jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (207 posts)

Can the Earth Survive Four Years of a Trump Presidency?

  1. My Esoteric profile image89
    My Esotericposted 8 months ago

    There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the economy to another forum, for it is the environment I am much more worried about.

    Why, because the world can and has recovered from economic disasters before, the 2008 Great Recession being the latest.  But, Earth cannot recover if, as almost all climate scientists agree, the atmosphere passes the point-of-no-return.  That point is near the end of this century if nothing is done.  The Paris Climate Accords were designed to stop from getting to that point, estimate to be around 2042 at the current rate of growth in CO2 in the air.

    President-elect's rhetoric and his cabinet picks all but guarantee America will NOT abide by those accords.

    So, the question is "Will the Earth Survive Trump given emissions must be reduced beginning now.?"

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      It's always interesting to hear what "almost all scientists" have to say.  Have they, as of yet, determined just why the rate of temperature climb has slowed far below their predictions?  Or are these "almost all scientists" continuing to used outdated data in their dire predictions of the end of the world?

      Wonder what those computer projections from almost all scientists would show as to conditions on and above earth's surface weeks, months or decades after that big rock fell in the Yucatan?  After all plant life burned in the firestorms worldwide?

      But the answer your question:  The earth survived a collision with another planet.  It survived an almost pure CO2 and nitrogen atmosphere.  It survived being covered for millions of years with miles of ice.  It has survived horrendous solar flares that engulfed the entire planet.  It survived the "dinosaur killer" that covered the surface with vaporized rock and created a nuclear winter.  This old ball of rock and water has come through events far worse than anything puny man can throw at it.

      So yes, the earth will survive 4 years of any person.  Personally, I don't think Trump will even manage to kill off all 7 B of those funny little bipeds running around and starting fires everywhere, or even set in progress any specific actions that lead to their extinction a few decades down the road.

      Chicken little is alive and well, isn't he?

      1. colorfulone profile image87
        colorfuloneposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        Yeah, the fact is the majority of scientists are skeptical of a Global Warming Crisis vs the alleged “consensus” .  No such alarmist consensus exists in the science community.  Gosh, and Co2 is not a pollutant.   Anthropogenic (man-caused) global-warming is a proven myth.

        The climate alarmists just don’t seem to want to fit in with the reasonable minds even though they know better.

        The world will be a better place with adults in charge again.

        1. Will Apse profile image87
          Will Apseposted 8 months ago in reply to this

          Here is a little fact checking:

          http://www.politifact.com/virginia/stat … eve-human/

          The article has references to numerous studies concerning the number of scientists who hold that climate change is real and that human beings are making a major contribution to warming.

          A quote:

          of 'the more active publishing climate science experts ...... 93 percent believed that humans were contributing to global warming'.

          You can fact check the article itself, if you like, starting with the links to studies that it cites.

          1. colorfulone profile image87
            colorfuloneposted 8 months ago in reply to this

            Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

            Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 … ian-tuttle

            William Happer  "The Real Inconvenient Truth; More CO2 Benefits the Earth"
            EXPERTS:  https://www.freedomforceinternational.o … ress-2016/

            Politifact is a joke. This is about science, not politics an excuses for regulations.

            1. Will Apse profile image87
              Will Apseposted 8 months ago in reply to this

              That freedomdorceinternational website is fantastic! The lead expert is Christopher Walter Monckton, the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and his qualifications are, well, his conservative views. No kind of science background.

              Mr. Griffin is known for the book  'World without Cancer' (he believes cancer is caused by a nutritional deficiency). He also claims to know where Noah's Ark is buried

              William Happer is the only genuine scientist on the page. His specialty is atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy. That does not give you much expertise in climate science, but again, he is well known for his conservative views and that was enough to get him into the George W Bush government.

              No one else has any kind of science background but most have made a lot of money from writing wild speculation about any number of subjects that catch the popular imagination. Mostly, they would be described as conspiracy theorists.

              ps don't forget to buy the DVD: only $35 for Freedom Force members, lol.

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 8 months ago in reply to this

          "Gosh, and Co2 is not a pollutant.  "

          Which has exactly zero to do with any (rational) discussion of global warming.  CO2 IS a chemical that promotes warming of the globe; trying to say that you wish to define it as a "non-pollutant" has nothing whatsoever to do with that property.

          Such statements are just as bad as some of the claims coming from the "warming" group - they pretty effectively destroy any credence that might otherwise be given to a fact filled commentary.

          1. colorfulone profile image87
            colorfuloneposted 8 months ago in reply to this

            It is logical to me that "Fukushima, nuclear testing, extensive military operations, fracking, aerosol spraying of aluminum, barium, strontium and gawd knows what else”...should be looked at as the pollutions in the air that need regulations.  They are causing many problems. 

            CO2 increases is causing many plants to thrive, its plant food.  Plants will live on while we die off from gawd who knows what else.  While 'they' want to increase carbon-tax and regulations.

            "The anthropomorphic mantra of most global-warming proponents is that the “man-made” cause is CO2. Period. They claim that CO2 is the byproduct of industry and consumption and that it produces a “carbon footprint”. Therefore, they seek expanded government power and funding to reduce CO2. That’s the basis for all the carbon-tax and regulatory nonsense. None of these people are talking about taxing or regulating “Fukushima, nuclear testing, extensive military operations, fracking, aerosol spraying of aluminum, barium, strontium and gawd knows what else”. They talk only about CO2, the greenhouse gas that does NOT cause global warming. The global-warming hoaxers are very good at lumping together pollution (which is real) and man-made global warming (which is not). If we are not thinking analytically, we can be led to think they are one-in-the-same. We are not supposed to notice the trick."

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 8 months ago in reply to this

              Exactly.  You wish to lump in pollutants with global warming, and talk about them rather than the causes of that warming, as a distraction to what is actually happening.

              Which, again, has exactly zero to do with the known effect of CO2 on sunlight and warming.  It needs left out of the equation entirely unless you wish to discuss that more CO2 means more plants which in turn means turning more CO2 into O2.  That point, and ONLY that point is germane when discussing plants and global warming.

              And you have fallen for the trick of thinking that pollution is being discussed in connection with global warming.  It isn't, and unless you are a chemist and an atmospheric expert I submit that you have no idea if CO2 warms the planet.  Certainly you can find people that say no, but you still won't know because you won't compare them, and their credentials, to those that say yes.

              Finally, I'll submit that the term "pollution", in this context, means anything in the air, and the levels of that anything, that isn't happening from nature and not man.  Anything man puts there, including CO2 (and including the CO2 we breathe out), is pollution.

              1. colorfulone profile image87
                colorfuloneposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                A 20 year (negative feedback) Study Finds Plant Growth Surges as CO2 Levels Rise.  We all need plant life to live.

                http://www.climatecentral.org/news/stud … rise-16094

                Even a 1% increase (would be better than 0.33%) in the average global warmth is nothing to be alarmed about. It means a longer growing season of plants and better harvests to sustain life.  My gardens die off too soon because of frost., and I can't plant as early in the year as I would like because of freezing temperatures 2-3 weeks before spring (in the USA).

                Remember the prediction of the ice age by the year 2000?

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                  If I remember correctly, a couple of degree rise is killing off coral in massive amounts.  And the tremendous sea life that inhabited the reefs is gone as a result.

                  Yes, a 1% increase in warmth (whatever the might mean) is a big deal.

                  (The freezing point, using no warmth as the zero point, is 273 degrees K.  1% increase makes the temperature 300 degrees K, or 27.3 degrees C.  Which is 81 Degrees F instead of 32.  A great deal of life would perish, including most of mankind.)

                  On the other hand, increased CO2 means increased plant life, which in turn means lower CO2 and more oxygen.  A self correcting system, in other words, to at least some degree.

                  1. colorfulone profile image87
                    colorfuloneposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                    There are 72 ionospheric heaters in the world.

                    Added:  Do you remember when the spirals opened up the sky in Norway? That went viral across the internet.  Obama was there somewhere before or during that time period.

                  2. Will Apse profile image87
                    Will Apseposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                    General trends in climate change are well understood but understanding the details will take generations.

                    There are plenty of scenarios that lead to rapid warming such as the release of huge quantities of methane from permafrost in Canada and Russia. The permafrost is already melting in large areas.

                    There are certain mechanisms that will help mitigate temperature change such as increased plant growth but those plants will die and the carbon they contain will be released over short times periods. Carbon capture via the formation of oil and coal plays out over millennia.

                    The fact is, rapid change in climate is always bad for living things (including us) and is associated with mass extinctions in the past.

                    How it plays out in detail will only be known after the event.

        3. Don W profile image81
          Don Wposted 8 months ago in reply to this

          97% of publishing climate scientists believe that humans are causing recent global warming.

          You, on the other hand, are just making things up.

          http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 … 1/4/048002

      2. Will Apse profile image87
        Will Apseposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        Do you think there is a problem with the trend line on this graph?

        http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13313237.jpg

        http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/ … ng-hiatus/

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 8 months ago in reply to this

          A problem to the planet earth?  Certainly not - we have yet to even come within shouting distance of what was present in distant history.  That was the comment in the OP...

          You know, I read an article the other day that said some areas of the north pole were up 36 degrees from normal.  36 degrees!  That puts part of it room temperature, in November!

          Turns out that if the article was dissected carefully, the rise was 6 degrees C (plainly stated in the text). Somehow those "scientists" had translated a 6 degree C rise  into a 36 degree F one.  Adding insult to injury, that huge rise was found in only a half dozen specific spots; something a climate scientist would consider "weather" rather than "climate".  And one wonders why "scientific" reports are taken with a grain of salt.  And doubly so when it is an emotionally or politically charged topic.

      3. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        Wlderness, you and Trump can keep your heads in the sand as much as you want; and you can point to a couple short-term inconsistencies in variable data or highlight a few debunked observations by non-climatologists all you want.  To do so, though makes you and especially Trump extremely dangerous.

        I have to laugh when you suggest thousands of scientist don't have clue on how to analyze date, yet you do ... bad data indeed (BTW, that urban myth has also been debunked.)

      4. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        Wilderness, please quote me correctly when you want to take issue with something.

        I DID NOT say  "almost all scientists" agree.

        I DID say "almost all climate scientists" agree; which is factual.  You will in fact find non-climate scientists to agree with who don't know what they are talking about and who have a political agenda.

        You will not find more than a small handful of unbiased experts in climatology who disagree with their peers.

    2. PhoenixV profile image82
      PhoenixVposted 8 months ago in reply to this


      I think you believe the climate will change by "x" amount. I believe that the climate will change X x 10. From my perspective you are a climate change X x 10 denier.

      My question is:

      How could you?

      1. PhoenixV profile image82
        PhoenixVposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        Personally I think China is the biggest problem regarding global warming. First thing monday I plan on sending them a strongly worded email. Im doing my part, unlike others.

      2. colorfulone profile image87
        colorfuloneposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        First it was called Global Cooling, then it was called Global Warming, and they were both debunked as false.  So then, they come up with Climate Change (politically correct)...since the climate is always changing there is no denying that...But, the agenda hasn't changed even though they finally found the perfect words to define it. 

        No one denies that climate changes, it always has and always will.   But, it is proven that CO2 is not the problem.  CO2 is plant food!

        "How could you?" ... think otherwise?

    3. Onusonus profile image85
      Onusonusposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      Remember when Al Gore told everybody that Manhattan would be completely submerged by 2016? That would be an inconvenient truth for the climate alarmists.

      1. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        Show me his actual quote, not one suggested by climate change deniers.

        1. colorfulone profile image87
          colorfuloneposted 8 months ago in reply to this
          1. My Esoteric profile image89
            My Esotericposted 8 months ago in reply to this

            Exactly where in that clip does Gore give a timeline?  He doesn't.  What he did say is IF 1/2 of Greenland's and 1/2 of West Antarctica's ice mass melted, THEN those things would happen.

          2. My Esoteric profile image89
            My Esotericposted 8 months ago in reply to this

            Did you watch the next one?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVfgkFaswn4 ... SCARY!!

    4. tamarawilhite profile image86
      tamarawilhiteposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      It survived an asteroid strike that created massive global winter that wiped out the dinosaurs and most life on Earth.
      It survived shifting from a constant temperature warmer than today up through 40 million years ago (no ice on the poles between 150 and 40 million years ago) to shifting to a permanent cooler climate with period ice ages (because the Himalayas formed to speed up weathering and Antarctica broke free of South America and polar currents allowed it to pile up two miles of ice).
      It will survive slightly higher CO2 levels that are no where near as high as they were when the dinosaurs were around.
      The environmental catastrophism that gets ever more apocalyptic in an effort to scare people into doing all the things environmentalists want us to do is a disservice to society, an immoral politicization of science and reaching the fevered pitch of a religion (do this because Mother Earth says, you evil unbelievers should be burned at the stake!")

      Crichton: Environmentalism is a religion
      http://principia-scientific.org/crichto … -religion/

      1. Sherry Hewins profile image93
        Sherry Hewinsposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        I agree, the earth will survive. We humans on the other hand are a bit more delicate.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 8 months ago in reply to this

          Are we?  We live on the Antarctica, we live on the driest mountains in the world, we live at the bottom of the ocean.  We occupy every environment on earth and even in outer space.  Are we truly so fragile, then?

          1. Sherry Hewins profile image93
            Sherry Hewinsposted 8 months ago in reply to this

            More fragile than the earth. It was here long before us, and most likely will be here long after we are gone.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 8 months ago in reply to this

              No doubt of that - I'm not as strong or long lived as a rock.  Or even a mountain range.  Plus, the earth will one day survive being engulfed by the sun, but I don't think I could manage that trick.

          2. Marisa Wright profile image94
            Marisa Wrightposted 8 months ago in reply to this

            I think our civilization is.  If the worst theories come to pass, then there will be massive disruption to our cities and our infrastructure.   Today's human beings don't know how to survive without mobile phones, cars, shops etc.  If supply chains fall apart, I think people will quite possibly destroy each other

            I saw a photo on Facebook on Black Friday showing a crowd trampling people underfoot, with the slogan "if this is what people will do for a TV, what will they do when we run out of food?"

            I'm in my sixties.  If there had been an apocalypse in my twenties, I'd have known how to grow vegetables, but I have only the most rudimentary idea of how to make or mend my own clothes.  I can knit but I wouldn't know how to make yarn. I have no idea how to preserve meat and other foods without a fridge or freezer.   Many women younger than me, don't even know how to take up a hem or sew on a button, and wouldn't have a clue about gardening.  In fact recently, I discovered they don't even know how to light a fire!  They won't know how to survive a catastrophe by going back to the land, because they won't know how - so their only choice will be looting and thieving.

            If we were changing our lifestyles to adapt to what will be the new reality, then I'd be more optimistic. But we're all just barrelling along at the same frantic pace.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 8 months ago in reply to this

              I'm not a survivalist, either.  But some people are - enough that I don't see the species dying off from climate change.  And there are actually quite a few that could become a survivalist if their life depended on it.

              1. Marisa Wright profile image94
                Marisa Wrightposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                I'm sure there are.  If you're fine with the idea that the bulk of humanity will tear each other to shreds or die of starvation, leaving small pockets of people living a subsistence existence, then I guess I can understand why you don't think action is necessary.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                  Now, now - don't put words in my mouth.  I think we need to limit our output of CO2 and other warming agents - but I also think that we will fail to do so. 

                  So global warming will continue up to the point that natural limits are imposed.  And humanity will find itself in hot water (pun intended) and many will die.  The only bright spot is that the species will live on.

      2. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        Great article.

    5. MichaelMcNabb profile image82
      MichaelMcNabbposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      Nah who cares?

    6. mrblueishmouvesky profile image79
      mrblueishmouveskyposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      The question could perhaps be, will Trump survive 4 years of presidency, my money would be on a stroke.

    7. TessSchlesinger profile image93
      TessSchlesingerposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      I don't know if earth will survive a four year Tump presidency or not.

      I do not that EARTH WILL NOT SURVIVE CONSUMERISM.

      While most attention is on getting rid of fossil fuels, that's only one small part of it. It's what's behind the fossil fuel agenda that needs some rethinking.

      1. The idea that a system of unequal exchange will allow everybody to flourish encourages inequality. This means profit makers do whatever it takes to make money at the expense of both the environment and the rest of humanity.

      2. Advertising is a form of soft brainwashing introduced by Edward Bernays (nephew of Freud) at the end of the Great Depression. Hitler was the first to use it successfully. We have been in a state of over-production since the 60s - that's why the landfills are so full.

      3. The desire for acceptance by others is what makes us human. Status - much more admiration - is what drives so many people to do whatever it takes to accrue more and more, reagardless of who and what it destroys in the process. Those billionaries are NOT greedy. They are desperate to be accepted by their peers as 'one of the boys'. So, if one billionaire overtakes the other, then the one that is overtaken has to work harder to get more money to keep up in the status field.

      While it is a disaster that Trump has become president of the deadliest financial empire in history, it is also understandable. 25% of Americans have a life long mental illness and 25% have episodic incidences (Please google that.) America also has a particular culture that results in excessive competitiveness plus a system of hedonism (pursuit of happiness) that results in overwhelming stress and a desperate need to alleviate that stress through imbibing too many chemicals, food, etc. Mentally unstable people elect mentally unstable people because they identify with them. Worse, they don't see it.

      Cause and effect.

      Climate denial is an effect of the need to make money. Despite 97% of climate scientists (the other scientists don't count because they are not qualified in this particular science) indicating that climate change is a result of pollution caused by people, there is big money behind the denial. That's because most billionaires will lose both STATUS AND MONEY.

      Solutions? I don't have any.

      On the day that the DNC nominated Clinton as opposed to Bernie, I had my say. "Trump will be the next president of the USA."

      I am a global progressive following international politics who was convnced of climate change in 1970 when I read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring."

      1. Marisa Wright profile image94
        Marisa Wrightposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        +1

      2. Will Apse profile image87
        Will Apseposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        Some environmentalists still take the line that we should consume less but there are so many problems with that approach that the hard-headed abandoned that line long ago.

        For one thing, humans are very bad at self denial. For another, millions are still malnourished.

        And of course capitalism requires GDP growth or it falls into chaos.

        Given that there no tested and attractive political alternatives to capitalism, the practical reality is that you need to work with the devil you know.

        So, most environmentalists these days advocate a move to a high consumption but sustainable economic system based on what we know.

        It's all a high wire act and the stakes are very high if you care about an advanced, knowledge-based civilization.

        The addiction based, having rather than being. cultures we support now might be fixable if we are still around to fix them.

        1. TessSchlesinger profile image93
          TessSchlesingerposted 8 months ago in reply to this

          I guess human beings have a choice between feeling bad and being dead. Take your pick. However, it's not human beings - it's Americans.

          After Leonardo Di Caprio filmed Blood Diamonds in Africa, he said he would never feel sorry for an American again. He had witnessed African children happier than he had ever seen other children, and they had absolutely nothing and lived in the worst circumstances possible.

          As I pointed out, Americans have been socialized in a particular way a) want constant affirmation and flattery 2) want constant things 3) feel entitled to a life of happiness.

          https://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blog … ovely.html

          So, um, no, this has nothing to do with self-denial.

          "For another capitalism requires GDP growth or it falls into chaos. There are no tested and attractive political alternatives to capitalism."

          Capitalism is deadly, and it has to go. As for there being no testesd and attractive political alternatives, no, there aren't. That's why we have to create one. Capitalism is only 250 years old. Most people confuse capitalism with trade. Trade is as old as human beings. Capitalism was preceded by Mercantilism and before that feudalism. There is no reason why we cannot invent/create another system of production and distribution. All that an economy is, is a system of production and distribution. We simply have to find a way where we manufacture the required goods and distribute them to the people who need them. That is the basis of all economic systems. There is no need for some to make a profit from them at the expense of others.

          "So, most environmentalists these days advocate a move to a high consumption but sustainable economic system based on the economic systems we know."

          Sorry, that's not true. I read for approximately 5 hours each day, plus a book a day, and I have read extensively about this, and I have never seen that.

          http://grist.org/living/consumerism-pla … te-change/

          http://www.globalissues.org/article/238 … onsumerism

          1. Will Apse profile image87
            Will Apseposted 8 months ago in reply to this

            Well, if you can foment a revolution, keep people fed and find the resources to fund the development of a sustainable economy, in the time scale available, please go ahead.

            I will keep with the priorities: hanging on to a culture of truthfulness, promoting some kind of respect for human beings simply because they happen to be human, preserving as many democratic virtues as is practical, and dealing with sustainability issues. Those all happen to be linked, of course.

            1. TessSchlesinger profile image93
              TessSchlesingerposted 8 months ago in reply to this

              And all those values are fine. But they won't stop global warming.

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 8 months ago in reply to this

            "We simply have to find a way where we manufacture the required goods and distribute them to the people who need them. That is the basis of all economic systems. There is no need for some to make a profit from them at the expense of others."

            What you are looking for is people that will work hard and produce much...then give it all away to someone else.  Good luck with that; most people like to be compensated in some way for their efforts, and calling it "profits at the expense of others" in an effort to degrade that compensation into something evil, isn't going to change the desire for it.

            1. TessSchlesinger profile image93
              TessSchlesingerposted 8 months ago in reply to this

              Poor reasoning.

              Believe it or not, if you took the time to google alternative economies, there are many ideas out there.

              The fear by some that they would do all this hard work and then other people would actually get the benefits of this hard work while they get less than they deserve/want is somewhat unevolved.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                Your concept denies the worker the fruits of their labor.  "There is no need for some to make a profit from them at the expense of others." pretty much says it all; the most that can be recouped is the cost of materials, and personal labor is lost forever.  That denied profit, after all, is what is used to purchase groceries for tomorrow, is at someone else's expense and is utterly necessary if trade of any kind is to be successful.

                1. TessSchlesinger profile image93
                  TessSchlesingerposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                  No, my concept does NOT deny the worker the fruit of his labour. It's capitalists and profit-mongerers that underpay workers in order to over pay themselves.

                  What you are defending is the right of business owners to not only take a massive salary, massive holiday pay, but to have massive 'profit' as well.

                  The idea that business men and entrepreneurs are these brilliant people who are responsible for 'jobs,' and that somehow people who do these jobs are inferior to people who open up business is pure propagada. There is nothing superior about people who own businesses.

                  I know that because I grew up with highly successful busines owners, was educated at private schools with the elite and spent a decade in my 20s mixing with them.For nearly 10 years, I only dated CEOs. I did not find them particularly intelligent. In fact, I find most of them to be crooks.

                  "That denied profit, after all, is what is used to purchase groceries for tomorrow, is at someone else's expense and is utterly necessary if trade of any kind is to be successful."

                  You clearly (like most small business owners in America), do not have the foggiest what profit actually is, so let me explain it to you. I did the business courses and the accounting courses plus I grew up in my late father's very successful business, so I do know.

                  The business has a gross income of $500,000 per yeear.
                  Goods cost $50,000 per year.
                  Salaries and wages cost $100,000 per year.for 9 people. (That's basic wage)
                  Rent and other expenditure including marketing cost $100,000 per year
                  Putting aside 10% for extraneous needs $50,000
                  Owner draws a salary of $120,000

                  Total outgoings $420,000. The owner, apart from drawing a salary of $10,000 per month totalling $120,000 for the year, then gets the extra profits of $80,000.

                  Profit is NOT used to buy groceries. Profit is used to buy gold plated yachts. You seem to be under the impression that the difference between income and outgoings is profit. NO, It's not.

                  If you are running a small business and you're not making enough to draw a salary, that means the business isn't feasible. It also means that there is no profit.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                    You seem to be posting with the expectation that you can make up your own definitions for words and everyone automatically knows what you mean. 

                    The idea of profit for instance, being only such sums as are excessive in your opinion.  "Profit" has no such meaning; it is the difference between expenses and sales.  The size of the number does not determine whether it is "profit" or not: the owners of the Mom and Pop corner store that have a profit of only $10,000/year and are using it to buy groceries are showing a profit whether you think it is too small or not. 

                    prof·it
                    [ˈpräfət]
                    NOUN
                    a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something:

                    Nowhere in that dictionary definition is there anything about Tess Schlesinger being the determining factor in what minimum values determine "profit".  In fact, there IS no minimum at all!

                    So when you say that "There is no need for some to make a profit from them at the expense of others." it includes the profit of a nickel.  Not just such sums as you might find objectionable.

                    And when you decide that I am "defending" profits you find objectionable because I say that profits are necessary in order to eat, well, you are making claims without having the smallest smidgeon of evidence to support them.

                2. Marisa Wright profile image94
                  Marisa Wrightposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                  Profit is necessary but we've gone way beyond profit to the concept of "continual growth".

                  I worked for a big, profitable insurance company once. It was originally a privately-owned company, which had 45 branches, every single one of them making a healthy profit year in, year out for over 50 years.

                  Then they decided to list on the stock exchange.    That changed everything, because to please the share market, the company's profits had to rise significantly each year. So they made a rule. Every branch had to increase its profits by 10% each year, or it would be closed.  The fact that they were already highly profitable was irrelevant, because the company had to find a way to continually increase profit for the whole company, every single year, in a market that wasn't growing.

                  So they built a big call centre, and closed down every branch that couldn't meet the targets.  Of course they saved money on bricks and mortar, so it worked.  But if they'd stayed the way they were, they still would've been returning a profit to the company's owners just like they had for all those years, and they would've been providing a better service to the community.

                  That's why management buyouts (where the managers buy a struggling company) often work and I wish they happened more often.  Big corporate owners can't make enough money from the company to satisfy their mania for constant growth - but if it's a private company, management and staff can create enough profit to pay all their salaries comfortably.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                    I agree that reasonable profit is somehow subverted by the stock market into...something else.  I worked on building one store for a small corporation.  The original owner, still majority stockholder, was on site and demanding it be finished and open for business by the end of the month - something to do with the stock market and stock prices.  When it wasn't going to happen that man nearly had a heart attack, following the building inspector outside like a little puppy and literally begging him to allow the store to open.  Never did understand what was so all fired important about today instead of tomorrow, but it certainly wasn't about profit.

                    Maybe one of the problems is that stock prices are such huge multiples of dividends paid and stock owners want a more reasonable return on their investment?  I don't know.

                  2. TessSchlesinger profile image93
                    TessSchlesingerposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                    Marisa, I disagree.

                    Profit is not necessary.

                    There are three states in business:

                    1. Loss.
                    2. Sustainability.
                    3. Profit.

                    Business can be sustainable without having either a profit or a loss. One of the reasons that Mondragon in Spain has done so well is that they don't make a profit. The area of Basque in Spain is the most prosperous area in the entire European Union for exactly that reason. The company focuses on being sustainable. It pays everybody a good salary. It introduced the concept that the CEO was never to be paid more than 5 times what the lowest worker was paid.

                    Whent the company is sustainable, it brings in sufficient money from its sales to be able to pay all its expensies, put away for capital expenses and emergencies in the future, plus pay all its workers wages and salaries, but it doesn't have excess beyond that.

                    Loss is when the company brings in less money that it expends. Profit is when the company has money left over after all its expenses. Those expenses include salaries.

                    A business has income and outgoings. Profit is certainly the difference between income and outgoings, but so long as the outgoings are not greater than than the income, the business is sustainable.

                    Can you please explain to me why you think that a profit is necesssary. Remember that owner is already receiving his salary.

  2. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 8 months ago

    HOAX:
    Global warming is caused by weather-modification programs and pollution. Therefore, it IS man-made.

    2016 Nov 18 from Nikeros 
    To Ed Griffin: 
    You don’t believe that Fukushima, nuclear testing, extensive military operations involving gawd knows what, fracking, aerosol spraying of aluminum, barium, strontium and gawd knows what else worldwide and on and on has no effect on the earths climate? Ok fine. I will say no more.

    REPLY BY GEG: 
    The anthropomorphic mantra of most global-warming proponents is that the “man-made” cause is CO2. Period. They claim that CO2 is the byproduct of industry and consumption and that it produces a “carbon footprint”. Therefore, they seek expanded government power and funding to reduce CO2. That’s the basis for all the carbon-tax and regulatory nonsense. None of these people are talking about taxing or regulating “Fukushima, nuclear testing, extensive military operations, fracking, aerosol spraying of aluminum, barium, strontium and gawd knows what else”. They talk only about CO2, the greenhouse gas that does NOT cause global warming. The global-warming hoaxers are very good at lumping together pollution (which is real) and man-made global warming (which is not). If we are not thinking analytically, we can be led to think they are one-in-the-same. We are not supposed to notice the trick.

    https://www.freedomforceinternational.o … l-warming/

  3. Will Apse profile image87
    Will Apseposted 8 months ago

    There has been a major scientific effort dedicated to understanding by so many people in the US reject the mass of evidence surrounding man made climate change. Scientists need studies to understand even simple stuff, lol.

    There are a few standout conclusions:

    ...some people believe that private enterprise can solve every problem and should never be interfered with
    ...some people find the thought that have somehow caused harm (even inadvertently) too hard to bear
    ...some people do not understand even the basic science (which is pretty simple)
    ...some people will lose money from a change to a sustainable economy
    ...some people really are indifferent to the future

    None of these things, as human as they are, have anything to do with the facts.

    1. MichaelMcNabb profile image82
      MichaelMcNabbposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      It's fake that's why.  Some of us here in America aren't as stupid as other people in the world.  Our reasons for not believing in global warming include:  1.  There is no global warming.  2.  There is no global warming. 3.  Even if there were global warming we don't care.  4.  There is no global warming.  5.  I like warmer weather.  6.  I've never met a polar bear but if I had I would have wished he were dead rather than make a meal out of me.  7.  There is no global warming.  8.  If it were warmer the world would be better off.  9.  There is no global warming.  10.  It's been proven by scientist that we are actually entering an ice age. and finally 11.  There is no global warming

      Okay now that you have the proof right in front of you it's time to admit there is no global warming and even if there were no body cares at all not one bit!

      1. Will Apse profile image87
        Will Apseposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        Yeah, that sums up the denier position, lol.

        1. MichaelMcNabb profile image82
          MichaelMcNabbposted 8 months ago in reply to this

          The only problem is that you  make denial sound like something negative.  If I were to call your mother a pig and you denied that to be fact than you would be a denier.  And, we would all laugh at you like you were some kind of fool.

          1. Marisa Wright profile image94
            Marisa Wrightposted 8 months ago in reply to this

            I think denial is negative more often than not - especially if used in the context of "in denial", which is how environmentalists see the deniers.

            If you're "in denial" about having cancer, you'll still die.

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
    Kathryn L Hillposted 8 months ago

    <Earth cannot recover if, as almost all climate scientists agree, (Not) the atmosphere passes the point-of-no-return.> Impossible.

    <That point is near the end of this century if nothing is done.> proof? 

    <The Paris Climate Accords were designed to stop from getting to that point, estimate to be around 2042 at the current rate of growth in CO2 in the air.> Who made the participants of the PCA the boss(es) of the world?

    <President-elect's rhetoric and his cabinet picks all but guarantee America will NOT abide by those accords.> and how do you know this?

    I just read (yesterday, 12/9/16) in a fifth grade science textbook at a public school that scientists agree that global warning is probably NOT man made.

    Paris Climate Accords:

      "The Paris Agreement, reached in December among 195 countries, was never imagined as the silver bullet for global warming. Rather, the goal of the agreement was to stave off the most devastating effects of climate change by limiting the increase in global temperatures to two degrees Celsius, and to just 1.5 degrees Celsius if possible.

    But even that may prove problematic. If every country fully accomplishes its initial pledges, the increase would be closer to 2.7 degrees, according Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, which is based in Paris. (In the next several years, countries are supposed to set additional goals for deeper reductions.)

    Nor have all the countries actually ratified the Paris Agreement. Ségolène Royal, France’s minister for ecology, sustainable development and energy, announced at the conference on Thursday morning that 94 countries that had signed the agreement had ratified it, representing 66 percent of global emissions.

    From a market perspective, many companies do not yet have a strong financial imperative to make sweeping changes to address climate change."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/busin … .html?_r=0

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
    Kathryn L Hillposted 8 months ago

    Furthermore:
    "Part of it is
    that climate change has been framed as a question of belief ...

    ... climate activists’ insistence on individual sacrifice drives conservatives crazy. “When you say you’re shivering or sweating in the dark to save the planet, conservatives don’t cotton to it,” Mr. Inglis said. More effective, he said, would be to argue that addressing climate change would result in “greater independence, more mobility and more freedom.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/scien … l-pew.html

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
    Kathryn L Hillposted 8 months ago

    "If half the cars sold worldwide were electric starting next year and continuing for the next 20 years, worldwide oil demand would keep rising, Mr. Birol said at the conference, citing an analysis that his agency plans to release on Nov. 16.

    The problem is that trucks, aviation and petrochemical production are now the main drivers of the growth in oil consumption.

    Patrick Pouyanné, the chairman and chief executive of Total, the French oil and gas giant, predicted that electric cars would not represent more than a third of sales until 2025 and would not represent a third of all cars on the road until a decade later. That will be too late and too little to make a big difference in global oil consumption, he said.

    Even so, automakers view electric as crucial to their future profits.

    They are convinced that regulators will keep loading more rules onto gasoline- and diesel-powered cars.“If you don’t have 20 percent-plus of your sales in electric cars, you’re not going to make it,” said Carlos Ghosn, the chairman and chief executive of Nissan and Renault and the chairman of Mitsubishi Motors.


    There are other forces at work, too. A common refrain among many executives these days is that they are feeling more social pressure to address global warming — sometimes from within their own families.

    Mr. van Beurden of Shell (SHELL!) said that a year ago he found his 9-year-old daughter inconsolable, and initially thought it was because he and his wife were leaving the children for a short excursion. But when he spoke to his daughter, he learned that her teacher had talked about dire risks from climate change, blamed oil companies for causing it and suggested that the answer was giving money to Greenpeace.

    He said he reassured his daughter that global warming would be addressed and that he would help in the struggle. “She said, ‘Of course, I trust you,’” Mr. van Beurden said, adding, “and in that sense she is different from the rest of society.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/busin … .html?_r=0

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      "They are convinced that regulators will keep loading more rules onto gasoline- and diesel-powered cars."

      Happened in Idaho - our good legislator found reason to increase registration fees by $100 per year for plug in hybrids and electrics.  The "logic" is that these (so far) tiny cars don't pay their way in gas taxes...while ignoring that the initial cost is enough higher for increased sales tax to more than make up for the loss of gas taxes and their size means almost no damage to roadways.  As these cars will never "pay for" themselves with gasoline savings anyway, it makes a good argument to go back to the gas guzzling, polluting monsters that are still popular.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image87
        Kathryn L Hillposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        HA!

  7. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 8 months ago

    Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor … 7968171b79

    1. Will Apse profile image87
      Will Apseposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      The author of that article is James Taylor from the conservative/libertarian think tank, The Heartland Institute.

      Take a look at its wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

      A couple of quotes:

      [A leak showed  that]   Donors to the Heartland Institute disclosed included the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, Microsoft, General Motors, Comcast, Reynolds American, Philip Morris, Amgen, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly, liquor companies, and an anonymous donor who had given $13 million over the past five years.

      'The Heartland Institute no longer discloses its funding sources'

      Essentially, The Heartland Institute takes a lot of money from unpopular businesses and tries to defend/promote them. A profitable line of work to be in, I imagine.

      That gives you an idea of where the writer is coming from, but what about the article he bases his piece on?

      The article is based largely on a paper published in a Sage Journal. Sage is a peculiar private publishing company run by an American business woman who is happy to give ultra conservatives a platform. It is not especially reputable.

      Dig into the article itself and you get this key quote:

      ... we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries

      In other words, the paper asked engineers and scientists in the oil industry what they thought about climate change.

      The results are predicable.

    2. Don W profile image81
      Don Wposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      You have to do some critical thinking, not just blindly post stories because they agree with what you think.

      The survey you are citing is a survey of industry engineers and geoscientists who work in the oil and gas industry (members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists) in Alberta (Canada's most oil-rich province).

      It says that people employed by oil and gas companies (in Alberta) are more likely to be skeptical of mainstream climate science. That's all.

      In contrast, this study (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 … 1/4/048002) demonstrates that 97% of the world's published climate scientists believe that humans are causing recent global warming.

      Let me state that again for you so it's clear: 

      97% of the world's published climate scientists believe that humans are causing recent global warming.

      Climate change is a scientific fact, and there is a consensus among the world's published climate scientists that it is being caused by human activity.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image27
        Castlepalomaposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        When nearly half of the largest oil producer's city in Alberta, burns down. Then the Canada Government reopens this black death energy along with it's service in NATO in connection with US Fracking and pipeline system.  Then you know who the Government is working, it is not for the people and alternative green energy.

      2. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        Let me ask you this. We know global warming is a fact. We also know that at some period in human history the poles have been ice free. We know humans couldn't have contributed to that global warming (or we assume they couldn't) and we don't have a clear handle on what causes global changes of this type but we are here so we know the last time didn't annihilate the human race. Now, I'm a better safe than sorry person when it comes to questions on a global scale but I think being alarmist about it (like the premise of this thread) is pointless. What do you think?

        1. Don W profile image81
          Don Wposted 8 months ago in reply to this

          I'm not a climate scientist. I have neither the time, resources, or expertise to personally verify that climate change is caused by human activity. So I have to look at the overall picture:

          97% of the world's published climate scientists believe humans are causing recent global warming, and have no reason to lie about it. The gas and oil industry says climate change is nothing to worry about, but has every reason to lie about it because burning fossil fuels is one of the activities that is causing the problem, and that's the product they sell.

          So for me it's a no brainer. It's like when the scientific community warned that smoking can cause cancer, but the tobacco industry denied it, and even used doctors to advertise cigarettes. That's what the oil and gas industry is doing now.

          Being alarmist about it is a personal choice. Some people accept that we are causing climate change, but don't care because they likely won't see the worst effects in their lifetime. That's a valid (albeit selfish) choice. But for me, denying the role human activity is playing in climate change is even worst than not caring or being alarmist. It's just unreasonable. It's willful ignorance. In my opinion that is worse than selfishness or alarmism.

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 8 months ago in reply to this

            I agree that only a fool would think we aren't part of the problem. Unfortunately know one knows how much of the problem, if any suggested courses of action can reverse the problem or even if we have already crossed the tipping point, or not. And, yes, special interests are taking an active role in hopes that their agendas can be served by pushing the alarmist buttons.

            We aren't going to change human nature in the course of a few decades. No one I know crying wolf has done anything to negate their personal carbon footprint. So, the way I see it is everyone is defeatist. They just want to blame everyone else.

      3. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        Critical think would indicate that anyone claiming agreement by 97% of scientists is either lying or is defining "scientist" in such a way as to skew the results.  You won't get that high a number even in agreement that species change through natural evolution, and that process is well documented, well observed and thoroughly understood.

        1. Don W profile image81
          Don Wposted 8 months ago in reply to this

          I made no such claim. Read the post again. Even better, don't rely on me at all. Read the study for yourself. It's completely free.

          http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 … 1/4/048002

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 8 months ago in reply to this

            "Let me state that again for you so it's clear: 

            97% of the world's published climate scientists believe that humans are causing recent global warming. "

            Perhaps you meant to type something else?

            1. Don W profile image81
              Don Wposted 8 months ago in reply to this

              You said: "97% of scientists"

              I said: "97% of the world's published climate scientists"

              Significant difference. Perhaps you misread it.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                No, I didn't misread it, I was just sloppy in what I said.  I meant the same thing you did, and stand behind what I said: that you cannot get any group of scientists, published climate scientists or other, to agree to 97%.  Not unless you're pretty careful about who and how you pick them.

                1. Don W profile image81
                  Don Wposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                  And yet there is the study that demonstrates it, and there is the link. It's a meta-study (a study of studies) examining the level of consensus, so it's not that technical, i.e. you don't need to be a scientist to understand it.

                  This type of post-truth denial of facts is nothing less than the abandonment of reason.

                  http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 … 1/4/048002

                2. My Esoteric profile image89
                  My Esotericposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                  The operative words are "published" and "climate".  That makes the determination countable there are only so many published (meaning peer-reviewed in the scientific world) articles by climate scientists.  So the question is, of every 100 such articles published, are 97 in agreement with 1) global warming is real and not a hoax as many on the Right think and 2) the primary cause of the rapid increase is human activity.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                    Did you know that Darwin refused to publish for many months, afraid for his very life?  Did you know that if a scientist today crosses the establishment any funding dries up very quickly?  Did you know that quite a few scientists have been, and currently are, blacklisted for publishing conclusions not widely accepted; that they are immediately considered as far out weirdo's or worse?

                    Just an interesting line of though you might want to follow.  Or just toss around when considering scientists and man made climate change that will end the world in a decade or two...

        2. mrpopo profile image87
          mrpopoposted 8 months ago in reply to this

          The question of how much scientific agreement there is regarding well-documented theories should be brought up more often. It'd give people some much needed context.

          I did some digging and found a couple of Pew Polls that do just that.

          The first is from 2009: http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/528.pdf

          Human beings and other living beings have...
          Evolved over time...                                                      97%
          Due to natural processes                                             87%
          Guided by supreme being                                              8%

          Views on climate change...
          Warming is due to human activity                               84%
          Warming is due to natural changes                             10%
          No solid evidence earth is warming                               4%

          The second is from last year: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/23/a … sts-views/

          Humans have evolved over time:                                 98%
          Climate change is mostly due to human activity:        87%

          Taking these surveys at face value, it seems there is a strong consensus about both evolution and climate change as occurrences, with a slight edge for evolution (97% believe in evolution and 94% believe in climate change). There's less consensus on the causes but still a strong majority (87% believe evolution is due to natural processes and 84% believe climate change is [primarily] due to human activity).

          1. Will Apse profile image87
            Will Apseposted 8 months ago in reply to this

            My special interest in US politics relates to the way that no more than a few dozen individuals have managed to hold up action on climate change in the US.

            The Koch Brothers and others in the oil and coal industry have dug in to preserve their financial interests, funding think tanks to produce false analysis and junk science.

            People like Rupert Murdoch, who believe that all government is essentially evil have lent their media outlets to spread misinformation.

            PR companies have simply taken the money to place 'climate experts' with no science background on TV debates and 'cast doubt' on scientific evidence.

            This approach has only worked in the US. What makes the US so uniquely vulnerable to manipulation by special interest groups?

            1. mrpopo profile image87
              mrpopoposted 8 months ago in reply to this

              Are you suggesting that only the US has been successfully manipulated by special interest groups?

              1. Will Apse profile image87
                Will Apseposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                When it comes to climate change, people and governments in other countries generally listen to the scientists.

                Of course, in other countries there are trusted news providers and those news providers will fact check information before publishing it.

                Reputable news providers also have rules which include finding spokes people for all sides in a dispute and giving readers an idea of what qualifies those people to speak.

                In the US, when it comes to climate change debates, many broadcasters will simply use oil industry PR men for the denier side, mainly because reputable scientists who think climate change is not man-made are very hard to come by.

  8. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 8 months ago

    I will put it as simply as possible.  Trump Administration will most likely de-fund the Global Warming agenda, because there's nothing in it for us.  Follow the money!   Fact is, private investors aren't interested in investing in it, because there isn't anything in it for them.  So!   It will just go away like Global Cooling did.

    1. Will Apse profile image87
      Will Apseposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      That's the spirit! Forget future generations get it now!

      I much prefer honest, reckless greed to deliberate distortion of reality. The truth is always worth hanging on to, no matter how disagreeable.

      1. colorfulone profile image87
        colorfuloneposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        "The truth is always worth hanging on to, no matter how disagreeable."  -  That is good, but first people need to know the truth.

        I will believe you are simply being sarcastic, because of  disinformation.  I don't forget the future generations, I have grandchildren and their peers are my concern.

        I don't suppose you honestly remember the Rockefeller's reckless greed to deliberately distort reality with climate change?  Or, don't care?  Would you rather act as a devil's advocate for the religion of global warming / global cooling / climate change alarmists?  The globalist Rockefeller family wanted to use Exxon Mobil (Standard Oil) to establish carbon taxes through fiat through Exxon Mobil. 

        Thankfully for people like, Rex Tillerson, (CEO of Exxon), who I am a big fan of because it was he that took Standard Oil away from the Rockefeller Family, and stopped them. 

        Now, the CIA government-made fake news propaganda is trying to make Tillerson out to be a Russian agent.  That's utterly ridiculous!  I have nothing but praise for honest men with integrity looking out for future generations. 

        I find conversation is limited with you...unless it becomes enlightened, I see no reason to linger discourse.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image27
          Castlepalomaposted 8 months ago in reply to this

          A choice between reckless greed and distortion of reality. That is like choosing from coke or alcohol addiction.

          When I see 2 of the worst Presidential candidate that people must choose from along with all the phony cheering over lies from all the empty promises and empty foresight . Then I know we are all living in a rapidly growing fictitious North America. Because I am a positive person and aim for natural enlightenment I perfer to move rather than live in a synthetic world, that promotes more pollution, imprisonment,  mentally ill guns and war.

          Mr. Trump is a Grinch that stole it for predominately whites, for a white house congress, for a white Jesus and Christmas.

          But no matter how small a minority group is or how small a person is. A person is a person and no matter how huge Trump wall is.  Or how fascist and racists Trump police are. Or homophob, or sexist Trump is, it will ever stop Americans minority babies out producing white babies. Or how Trump greedy bunch will nuke the the poor , the Zionist families will die too. Or how Trump short fuse hate will never out last the love of the Majority. In all in all it makes me still very optimistic about the future.

          Mr. Trump stoled it from the middle class , minority from the land and giving it all to himself and his greedy dogs. Will this Mr Trump ever give it back ? not likely, yet the people will take it back for themselves.

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 8 months ago in reply to this

            One comment here fascinates me. About Trump needing to accept minorities will have more babies than whites. Funny that you would think he someone to fear on that count since it is always voices aligned with the left demanding population control; even to the extent of government forced birth control with only those fortunate few allowed to conceive. Those are white voices. Who do you think they think the fortunate few should be?

            1. Castlepaloma profile image27
              Castlepalomaposted 8 months ago in reply to this

              If you really dig deep in world history you will find Zionist created the communist and capitist system that grew into the corporatioism system. Banking, oil and creating wars has always profitable for Zionist since world war 1. Alcohol prohibition war was because it had greater efficiency and cleaner than gas, it is the same story with cannabis. Zionist are fake jews so they will tool or create war between race, class, communist/corperationism, religion, pollution or any fake monster they can make up. UN and NATO was created after second world war to give Zionist their assumed homeland back. Then they have an agenda to reduce world population down to two billion. Starting with lowering our life expectancy for the first time in modern history through synthetic and food, drugs, and pollution. Only through great abuse people do raise to great travesties throughout history and change things for the better.

    2. Marisa Wright profile image94
      Marisa Wrightposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      That's right!  You can always trust big business to know what's good for society.

      The lead petroleum industry, the asbestos industry, the tobacco industry - investors kept investing in them, long after those industries knew they were killing people.  I've worked for companies at management level, and I've seen them take decisions that made them more money at the expense of their customers' wellbeing, though thankfully not on that scale. 

      That is the whole problem with the climate change debate.  No, renewable resources and cutting down consumption do not make money.  That's the point - if we want to save the planet, then we need to do things that go directly against the profit culture and consumerism which has become the cornerstone of our lives. They're not things you can make a profit from, what a surprise.

      Whether or not humans are responsible, the climate is changing.  I think the Earth will survive but I am increasingly doubtful that our civilisation will, because people are fundamentally greedy. 

      The best I can hope for is that it survives for the rest of my lifetime.

      1. colorfulone profile image87
        colorfuloneposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        I see I made a serious typo, sorry for the misunderstanding that must have caused.  It should have been ... "Trump Administration will most likely de-fund the 'man-made' Global Warming agenda, because there's nothing in it for us." ... I do not deny Climate Change, just the science-fiction. 

        I listened to an interview with Bill Gates recently, he meet with Trump and is very optimistic about future meetings to discus energy resource plans that he and some other wealthy investors have already pooled a billion dollars to bankroll.  He did not go into any details, but he is looking forward to finding solutions. 

        I believe the best and first thing anyone should do is develop a strong spiritual belief.  Its not for me to say what that spiritual belief would be for anyone else.  Its proven scientifically that people who do have a strong spiritual belief have a much higher rate of surviving the same circumstances as people without any.  Then, prepare for natural disasters the best we can.

        1. Marisa Wright profile image94
          Marisa Wrightposted 8 months ago in reply to this

          A billion dollars?  chickenfeed.

          1. colorfulone profile image87
            colorfuloneposted 8 months ago in reply to this

            I believe that is money to show 'good faith'.  Money isn't am obstacle for Bill Gates, pretty sure of that.  I don't know that much about him personally, but he believes he has some solutions.   Time will tell.

            1. Will Apse profile image87
              Will Apseposted 8 months ago in reply to this

              Bill Gates believes government needs to put in the sort of R&D effort made during the Manhattan or Apollo projects to solve climate change issues.

              He has no faith in private enterprise to solve the technical problems needed to provide clean energy fast enough and points out that virtually all significant tech advances were the result of government research.

              He should know. His billions would not have been possible without the mass of pure research in the electronics field.

              Given that Trump's team are talking about decommissioning climate monitoring satellites, it is hard to believe he will see eye to eye with Bill Gates.

  9. profile image60
    Ghost003posted 8 months ago

    Actually it is said that you will know a person better when hw hold power...  Every one are only considering the bad impact of Trump being president....but not many of us are considering good impact of Trump being president...one good thing i see is thatTrump is a investor, a person who know the value of money and how to play with it....i guess hw will not lead US to suffer like great depression of 1990s......

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      Not according to the  OP. It appears he thinks there will be an economic meltdown coinciding with the complete annihilation of Mother Earth.

      Armageddon, courtesy of democrat imaginations.

  10. PhoenixV profile image82
    PhoenixVposted 8 months ago

    Before
    http://www.bowdoin.edu/arctic-museum/images/backgrounds/arctic-backgrounds-icefloes2-1600x1600.jpg

    After

    http://www.humanitiesclub.talktalk.net/environment/islandparadise.jpg




    112% Of scientists polled by Facebook authenticated news sources paint a grim picture of the results of global warning on arctic regions.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image27
      Castlepalomaposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      In Vancouver Canada already succulent, cati, palm trees and banana tree can grow.

      1. PhoenixV profile image82
        PhoenixVposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        The pacific coast is temperate. I worry about the next ice age though. If there was only something we could do.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image27
          Castlepalomaposted 8 months ago in reply to this

          A good start would be handcuffing the major centro bankers. But people would rather suffer through nuclear fallout and call me insane than to do anything like that.

        2. colorfulone profile image87
          colorfuloneposted 8 months ago in reply to this

          The US is experiencing an Arctic Blast, get set.  We're all going to freeze!  wink

          1. Castlepaloma profile image27
            Castlepalomaposted 8 months ago in reply to this

            Vast majority of Scientist would not agree we would freeze, more like drown or unable to grow food enough. Good science won't be found in Religious books or Trump's pocket book.

            1. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 8 months ago in reply to this

              No one really knows. Everyone is speculating. So far, all predictions made have not panned out. If we are lucky, whatever happens, we will work together as a world community to live through it together.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image27
                Castlepalomaposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                OH, I know personally, most of my business in the winter time was building world record snow playgrounds and sculptures. I needed to stop my snow (show business) business due to a lack of snow and freezing temperatures. Now turn to building Eco communities, far away from where Governments and greedy are busy tearing them down because they are not on the corporation grid as to being green is illegal more and more so.

                1. Live to Learn profile image81
                  Live to Learnposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                  Well, for sure Castle. You've lived through tens of thousands of years and have personally seen climate changes as they occurred, you are soo sooo very smart that you understood all of the factors associated with them each time around and you know this time around exactly what will happen and why it will happen (we are pretty sure you'll blame this time around on the Zionists)

                  Thank God for Castle.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image27
                    Castlepalomaposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                    Zionist don't know they are mentally ill psychopaths, so the blame equally goes to the Majority of the people for allowing this sickness to spread everywhere. While I am on earth, I will do everything in my power to make it a healthier, happy, friendlier and kinder world.

                    I would say 65% is natural causes is the planet itself. Yet mankind 35% damages to nature is enough to destroy our species to extinction. Already 95% of the species have gone extinct in world natural history, one less negative parasite gone a parasite that is getting worst make a difference. Thanks to Mother nature that earth can and will do better when we are gone. Unless we can grow up and use our brain for positive reasons for all earthlings.

  11. Castlepaloma profile image27
    Castlepalomaposted 8 months ago

    In 1969 was the first ship to make it through the NorthWest passage way.  Ice has melted the size of Alaska and Texas combined since than. Now huge cruise ship tour the Antarctica.

    I have worked ice hotels and snow playgrounds in Antarctic, ice has melted a least 1% per year.  I have done 14 world record scale ice and snow sculpture and don't need to have scientist tell me the north is melting very rapidly. Because I live it and experience it. Maybe Trump can make enough ice cubes from his tower and ship it up north to fit that problem too.

    1. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      I envy your experiences.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image27
        Castlepalomaposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        Thanks

        It has been alot if serious fun.

    2. stephenteacher profile image86
      stephenteacherposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      Scientists today agree that just a few thousands years ago, The Arctic region was a tropical paradise, complete with palm trees, warm breezes, sea turtles, and more. Perhaps THAT was the normal and we are going back to that. The entire continent of North America, also according to these expert scientists, was covered by an ocean. So any rise in sea levels would be going back to normal.

  12. Castlepaloma profile image27
    Castlepalomaposted 8 months ago

    I got maybe 30 years left of my life. The Greatest cause of immigrants is war and environmental related. Since my Government has stomps on everything I have done for a healthy environmental, like being green is illegal.

    People are blind if they don't see farming and wildlife being destroyed at a very rapid rate. As our freedom and healthy choices have become very limited. As people are being gathered into prison's and work camps. I won't see the earth turn to a total burning ball of shit. I just don't want to imagine what we have passed down to our children.

    I declare myself an environmental refugee and moved to an area of indigenous people because I think they are my last faith or saviors of humanity.

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      Pretty cool that you still have internet service.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      Farming is being destroyed as we produce more food than ever before?

      Or do you mean that small, inefficient farms are being left out of the picture in favor of more productive methods that feed more people?

  13. GNelson profile image82
    GNelsonposted 8 months ago

    We live in a world that worships money way above the environment.  The air is polluted by corporations.  The water is polluted by corporations.  The food you eat contains corporate chemicals that don't belong in your body.  But those corporations make money and it is ok the create earthquakes in Oklahoma and pollute the water that people drink.  In fact it is ok to make money even if what you do kills a few people.  That is a side effect.  The environment is tipping over and at some point it will fall.   Humans may or may not survive the destruction.

    1. colorfulone profile image87
      colorfuloneposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      You might like reading this. I read it recently. 

      Dr. Velikovsky, "Earth and Upheaval"  book.  Highly condensed observation of what happens in a Pole Shift..observation he found going around the planet and finding the evidence.
      Titled "A Working Hypothesis" 
      https://henrithibodeau.files.wordpress. … thesis.pdf

      'Let us assume, as a working hypothesis, that under the impact of a force or the influence of an agent - and the Earth does not travel in an empty universe - the axis of the earth shifted or tilted. At that moment an earthquake would make the globe shudder. Air and water would continue to move through inertia; hurricanes would sweep the Earth, and the seas would rush over continents, carrying gravel and sand and marine animals, and casting them onto land. Heat would be developed, rocks would melt, volcanoes would erupt, lava would flow from fissures in the ruptured ground and cover vast areas. Mountains would spring up from the plains and would climb and travel upon the shoulders of other mountains, causing faults and rifts. Lakes would be tilted and emptied, rivers would change their beds; large land areas and all their inhabitants would slip under the sea. Forests would burn, and the hurricanes and wild seas would wrest them from the ground on which they grew and pile them, branch and root, in heaps. Seas would turn into deserts, their waters rolling away.

      'And if the change in the velocity of the diurnal rotation [slowing the planet down] should accompany the shifting of the axis, the water confined to the equatorial oceans by centrifugal force would retreat to the poles, and high tides and hurricanes would rush from pole to pole, carrying reindeers and seals to the tropics and desert lions to the Arctic, moving from the equator up to the mountain ridges of the Himalayas and down the African jungles; and crumbled rocks torn from splintering mountains would be scattered over large distances; and herds of animals would be washed from the plains of Siberia. The shifting of the axis would change the climate in every place, leaving corals in Newfoundland and elephants in Alaska, fig trees in northern Greenland and luxuriant forests in Antarctica. In the event of a rapid shift of the axis, many species and genera of animals on land and in the sea would be destroyed, and civilizations, if any, would be reduced to ruins.'

  14. stephenteacher profile image86
    stephenteacherposted 8 months ago

    At least we won't have to suffer through 4 years of Hilary....

    1. PhoenixV profile image82
      PhoenixVposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      When dealing with environmentals I sometimes have to step back and watch a relaxing video on youtube.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tNhw0Rio9s

  15. satto61 profile image80
    satto61posted 8 months ago

    The climate change is real, but let's be simple and direct be about this.

    1. The Earth will survive anything, the question is whether we, the life forms, will survive the Global warming.
    2. What do you mean by a Trump Presidency? How is it related to the climate change? It has started before Trump was even born. Is it a some king of ill will towards him?
    3. A knife kills faster than climate, better be worried for that first.
    4. We have caused this climate change, we have to enjoy it.
    5. Every gallon of gas we burn, every minutes of air-conditioning, lighting - in toto every second of comfort  - has an upward kink in the graph. It's a collective contribution. Are we going to give up all that? No. The answer it obvious.

  16. Aksh Saxena profile image62
    Aksh Saxenaposted 8 months ago

    Success = failur

  17. FaisalArjumand profile image60
    FaisalArjumandposted 8 months ago

    Dear Tess Schlesinger
    sorry for interrupt
    you are right, I agree with you
    but all depend your corporate practices, administration and strategy of business.

    1. TessSchlesinger profile image93
      TessSchlesingerposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      Thank you. smile

  18. MichaelMcNabb profile image82
    MichaelMcNabbposted 7 months ago

    Liberals can rest assured that we got this and know what's best for you.

    1. Will Apse profile image87
      Will Apseposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      I don't think the average liberal has much more interest in the people at the bottom of the heap than Trumps' billionaires. Liberals might do a little more hand wringing...

      The bottom of the heap needs to look out for itself.

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        So if you think trump and his billionaires don't care about the average person and you don't think liberals care about the average person who do you think would? In government, that is.

        1. Will Apse profile image87
          Will Apseposted 7 months ago in reply to this

          You have nobody in the US. Which is why Trump was elected. I read that Obama finally noticed that rural and suburban voters exist. Bit late now.

          Other countries, like Germany, Denmark, Holland have deep networks of trade unions, and workers organisation of all kinds. Governments cannot ignore them. Wages have remained high despite globalization.

          The French have so far refused to allow investors to create low wage jobs. They tolerate higher unemployment as a price.

          The US and UK have both more or less crushed trade unions and doubled down on contingent workers who have virtually no rights. They love the cheap labor immigration provides.

          Trump has picked up on the misery in the US  but will not fix it. He will rule for himself and his friends.

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 7 months ago in reply to this

            We shall see.

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 7 months ago in reply to this

            It's interesting that you put so much weight and value on trade unions.  Perhaps they are different in Europe and actually care about others, perhaps they are philanthropists working for the betterment of all.

            But in the states, unions cared nothing for anyone not a "brother".  They were happiest when they could get every last dime from a business, when business owners were forced to live as paupers because the union wanted it all.  They were happy to earn multiples of what the peons outside the union could do (necessary or there was no reason for a union at all), and they were quite happy to be the single biggest driving force behind inflation.

            Although unions have done considerable good in the US, they have also done great harm and closed the doors on more than a few businesses.  Wherever possible, the union elite have run roughshod over the rest of the workers and treated them as no more than trash under the boots of the order givers. 

            Perhaps European unions are different, but I rather doubt it.

            1. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 7 months ago in reply to this

              My experience with unions was they didn't want to bid the jobs we needed done and then scared the living heck out of those who did want to do the work, because the weren't union.

  19. PhoenixV profile image82
    PhoenixVposted 7 months ago

    I'd rather take up strong arm robbery than be involved with a union. That way I would not have to break my word, my handshake, when I accepted the job and agreed to a wage.

    1. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      You live in a very naive world if you truly think individual workers have one iota of leverage against large employers.  Handshakes to them mean absolutely nothing.

  20. GNelson profile image82
    GNelsonposted 6 months ago

    Global warming is just one of many things that are going on today.  We live in a sound bite world and those people who control the media, control the minds of many.  We also live in a world that worships money.  We are 100% dependent on nature not money.  We need the air we breath, the water we drink and the food we eat to be good for us.  Corporations pollute air, water and food to make money.  Some people die or become ill because of the pollution but making a good profit is more important.  Just look at tobacco and how long those companies denied causing illness that kills people.  Many of the comments here were written with sound bite information but everyone here breaths the air, drinks the water, and eats the food.  Do some research on the air, water and food and you will begin to see what is going on.  Or you can worship money and enjoy destroying nature.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Have you considered that rather than "destroying nature", man should actually be applauded for his attempts, however feeble, to restore nature to it's proper composition?  You know - the natural state of things before that infestation of self-replicating, nature destroying, chemical monstrocities called "life".? The earth had a truly fine atmosphere before it was polluted and destroyed by vast amounts of oxygen that viscious "life" thing spewed out!  big_smile

      1. My Esoteric profile image89
        My Esotericposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        ??

        1. Castlepaloma profile image27
          Castlepalomaposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          From my studies that people"s life spans are being shorten, they are not living longer. Until people wake up from this horrible and be aware of the abuse to all bio organisms , this will continue to mankind greatest suffering in the future. You would think even the cold heartless greedy bastards and beurocroc would realizes their children are dying faster too. Too bad we are smoothered in a fictional synthetic world.

        2. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          Never mind.  Just a little humor that didn't come through.

    2. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      The House passed the Koch Brother's sponsored REINS bill which, if the Senate agrees, which would require ANY regulation that has an economic impact of over $100 million to pass the House and Senate again.  This Act will make certain all those things you are afraid of will happen!

      Fortunately, I don't think it can get by a filibuster by Ds and is probably an unconstitutional breech of Separation of Powers.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Saw a proposal once to require a 2/3rds majority in each house to pass any law under the theory that if less than 2/3rds found it a good and valuable addition to the country then it probably should not be there anyway.

        Setting aside the tiny problem that our glorious leaders do not vote based on value but instead on party affiliation it actually made some sense, and this proposal is much the same.  Now if we can only clean up the swamp and convince those leaders to cast votes based on their actual opinion of a law it might be of some value. 

        Instead, I expect you're right and we'll play games with the Rules of Order rather than make any rational decisions.  But what's that about separation of powers?  You lost me there.

 
working