The left's rejection of science

[Rigby5]

Rigby5 writes,

"Jet streams are caused and powered by heat. So more global warming means stronger and more frequent jet streams"

This is a hilarious statement since it is the temperature DIFFERENCE between two air masses what drives Jet Streams.

From Weather Questions,

"What causes the jet stream?
A jet stream forms high in the upper troposphere between two air masses of very different temperature. The greater the temperature difference between the air masses, the faster the wind blows in the jet stream."

Jet Streams were powerful during global Cooling of the 1960's and 70's too.

No, if you have two areas of atmosphere of -250 degrees and -200 degrees, you will not have as energetic of a reaction as you would between areas of +200 degrees and +250 degree.
The colder a gas is, the less volume, so then there is less pressure causing movement.
Its called Charles' Law.

Oh my gawad, what a stupid statement since it doesn't matter what the temperature is, it is the DIFFERENCE between the two that matters.

Here is another source, from the NOAA:

The Jet Stream

"In addition, with the three-cell circulations mentioned previously, the regions around 30° N/S and 50°-60° N/S are areas where temperature changes are the greatest. As the difference in temperature increases between the two locations the strength of the wind increases. Therefore, the regions around 30° N/S and 50°-60° N/S are also regions where the wind, in the upper atmosphere, is the strongest."

Here it is again, "As the difference in temperature increases between the two locations the strength of the wind increases"

You can quote something that is incomplete all you want, it does not make it complete.
Sure convection is movement from heat rising above cold, but the more heat, the more energy, and the faster and further the movement.
Just take a blown up balloon and put it in the freezer and you will see what I mean.
When you get it cold, there is less energy and it shrinks because there is less pressure inside.
Does not matter what the temperature difference is in that case.
It is just a question of total energy.

You really are going to fight the NOAA on this who specifically states. "In addition, with the three-cell circulations mentioned previously, the regions around 30° N/S and 50°-60° N/S are areas where temperature changes are the greatest. As the difference in temperature increases between the two locations the strength of the wind increases. Therefore, the regions around 30° N/S and 50°-60° N/S are also regions where the wind, in the upper atmosphere, is the strongest"

bolding mine

As the difference in temperature increases between the two locations the strength of the wind increases

As clearly pointed out that it is the DIFFERENCE between TWO locations determines the strength of the wind The greater the difference, greater is the wind strength

You ignored the other source as well saying the same thing that the NOAA stated:

"What causes the jet stream?

A jet stream forms high in the upper troposphere between two air masses of very different temperature. The greater the temperature difference between the air masses, the faster the wind blows in the jet stream."

Between two air masses, the greater the temperature difference, greater the wind speed.

Stop making a fool of yourself.​

Wrong.
You are misunderstanding what they are leaving out as being assumed.
And clearly climate change is a very slow process, normally having no noticeable effect on weather.
It is only after decades that the slow progression of climate changes has noticeable effect on weather.
The reality is that with a colder climate, weather is less energized.
With a hotter climate, weather is more energized.

That should be obvious because if both the high and low pairs were near absolute zero, the media would be solid or liquid, not gaseous, and there would be very little convection, if any at all. So then clearly convection, the basis for jet streams, is TOTALLY and completely dependent upon heat for energy. If you chill both the high and low temperature zones in the convection pair, you get less movement. If you heat both, you get more movement.

When NOAA does not bother mentioning the obvious, that does not mean it is not true. They just assume the reader knows something about the subject already.

 

[Rigby5]

Rigby5 writes,

"The chart shows the average, which means higher than freezing temperatures were required to offset the cold temperatures."

Yes it was above the average for the date, but still well below freezing.

It get above freezing in mid June to Mid August, and just barely.

Wrong, the current average is above the historic average, but individual reading were well ABOVE the average for the current whole day as well.

That is what I was saying:

"Yes it was above the average for the date, but still well below freezing."

But still well below freezing the whole time, which the article doesn't mention as it is a loaded propaganda piece. They still fooled you with that chart because they used misleading statements to con you into thinking it was above freezing that day. The made the average white line very thick and bright to make it appear that was the freezing line, when it was only the average temperature line by date based on the 1958-2002 average baseline.

No, clearly ALL the articles say it is getting way above freezing this winter, in the Arctic.
Not well below freezing the whole time.
What fooled YOU is that the chart is the average of the day time above freezing temperatures, and the night time below freezing temperatures.

The only point of the graph is to show that the daily average is much higher than it used to be.
That is a single point for the whole day. That does not at all break out the mid day highs from the mid night lows.

I have already showed that the chart never showed temperature getting above freezing. It was above average for the date, yes but NOT above freezing.

Here is the chart once again, hopefully you wear glasses this time:

View attachment 187642

On this chart for late February it was about MINUS 9 C (-9C) That is well below freezing.

The dashed line is the 0C line near the top of the chart. It never reached that line.

Don't continue to be a moron.

Wrong.
The site clearly says there is over a 30 degree difference between day and night.
So when they compare this years daily averages with last years daily averages, you have to add about 15 degrees to get the daily high, and subtract about 15 degrees to get the daily night low.
And the daily average in the graph shows about -8 degrees. That means the daily high was about +7 degrees, and the night low was -23 degrees for that day.

What you seem to still fail to understand is that the red line in the chart is not hourly data but the daily averages of all the individual hourly temperatures recorded during the day. When they said they has 61 hours of above freezing temperatures, those were hourly readings, not shown on the graph you are incorrectly using.

 

[Rigby5]

Rigby5 writes,

"The chart shows the average, which means higher than freezing temperatures were required to offset the cold temperatures."

Yes it was above the average for the date, but still well below freezing.

It get above freezing in mid June to Mid August, and just barely.

Wrong, the current average is above the historic average, but individual reading were well ABOVE the average for the current whole day as well.

That is what I was saying:

"Yes it was above the average for the date, but still well below freezing."

But still well below freezing the whole time, which the article doesn't mention as it is a loaded propaganda piece. They still fooled you with that chart because they used misleading statements to con you into thinking it was above freezing that day. The made the average white line very thick and bright to make it appear that was the freezing line, when it was only the average temperature line by date based on the 1958-2002 average baseline.

No, clearly ALL the articles say it is getting way above freezing this winter, in the Arctic.
Not well below freezing the whole time.
What fooled YOU is that the chart is the average of the day time above freezing temperatures, and the night time below freezing temperatures.

The only point of the graph is to show that the daily average is much higher than it used to be.
That is a single point for the whole day. That does not at all break out the mid day highs from the mid night lows.

The same article showed a chart that doesn't match the above freezing claim in the article.

It appears you are another one who has been successfully brainwashed.

Good night.

Of course that chart does not show daytime highs because it only shows daily averages. But that is not what that chart is for. It is to show comparisons with last year. And it clearly shows this year was about 20 degrees hotter than last year.

 

[Rigby5]

My god, you need help...Jesus...

You attack Evolution
You attack the green house effect

You make shit up that doesn't even make sense and fight to defund the research but have the nerve to point fingers at the left? lol

You're anti-science and anti-civilization..Truly a backwards piece of shit on the level of the isis.

Speaking of the environment, I asked you how the massive increase in population caused by immigration would effect the environment in this country.

I must of missed your answer, can you repeat it please?

The environment is global, not local, so when you allow immigrants access to cleaner means of production and consumption, the whole world is cleaner as a result.

The smog in China, does not mean that the air in the Rust Belt has not improved.

We do live in a global environment in some ways.


But in other ways, various local and/or regional environments has a somewhat separate existence and can do well, even while other areas are doing poorly.


If we had a population that had been declining since the end of the Baby Boom, our environment(s) in this country would be better, and the impact of further decline would be additional benefit.


We are talking about at least tens of millions. Cities that have had massive growth, would have been steady. Cities that have has slow population growth, would be breaking up into TOWNS, many towns would just be gone, replaced by prairie or forest.

How many fewer cars would be on the road? HOw much less sewage and garbage would be being produced?

Negatives like pollution are not local.
Positives like fossil fuels, clean air and water, timber, etc., are not local.
They are fungible, and a crop failure in China increases the price of that food in the US as well.

So clearly the only want to make the world cleaner, reduce population growth, improve the quality of life, etc., is for the best, cleanest, and most satisfying methods be applied to everyone.
Just trying to isolate a small pocket of the world exclusively for US citizens, is not going to work.

If nothing else, a disparity in quality of life is what causes wars. And the largest population generally wins wars. So you want to work on the quality of life of everyone, or else you are just increasing the pressure for more war. And war serves no one, as it only destroys. The way to reduce all populations is to increase the quality of life for everyone.

 

[Rigby5]

WE don't design society around a small minority of people.

-------

Agreed. However, ALL law-abiding citizens should be protected in their basic civil rights & individual liberties.

protected from what?

How about crime, corruption, abuse of inherent rights, imperialism, colonialism, corporate exploitation, etc.

 

[jc456]

WE don't design society around a small minority of people.

-------

Agreed. However, ALL law-abiding citizens should be protected in their basic civil rights & individual liberties.

protected from what?

How about crime, corruption, abuse of inherent rights, imperialism, colonialism, corporate exploitation, etc.

how can they protect someone from crime? explain. I'll take your list one at a time as to not confuse you.

 

[Rigby5]

WE don't design society around a small minority of people.

-------

Agreed. However, ALL law-abiding citizens should be protected in their basic civil rights & individual liberties.

protected from what?

How about crime, corruption, abuse of inherent rights, imperialism, colonialism, corporate exploitation, etc.

how can they protect someone from crime? explain. I'll take your list one at a time as to not confuse you.

Crime is caused by injustice, poverty, lack of capital, lack of opportunity, lack of education, lack of health care, lack of housing, inequity, corruption, etc.
If you protect individual rights and treat all people fairly and equitably, you have little or no crime.

The old Calvinist view were crime is an inherent character flaw was just an excuse invented by corrupt people, to justify their continued corrupt abuse.

 

[jc456]

WE don't design society around a small minority of people.

-------

Agreed. However, ALL law-abiding citizens should be protected in their basic civil rights & individual liberties.

protected from what?

How about crime, corruption, abuse of inherent rights, imperialism, colonialism, corporate exploitation, etc.

how can they protect someone from crime? explain. I'll take your list one at a time as to not confuse you.

Crime is caused by injustice, poverty, lack of capital, lack of opportunity, lack of education, lack of health care, lack of housing, inequity, corruption, etc.
If you protect individual rights and treat all people fairly and equitably, you have little or no crime.

The old Calvinist view were crime is an inherent character flaw was just an excuse invented by corrupt people, to justify their continued corrupt abuse.

ain't no cop out if front of my house 24 by 7 protecting me. no cop in my car riding with me, going to the store, the bank the concert, no where. you got one? haaahhahahahaaha you have no idea what you post.

 

[RealDave]

My god, you need help...Jesus...

You attack Evolution
You attack the green house effect

You make shit up that doesn't even make sense and fight to defund the research but have the nerve to point fingers at the left? lol

You're anti-science and anti-civilization..Truly a backwards piece of shit on the level of the isis.

Speaking of the environment, I asked you how the massive increase in population caused by immigration would effect the environment in this country.

I must of missed your answer, can you repeat it please?

Worse are the GOP wanting to abolish the EPA because living in filth is cheap so that makes it good for corporations.

Says the lefty that supports massive population growth with all it's impact on the environment, while claiming to give a damn about the environment.

The left supports population growth? Out of whose ass did you pull that one.

I asked a question. I have not got any real answers, so I had to infer from the "responses" I got.


The left supports the high level of legal immigration we get, and oppose fighting against illegal immigration and deporting illegals.


Immigration is what is driving our population growth now. Without it, we would be experiencing population DECREASE, with all the obvious environmental benefits.



So, you want to address that? None of your fellow lefties have.

Once again you are lying. We oppose the STUPID FUCKING WALL>

But hey, being the asshole you are, claim it means we do not fight illegal immigration.
'
My God, what a total ass you are.

As for legal immigration You & your orange POS hero want only white, rich immigration. Emphasis on the "White", We don't think race should be an issue. So fuck you once gain.

 

[RealDave]

My god, you need help...Jesus...

You attack Evolution
You attack the green house effect

You make shit up that doesn't even make sense and fight to defund the research but have the nerve to point fingers at the left? lol

You're anti-science and anti-civilization..Truly a backwards piece of shit on the level of the isis.

Speaking of the environment, I asked you how the massive increase in population caused by immigration would effect the environment in this country.

I must of missed your answer, can you repeat it please?

Worse are the GOP wanting to abolish the EPA because living in filth is cheap so that makes it good for corporations.

The EPA was created by the GOP. fk why can't you all get facts straight.

Nixon signed a bill passed by the Democrat led legislature.

Back then, Republicans loved this country & gave a shit about the environment.

That ended with Karl Rove.

Republicans today only love corporations & they fuck over every thing & every one else including the country.

So he told the democratic congress he wanted the epa and they passed a bill that he signed. It was his idea.

And I'm unaware of any GOPer asking congress to end it.

Yea because no one ever discussed the environment before Nixon. I get it.

 

[RealDave]

Funniest thread on this board. Trump hired people to the EPA that don’t believe in science.
Pruitt actually has fired most of the scientists at the EPA and replaced them with Big Oil and Coal CEO’s.

now that's funny

Nope. It is the fucking truth. My God you Trumpettes are an ignorant, uninformed, uneducated bunch of dupes.

 

[RealDave]

Rigby5 writes,

"Jet streams are caused and powered by heat. So more global warming means stronger and more frequent jet streams"

This is a hilarious statement since it is the temperature DIFFERENCE between two air masses what drives Jet Streams.

From Weather Questions,

"What causes the jet stream?
A jet stream forms high in the upper troposphere between two air masses of very different temperature. The greater the temperature difference between the air masses, the faster the wind blows in the jet stream."

Jet Streams were powerful during global Cooling of the 1960's and 70's too.

No, if you have two areas of atmosphere of -250 degrees and -200 degrees, you will not have as energetic of a reaction as you would between areas of +200 degrees and +250 degree.
The colder a gas is, the less volume, so then there is less pressure causing movement.
Its called Charles' Law.

So, where is this proof thsat there is no global warming just changes in the jet stream?

Oh my gawad, what a stupid statement since it doesn't matter what the temperature is, it is the DIFFERENCE between the two that matters.

Here is another source, from the NOAA:

The Jet Stream

"In addition, with the three-cell circulations mentioned previously, the regions around 30° N/S and 50°-60° N/S are areas where temperature changes are the greatest. As the difference in temperature increases between the two locations the strength of the wind increases. Therefore, the regions around 30° N/S and 50°-60° N/S are also regions where the wind, in the upper atmosphere, is the strongest."

Here it is again, "As the difference in temperature increases between the two locations the strength of the wind increases"

You can quote something that is incomplete all you want, it does not make it complete.
Sure convection is movement from heat rising above cold, but the more heat, the more energy, and the faster and further the movement.
Just take a blown up balloon and put it in the freezer and you will see what I mean.
When you get it cold, there is less energy and it shrinks because there is less pressure inside.
Does not matter what the temperature difference is in that case.
It is just a question of total energy.

You really are going to fight the NOAA on this who specifically states. "In addition, with the three-cell circulations mentioned previously, the regions around 30° N/S and 50°-60° N/S are areas where temperature changes are the greatest. As the difference in temperature increases between the two locations the strength of the wind increases. Therefore, the regions around 30° N/S and 50°-60° N/S are also regions where the wind, in the upper atmosphere, is the strongest"

bolding mine

As the difference in temperature increases between the two locations the strength of the wind increases

As clearly pointed out that it is the DIFFERENCE between TWO locations determines the strength of the wind The greater the difference, greater is the wind strength

You ignored the other source as well saying the same thing that the NOAA stated:

"What causes the jet stream?

A jet stream forms high in the upper troposphere between two air masses of very different temperature. The greater the temperature difference between the air masses, the faster the wind blows in the jet stream."

Between two air masses, the greater the temperature difference, greater the wind speed.

Stop making a fool of yourself.​

 

[Rigby5]

-------

Agreed. However, ALL law-abiding citizens should be protected in their basic civil rights & individual liberties.

protected from what?

How about crime, corruption, abuse of inherent rights, imperialism, colonialism, corporate exploitation, etc.

how can they protect someone from crime? explain. I'll take your list one at a time as to not confuse you.

Crime is caused by injustice, poverty, lack of capital, lack of opportunity, lack of education, lack of health care, lack of housing, inequity, corruption, etc.
If you protect individual rights and treat all people fairly and equitably, you have little or no crime.

The old Calvinist view were crime is an inherent character flaw was just an excuse invented by corrupt people, to justify their continued corrupt abuse.

ain't no cop out if front of my house 24 by 7 protecting me. no cop in my car riding with me, going to the store, the bank the concert, no where. you got one? haaahhahahahaaha you have no idea what you post.

The most important way to protect rights is the 2nd Amendment.

 

[bripat9643]

WE don't design society around a small minority of people.

-------

Agreed. However, ALL law-abiding citizens should be protected in their basic civil rights & individual liberties.

protected from what?

How about crime, corruption, abuse of inherent rights, imperialism, colonialism, corporate exploitation, etc.

how can they protect someone from crime? explain. I'll take your list one at a time as to not confuse you.

Crime is caused by injustice, poverty, lack of capital, lack of opportunity, lack of education, lack of health care, lack of housing, inequity, corruption, etc.
If you protect individual rights and treat all people fairly and equitably, you have little or no crime.

The old Calvinist view were crime is an inherent character flaw was just an excuse invented by corrupt people, to justify their continued corrupt abuse.

The empirical evidence shows that welfare and illigitimacy are the cause of most crime.

 

[Rigby5]

Rigby5 writes,

"Jet streams are caused and powered by heat. So more global warming means stronger and more frequent jet streams"

This is a hilarious statement since it is the temperature DIFFERENCE between two air masses what drives Jet Streams.

From Weather Questions,

"What causes the jet stream?
A jet stream forms high in the upper troposphere between two air masses of very different temperature. The greater the temperature difference between the air masses, the faster the wind blows in the jet stream."

Jet Streams were powerful during global Cooling of the 1960's and 70's too.

No, if you have two areas of atmosphere of -250 degrees and -200 degrees, you will not have as energetic of a reaction as you would between areas of +200 degrees and +250 degree.
The colder a gas is, the less volume, so then there is less pressure causing movement.
Its called Charles' Law.

So, where is this proof thsat there is no global warming just changes in the jet stream?

Oh my gawad, what a stupid statement since it doesn't matter what the temperature is, it is the DIFFERENCE between the two that matters.

Here is another source, from the NOAA:

The Jet Stream

"In addition, with the three-cell circulations mentioned previously, the regions around 30° N/S and 50°-60° N/S are areas where temperature changes are the greatest. As the difference in temperature increases between the two locations the strength of the wind increases. Therefore, the regions around 30° N/S and 50°-60° N/S are also regions where the wind, in the upper atmosphere, is the strongest."

Here it is again, "As the difference in temperature increases between the two locations the strength of the wind increases"

You can quote something that is incomplete all you want, it does not make it complete.
Sure convection is movement from heat rising above cold, but the more heat, the more energy, and the faster and further the movement.
Just take a blown up balloon and put it in the freezer and you will see what I mean.
When you get it cold, there is less energy and it shrinks because there is less pressure inside.
Does not matter what the temperature difference is in that case.
It is just a question of total energy.

You really are going to fight the NOAA on this who specifically states. "In addition, with the three-cell circulations mentioned previously, the regions around 30° N/S and 50°-60° N/S are areas where temperature changes are the greatest. As the difference in temperature increases between the two locations the strength of the wind increases. Therefore, the regions around 30° N/S and 50°-60° N/S are also regions where the wind, in the upper atmosphere, is the strongest"

bolding mine

As the difference in temperature increases between the two locations the strength of the wind increases

As clearly pointed out that it is the DIFFERENCE between TWO locations determines the strength of the wind The greater the difference, greater is the wind strength

You ignored the other source as well saying the same thing that the NOAA stated:

"What causes the jet stream?

A jet stream forms high in the upper troposphere between two air masses of very different temperature. The greater the temperature difference between the air masses, the faster the wind blows in the jet stream."

Between two air masses, the greater the temperature difference, greater the wind speed.

Stop making a fool of yourself.​

Again, that is assuming all else remains equal.
Clearly you will have much stronger convention between 2 areas that range from +200 to +250 degrees than you will between 2 areas that range from -200 to -250 degrees.
Obviously in the -200 to -250 degree range, you will only have solids or liquids, so very little convection energy.

 

[Rigby5]

-------

Agreed. However, ALL law-abiding citizens should be protected in their basic civil rights & individual liberties.

protected from what?

How about crime, corruption, abuse of inherent rights, imperialism, colonialism, corporate exploitation, etc.

how can they protect someone from crime? explain. I'll take your list one at a time as to not confuse you.

Crime is caused by injustice, poverty, lack of capital, lack of opportunity, lack of education, lack of health care, lack of housing, inequity, corruption, etc.
If you protect individual rights and treat all people fairly and equitably, you have little or no crime.

The old Calvinist view were crime is an inherent character flaw was just an excuse invented by corrupt people, to justify their continued corrupt abuse.

The empirical evidence shows that welfare and illigitimacy are the cause of most crime.

That is totally wrong.
Not only is there no evidence that welfare causes crime, but there is evidence that it greatly reduces crime.
And illegitimacy can't be a cause of anything, because it is an effect of something else.

 

[jc456]

protected from what?

How about crime, corruption, abuse of inherent rights, imperialism, colonialism, corporate exploitation, etc.

how can they protect someone from crime? explain. I'll take your list one at a time as to not confuse you.

Crime is caused by injustice, poverty, lack of capital, lack of opportunity, lack of education, lack of health care, lack of housing, inequity, corruption, etc.
If you protect individual rights and treat all people fairly and equitably, you have little or no crime.

The old Calvinist view were crime is an inherent character flaw was just an excuse invented by corrupt people, to justify their continued corrupt abuse.

The empirical evidence shows that welfare and illigitimacy are the cause of most crime.

That is totally wrong.
Not only is there no evidence that welfare causes crime, but there is evidence that it greatly reduces crime.
And illegitimacy can't be a cause of anything, because it is an effect of something else.

more stupid from the left.

 

[bripat9643]

protected from what?

How about crime, corruption, abuse of inherent rights, imperialism, colonialism, corporate exploitation, etc.

how can they protect someone from crime? explain. I'll take your list one at a time as to not confuse you.

Crime is caused by injustice, poverty, lack of capital, lack of opportunity, lack of education, lack of health care, lack of housing, inequity, corruption, etc.
If you protect individual rights and treat all people fairly and equitably, you have little or no crime.

The old Calvinist view were crime is an inherent character flaw was just an excuse invented by corrupt people, to justify their continued corrupt abuse.

The empirical evidence shows that welfare and illigitimacy are the cause of most crime.

That is totally wrong.
Not only is there no evidence that welfare causes crime, but there is evidence that it greatly reduces crime.
And illegitimacy can't be a cause of anything, because it is an effect of something else.

70% of the convicts in our penetentiaries are the children of single mothers.

That's conclusive evidence.

Illegitimacy is the effect of welfare.

 

[Correll]

My god, you need help...Jesus...

You attack Evolution
You attack the green house effect

You make shit up that doesn't even make sense and fight to defund the research but have the nerve to point fingers at the left? lol

You're anti-science and anti-civilization..Truly a backwards piece of shit on the level of the isis.

Speaking of the environment, I asked you how the massive increase in population caused by immigration would effect the environment in this country.

I must of missed your answer, can you repeat it please?

The environment is global, not local, so when you allow immigrants access to cleaner means of production and consumption, the whole world is cleaner as a result.

The smog in China, does not mean that the air in the Rust Belt has not improved.

We do live in a global environment in some ways.


But in other ways, various local and/or regional environments has a somewhat separate existence and can do well, even while other areas are doing poorly.


If we had a population that had been declining since the end of the Baby Boom, our environment(s) in this country would be better, and the impact of further decline would be additional benefit.


We are talking about at least tens of millions. Cities that have had massive growth, would have been steady. Cities that have has slow population growth, would be breaking up into TOWNS, many towns would just be gone, replaced by prairie or forest.

How many fewer cars would be on the road? HOw much less sewage and garbage would be being produced?

Negatives like pollution are not local.
Positives like fossil fuels, clean air and water, timber, etc., are not local.
They are fungible, and a crop failure in China increases the price of that food in the US as well.

So clearly the only want to make the world cleaner, reduce population growth, improve the quality of life, etc., is for the best, cleanest, and most satisfying methods be applied to everyone.
Just trying to isolate a small pocket of the world exclusively for US citizens, is not going to work.

If nothing else, a disparity in quality of life is what causes wars. And the largest population generally wins wars. So you want to work on the quality of life of everyone, or else you are just increasing the pressure for more war. And war serves no one, as it only destroys. The way to reduce all populations is to increase the quality of life for everyone.

Most pollution is local. The poor air quality in China, has no direct impact on my air quality here in the states.

Clean water is certainly local. I have clean water here. That means nothing to the people in China.


America is not a small pocket of the world. And fixing the environment here, will, and indeed, HAS worked.


Disparity of life is not what causes wars.


I want to increase the quality of life for AMERICANS. If some assholes in the world consider that a reason for war, that is on them.

 

[Correll]

Speaking of the environment, I asked you how the massive increase in population caused by immigration would effect the environment in this country.

I must of missed your answer, can you repeat it please?

Worse are the GOP wanting to abolish the EPA because living in filth is cheap so that makes it good for corporations.

Says the lefty that supports massive population growth with all it's impact on the environment, while claiming to give a damn about the environment.

The left supports population growth? Out of whose ass did you pull that one.

I asked a question. I have not got any real answers, so I had to infer from the "responses" I got.


The left supports the high level of legal immigration we get, and oppose fighting against illegal immigration and deporting illegals.


Immigration is what is driving our population growth now. Without it, we would be experiencing population DECREASE, with all the obvious environmental benefits.



So, you want to address that? None of your fellow lefties have.

Once again you are lying. We oppose the STUPID FUCKING WALL>

But hey, being the asshole you are, claim it means we do not fight illegal immigration.
'
My God, what a total ass you are.

As for legal immigration You & your orange POS hero want only white, rich immigration. Emphasis on the "White", We don't think race should be an issue. So fuck you once gain.

Both parties have been completely weak on fighting illegal immigration. Trump is the only POSSIBLE exception and the results on that are not yet in.

Your racial spin aside, you tacitly admit that you want high legal immigration too.


So, my point stands.



The left supports the high level of legal immigration we get, and oppose fighting against illegal immigration and deporting illegals.


Immigration is what is driving our population growth now. Without it, we would be experiencing population DECREASE, with all the obvious environmental benefits.