I am consistently told how awful the country is and the becons of liberty are going out around the world. — NOS4A2

It is pretty awful in some respects, but I am curious if you can list the places that are better?

This is funny. Russian pranksters dupe Sanders into believing he is talking with Greta Thunberg. — NOS4A2

They did the same with this genius Trump persecutor, what is here name, Maxima Waters? Totally hilarious, she is practically having an orgams on hearing that the Russian "Greta" can promise some dirt on Trump.

I wish somehow that Trump could realize that we are all God’s children and that God loves him. — Noah Te Stroete

Even if he suddenly believes that that all the corrupt swamp creatures who are out to get him are Gods children, I don´t see how that changes the situation he is in, so I am not sure what youre getting at. He still has to live and act in the real world, even if he prays to Yahwee 7 times a day...

Question: if Donna Laframboise wrote a book about how everything was fine with the IPCC and we should all listen to them, do you think that would sell as well as her criticism? — Echarmion

That would depend on the book. In the event, she writes about her experience inside the IPCC, which speak for themselves. And she is not the only one. Anyone who takes a closer look at the workings of the IPCC knows we should not take the IPCC reports as bible.

We don't derive/define morals from laws, scriptures, etc. Rather the opposite, laws are supposed to be moral. — jorndoe

Confusing morality and ethics? Morality is based on scriptures, while ethics is a code for good and bad behaviour agreed on by society. At least that is how I understand the terms, although maybe not all dictionaries agree.
But we do have secular ethics, while I have never heard of secular morality.

There is always an "economic downturn coming" since by its nature a money economy overexpands and then contracts and resets. In particular, the current world-wide debt bubble will have to be erased by a wide ranging currency reset. The question is when, not if.

I bet you will find just about everyone posting here, from around the globe, are beginning to experience the changes in the climate in their location — Punshhh

What is there to bet about? The climate has always been changing and will always change. In fact, I have not yet met any real-life person who claims that the climate does not or should not change. These fictional characters seem to exist only in the imagination of the climate policy peddlers. Talk about a strawman.

Provide a link to an expose on the IPCC please. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Read the book by Donna Laframboise who actually worked there and saw how these "reports" are compiled. It is an eye-opener.
The IPCC is funded by politicians with the goal to promote a political agenda. If it does not produce the desired results, it loses its reason to exist. Basing climate policy on the IPCC reports is like basing a critical examination of communism on the writings of Lenin.

Thats funny. But as Scott Adams points out, there is a large part of the population that is simply unable to understand a joke.

— Wikipedia on Globalism — Metaphysician Undercover

Wikipedia has a well-known bias, shown here.You might want to look Wikipedia to form an opinion.

So, the IPCC reports, are those expert reports or "propaganda media"? — Echarmion

IPCC is a political orginization with a political purpose. You might want to read one of the exposees about it.

So, since you're unqualified to do the research, and unwilling to listen to the experts, what do you do? — Echarmion

I do listen to experts. The experts have varying and nuanced opinions, as is to be expected. What I do NOT do is take opinion articles from the propaganda media and then go lecture other people about "science". Surprising concept?

Will he evovle into a dictator if he gets another term? Is this forever. — Qwex

TDS is an amazing condition.

Neither side gives the other any benefit of the doubt. — NOS4A2

Agree. As Scott Adams (check him out if you don´t know him) says: Two movies on the same screen.

See, this is very clear evidence that you have set up this category of ideology, you call "globalist", as a catch all category, and place people whose ideology you dislike within that category. In reality the people have no such "globalist" ideology, holding a variety of different ideologies instead, because there is really no such thing as an ideology called "globalism". The anti-globalists, such as yourself, have created this category, and place numerous different ideologies into the category, but there is no such ideology at all, just a vast array of ideologies which are resented by the anti-globalists. — Metaphysician Undercover

Lets agree to disagree. When I talk about "globalism" I refer to the set of ideas that by and large the Western elites have bought into, and that are layed out in books such as "The Pentagons New Map" by Barnett or "George Soros on Globalization". Talking about the latter, look up all the activities that his "Open Society Foundation" is involved in, and you see everything that the Western elites love, and the people of their nations have to suffer from. You can also call it the populist vs elitist debate. Trump, like the European populist parties, takes the populist side, and neocons, neolibs, the coporate media like CNN et all take the elitist (globalist) side.
I can see on which side you are, and you can see on which side I am.

Anyway, if you oppose Trump on those grounds, I respect that. I think you are wrong, but at least you have a philosophical basis, and are not just repeating unhinged rants from the talking heads at CNN, which I see too much off....

Thanks for writing without name-calling.

Thanks for writing without TDS hysteria and name-calling. That is refreshing.

Patrick Moore is not a CLIMATE scientist. This study provides the basis for my claim about the consensus of climate scientiests. It also discusses s a prior study (Tol) that concluded there was not much consensus
Well, as you say yourself, the Tol study came to a different conclusion. Anyway, how productive is it boil down tens of thousands of different papers into a simplistics yes/no vote? Clearly, there is a continuum. Clearly, there is a human factor, but exactly how large is it, and exactly what can and should be done to mitigate it?

Perhaps you object to my use of the subjective term "disastrous", so let me just put it this way: if current trends continue, there will be very costly consequences.
That is an entirely different thing. Costly consequences is an economic term. Certainly the activists policies promoted by the climate activists are extremely costly. Bjoern Lomborg addresses this aspect, if you have not heard of him, look him up.

Thanks for writing without TDS hysteria.

The problem here is that 1) and 3) are incompatible.
I strongly disagree. In fact, globalist ideology is the cause for the many of the conflicts we are seeing.

You must respect the fact that globalism has already occurred, so it is too late to prevent it. The only recourse is an attempt to reverse it.
Not a "fact". Globalism is an ideology (i.e. read the books by Soros and Barnett), and the question is how far to pursue it.

The attempt to reverse it will create strife, and "stupid foreign wars" where there were none before (starting with trade wars, the most stupid type of war of all).
I strongly disagree on all points here. In fact, globalism is the root cause of many of the conflicts we see today. And "trade war" is a question of definition. I.e. you could argue that we have been in a trade war with China since its entry into the WTO.

The natural tendency for rational human beings is to socialize and cooperate, respectfully allowing for flex in the frontiers of ownership, as this is beneficial to all parties. Rigid walls are detrimental in an evolving world.
Not sure what you mean by "rigid walls". I am talking about the preservation of nation states, which are the foundation for democracy. As opposed to oblique globalist organizations accountable to no one.

In other words, the irrationality of proceeding with 1), which is nothing other than an attempt to reverse the rational development and evolution of human existence, is actually an act of starting stupid foreign wars, directly contradicting 3).
No, to the contrary. The endless proxy wars conducted by the globalists (e.g. Clintons destruction of Libya and Syria) are testimony to that.

Thanks for writing without hysteria and name-calling!

Correction: they have been inaccurate, to varying degrees. The point is that this doesn't imply anthropogenic global warming is a hoax it just means that we can't predict it accurately.
Well, how inaccurate does a model have to be, before you call it simply wrong?

the general consensus view that the world is warming, that CO2 emissions is contributing to it,
Fair enough, from all I know that seems correct.

and that if currrent trends continue, there will be disastrous consequences.
Wow, hold the horses. Are you sure there is general consensus about THAT? I.e. Dr. Patrick Moore, an earth scientists himself, thinks that we are in a carbon starved period, and a little warmer and thus greener planet would be a good thing. Can quote a source about this "general agreement" about "disastrous consequences"?

No. How am I to know if a model projecting out into the future is accurate until I get to the future? That’s silly.
All the previous models have been wrong. Currently, there are a number of different models.... clearly all of them minus one have to be wrong. What was that about common sense again?
You mentioned the scientific method. Testing a hypothesis against reality is not part of that?

You’re almost religious in your denial of common sense and fervor for Trump.
I clarified my position about Trump; where do you see "fervor" there?

Also, methane.
LOL, yeah. Read the UN report on cow farts. When did that drop off the radar?

We don’t need proven models to predict climate change.
So you agree that we do NOT have accurate models. But all the political demands are based on models, are they not?

It’s already a problem.
There are plenty of problems in the world, and different ways to address them. Non sequitur.

Who are "they"? And what exactly do they "agree" on? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas? I strongly suspect that the number who agree is closer to 100%. That CO2 is the ONLY factor in climate change? That we have accurate models to predict climate change? That is a completely different topic.
It certainly looks like you have been been bashing a strawman while "explaining" science.

I am not a climate scientist,

so what business do you have to "explain" climate scientists to others? It is clearly a massively complex subject.

but like I said, I understand how they reached that conclusion.
No, you don´t.

I suggest you actually research it and try to understand it yourself.

Reading opinion articles and repeating them is not "research". I am not qualified to do climate research myself, and neither are you.

If you come to a different conclusion than 97% of climate scientists, then I would like to hear your reasoning.

Yes, the famous 97%. Please explain who selected them, what they were asked, how many of them answered, and what they answered. If you are referring to the Cook study, you will be surprised.

You are a climate scientist?

Green peace has no sway with anyone I know.

Oh, now you are a climate change denier? Because Greenpeace bought heavily into the political "man made climate change" agenda, which is the reason Dr. Patrick Moore left them.
(Somehow I suspect that Greepeace does have sway with people in your echo chamber....)

I thought it was possible to communicate with you, after you asked a reasonable question. But now we are descending into the heated exchange of CNN talking points... at which point communication becomes meaningless. Group mentaly takes over. Sad!

But there is a consensus. That’s tantamount to a denial of climate change if you’re going to question its cause. — Noah Te Stroete

Consensus on what? This "97% of scientists agree" talking point is bandied about a lot, but we are never told what exactly they agree on. And by the way, the Cook report (in case you refer to that) has been discredited.
Bonus question: Do you think that Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, is not a scientist?

Go on his Twitter feed.

I am not interested in Twitter with its stream of conscience content.

Here is what I found with a little googling (from the Telegraph):
The US president said during an interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes show that he does not think climate change is a “hoax”, reversing his previous position.
However Mr Trump claimed that some scientists have a “very big political agenda” and suggested there is no consensus about the cause of global warming.

Well, that is not denying climate change, and the very big political agenda is certainly there, as we all (should) know after seeing the Climategate mails and the exposee of the IPCC. Climate clearly exists, but questioning the politics is an entire different thing.

I agree he could have handled the interview better.

Trump literally calls climate change a hoax.

Do you have source for that? In that case, I would disagree with him. In the event, I strongly suspect he called the various climate models and predictions a hoax, which is clearly true, since they all prove wrong. Please show me the transcript where he says "climate change is a hoax". If you can not, I assume you are simply repeating another media talking point.

Now you’re getting defensive.
Sorry, just been through this routine too many times, online and in real life.

I’m trying to figure out which policies of Trump’s you like. He has done all of the things I asked about.
No, he has not. At least not in the filtered way you present them. I am not saying I agree with everything he does. I simply said I agree with his basic policy platform: 1) Stop out-of-control globalism, put your nation ahead of global institutions, 2) Protect the borders, 3) Stop stupid foreign wars.
Afaic he has at least tried to stick to those. Most importantly, he has NOT started any new idiotic military adventures like his predecessors. Instead of bashing Trump, you should count your blessings you did not get the warmonger Hillary Clinton.

Asking if you deny climate change is a reasonable question.
I do not know that he (or in fact anybody) "denies climate change". The disagreement is about politics, in particular the merit of signing international agreements full of empty promises which in fact only amout to money and power transfer. Yes, your question was loaded and als is typical for the stuff emanating from the TDS bubble.

So yeah, I'm not buying it you're not American, especially since the first thing you watch in the morning is CNN.

CNN comes with the cable subscription where I live. Not my choice. But I must say it is quite an impressive start for the day, LOL.

I will stop the namecalling if you stop as well. Your first post was a swipe at most posters here for having TDS. That's insulting in itself so you get back what you threw.

TDS was not a personal swipe, it is simply an observation. When so many people are so obsessed with such fanaticism that is destroys reasonable communication, we are definitely talking about a derangement syndrome. I did not call you a moron or anything else.

So now, after asking a reasonable question, you veering off into propaganda talking point. Disappointing, but alas no surprise. I don´t want to get bogged down in one forum, so just quickly.

So you prefer nationalism to globalism. Do you feel like countries like the US don’t need immigrants?
-->No, "countries like the US" do not to abolish border controls. Immigration should be controlled and regulated by every host nation. That is a fundamental part of the definition of a nation.

It’s funny because so many companies in the US that the population depends on rely on undocumented workers to do the work that Americans won’t do.
--> Importing illegal cheap labour to cut down on wages is not something that should be promoted.

Do you like environmental deregulation?
--> Yes, as long as it is sensible.

Do you like massive military spending?
--> No.

Do you like massive tax cuts to billionaires and corporations?
--> No.

Do you deny climate change as Trump does?
--> Did you stop beating your wife? Can we really not do without loaded questions?

'm not even American, you moron, so I'm not a "mainstream media consumer". Trump is corrupt. Clear as day from anywhere outside the US.

I am not American either, what you see is not clear at all for me from outside the US. And it possible to talk about this without name calling?

What do you like about Trump?

Thanks for a reasonable question instead of a TDS rant. So rare these days!

What do I like about Trump? I agree with his basic policy platform. Fundamentally, return from globalism to healthy nationalism. Imho, he is very much the American Brexit. I do not particularly love the guy as a person, in fact I find his appearance quite grating. I am not American, so not part of the party political football game, but I am watching it. In fact, there is a Democrat candidate who I would vote for, but guess what..... she is getting the Trump treatment from the corporate media.

Hth to clarify from what angle I am looking at this.

What do you prefer? 4chan? 8chan?

I don´t know "4chan" and "8chan". Are they mainstream media? Do you watch them?
Fwiw, I look at a variety sources, starting the day with CNN on the tele for breakfast. I must say, the sheer level of TDS hysteria sometimes makes me choke on the toast.

"Fox News is as mainstream as mainstream media gets. "

LOL, these responses are so predictable, I can write an entire dialog myself. Someone mentions the corporate propaganda media, and someone from the echo chamber will say "Fox" (or "Faux") as they usually spell it. I do not get or watch Fox (except for youtube clips), but I understand that it is one of the few (or maybe the only) mainstream channel that has not totally succumbed to TDS. Good for them, but really.... 1 single exception among whole alphabet soup of propaganda channels which broadcast orangeman bad nonstop is really nothing to brag about.

....and there we go. As if my observation needed support.

Really, Adam`s metaphor of the two movies on the same screen totally works. The Trump haters (aka mainstream media consumers) are simply seeing a totally different reality than the rest of us. But Scott predicted that by now, the separation would have been lessened. Instead, it has increased. If anything, CNN et al have been doing a phantastic job of creating mass hysteria.

2 years on, and Trump Derangement Syndrome is as strong as ever. Scott Adams predicted that by now it would have been abated.... that afaics is the only prediction he got wrong.