ROTFLMFAHS!!
You actually just said that. Holy shit!

You only say it's ok to lock him up now that Trump has turned his back. If Trump still stood with him, you would too.

Bob, you need some serious self examination. You are a high ranking cultist in the cult of Trump.
You yourself said lying is fine and proper even under oath, making up any bullshit that supports your position. You said that, you said only idiots tell the truth if it hurts their case. You absolutely do not look for, or care about truth or facts. You have been crystal clear about that.


Bob....I'm a registered independent. I don't have a party.
I see your party, the most criminal, dishonest, and divisive in American history that repeats like a mantra that they have no obligation to tell the American people the truth....I see them and wretch. The pedophilic, anti science, anti equality, anti ecology, anti truth, pro secret unlimited bribe money in politics party of say anything is what Republicans have become.

You are so deep in the cult, you only see what the Trump party tells you that you see, and you damn your eyes if they disagree.

It's become a daily occurrence that people are easily cutting holes in Trump's border fencing big enough to drive a full size Ford expedition through already. That car in the crash that killed 13 people in one car had just driven through one along with another car that caught fire. Still think it was worth the tens of billions, ecological damage, and the division it caused both domestically and internationally? It seems to be easier to get through than what it replaced, just cut 4 spots and push. As a bonus, it's more expensive to repair too. What a brilliant plan it wasn't.
Thanks Trump

Technically no, it's not about ballast tanks, but in a larger sense it's about stopping the spread of the carp. I'm just pointing out that no matter how well they block the river, there are other ways the fish can enter the lakes.
Also, as the video indicated, the methods have already failed since they've found the fish in the river past all the barricades.
I wonder what they've done to stop flooding from bypassing the barricades altogether.

I've been interested in this issue for decades, ever since the earlier videos of jumping fish smacking boaters started showing up. These days they allow electric fishing and other ecologically unfriendly methods in a last ditch effort to slow the spread, and none of it's working. If only someone would open a fish emulsion factory and make catching them an economically viable industry, maybe progress would be made....or not.

I could quote legal scholars who think otherwise, but since it is kind of split down the middle, you would be able to find just as many that argue that it is constitutional. My opinion goes towards the non-constitutional side. He isn't a sitting President any longer and the only reason Democrats are doing this is because, as you mentioned, it is a much higher bar to convince a jury that using the word 'Fight' means a call to insurrection. If they could manage to force it through the easier method, then they can simply call for a majority vote and block him from running again in 2024.

That is the net goal of the Democrats, because they fear he will win once people realize how badly the new ecological policies and debt from a further stimulus is going to hurt our economy. Let's be realistic in that it took Trump fucking up multiple times, the worst pandemic in 100 years, and the entire Democratic voting bloc turning out for Biden to win by a few thousand in the critical states that gave him the electoral mandate. I can't vote for him again, but there are plenty who would. Mostly poor and middle class working people who are going to be realizing just how bad Biden is going to fuck up the economy in the short term over his appeasement of portions of the green new deal.

We've discussed the gun situation to death. I could post quotes from Kamala and Biden, as well as his stated plan for gun control he put up on his site, but it would again serve no purpose. You feel that nothing will happen or it will only be limited to scary 'assault rifles'. I feel otherwise. We can bang our heads against the metaphorical wall over and over, but in the end neither of us is going to change the other's mind on gun control.

Sadly, in my case, that still means that unless Democrats do a 180 on gun control and illegal immigration I will continue to be forced to vote for Republicans. Also, yes, I mean the trial, but can we not split hairs? It's like asking for a Kleenex and getting nagged that you really meant Puffs.

From a reddit comment..

The guy seriously knows his Australian ecology.

I'll list out some of the amazing detail on flora and fauna he's put in there starting from the Allocasuarina littoralis tree the Black Cockatoos are sitting on. It's one of their favourite foods.

The frogs are probably Peron's tree frogs (Litoria peronii) based on the eyes and calls

Then the Angophora tree has the leaves in the right place

The spider orchid (Caladenia sp) in the grass

The waratah and sickle fern (maybe) in the possums hat

The old man banksia (Banksia serrata) as you stated

There's a lot more, but that's what stuck out to me. The guy's really done his homework while making that.

Get er dun!

I just hope they aren't ignoring ecological laws to build so fast. Batteries don't replace lost species.

Moved this to profile pages, better late than never.

I'll try to be brief....and fail miserably I expect.
I accept the fact that some theories I hold will be wrong, and cause failure. At least theories can be tested and discarded when proven false. Yes, some are so engrained it would take TNT to dislodge them, but they aren't unchangeable, beliefs are immutable.

No morality in that claim. Moral excuses might be 1) I minimize any suffering by buying mostly family farmed meats and 2) those lives only exist for human pleasure and substance. If no one ate cows and pigs, they would be extinct nuisance animals. (And chickens rare) If the animal has a nice, pain and stress free life, but in trade that life ends early, as long as the end is humane I'm not bothered. That's life it otherwise wouldn't enjoy at all.
Factory farms don't meet those requirements.
They're tasty is why I eat meat. It might be snide, but it's honest. Yes, I'm obstinate, I like meat, I'm not claiming it the most moral, ethical, ecological, or empathetic thing to do, but if done thoughtfully it's not the worst either.

My meaning with "it's not the worst t thing people do" was to reply to " I believe (assuming humans survive) humans will look upon this time of killing billions of animals for nothing but human pleasure with disgusting disgrace." with a few other examples of things worse that we will be judged for, not to distract or excuse. I'm not sure how that's a logical falicy. Tens of Billions of animals are killed horrifically for pure greed and not even used as food, that's a disgusting disgrace I could denounce.

I read the WHO study he was referencing and it said no such thing, I told him, showed him, he kept repeating the bullshit lies. I'm not receptive to people who blatantly misrepresent science. I don't rely on any industry produced studies for any decisions, that would be dumb. The study said certain highly processed and preserved red meats had some carcinogens, not any meat at any level is equivalent to two packs a day. My degree is general science, I can read a study.

Oh shit, nutritionfacts.org is Dr Gregor, the one who outright lies about scientific studies, and the one who made the false equivalency between tiny amounts of meat and constant chain smoking, he also loved to misuse "plant based" to mean vegan and claim the studies on plant based (not plant exclusive) diets proved vegan benefits when they really proved a mixed diets benefits. I've been deep down his rabbit hole, and found him incredibly unscientific and dishonest. I don't trust him one bit, sorry.

I've only known a hand full, including the one who introduced me to Dr Gregor, my aunt, uncle, and cousins, and a few here in hippy central where I live. Not one was honest, they acted like it was religion and took statements as gospel with no investigation and were forceful in their insistence that everyone agree.

I once ate fish and thought it was fine. Three years of marine biology cured me of that, so my theories are changed by facts. I promised myself to never learn too much about chicken, pork, or beef because I don't want to know what's in them unless it's broken glass. That's a conscious decision. There is no hell hot enough to scare me away from good bacon. That said, I do care that they have a good life before being harvested.

I'm willing to change behavior and thinking. I previously thought the fda was good at protecting us, I decided I couldn't trust that.

I make some decisions based on MY morality, some on self interest, some on group/global interest, etc. I'm not willing to make any based on someone else's morality, especially if they're pushy.

I have no clue who visits, but this is where I come, so it's where I speak up.

I always make the mistake of thinking people will be logical.

I had a realization....at some point, the Trump chumps are going to claim letting the pandemic hit us worse than anywhere else was intentional and goading police into intolerable racist violence daily was intentional...Both super smart ideas by a genius. They're both campaign promises being kept, because with America a dumpster fire, Mexico is far more likely to build that wall and pay for it.
Remember when a $70 billion dollar useless and ecologically apocalyptic "wall" that he insisted America wouldn't pay for but did was an unthinkable waste of taxpayer money? Too bad we won't have an accounting of his last year in office on election day, I bet he's added at least $7-8 trillion to the debt this year so far, and we're only 1/2 way through the year. Of course, he'll lie and claim it only went up $1.5 trillion (keeping most off the books like the Iraq war under Bush) and only that much because of the depression he caused, the one he blames on Barak like he's still the active president....oh, how we all wish that were true.

I like Bernie, but his answer to "how do we pay for your plans?" seems to always be "We tax the rich more." That seems naive imo.
I agree, the extremely rich should pay way more, but I don't think it's reasonable to say that higher tax rates for the top 5% can pay to revamp our entire society. We are too deep in debt, and too shallow in our commitments towards the public, whether those commitments come in the form of investments in education, health, infrastructure, the legal system, prison reforms, ecology, climate change, .....the list of things we put on the back burner and ignore is long and fraught with perils far more pressing than, let's say a fence, or golf outings, trade wars, or another aircraft carrier.

As to the Castro ridiculousness, get a grip people. I can give you an example of something Hitler did that everyone, including holocaust survivors, can agree was a great thing he did.....he killed Hitler. If your ideological blinders and hatred are so thick you can't admit bad people/systems might also do some good things sometimes, you have a serious problem accepting reality and you need therapy.

You would prefer they get put out in an unusable field to starve, as long as they aren't eaten? If they serve no purpose, they won't be cared for, but they'll still exist.

If the dairy industry is gone, beef ranchers would just fill the veal gap, so different young cows still die under that plan.

Switching to non dairy isn't ecologically sound too....especially with almond milk for many reasons.

Lol. Oh Bob. I see you didn't get that help you are crying out for.

Schiff isn't the one saying it.
It's the over a dozen Trump administration officials, you know, like the people who gave him a million dollars towards his election campaign to then be installed in his cabinet with zero experience, people that he now calls never trumpers...them, and idiot Trump himself who released a heavily redacted call summary, called it a transcript, and inexplicably left in the parts where he insisted on investigations into political rivals (and no one else) in exchange for releasing congressionally approved aid.

If Trump drained the swamp, it was only to turn it into the world's largest and most ecologically disastrous sewage holding pond.

Great job? On what? Destroying our international standing and standards? There he IS simply the best. Sucking up and capitulating to our enemies while abandoning and distancing our allies? Yep, better than all the rest. Lying to the American people? Better than anyone else. Running a criminal administration for his personal enrichment? No one else could pass the test.

If you call his disastrous work a "great job", what will you call his removal? The best job ever? You are so delusional that just last week you claimed Republicans run the house and Democrats run the Senate so you could blame our badly flawed paperless voting system on those evil Senate Democrats. *facepalm

Wasted billions on 70 miles of new wall.....that's really replacement fence that can be cut through in under a minute with a reciprocating saw, and only where barriers existed. Great. Increased illegal immigration exponentially. Great. Tax cuts/government welfare for the rich but not the needy that exploded the deficit and debt. Great. Failed trade agreements that have cost tens-hundreds of billions only to put us in a far worse position than before he started. Great. Zero investment in infrastructure. Great. Total decimation of environmental laws.
Great. Abandoning our best allies against terrorism to cozy up to dictators. Great. Best of all, he's widened the divide in America more than all administrations in the last 150 years combined, and recently began calling for preparation for civil war if he's not re-elected. Great.

Um...if he's removing deep state operatives, why are they all his people being jailed? More than even any two term administration ever, beating Nixon's indictment and conviction rates in under two years, before the Mueller fallout. Indeed, in that time he has had more than twice the convictions of all Democratic administration officials since 1970....again, before most Mueller convictions. (It bears noting that Republican officials are convicted at a rate >91 times that of Democrats).

What you really meant to say.....No matter what Trump says it is guaranteed to be a lie.

@bcglorf Here's a tome for you....


It's certainly not (the only way). Converting to green energy sources stimulates the economy, it doesn't bankrupt it, and it makes it more efficient in the future thanks to lower energy costs. My solar system paid for itself in 8 years, giving me an expected 12 years of free electricity and hot water. Right wingers would tell you it will never pay for itself....utter bullshit.

Every gap in our knowledge I've ever seen that we have filled with data has made the estimates worse. Every one. Every IPCC report has raised the severity and shrunk the timeframe from the last report....but you stand on the last one that they admit was optimistic and incomplete by miles as if it's the final word and a gold standard. It just isn't. They themselves admit this.

The odds of catastrophic climate change is 100% in the next 0 years for many who have already died or been displaced by rising seas or famine or disease or lack of water or...... and that goes for all humanity in the next 50 because those who survive displacement will be refugees on the rest's doorsteps. Don't be ridiculous. If we found an asteroid guaranteed to hit in the next 50-100 years, and any possible solutions take a minimum of 50 years to implement with no surprises, and only then assuming we solve the myriad of technical issues we haven't solved in the last 100 years of trying and only if we can put the resources needed into a solution, not considering the constantly worsening barrage of smaller asteroids and the effects on resources and civilisation, we would put all our resources into solutions. That's where I think we are, except we still have many claiming there's no asteroid coming and those that already hit are fake news....including those in the highest offices making the decisions.

Every IPCC report has vastly underestimated their projections, they tell you they are doing it, only including data they are certain of, not new measurements or functions. They do not fill in the gaps, they leave them empty. Gaps like methane melt that could soon be more of a factor than human CO2, and 100% out of our control.

The AR5 report is so terrible, it was lambasted from day one as being incredibly naive and optimistic, and for not including what was then new data. Since its release, those complaints have been proven to be correct, in 5 years since its release ice melt rates have accelerated 60 years by their model. I wouldn't put a whit of confidence in it, it was terrible then, near criminally bad today. I'll take NOAA's estimates based on much newer science and guess that they, like nearly all others in the past, also don't know everything and are also likely underestimating wildly. Even the IPCC AR5 report includes the possibility of 3 ft rise by 2100 under their worst case (raised another 10% in this 2019 report, and expected to rise again by 2021, their next report), and their worst case models show less heat and melting than we are measuring already and doesn't include natural feedbacks because they can't model them accurately yet so just left them out (but noted they will have a large effect, but it's not quantitative yet so not included). Long and short, their worst case scenario is likely optimistic as reality already outpaces their worst case models.

Again, the economy benefits from new energy production in multiple ways. Exxon is not the global economy.

It took 100 years for the impact of our pollution to be felt by most (some still ignore it today). Even the short term features like methane take 25+ years to run their cycles, so what we do today takes that long to start working.

If people continue to drag their feet and challenge the science with supposition, insisting the best case scenario of optimistic studies are the worst we should plan for, we're doomed....and what they're doing is actually worse than that. The power plants built or under construction today put us much higher than 1.5 degree rise by 2100 with their expected emissions without ever building 1 more, and we're building more. Without fantastic scientific breakthroughs that may never come, breakthroughs your plan relies on for our survival, what we've already built puts us beyond the IPCC worst case in their operational lifetimes.

There's a problem with that...I'm good with using real science to identify them without political obstruction and confusion, the difference being we need to be prepared for decisive action once they're identified. So far, we have plans to develop those actions, but that's it. In the event of a "surprise" asteroid, we're done. We just hope they're rare.
This one, however, is an asteroid that is guaranteed to hit if we do nothing, some say hit in 30 years, some say 80. Only morons say it won't hit at all, do nothing.
Climate change is an asteroid/comet in our orbit that WILL hit earth. We are already being hit by ejecta from it's coma causing disasters for millions. You suggest we don't start building a defense until we are certain of it's exact tonnage and the date it will crash to earth because it's expensive and our data incomplete. That plan leaves us too late to change the trajectory. The IPCC said we need to deploy our system in 8-10 years to have a 30-60% chance of changing the trajectory under perfect conditions....you seem to say "wait, that's expensive, let's give it some time and ignore that deadline". I say even just a continent killer is bad enough to do whatever it takes to stop, because it's cheaper with less loss of life and infinitely less suffering than a 'wait and see exactly when it will kill us, we might have space elevators in 10 years so it might only kill 1/2 of us and the rest might survive that cometary winter in space (yes at exponentially higher cost and loss of life and ecology than developing the system today, but that won't be on my dime so Fuck it).' attitude.

If they get bored and stop listening, they'll get confused, won't they? I think they often get bored because they can't follow along, it's incredibly boring to have someone drone on using statistics and measurements you don't grasp and won't remember on a subject you also don't grasp.

I agree, but so far, measurements have consistently been outpacing the estimates, almost never the reverse.

What they tend to do is come from that incomplete data and incomplete analysis to model the absolute best case scenario to dictate policy, not the worst. That's absolutely what the U.N. report does, and it's not clear to most how much is left out, like infinitely better melting models (the measured melting in Greenland is already at the rate not predicted to be reached until 2075 in the UN's published estimations) and feedback loops we already see in action like melting methalhydrates and permafrost, both outgassing massive amounts of methane. Sane policy makers DO assume the absolute worst modeled outcome, then suggests policies to avoid it, at all cost when that worst case is extinction. Since measurements are consistently as bad or worse than the worst case scenario modeled, the only rational thing to do is assume that will continue and plan for the worst....you know, like they taught in preschool, hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Your house burning down is an unlikely worst case scenario, but I bet you have smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and support the fire department. Good planning is to assume you WILL have a fire and plan to minimize the damage.
Or, terrorist attacks. The likelihood you'll be killed in a terrorist attack is exceptionally low, but we spend untold billions and sacrifice liberties to combat a worst case but unlikely scenario.

Prudence is the better part of valor.

Edit: as to most problems society faces, I suggest they are likely ALL a function of overpopulation....no question imo when it comes to the apocalyptic problems. Pollution, resource mismanagement, ecological destruction, etc. None would be disastrous with 1/10 the population.

I am actually doing just fine simply completely ignoring her hysteria. First time I listened to her is this video.
What is her impact in China? Russia? India? Brazil? Indonesia? On people who make decisions?
Perhaps in the USofA hysteria can have an impact on future elections (I am actually doing just fine simply completely ignoring the current administration) but will global ecology really be a big (or medium..) election theme in the USofA in the near future, like 20 years?

Im washing out those plastic bottles and sorting trash and keep my car serviced properly and fly rarely. But if this type of hysteria is randomly aimed against nuclear power, attempts to talk to women in the workplace, and eating meat regularly on other days, could we please not go that way... too late.

What can be done to move the 6 countries mentioned at least slightly in the direction of Europe on pollution? To stop China building coal power stations all over Africa? Brasil and Indonesia deforesting? What has (or can) Grrreta really do to help there? This is like trying to shame Saddam Hussein to give up those WOMD he hid so well. How dare you Saddam? Bad boy!

Also how dare three quarters of us not just lie down and die without children to save the planet? Or are we evil and not mature enough to forego making money to buy food for our families? Which in most places on the Earth means polluting like hell. Vicious cycle. Maybe people should be more modest, maybe rich white kids should not be the ones saying that.

Grreta so reminds me of west european academic communism in the 60s. CND in the 70s. Greenpeace. And so on. Should find out more about people, now that she has read all those encyclopediae. Everyone has to eat and f*@k or we die out in one generation.

What a disgusting piece of shit and outright liar.
Her achievements already outweigh his by miles...he's only managed to get himself kicked off Fox, impressively hard to do if you're right wing. Fox has apologized for his disgraceful ad hominem attacks against a child who he couldn't factually contradict....but Laura Ingram has also personally attacked her on her show, as has Trump on Twitter.

Being on the autism spectrum, she says she has aspergers, is a developmental disorder NOT a mental illness.
Being a pathological liar, that's a mental illness apparently now shared by an entire political party.
Being a fecal golem is a personality disorder he clearly has in spades.

The Carnegie Mellon study he sites said no such thing, and it's authors have stated that it's a total misrepresentation of their findings....repeatedly.
The study actually said certain produce at it's worst might be more ecologically harmful per calorie than some kinds of white meat eating by comparing things like bacon vs lettuce on a calorie to calorie instead of serving to serving rate, so 4 strips of bacon were compared to > 40 cups of lettuce. Get real.
To compound the confusion they chose a calorie poor produce like lettuce with high greenhouse gas emissions instead of kale, broccoli, rice, potatoes, spinach and wheat (just to name a few) which all rank lower than pork in terms of greenhouse gases.
The same argument holds for water usage...they chose lettuce, with high water requirements, instead of things like corn, peanuts, carrots and wheat which all use less water than all non-seafood meat.
It's also assumed the produce will be wasted at exponentially higher rates than meat, which can be preserved more easily. That may be true, but they don't include the preservatives or energy to refrigerate and/or freeze meat on the bacon side of the equation.

Of course the lettuce takes more resources if you eat 40+ cups instead of 4 thin bacon strips, just like when you compare a single fish stick to several giant pumpkins.

*rant over*