Climate change or return to climate norm?

Vice President Kamala Harris used the white ring around Lake Mead as a visual for her claim that the federal government must spend trillions of dollars to combat climate change.

In reporting on the Monday event, the morning newspaper flatly stated, “Over the past 20 years, Lake Mead’s water level has declined by about 150 feet amid climate change-fueled drought conditions.”

Or might the current conditions be a return to normal after about of century of wetter than normal?

According to a 2006 University of Arizona study of 508 years of tree ring data, the past 100-year period was wetter than the average for the past five centuries.

Connie A. Woodhouse, who led the research team, said, “The updated reconstruction for Lee’s Ferry (on the Colorado River) indicates that as many as eight droughts similar in severity, in terms of average flow, to the 5-year 2000-2004 drought have occurred since 1500.” Woodhouse was at the time a scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center Paleoclimatogy Branch in Boulder, Colo.

The newspaper quoted the vice president as saying, “And it is critical that we as a nation understand that we have within our hands, within our possession, the ability to actually change the course of where we’re headed. … Just look out at this lake. … This is where we’re headed.”

Or is it where we’ve been as well?

Vice President Kamala Harris speaks as Congresswoman Dina Titus, left, and Representative Susie Lee look on while at Lake Mead on Monday. (R-J pix)

52 comments on “Climate change or return to climate norm?

  1. Mistrbill says:

    So sorry to the communistic party that doesn’t believe God, or even mother nature set up cycles for us all to learn from. Tree growth rings don’t lie! Unlike politicians! She should stay in the basement with Joe where they can do less harm to the rest of us

  2. Anonymous says:

    Ah the far right wing lunatic fascists are back. The ones that think viruses are shed and that man has no impact on the earth.


  3. txcasey says:

    Isn’t she needed elsewhere? Maybe at the border in Texas, the mean streets of Chicago, or helping the homeless in LA? Perhaps snatching the mic away from Joe lest he commit the latest maleprop? The water level in Lake Mead is the least of her worries.

  4. Steve says:

    Crisis management.
    IOW, able to manage only when in crisis.

  5. Rincon says:

    It is true that Kamala Harris’ assertion that manmade climate change is the cause of the drought in the southwest is unproven speculation, but Thomas, like most journalists, cherry picks stories to suit his underlying biases. In this case, he highlights that there have been more severe droughts in the past, but completely ignores the fact that the American southwest is significantly hotter that at any time in the past 1200 years. The argument is supposed to be about temperature, right? So why grab a story regarding rainfall, which has only a tangential relation to the crux of this issue? The answer is obvious.

    The next paragraph assumes that we are in agreement that the Earth has warmed by somewhere near 1.8 degrees Farenheit in modern times. If you don’t accept that, you’re too far gone, so don’t bother going further.

    Thomas’ article appears to be an effort to undermine the nearly unanimous findings of the world’s scientists that manmade climate change is occurring. Never mind that THEY ACCURATELY PREDICTED IT AND ITS SEVERITY 30 YEARS AGO, while the deniers didn’t do any original research that I can recall – none, although they made lots of noise. They did and still do, however, fail to come up with any reasonable alternative hypothesis, except for the famous, “Hey, there have always been cycles, right?” This specious reasoning could be used ad infinitum to explain anything at all related to any environmental changes occurring on the planet. How convenient. Presumably, this is also their explanation for the various radical climactic changes in our geologic past, such as snowball Earth. Why try to explain any of this? It’s obvious to them that we are just too dumb of a species to figure out the mind of God. The Catholic Church felt the same way about Galileo, etc. They (the church) were right wingers too.

  6. Athos says:

    Wow. K Harris knows better than God. So does Rinny. While accusing right wingers (?) of being too dumb to save the planet (because OF COURSE ALL POWERFUL MAN CAN STOP GLOBAL WARMING!) Algore and his disciples (like Harris) MUST fly around the world and live in mansions. raking in billion$ from taxpayers (CAUSE YA KNOW WE’RE JUST GONNA DIE!)

    You know what I say, Tom?

    WHAT A SCAM! And what humungous egotistical hubris that thinks this could actually pass muster over any human being over the age of 6! (time for another movie Algore!)

    When the next volcano spews out a few million, or the next rash of sunspots, remind me to turn off my A/C so you can feel better about yourself (but don’t mention the Coal fired energy plants in China, wouldn’t want to ruin your “superior” feelings.)

    How ’bout some REAL life solutions (instead of lining the pockets of the politically connected and their Chinese Overlords!)

  7. Athos says:


    Gotta love those two dimwitted toadies wearing their “designer” masks in the great outdoors. Can’t they see how evil they are? Why all the fear porn, ladies?

  8. NYPete says:

    How is that a “designer” mask?

  9. Anonymous says:

    It may seem obvious: Heat kills. Wildfires burn. Flooding drowns.

    But the sprawling health effects of a rapidly warming world can also be subtle. Heat sparks violence and disrupts sleep. Wildfire smoke can trigger respiratory events thousands of miles away. Flooding can increase rates of suicide and mental health problems. Warmer winters expand the range of disease-carrying mosquitoes and ticks.

    A new report from the medical journal The Lancet finds that human-caused climate change is worsening human health in just about every measurable way, and world leaders are missing an opportunity to address it.

    Or, alternatively, we could listen to scientitians like…some of the people here.

  10. Bjorn Lomborg in WSJ: “Climate change has saved more lives from temperature-related deaths than it has taken. Heat deaths make up about 1% of global fatalities a year—almost 600,000 deaths—but cold kills eight times as many people, totaling 4.5 million deaths annually. As temperatures have risen since 2000, heat deaths have increased 0.21%, while cold deaths have dropped 0.51%. Today about 116,000 more people die from heat each year, but 283,000 fewer die from cold. Global warming now prevents more than 166,000 temperature-related fatalities annually.”

  11. Anonymous says:

    Interesting. “heat deaths vs cold deaths” I wonder though if there are consequences other than dying of heat or cold that are being brought to bear on the world because of the changes in climate caused by burning fossil fuels?

    Oh wait, we actually know something about that. Here is just one bit

    “A second mistake — which biases the results in the same way — is Nordhaus’s and Lomborg’s underestimation of the damage associated with climate change. In early discussions of climate change the focus was often on global warming. It was natural for people to ask: “Surely a few degrees of temperature change couldn’t make that much difference? And besides, wouldn’t it be nice if we could swim in the ocean off Nova Scotia?” But climate change is much more than that. It includes increasing acidification and rising sea levels (another aspect of climate change that Lomborg doesn’t mention is that Wall Street could be underwater by 2100 — a seeming benefit until one realizes that almost surely the bankers would find a way to force all of us to pay for their move to higher ground).

    Climate change also includes more extreme weather events — more intense hurricanes, more droughts, more floods, with all the devastation to life, livelihood and property that accompanies them. In 2017 alone, the United States lost some 1.5 percent of G.D.P. to such weather-related events.

  12. Rincon says:

    I read Lomborg’s first book maybe 15 years ago. He’s a statistician who appears to know little about science. The book was riddled with basic mistakes. I still have it in case anyone here wants to point out some brilliant proof that he had written.

  13. NYPete says:

    Thomas Mitchell is right as usual: we need to burn more coal, more oil, put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. (Oh, and much more cattle.)
    Our shivering grandchildren will not forgive us if we fail to act!

  14. Rincon says:

    Warming can be good in many places, but the question revolves around cost and degree of suffering. The cost of reasonable mitigation is dirt cheap – something on the order of 1/2% of GDP would go a long way. The cost of adaptation threatens to be far greater, but is unknown, which is therefore a big gamble. Smart people hedge their bets.

    The costs of adaptation are uncertain partly because there are risks of catastrophic changes whose likelihoods are unknown. Some will be a zero cost because they will never happen. Others would entail massive costs if they occur – say the Gulf Stream stopping or having large urban areas become uninhabitable, which occurs when the wet bulb temperature goes above 98 degrees or so, even for only a few days. Large portions of India, the Mideast, and the American southwest are at risk for this. Or if rainfall patterns change to the detriment of the few major breadbasket areas of the world. If better rainfall patterns happen elsewhere, it may occur over ocean or, in the example of much of Canada’s east, over terrain covered in rock, not soil. Another is the possibility of a runaway release of massive amounts of methane if the tundra melts too fast or if the ocean does a turnover as lakes do, which would release astronomical amounts of methane from extensive methyl hydrate deposits. Either would lead to runaway warming. There are also likely to be risks that we have not anticipated. For example, nobody even considered the possibility of disruption of the arctic vortex until it happened. As the margarine lady said, it’s not nice to fool (with) Mother Nature”.

    The easiest way to hedge is to simply stop subsidizing (and giving tax breaks for) fossil fuels, but those same Conservatives who claim they hate subsidies are all for maintaining those on fossil fuels or at the very least, are completely silent on the matter. The cost would be less than zero, but we won’t even consider it.

  15. […] Climate change or return to climate norm? Vice President Kamala Harris used the white ring around Lake Mead as a visual for her claim that the federal government must spend trillions of dollars to combat climate change. […]

  16. Athos says:

    I agree with Rinny, get rid of the subsidizes, along with the ridiculous carbon emission requirements (I am NOT looking forward to paying higher electric bills coupled with more black or brown outs here in Nevada) and let the private sector do its thing. Please, NO MORE Solyndras, OK? it’s bad enough these charlatans are incorrect (year after year. Hey Charlie Mann! What did you do with my hockey stick?)

    As with Covid, this “eco terrorism” will be taken seriously when the powers that be start ACTING like it’s real. Otherwise, STOP the scam, Brandon!

    And BTW, did anyone else find it frustratingly sad that China sent that hypersonic rocket on the same day our AMERICAN STATE DEPARTMENT was promoting “world pronoun day”?? That’s almost as bad as flying the rainbow flag in our former Billion$ Embassy in Kabul. (the one that Brandon and Millie Vanilli turned over to the Taliban, remember?)

    All you Biden voters OK with that message representing America?

  17. NYPete says:

    I think flying a rainbow flag at US embassies is a great idea. “Athos” joins the Taliban in thinking otherwise.

    BTW, who is “Charlie Mann”? Is that some QAnon thing?

  18. Anonymous says:

    Now even far right wing lunatics are calling Trump alternatively Brandon or Millie Vanilli?

    I sure hope that Chinese website he bought, that threatens to ban anyone that speaks ill of him or the website does alright.

  19. Athos says:

    Anny, you so funny! Make Master Xi proud!

    Thanks, for the Mann assist, Tom. Wonder how’s he doing now that he’s been debunked. I think he’s still involved in a court battle with Mark Steyn.

    And for your edification, Anny (or petey, or whoever you are) the Taliban are not the ONLY ones that aren’t buying into this woke Rainbow Flag ideology. Any sane person looks at the idiots in the West that believe a man can be a woman (and visa versa) and wonders from what lunatic asylum they escaped. So they are looking at Putin and Xi as a greater influence because they don’t allow that insanity to rule their culture OR their nations.

  20. NYPete says:

    Oh, Michael Mann. I thought “Heat” was fantastic, although some thought it too long. Never a big Miami Vice fan, though.

    If, for some reason, the hapless “Athos” is referring to the climate scientist Michael Mann, I am gratified that he (and you) are willing to recognize that the climate reconstructions performed by Professor Mann and his colleagues two decades ago have been largely confirmed by subsequent scientific research. That is good news, right, because we all want the Earth to continue getting warmer and warmer

  21. Athos says:

    Oh, and nice try, petey. That would be President Venal House Plant that surrendered the $Billion Embassy to the Taliban because he (not Trump) was President when the Afghanistan fall occurred (Sacré Bleu, nest pas?)

  22. NYPete says:

    It’s like a horseshoe — you wingnuts are starting to admire Putin, Orban, Xi, the Taliban for their reactionary, retrograde social policies as well as for their authoritarianism.

    BTW, I assume you agree with Trump that we should have withdrawn our troops from Afghanistan sooner: “Getting out of Afghanistan is a wonderful and positive thing to do. I planned to withdraw on May 1st, and we should keep as close to that schedule as possible,”

  23. Rincon says:

    Since Michael Mann’s hockey stick is more than 20 years old, as are most of the papers casting doubt upon it, I thought you might enjoy a more recent analysis of the evidence. If you don’t like, try NASA, NOAA, or any of dozens of Web sites from reputable organizations.
    “While many continue to fixate on Mann’s early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result – that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes).” And the last decade was the hottest of them all.

    So are they all wet, or is it just an amazing coincidence? It has to be one of the two, unless of course, it’s due to mankind as those thousands of “conspiratorial” scientists claim. There must be a reason we’re pulling intact mammoths and ancient humans out of the melting ice. Can you explain why they hadn’t thawed in the past warmer periods that you claim existed?

  24. Anonymous says:

    Rincon its long past time to try and have rational discussions with people claiming that our climate isn’t changing, drastically, as a result of man burning fossil fuels. They never based their disagreement about that on reason and they aren’t going to be convinced by reason.

    They are not unlike small children who, after being told the reasons why things are the way they are, continue to ask why, as if it were a game.

    Except the impacts of climate change are not a game and we cannot continue to treat it as one to bat back and forth with the children arguing that its not real, or that its not that bad, or that man isn’t really the cause, or that man isn’t the predominate cause, or that man isn’t sure to be the predominate cause.\

    Its long past time to stop arguing and start doing.

  25. Athos says:

    So you think we’re children and you need to enforce your will on us (for our own good, naturally). Have I got that right? That doesn’t sound very Liberal to me. In fact, that sounds like Tyranny. Or is this all part of your fundamental transformation of America? Come to think of it, you’re not too unlike any villainous tyrant in any “take over the world” story. Paging Austin Powers!

    Rinny, you can site your websites and I can site mine. Check out Steve Loonin’s 5 minute clip on Climate Change. He was an Obama appointee and recognizes the reality of asking the US to lower its standard of living to satisfy some computer model that may or may not be accurate. Do you REALLY think if we stop using fossil fuels we’ll be able to prevent the climate from changing for as long as we like? And when will those that most shout out the dangers of climate change, give up their jets, their 30,000+ multiple homes, their Escalades, etc, and start LIVING like they’re preaching?

    With a belief system like that, you really shouldn’t be so quick to accuse anyone of being “small children”, now, should you?

  26. NYPete says:

    “Steve Loonin”?
    That’s one heck of a Freudian slip.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Doing what the vast majority of the country, and the world for that matter, understands is necessary to combat climate change isn’t tyranny its merely the right thing that the vast majority of the world wants done.

    The point is that ARGUING with the vast minority, who are like children in the sense that they are not interested in doing anything but arguing, is pointless and time and energy is best spent doing what needs to be done and if that means putting the people who want to argue in a corner while its being done that is what has to happen.

  28. Anonymous says:

    We all know, or should know because they’ve admitted it repeatedly, that the companies most responsible for producing the fossil fuels causing the change in the climate, were fully AWARE of exactly what was going to happen to the climate if fossil fuels were used going forward.

    But of course, informing the public then wasn’t in the pure financial interests of their shareholders so they covered it up. But they did more than that, they sent out minions, and paid others to lie about things they knew were happening and were going to happen if fossil fuels were burned.

    In the process, they convinced some people who then argued that position even though the instigators KNEW better.

    These are the people the rest of us need to ignore because they aren’t arguing for any reason other than to argue.

    And we don’t have time to argue with them anymore.

    Its all here, coincidentally in today’s news.

  29. Athos says:

    Listen to yourself, Anny. “These are the people the rest of us need to ignore …” “And we don’t have time to argue with them anymore…”

    There isn’t a poll out there that puts “climate change” in the top 10 things the “vast majority” considers vital. Despite all the trumped up lies put out by the Media Empire.

    You’re preaching a totalitarian dictatorship where the elites (would that be you, petey?) rule over the “children”. It’s a great gig if you can get it. Fidel did well, but the jury is still out for Venezuela’s Mendoza. It’s still an evil empire.

    You may want to get rid of the 2nd amendment, first.

    And it was more of a typing slip, Rinny. Of course his name is Steve Koonin.

  30. NYPete says:

    Athos – how did you know? As a card-carrying “elite” I have a nice cool swimming pool, a house in the mountains, and plenty of opportunities to ride out the every-growing number of heat domes while you guys swelter. That’s why I agree with Thomas Mitchell that we need more global warming, and we need it now!

  31. Rincon says:

    I checked on Steve Koonin (not Loonin) and found that his book was roundly rejected by Scientific American and others. So here we have a publication that has built a reputation for accuracy in science reporting over more than a century clearly warning its readers about a book containing mostly junk science (my phrase), but instead, Athos believes a theoretical physicist (whose phd is about as relevant to climate change as mine) who also teaches civil engineering (also not related to climate science) rather than a highly respected mainstream publication. I choose to believe Scientific American because of its stellar track record. What convinces you that a theoretical physicist dabbling out of his field of expertise is more trustworthy Athos? Because he says what you want to hear?

    A portion of the Scientific American article:

    Koonin’s intervention into the debate about what to do about climate risks seems to be designed to subvert this progress in all respects by making distracting, irrelevant, misguided, misleading and unqualified statements about supposed uncertainties that he thinks scientists have buried under the rug. Here, I consider a few early statements in his own words.

    “Heat waves in the US are now no more common than they were in 1900, and that the warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years.” (Italics in the original.)

    This is a questionable statement depending on the definition of “heat wave”, and so it is really uninformative. Heat waves are poor indicators of heat stress. Whether or not they are becoming more frequent, they have clearly become hotter and longer over the past few decades while populations have grown more vulnerable in large measure because they are, on average, older [Section]. Moreover, during these longer extreme heat events, it is nighttime temperatures that are increasing most. As a result, people never get relief from insufferable heat and more of them

    “Heat waves in the US are now no more common than they were in 1900, and that the warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years.” (Italics in the original.)

    This is a questionable statement depending on the definition of “heat wave”, and so it is really uninformative. Heat waves are poor indicators of heat stress. Whether or not they are becoming more frequent, they have clearly become hotter and longer over the past few decades while populations have grown more vulnerable in large measure because they are, on average, older [Section]. Moreover, during these longer extreme heat events, it is nighttime temperatures that are increasing most. As a result, people never get relief from insufferable heat and more of them are at risk of dying.
    “The warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years.” According to what measure? Highest annual global averages? Absolutely not. That the planet is has warmed since the industrial revolution is unequivocal with more than 30 percent of that warming having occurred over the last 25 years, and the hottest annual temperatures in that history have followed suit [Section SPM.1].”

  32. Athos says:

    “Imagine what kind of gullible sucker you’d have to be to honestly believe that if you give the Democratic party trillions of dollars-they’ll magically change the climate on planet earth.”

    That ’bout sums it up for me, Rin. Of course, we wouldn’t be giving up OUR money this time, just our kids and grandkids.

    I vote no.

    And for your edification, Steve Koonin was tapped for the position of Under Secretary for Science at the United States Department of Energy by Steven Chu, Obama’s Secretary of Energy,[9] and served from May 19, 2009, to November 18, 2011.

    Not exactly a MAGA appointee.

  33. Anonymous says:

    I remember the days when the science HOPED that we’d be able to limit the damage being done by burning fossil fuels to a 1.5 to 2 degree increase in the worlds temperature. Course that was based on a belief that the world wasn’t half full of people who would intentionally work to frustrate the efforts of the people trying to prevent this from happening.

    Now the hope is that we can head off a 4.7 degree increase in temperature and settle for somewhere around 2.7 and head off the worst of the worst predictions.

    I wonder if people who have up to now been frustrating the efforts to head these consequences off have learned anything in the last 20 plus years?

    Four charts that show what is, and what will happen.

  34. Rincon says:

    OK Athos, since you’re willing to swallow any or all information from a former Obama staffer because he is going against his old boss, then I’m SURE that you would be equally gullible, err…I mean, receptive, to the words of some of these 17 people, most who worked for the Trump Administration, against their former boss:

    What? They’re liars, all 17 of them? But so many didn’t just publish information against the views of their old boss like Koonin did, they testified under oath. So tell me, why does your logic change so drastically when it’s your ox being gored. I certainly don’t want to call anyone a hypocrite, so please explain to me why that word would be an unfair characterization.

  35. Athos says:

    Rin, I stand by my Cattrurd statement. Please DON’T tell me that YOU believe giving these democrats trillions of dollars is going to magically cure Earth’s climate.

    They peddle the need to cut off fossil fuels and THEN BUY BEACH FRONT PROPERTY in Martha’s Vineyard or Montecito Villa, California.

    Even now, they’re all flying their private jets to meet in Glasgow (without China or Russia in attendance) Is the Zoom meeting dead?

    So who’s being gullible now?

  36. Rincon says:

    I agree that the Democrats’ answer – to throw scads of money at it – is awful. They are however, less egregious than the Republicans who simply claim that there is no problem.

    As we’ve agreed, the best answer is to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. Whether green energy deserves tax breaks or subsidies can be debated. But more is needed. We have scrupulously avoided the best answer for 30 years

    A majority of economists seem to agree that the most efficient approach is to gradually reduce income tax by a generous amount while slowly raising fossil fuel taxes. That harnesses the awesome power of capitalism. It would stimulate individuals and companies to come up with a thousand ways to use energy more efficiently. It also passes the common sense test. If one wants to encourage something, subsidize it; to discourage something, tax it. Our largest tax is on income, mostly labor. We both know older people that would work part time in their retirement but don’t because they would get dinged by income taxes, Social Security, and Medicare. So is it better to discourage people from working or the excessive use of fossil fuels? And no, reducing income tax substantially without increasing any other revenue would only add to the already substantial woes of our children.

  37. Athos says:

    Riddle me this: Why is nuclear power NEVER in these discussions about “reducing our dependence on fossil fuels”? And I don’t believe that Repubs (or at least THIS Repub) claim there is NO problem, just that economic crushing solutions put forth by the snake oil salesmen won’t do ANY good but cripple Americans (with the exception of the elite, of course) and destroy our way of living. That’s not what you want, is it?

    Rinny, you know that if America went to zero emissions tomorrow, we would still be in the “dire” climate extremism due to China, India, volcano action, clouds, etc., etc, correct?

  38. Athos says:

    I would advocate we repeal the 16th (and 17th, but that’s another discussion) amendment (similar to the 21st) and go with a value added tax.

    But the 16th MUST be repealed before any VAT discussions can take place.

    I believe some form of “FAIR” tax has been discussed by some politician (my mind is foggy and I don’t feel like googling it), but with our crop of politicians (D & R!) it would take a lot to get them to surrender that power.

  39. Athos says:

    85 car motorcade for our President Must save the planet, falling asleep joke? Wow. Tell me again how these people care about our planet. And who is the leader in solar tech, battery tech, electric tech etc? Would that be China? (Wonder if they’re buying any of Hunter’s artworks)

    You can’t make this stuff up. Just when I think the left is done with the heavy hand, in your face, “what you gonna do about it?” insanity, they come up with more.

    God help us.

  40. Rincon says:

    The nuclear question is one reason I consider myself a moderate. We agree! I say full speed ahead. I’m not sure you would like the FAIR tax because it includes a death tax. As for the Republican claim that all actions are “economically crushing”, you might be surprised to find that many recommended actions actually impart a negative cost, i.e., they save money. So far as I can tell, the following graph only counts direct costs and does not take into account the potential savings on adaptation costs for the portion of warming that we can avoid. Adding this information some of the options with a “cost” would actually create a negative cost for some of these. For example, outfitting Miami like the Netherlands will be expensive indeed, unless we simply let it go under, which is also expensive.

    As for the other countries of the world (except for almost all of the other OECD nations) being unlikely to make adequate efforts, it’s true. We have essentially advised and permitted them to do this by being among the greatest global warming deniers for over 30 years. Who are we to criticize? Other nations, especially China, may make better efforts that we would expect though. They are motivated because of the great brown haze that floats over southeast Asia more or less continuously. This is why China has more wind, solar, and hydroelectric power than any other country. Although they do burn more fossil fuels than we do as well, another question arises as to who should be “credited” if China smelts a ton of ore that ends up being put into products that we buy from them. and of course, they still create a lot less CO2 per person than we do. Either way, eliminating expensive subsidies costs nothing. Same with with several other actions as shown on the graph. In addition, wind and solar power are now economically competitive with fossil fuels and promise to become still cheaper. Hard to imagine why Republicans still try mightily to undermine any progress for green energy, while rabidly supporting subsidies for both fossil fuels and ethanol.

  41. Athos says:

    Ethanol has always been a very stupid government idea. We have plenty of gas without burning our own food. Whenever I see a really stupid government idea, I wonder just who (or whom) is getting rich at the taxpayer expense. Ditto with Tesla and Prius and all those electric cars. Ditto with solar and wind generated power operators.

    A friend told me today that the normal Joe has NO idea what Trump meant by “drain the swap”. We don’t realize how much time is spent raising money to get elected and extort money from the electorate. That’s why Nancy Pelousy can show off eating $13/pint ice cream stored in a $23,000 freezer and not see what’s wrong.

    Even Hunter Biden’s art sales don’t ring a bell with the American Republic (even tho that is much more akin to a Banana Republic) We are born into sin and corruption is Man’s nature. That’s why the Founding Fathers wanted to LIMIT the power of the government.

    And the phrase ” the greatest global warming deniers ” make you sound more like an acolyte, than a scientist, Rin. I guess praying to Gaia is the new religion now.

    But it will never replace Christianity (because Jesus Christ is real)

  42. Athos says:

    PS. I can’t believe Youngkin won in Virginia. And Jack Ciattarelli is currently ahead of Murphy but too close to call. Buttttt….

    I also remember when Awesome Scotty Brown won Ted Kennedy’s seat in ’09, and Harry Greid rammed Obama Care down our throats, anyway. Why do leftist/democrats have to deceive in order to pass their hideous, socialist plans? And why are so many people so easily deceived?

    Ans. Corruption. Money for nothing and chicks for free.

    And the Atlanta Braves (who play in a state soooo racist that they had to move the All Star game from Atlanta to Denver THIS YEAR) just won the World Series. I wonder if MLB decision makers feel any remorse for being “Woke” lying a-holes with egg on their face?

  43. Rincon says:

    So it’s just great when billionaires make massive sums from capitalism (and often pay no taxes), but you seem to not realize that conservatives advocate a different kind of capitalism, which is the capitalistic system we have for elections. Would be politicians vie for exposure in the electoral marketplace, and the conservative Supreme Court saw to it that unlimited amounts of anonymous “donations” can be had. It’s dog eat dog, just like the other kind of marketplace. If any politician makes money illegitimately, then we can throw them in jail. But oh yeah, conservatives think it’s just appalling that we would look into Trump’s finances. Can you say double standard? Conservative organizations are free to investigate any politician they want for wrongful gains. Why haven’t they investigated Pelosi if she’s so rotten?

    I have a better idea, but I’m sure people will prefer the devil they know. I think we should set a maximum of political contributions for any and all citizens, eligible for all parts of the electoral process. The entire donation would be taken off taxes so that all political contributions at the federal level would be government funded, but individual citizens would have complete control. As it is now, moneyed interests have the lion’s share of control. You apparently agree when it comes to Pelosi and other Democrats, but do you also believe the same about Republicans?

  44. Athos says:

    “Conservative organizations are free to investigate any politician they want for wrongful gains.”

    “If any politician makes money illegitimately, then we can throw them in jail.”

    Would that either of these statements were real (or true, factual, etc) Hillary von Pantsuit would be in jail.

    Are you saying Pelousi is rotten? Diane Feinstein and her husband are rich because of corruption, greed and graft? Harry Greid made his millions the old fashion way, he STOLE them? Barry O went from Senator to 2 term president to mega millionaire thanks to a book he wrote?

    These are rich and powerful people that are above the law. What noise do you really think Special Prosecutor Durham is really going to make? He won’t be able to indict James Comey let alone the Clintons or Obama. And you’re worried about Donald Trump who was an elected politician for 4 years?

    I suppose you also believe Epstein hung himself in that maximum security, highly-monitored jail cell?

    To quote Hunter “have paint, will make fortune” Biden’s “THE BIG GUY” daddy, “C’mon ma-a-a-n!”

  45. Rincon says:

    Lemme see if I have it right here. The billionaires are all clean, Trump is clean, Republicans are clean, but Democrats are mostly unconvicted felons. Oh, and the election was stolen. The fact that there is no substantial evidence is immaterial.

    Does that sum it up? Maybe I’m reading too much between the lines. If I’m off base, then by all means, please let me know and we’ll make sure that I’m not putting words into your mouth.

    BTW, I am with you that the powerful are often able to get away with some pretty awful things, but I think it’s mostly through legal means, and that it’s not only Democrats. I believe Republicans, corporations, and the rich get away with plenty too.

  46. Athos says:

    Here’s a Paul Joseph Watson twitter quote I agree with:

    “Wealthy technocrats arriving on private jets staying at luxury 5 star hotels and being chauffeured around in large entourages are about to spend the next 2 weeks lecturing us about how we need to reduce our living standards.

    I won’t be listening and neither should you” Oct. 31, 2021

    Oh, and for the record “Maybe I’m reading too much between the lines…” that will be a big fat yes.

    Hunter and Joe Biden have not been charged with anything. Hunter (even with the FBI having possession of his lap top computer for over a year) has the nerve to start selling art work at prices that scream “BRIBERY”. Just so I don’t put words in your mouth, are you OK with this? Is this the representation you voted for, Rinny? When H. Clinton turned in her SMASHED hard drive government computer, and had over 30,000 emails on her private computer while she was SecState, are you saying it was an accident? Whoops, me bad, I’m sorry?

    Don’t tell me about a politician that spent 4 YEARS in office as being the government leach that’s corrupting DC. You can’t possibly be that partisan.

    And you are correct. MAN is CORRUPTIBLE. I would argue that it is our “default” position. You need only to look at Sharia law societies to see how man behaved PRIOR to the SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY. And it is my opinion that no nation owes its prosperity from the belief in the Judeo-Christian God than the USA.

    The shame is that it has been our (my – the boomer) generation that shut God out. And now we’re reaping what we’ve sown.

  47. Athos says:

    And since I’m on a rant…. Glen Youngkin should have won by 25+ percentage points instead of 2 points.

    What sort of people vote to teach our children that white skin is evil and black skin is oppressed? What about letting boys wear a dress to go into the girls bathroom to rape middle school girls? Who’s voting for that????

    And who’s voting to allow unfettered illegal immigration from our southern border, and if children are separated from THESE ILLEGAL ALIENS, the taxpayers on paying lawbreakers $475,000?

    Who’s voting for that clown show debacle in Afghanistan to continue to lead our nation abroad?

    And why do a majority of Americans feel paying $4+/gal of gas is peachy keen (when we were energy sufficient just 12 months ago?

    I understand partisan politics and how the dem’s (having owned the media and with it, the culture) can drive people to vote D without thinking.

    But really? Parents have no business in what their kids are taught? And you want to vote for that?

  48. Rincon says:

    My words: ” it’s not only Democrats. I believe Republicans, corporations, and the rich get away with plenty too.” I note that in your reply, you said absolutely nothing about Republicans, but continued to rail about only Democrats, so it appears that my reading between the lines was CORRECT. If you want examples of Republicans engaging in similar shenanigans, I’ll be glad to supply you with a rant similar to yours, only with all the complaints being about Republicans, but it would be way too one sided to reflect my true view. Your rant remains completely one sided. It seems that partisan blindness is an incurable disease.

  49. Athos says:

    Wow. “… partisan blindness is an incurable disease….” sounds like a self diagnosis, Rin. As to Climate Change remedies, I’m skeptical that handing my money to a leftist politician will make the climate stop changing. I stole that from somewhere…(semi -attribution)

    You obviously disagree, right? Care to name this magical climate leftist that’s gonna save us?

    And why do you feel that Republicans aren’t part of mankind? Who do you thing we are? Or is it SO important for you to completely ignore the Hunter/Joe Biden shake down boogie that you can’t read my words? “…And you are correct. MAN is CORRUPTIBLE….”

    That is what makes George Washington one in a billion when it comes to turning down power. That is what makes almost ALL politicians morally bankrupt, financially corrupt and spiritually dead.

    If it makes you feel good, go ahead and name off a few of these “Republicans that get away with plenty too”. But remember, THEY AREN’T IN POWER ARE THEY? And stop the TDS cause it makes you look like a raving lunatic.

  50. Rincon says:

    What’s a TD? Touchdown?

    You and I have already agreed on part of the answer to global warming: Get rid of fossil fuel subsidies. The rest? No leftist politician needed, just conservatives willing to do what it takes. Reduce income tax by about 1% a year for 10 or 20 years and replace the government income lost with a concomitant fossil fuel tax. People and organizations will come up with a thousand ways to save energy – and they might put in some extra work hours once they get to keep more of it.

    When you shouted, “THEY AREN’T IN POWER ARE THEY?”, I think you’re missing something. The Hunter Biden, and Hillary issues you brought up occurred when the Democrats did not have a majority in the legislature. On the other hand, here’s a one man scandal factory. Most of these occurred while he was in charge:

    Yes, both sides are prone to misdeeds, but for some odd reason, I don’t know if you’ve ever criticized a Republican or Trump over the appearance of dishonesty. Makes you look pretty partisan to me.

  51. Athos says:

    TDS Trump Derangement Syndrom. I’m surprised you didn’t look that up. And I don’t wish to burst your bubble but THE DEMOCRATS HAVE A MAJORITY RIGHT NOW, correct? That would be the SAME TIME Hunter Biden is selling his artwork.

    As to your income tax reduction and gas tax addition, I have no illusions that Dems would ever go for that, do you? The whole lot of them has been hot for European gas prices since Obama and Biden is giving it quite a run right now, isn’t he?

    AS to a one man scandal factory, have you heard anything about a hostage situation in our embassy in Yemen? Or downtown Seattle being so dangerous city employees need armed escorts in and out?

    Guess you gotta get English papers to hear anything negative about “Brandon” (or else wiki just hasn’t caught up to that yet)

    Let go of the TDS, Rin, and embrace Reality.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s