected, scientific side.
54) Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions #2 (Message 1912446)
Posted 6 days ago by Profile Clyde
Post:
I think we can ignore the Maunder Minimum theory, it wasn't worldwide, in fact mainly confined to countries close to the North Sea.
For the first half of that period in the 16th century the US NE was warmer than normal. The Europeans that went to US might of though it was happening there, but we now know, at the same latitude North America is colder than Europe.

Hopefully. Or perhaps we are experiencing the effects of a steady rise in the solar constant, accompanying a similar rise in solar magnetic variability and reduced sunspots.
The real problem is the vested interests on both sides of the argument between the “greenhouse” believers and the “solar warming” believers.
Because both scientific sides have economic interests (Grants) and reputations in this matter...
Many scientific disputes throughout history. Are not purely scientific.
Edit: Perhaps both sides are partially correct.

Scientists are always skeptical. Or at least should be.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

97% may be correct. Or just a consensus that is incorrect. As has happened many times.

BTW: I will not repeat the idiotic statements that only 30% responded to the question. Those that responded are actively engaged.
55) Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions #2 (Message 1912443)
Posted 6 days ago by Profile Clyde
Post:
I think we can ignore the Maunder Minimum theory, it wasn't worldwide, in fact mainly confined to countries close to the North Sea.

For the first half of that period in the 16th century the US NE was warmer than normal. The Europeans that went to US might of though it was happening there, but we now know, at the same latitude North America is colder than Europe.

Hopefully. Or perhaps we are experiencing the effects of a steady rise in the solar constant, accompanying a similar rise in solar magnetic variability and reduced sunspots.

The real problem may be the vested interests on both sides of the argument between the “greenhouse” believers and the “solar warming” believers.

Because both scientific sides have economic interests (Grants) and reputations in this matter. And understanding that many scientific disputes throughout history are not purely scientific...

Edit: Perhaps both sides are partially correct.
56) Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions #2 (Message 1912437)
Posted 6 days ago by Profile Clyde
Post:
Are you suggesting that to avoid Maunder Minimums we shouldn't care that our climate will get warmer over time regardless of them?
Sorry. That would be disastrous.
Future Maunder Minimums will not be as cold as they would be when the greenhouse gas levels where at a historical "normal" level.
And after 50, 60 years our planet will be even more warmer after the next Maunder Minimum.

Some depictions from the last Maunder Minimum in Scandinavia in the 17th Century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_Across_the_Belts
Won't happen next time.

Actually, I am not suggesting anything execpting the scientific uncertainty regarding the near future. Where worldwide famine is a possibility. And if there is a 30 year long , or longer mini ice age (respected scientists disagree as to its impact). Necessitating a substantial need for increased energy to heat many countries...

In all probably, until we drastically reduce the human population and worldwide famine may be a start. Anything we do, that does not reduce all to a Somalia level of energy need. Might be for naught.
57) Message boards : Politics : Greatest Best Leader of ALL TIME Yep Dat BeeeZZZ Big BIg BIG Hands Golden Haired Long Black Coat Wearin; WINNING ALWAYS Prez #45 45ers Gots His Back. You, Not So Much.......Yap (Message 1912429)
Posted 6 days ago by Profile Clyde
Post:
Sorry, the real issue is will the Repugnants allow a bill written by dims to even be given a committee hearing so that compromise is possible? After the obstruction of the last do nothing, ...
Wow, I couldn't have scripted that response.........the EXACT kind of thinking (Pelosism/Schumerosophy) that has kept the American dream in a can.
Seems tRump subscribes to it. He rejected the bipartisan deal and the language he used can't be posted here, it isn't kid friendly, but it comes from a Rump! (it takes one to know one)

Acknowledging Idiot Trump's attack against Haitians and others.

If the Democrats refuse Trump's apparent offer to legalize eleven million (his number) illegal aliens and their children born outside the USA. If only the Democrats would stop fighting against his border wall and other issues.

The Democrats will reap the whirlwind.
58) Message boards : Politics : Greatest Best Leader of ALL TIME Yep Dat BeeeZZZ Big BIg BIG Hands Golden Haired Long Black Coat Wearin; WINNING ALWAYS Prez #45 45ers Gots His Back. You, Not So Much.......Yap (Message 1912423)
Posted 6 days ago by Profile Clyde
Post:
After 200+ years you would think that every necessary law is already written. In any case every day Congress can't pass something is a day the Federal Government isn't picking your pocket. I believe that is the Repugnant Mantra.

The advance and decline of Human Civilization is never-ending.
59) Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions #2 (Message 1912422)
Posted 6 days ago by Profile Clyde
Post:
I wonder too. Trump however thinks otherwise...

Or we must also understand regarding our climate. Many different near term futures are possible.

Maunder Minimum

•There Probably Won't Be A “Mini Ice Age” In 15 Years• [sic]

Since our article yesterday about how reduced solar activity could lead to the next little ice age, IFLScience has spoken to the researcher who started the furor: Valentina Zharkova. She announced the findings from her team's research on solar activity last week at the Royal Astronomical Society. She noted that her team didn't realize how much of an impact their research would have on the media, and that it was journalists (including ourselves) who picked up on the possible impact on the climate. However, Zharkova says that this is not a reason to dismiss this research or the predictions about the environment.

The previous Maunder Minimum occurred in the 17th century and lasted between 50 and 60 years. During this time, winters were colder: for example the River Thames, which usually flows through London, notoriously froze over. The ice was so thick that people could walk from one side to the other. However, the citizens that lived in freezing, 17th century Europe survived these cold winters, and they didn't have the heating technology that we are fortunate enough to have today. If the next solar activity minimum does affect the weather on Earth, it will not be deadly for the human race.

Zharkova compared the Maunder Minimum with the one that her team predicted to occur around 15 years into the future. The next minimum will likely be a little bit shorter than the one in the 17th century, only lasting a maximum of three solar cycles (around 30 years).

The conditions during this next predicted minimum will still be chilly: “It will be cold, but it will not be this ice age when everything is freezing like in the Hollywood films,” Zharkova chuckled.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming/

And disagreeing with the opinion in the above article. That the Maunder Minimum will not have a significant negative effect.

•A DRAMATIC cool down in global temperatures lasting at least three decades could lead to catastrophic food shortages across the world, a researcher has warned.•

She [Zharkova] said planet Earth has “natural mechanisms” designed to withstand ice ages and has done so “for billions of years and survived”.

However, Zharkova said there is a risk crops “won’t be able to grow properly”, meaning food supplies could dwindle across the world.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/670626/mini-ice-age-global-30-years-famine-mass-scale-valentina-zharkova-sun-solar

Understanding and acknowledging that respected Scientists have different opinions, as noted above. It is possible that 'things' will get cooler, warmer or remain the same for the foreseeable future.

Their crystal ball still remains somewhat opaque.
60) Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions #2 (Message 1912418)
Posted 6 days ago by Profile Clyde
Post:
Does anyone understand negotiation strategy?
The Donald does.

Negotiation strategy?
So what strategy does the Donald have about the climate change?
He doesn't have a clue about climate change strategy.
His tactics however is to avoid the problem and "saving" US tax payers money so he will stay in power.
Well. Future presidents will say "Thank you very much Don, but now New York City, Southern Florida, Southern Louisiana and many other parts of US are now flooded"

Speaking of Trade Agreements...

BTW: The 'damage' has already been done. Just our human belief, wish or hope we can quickly, in the next few decades, reverse what we have done.


Previous 20 · Next 20


 
©2018 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.