I think the very first one was in 65 or so showcasing rescue equipment, and it's been pretty much the same as now since 85 with two or three classes, but some serious advancements in the cars. I think our host said it wasn't televised until mid 2000's because of the disbelief from producers that people would actually do that.

The only dispute over the 2016 election I know of was due to the popular vote, the same as Gore Vs Bush in 2000.

Can you cite a single case of Democrats fucking things up since 2016?

We have already established that your use of "finger banging joe" is pro Biden, why do you keep showing support for Biden while extolling the virtues of a wannabe despot?

Lol!
You can't find any clips of a virile or "with it" Trump, no matter how far back you look. Show me one clip of Trump running, the only thing close I recall is a photo of him playing tennis, beet red, obese, incredibly out of shape, and looking seconds from death....from 2000. Jesus Christ, he was barely older than I am today in that picture, and he looked like a sickly 75 back then.
Biden, just need to look at yesterday, or any recent clip, he's the same as 4 years ago, virile and with it, coherent, rational, and fit for his age.

I don't believe for a second you were ever ok with Biden. You miraculously don't see (or at least don't comment on) the rapid decline Trump has suffered, after starting well behind Biden in mental and physical health, but you imply Biden is a gibbering fool on his death bed, all evidence notwithstanding.

But I think you are a sock puppet for a Russian troll so I can easily discount your opinion as anti American.

No....with a "but".

I was disturbed in the 70's about how people were changing the planet, but didn't yet understand the climate portion of that issue would be the most disastrous. (In my defense I was under 10).

I became concerned in the 90's-2000's when the scientific conclusions became overwhelmingly certain that CO² and other greenhouse gasses were destroying the atmosphere we relied on.

My concern quickly turned to anger at the realisation that people as a group were more inclined to argue over minutiae and ignorant theories and money rather than tackle the apocalyptic problem.

Soon that was mixed with depression at the realisation that it was too late even if we gave up CO² and methane today because the climate is slow to react and we had passed the point of no return and were actually still accelerating towards the cliff and arguing over the correct radio station for flying.

Today I'm at acceptance that humans will destroy the biosphere and likely themselves in the process, and have to be content with the knowledge that I didn't make it much worse (or at least made an educated effort to not make it worse), I likely won't live to see mass famine and water wars where I live, and didn't put anyone else in the horrific position of having to live through the worst. (No kids).

Feel better? ;-)

The way it's presented here, yes, his own words are edited and selected with other words/statements omitted to create right wing propaganda. Where are the parts where he admits he was wrong and apologized over and over?

How about Trump's own words, and Trump's own position then. He said the Clinton/Biden crime bill was way too soft and lenient. Here's a taste from Trump's book....

"The perpetrator is never a victim. He’s nothing more than a predator. (pages 93-94).

A life is a life, and if you criminally take an innocent life, you’d better be prepared to forfeit your own. My only complaint is that lethal injection is too comfortable a way to go. (pages 102-103).

Criminals are often returned to society because of forgiving judges. This has to stop. We need to hold judges more accountable… The rest of us need to rethink prisons and punishment. The next time you hear someone saying there are too many people in prison, ask them how many thugs they’re willing to relocate to their neighborhood. The answer: None. (pages 106-107)."

If that doesn’t sound like support for mass incarceration and the death penalty with little chance for criminal justice reform in sentencing, I’m not sure what does.

https://observer.com/2019/06/trump-crime-2000-book-biden-1994-crime-bill/

How about the Central Park 5? Trump paid for adds calling for the death penalty for these wrongly accused boys. Despite DNA evidence and a confession by the real rapist and restitution from the state in the $40000000 range Trump STILL insists they're guilty of something (he doesn't know what they did, but they're definitely guilty) and deserve the death penalty.....clearly forgetting he's bragged about doing what they were wrongly accused of....sexual assault.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/19/what-trump-has-said-central-park-five/1501321001/

Biden has admitted his position was wrong, and repeatedly apologized. Trump has NEVER done that, even about calling for the death penalty for the proven innocent.

*facepalm. You still don't understand that some people have a longer memory than a gnat, and we can recall that no matter the topic, Trump's position was worse than Democrats at the time, and his current position is worse than their current position.
*D'Oh*

I've not tracked pop music enough in the last 20 years to know if the 2010s or 2000s were right, but Cher certainly struck me as not very likely. The Bee-Gees sealed it.

I would have happily listened to more of the 1920's "Dirty Anklez"...

Well, he has been on TV since 2000 in multiple countries, and on his own show since 09.
Maybe you just don't watch too much tv?

@newtboy,

"Stupid to use all these differing sets, that only adds confusion to an already technical and confusing topic."

I'm just glad they stick to metric, with sea level rise you don't even get that .

"No matter what, it's incontrovertible that every iteration of the IPCC reports has drastically raised their damage estimates (temp, sea level) and sped up the timetable from the previous report."

At least temperature wise the AR1 report had higher temperatures, and definitely higher worst case projection scenarios for temp than the latest. I can't say I checked their sea level projections, though typically they're other projections have followed on using their temps as the baseline for the other stuff and thus they track together. That is to say, if you can point me a source that reliably claims otherwise I might go check, but currently what I have checked tells me otherwise.

"I'll take the less conservative NOAA estimates and go farther to assume they over estimate humanity and underestimate feedback loops and unknowns and believe we are bound to make it worse than they imagine."

Which is fine, I only object if that gets characterized as the factually scientific 'right' approach.

"The NOAA .83C number was compared to average annual global temperatures 1901-2000...and oddly enough is lower than 2017's measurements."

Which is yet another source and calibration period from what I found. The 1901-2000 very, very roughly speaking can be thought of as centered on 1950, so in that fuzzy feeling sense not surprising it's 0C is colder than the IPCC centered on the nineties.

The source on current instrumental I went against is below:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

As for 2018 being cooler than 2017, that's pretty normal. 1996/1997 were the hottest years on record for a pretty long time before things swung back up. It's entirely possible we stay below the recent high years for another bunch of years before continuing to creep up. Same as a particularly cold day isn't 'evidence', the decadal and even century averages are where the signal comes out of the noise.

Hmmmm. According to
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
The NOAA .83C number was compared to average annual global temperatures 1901-2000...and oddly enough is lower than 2017's measurements.

You’re reading it wrong. The IPCC is showing temperature anomaly relative to a specific time frame, you have to compare against the same starting time frame or it is meaningless. Which is by the by an extremely frequently repeated trope used by the hard core denial side.

If you cant find comparable reference frames, use change from a common year. Go look at NOAA’s temps for 2000 and 2019 and take the delta, then compare that delta to the IPCC, you’ll find both fall around the sub 0.5C of change from 2000 to 2020, close ish at least to one another.

Edit:
That may have been a lazy explanation. I went and looked for your 0.83 for 2018, which looks like it is referencing a NOAA release, it lists it's values as calibrated against the 1951-1980 mean.
The IPCC however lists their own numbers as calibrated against the 1986-2005 mean.
Obviously, the mean temp from 1951-1980 is gonna be much lower than the the mean from 1986-2005, so you can't to a direct comparison. If you look at the instrumental portion of the IPCC results you'll see how much it 'under' hits the NOAA data too, just because it's calibrated to a warmer baseline.
Make sense?

@newtboy,

"Every IPCC report has vastly underestimated their projections"
Hogwash

IPCC AR5 predictions we can go check out are here: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

Surface temp is in Fig. 11.9 page 981. They only graph for their 'middle' 4.5 case, not the worst 8.5 case that you call wildly optimistic. You can see even at the time they graphed it, the instrumental record sat on the extreme cold end of their projections, almost threatening to leave the margins of error. If you take today's today for 2019 and check it out we are sitting about dead center on their projected path. Doesn't seem like current temperature data shows their 'middle' case scenario underestimating anything, let alone their worst case.


If you look at the same for sea level rise in AR5 here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

You can look for fig 13.11 on page 1181. Again, it shows projections approx 100mm sea level rise from 2000-2020, which more or less matches the instrumental record as we approach 2020 to verify. Again, not grossly underestimating.

The sea level rise is especially important to your alarms over Greenland being grossly underestimated by the IPCC. If they did grossly underestimate Greenland, it seems likely they also grossly overestimated something else if they more or less are on track with the overall sea level projections.

Again, if you just cherry pick a couple results and declare everything the IPCC did has been proven to over/under estimate things so they must be ignored, you aren't helping.

So, this is obviously pulled from selected data.
Is this pulled from within the US? A specific state?
All of North America? (doubtful)

This definitely doesn't cover Europe , and most definitely doesn't include Asian countries.

I find it's interesting that the top names all pull from the Bible. It gets more diverse into the 2000s but even Noah isn't breaking from tradition.

Your video, Picking Up Little Sister Bumping 2000's Hits, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

That's why you and Trump are leveraging everything you own and buying up cheap coastal properties that will jump exponentially in value right after this fraud is exposed, or when the sea doesn't rise....no? Why not? If you believed what you spout, it's an absolute no brainer, the fact you (and others like you) don't act on it is proof that you don't believe your own position yourself.

Perhaps it's because the people who tell you there's a vast scientific conspiracy perpetrated for the sole purpose of milking that sweet sweet research money are paid by fossil fuel industries. Perhaps it's because the Pentagon agrees with the science and even Trump agrees when his money is on the line. Perhaps because of the hottest 18 years ever recorded, 17 occurred after 2000. Perhaps it's because these immigrants you are so afraid of are migrating in part due to climate change already. Perhaps it's because numerous Pacific islands are disappearing. No matter why, it's clear you really do believe in climate change, or you would own a huge chunk of Florida coast already.
Pathetic, Bob.


*nochannel
*politics
*nature
*science

2000 gallons a minute!