Lesser and lesser and lesser and lesser.
Iran to sign deal
- Thread starter Cellblock2429
- Start date
Lesser and lesser and lesser and lesser.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Uh, guy, when Americans realize how badly Trump has caved to the Mullahs, no one is going to be throwing him a parade
The economy isn't going to "surge". Job growth is limp. Tariffs are killing business.
KissMy
Free Breast Exam
The US "Strategic Petroleum Reserve" hits critical operating level by July 26. It will no longer be able to keep production up. Biden never screwed US like Trump has again. The SPR is now at a 43 year low.
Are there no benefits to Trump's tariffs? Democrats say no, just as they claimed there were no downsides to Biden's inflation.
Ttump is bringing world peace at a temporary cost while Biden and Obama funded worldwide terrorism at a tremendous cost.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
If you are too stupid to realize why tariffs are a bad idea, I'm not sure what can be done for you
Like
Dislike
Tariffs can be both good and bad, depending on their implementation and context; they protect domestic industries but can also lead to higher prices and trade tensions.
Pros of Tariffs
- Protection of Domestic Industries: Tariffs can shield emerging or struggling domestic industries from foreign competition by making imported goods more expensive. This allows local businesses to grow and maintain jobs
supplychaintoday.com+1.
- Job Creation: By protecting local industries, tariffs can help preserve existing jobs and potentially create new ones in sectors that benefit from reduced foreign competition
- Revenue Generation: Tariffs serve as a source of income for governments, which can be used to fund public services and infrastructure projects
Forbes+1.
- Encouragement of Local Manufacturing: Tariffs can incentivize companies to produce goods domestically, fostering local manufacturing capabilities and technological investment
barrazacarlos.com+1.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
If you need AI to do your thinking for you, you don't need to be here.
Some people quote Wikipedia which is clearly left-leaning. Why not quote right-leaning publications? Do democrats value personal leftist opinions over AI? If so, why do you think that is?
On a side but related note, now that the world scientific body has admitted they had to change their position on global warming due to reliance on bad data or interpretations, are the so-called 99% of former scientists who formally agreed with the erroneous position now admitting they were wrong or duped as well?
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Um, I think you have no idea what you are talking about.
Do scientists agree on climate change? - NASA Science
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the
science.nasa.gov
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.
Reality has a leftist bias. Actually, it's harder to quote from Wiki now because when you copy text, they include all these URLs for their sources.
The problem with AI is that AI tracks your preferences in news and internet content and shapes its answers to what you want to hear.
Um, I think you have no idea what you are talking about.
Do scientists agree on climate change? - NASA Science
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.
Reality has a leftist bias. Actually, it's harder to quote from Wiki now because when you copy text, they include all these URLs for their sources.
The problem with AI is that AI tracks your preferences in news and internet content and shapes its answers to what you want to hear.
Why Scientists Retired the Dire Climate Scenario Used for Over a Decade
While global warming is still a threat, the decision to back away from a worst-case outlook raises questions about whether some risks have been overstated.
Why Scientists Retired the Dire Climate Scenario Used for Over a Decade
++++++++++++++++++++++++++Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues
In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canada’s, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy.
Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The 97% consensus on global warming
<p>That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.</p>
skepticalscience.com
Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.
++++++++++++++++++
The 99% claim is totally derived from positions expressed in secular peer-reviewed journals that reject nearly all data and evidence that contradicts secular narratives and claims, so Duh. If the scientific community refuses to take contradictory evidence seriously the community comes up with biased positions that are not as much factual science as they are biased science fiction narrative.
Hafar1014
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2010
- 17,147
- 14,810
- 2,278
40% of all research is invalidWhy Scientists Retired the Dire Climate Scenario Used for Over a Decade
While global warming is still a threat, the decision to back away from a worst-case outlook raises questions about whether some risks have been overstated.www.nytimes.com
Why Scientists Retired the Dire Climate Scenario Used for Over a Decade
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
May 01, 2015 | APPEARED IN THE FINANCIAL POSTPutting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues
In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canada’s, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy.www.fraserinstitute.org
Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The 97% consensus on global warming
<p>That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.</p>skepticalscience.com
Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.
++++++++++++++++++
The 99% claim is totally derived from positions expressed in secular peer-reviewed journals that reject nearly all data and evidence that contradicts secular narratives and claims, so Duh. If the scientific community refuses to take contradictory evidence seriously the community comes up with biased positions that are not as much factual science as they are biased science fiction narrative.
View attachment 1270832
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Wow, so that they aren't predicting the worst case means they stopped beleiving in the theory altogether?Why Scientists Retired the Dire Climate Scenario Used for Over a Decade
While global warming is still a threat, the decision to back away from a worst-case outlook raises questions about whether some risks have been overstated.Why Scientists Retired the Dire Climate Scenario Used for Over a Decade
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
May 01, 2015 | APPEARED IN THE FINANCIAL POSTPutting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues
In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canada’s, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy.
Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The 97% consensus on global warming
<p>That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.</p>skepticalscience.com
Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.
++++++++++++++++++
The 99% claim is totally derived from positions expressed in secular peer-reviewed journals that reject nearly all data and evidence that contradicts secular narratives and claims, so Duh. If the scientific community refuses to take contradictory evidence seriously the community comes up with biased positions that are not as much factual science as they are biased science fiction narrative.
View attachment 1270832
View attachment 1270837
Another wingnut who doesn't understand how science works.
Are many of them admitting they were just as wrong as the international group that disavowed their earlier positions?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Voters Toss 4 Politicians From City Office, but They Just Vote Themselves Back In- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 0
-
-
How has Trump done on what he promised the US and the world the day he started bombing Iran- Started by ElmerMudd
- Replies: 5
-
-
