Probably multiple. However, let’s not stray. In this case, Russia really did invade a foreign country. A NATO country will be next. Fortunately, those in charge today believe in a strong NATO, unlike someone else whom cannot be named.
7 Likes
On a related tangent:
Snip:
But in reality, she is Sarah Bils, a 37-year-old divorcee from New Jersey and a US Navy veteran who served as an aviation electronics technician at Whitby Island in Washington State.
…
She added she was one of 15 people involved in running the network and declined to name the others.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Donbas Devushka Telegram account played a key role in the dissemination of intelligence documents allegedly leaked by Airman First Class Jack Teixeira, by reposting them onto an array of obscure online chat rooms. But Ms Bils denied being personally involved.
4 Likes
Of course you can question them! What a statement.
4 Likes
Age is not a factor. I am thinking of a certain then 74 year old, with an expansive attitude of entitlement and importance, who scampered off with a pile of classified docs.
Everyone who knows who I am talking about need only say “i do”.
Steve
1 Like
C’mon now. You know what he means. There’s questioning and debating and truth seeking and then there’s questioning and being immediately thumped and demeaned by the STFU’ers (I hope this common internet abbreviation is permitted) who are against such behavior because it doesn’t serve their “cause.” Unless I am misreading the tenor of your response. Resume normal programming.
4 Likes
Tell it to the Climate Alarmists!!!
If you do they call you names like “Denier!” If they could they would burn you at the stake. 
The Captain
7 Likes
Spot on! Thanks.
The Captain
3 Likes
Of course we wouldn’t. That would be bad for the environment.
However, we would tie you down and use you as target practice for the Jewish space lasers.
5 Likes
When even the oil companies, for decades, have known that the burning of fossil fuels is going to have severe negative consequences for the climate, but has been lying to all of us all that time, view like mine are alarmist for a reason. Captain, wake up. The Earth isn’t flat.
3 Likes
Touche!
See what I mean? One can’ talk sense with a Climate Alarmist! Now not only “Denier” but “Flat Earther.” They love to insult!
The Captain
3 Likes
Wrong. They surmised that it might someday have an effect. Just as I did when I was a boy. Yes, I saw the smoke stacks and drove over the bridges between Philly and Jersey with all that traffic. Just as Dr Frank Baxter put forth in “Unchained Goddess” c 1958. But nobody knew anything 'cause it ain’t that simple.
And BTW, if a handful of oil guys seemed to have this secret and irrefutable “knowledge” nearly a lifetime ago where were all the other settled scientists? They were extolling the virtues of modern science and how it makes life so much easier, more enjoyable, and LONGER! That’s where they were. Know what that requires? Energy. Everything including rubbing two sticks together requires energy. Not one had an inkling that that Studebaker they drove to the beach was killing everybody. But the energy that made it and let them take the kids to the beach was great! Where were the settled scientists? And how did the dreaded lying-assed oil companies become Gospel on this? Because they now serve some people’s purpose. And of course the truth, as always, is not sufficiently self serving, ergo the kernal of truth must be misrepresented to, ya know, make it sound better.
9 Likes
You’re more than welcome to question human caused global warming. Just bring facts and data. Same for masking to reduce the spread of disease.
At the moment, something like 90+% of climate scientists agree that the evidence for human caused global warming is convincing. Doesn’t mean it’s settled. Doesn’t mean there can’t be new info. But it does mean that is the current state of the science.
What to do about it is a different question.
It’s silly to compare the big bang theory and human caused global warming on this “what to do” question. We can’t do anything about the big bang. Either it happened in the past or it didn’t. We don’t need to change our behavior based on the big bang theory. Human caused global warming is a different issue.
Because climate scientists have a high degree of confidence that human caused global warming is real, we can decide what we want to do about it. We can choose to change our behavior regarding the activities that contribute to global warming. Science can help us understand the likely results of various changes in human behavior.
Again, wearing masks to alter the spread of disease is very similar. The difference is that the science isn’t quite as well studied as the climate issue. There is room for more scientific studies. And because of the urgency of the issue over the past three years, there has been a fair amount of really terrible science that has gained publicity in the various forms of media.
Of course, answering the “what to do” question has a political component to it. But politics that rejects the current state of science is bad politics.
So yes, you are perfectly free to question science. But bring data. You are also free to question the decision of what to do about these science questions. What is not a reasonable choice is to reject the science because you don’t like the political decisions which result from the science.
–Peter
13 Likes
Well Captain you can’t have a discussion by calling them Climate Alarmists maybe that is why they call you Denier. Instead of calling each other names maybe proving your point would be better. I have seen both sides of the argument and it’s to complicated for me to have a correct opinion. But I just tell myself would I rather have smog or clean air. Would I rather have polluted water or clean water. That seems pretty easy to understand and everyone can come to an agreement.
Andy
8 Likes
The Bay of Tonkin Incident? That wasn’t according to a sonar man on one of those ships during the “incident”. When he got home stateside he was informed. Nothing had actually happened regardless of being “informed”.
He never would have access in his entire life time to any such documents…generally.
The guys I know are high ranking in the military. You want to hear them discuss making even the mistake of carrying a fold of such materials to the parking lot. It is life and death to them…there own lives. You do not play ever with classified documents if you know the rules of the US military. Never.
The joker you are discussing is not military. He may be up on charges as well.
Note top people do have access at home in their offices to such documents. Note the other three unmentionables had fewer than a dozen pages. Their responsibilities demand that much.
1 Like
On smog and pollution we certainly agree but CO2 causes neither, it’s plant food!
The Captain
2 Likes
LOL ok but you can’t say that car exhaust does not create smog right?
** Ground level ozone is created when sunlight reacts with certain chemicals that come from sources of burning fossil fuels, such as factories or car exhaust.
When particles in the air combine with ozone, they create smog. Smog is a type of air pollution that looks like smoky fog and makes it difficult to see.**
What Causes Air Pollution? | NASA Climate Kids.
Andy
Well, sort of. We didn’t know, for sure, much of anything about CO2. But we did know, for sure about smog. And that is what everyone was focused on back then. Clean air rules, cleaner burning of oil, less emissions and a bit of higher mpg. But higher mpg was more about lower gasoline costs.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/history
On August 30, 1967, California’s elected leaders came together to unify statewide efforts to address severe air pollution. Governor Ronald Reagan approved the Mulford-Carrell Air Resources Act to create the State Air Resources Board, committing California to a unified, statewide approach to aggressively address the serious issue of air pollution in the state.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) was a merger of the Bureau of Air Sanitation and the California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board. That same year, the Federal Air Quality Act of 1967 was enacted, giving California the ability to set its own more stringent air quality rules due to California’s unique geography, weather and expanding number of people and vehicles.
In fact, the history of California’s pioneering efforts to reduce air pollutants dates back even further. The first recognized episodes of ‘smog’ occurred in Los Angeles in the summer of 1943.
Mike
5 Likes
The following applies here only if your post is not an attempt to make smoke, smog and the other known hazards of burning sound like the same things as “anthropogenic global warming.”
Well, we’re in bed together on this one and I would absolutely not throw you of of bed for eating crackers and leaving crumbs. But the … what should I call it… pesty physiological effects of burning things was discovered at the speed of smoke as soon as Og rubbed his two sticks together and said I think we’re on to something! All but the truly brainless will argue here. But that’s a far cry from global warming discussion/non-discussion and how to address the subject.
2 Likes
It’s the same discussion but taken at a different viewpoint. It seems global warming is to toxic or hard to understand because everyone has cemented their viewpoint and climbed into tribes. But nobody wants to get sick from bad air or water. If you take away the argument then maybe we can reach a consensus. We all should be able to resolve that issue and when we clean up the air and water all the other problems might be resolved or at least a smaller issue we can then tackle.
Andy
2 Likes