Politics/Religion Consolidated Megathread Extravaganza

[Herman]

Tough titty TDS wankers. Expensive braking systems would not have prevented East Palestine.



https://www.theblaze.com/news/ntsb-homendy-epc-brakes-not-prevent-east-palestine?utm_source=theblaze-breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20230224Trending-ClintonAssociateSuicide&utm_term=Breaking%20on%20Internal%20Promo%20for%20Test">https://www.theblaze.com/news/ntsb-home ... for%20Test">https://www.theblaze.com/news/ntsb-homendy-epc-brakes-not-prevent-east-palestine?utm_source=theblaze-breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20230224Trending-ClintonAssociateSuicide&utm_term=Breaking%20on%20Internal%20Promo%20for%20Test

Democrats and the White House are blaming former President Donald Trump for the East Palestine train derailment, accusing him of revoking regulations they say would have prevented the disaster.



The narrative posits that Trump bears responsibility for the East Palestine train derailment because his administration rolled back regulations that critics now say would have prevented the train derailment and subsequent environmental disaster.



Specifically, critics say, for example, that electronically controlled pneumatic brakes could have prevented the derailment. The Obama administration issued the rule, and it was rolled back under Trump.



The top NTSB official told CNN anchor Jake Tapper unequivocally that ECP brakes would not have prevented the East Palestine train derailment.



The NTSB has looked at electronically controlled pneumatic braking for a number of years, and we did some testing as well. But for this investigation and for this derailment, ECP brakes would not have prevented the derailment," she said.



"The wheel bearing failed on car number 23. Even with ECP brakes, the derailment would have occurred," she explained.



Tapper followed up by asking if there is "any obvious rule change" that would have prevented the derailment. But again, critics of Trump would be disappointed in Homendy's answer.



"It's too early to tell," she told Tapper. "In our analysis phase of the investigation, we'll look at just that. We'll look at what could have prevented this terrible tragedy. And it could be regulation changes. It could be recommendations to Norfolk Southern, to the Department of Transportation, or to rail car manufacturers, or to emergency responders."



It is true that, under Trump, the DOT withdrew the rule on ECP brakes for trains carrying hazardous materials. However, as Politico explained, that happened only after intervention from Congress.



That withdrawal, however, stemmed from intervention by Congress, which required regulators to put the rule through a more stringent cost-benefit analysis after the Obama administration had issued the regulation. The rule ultimately failed that analysis.

Last week, Homendy first explained why ECP brakes and the withdrawn rule would not have prevented the derailment.



"The ECP braking rule would've applied ONLY to HIGH HAZARD FLAMMABLE TRAINS. The train that derailed in East Palestine was a MIXED FREIGHT TRAIN containing only 3 placarded Class 3 flammable liquids cars," she wrote on Twitter.



"This means even if the rule had gone into effect, this train wouldn't have had ECP brakes," she explained.







But Jennifer Homendy, chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board, made clear on Thursday that narrative is all bark and no bite.

by Taboola

[Shen Li]

I hate North America's no choice politics. I don't like reading or posting in this thread. However, I want to share what US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said. That out of touch asshole said this about America's proxy war in Ukraine, " Taxpayers have been incredibly generous toward Ukraine, but America must sustain our involvement and that's what we're determined to do."



Blinken and his warmongering libtard regime don't have the consent from Americans who are struggling to make ends meet to spend billions of dollars every month of their money propping up some corrupt dictator just because he makes money for Biden and his family.

[Frood]

I hate North America's no choice politics. I don't like reading or posting in this thread. However, I want to share what US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said. That out of touch asshole said this about America's proxy war in Ukraine, " Taxpayers have been incredibly generous toward Ukraine, but America must sustain our involvement and that's what we're determined to do."



Blinken and his warmongering libtard regime don't have the consent from Americans who are struggling to make ends meet to spend billions of dollars every month of their money propping up some corrupt dictator just because he makes money for Biden and his family.

That's why I have started driving to a capital city to get a flight out instead of my local regional town.



All the Qantas flights out of here are on Bombadier model turbo props. Great planes... but fucking Canadian.



I started my ban years ago on Gerber products because they were made in Portland, Oregon.



Many bans since.... I won't pay Qantas to add a cent into Canada's coffers. I hope your country descends into rampage killings because of Justine.



Obviously, I can't know of or stop every product from your shithole coming into our shithole.... but these small measures are a start.





I suggest to do likewise and refuse to buy any Aussie product or from any known Australian company.



Starve these cocksucking motherfuckers out.... cent by cent.

[Herman]

Some of the Republicans are just as trigger happy as the democRATs.  Mike Pence suggested American troops could be utilized if military aid fails.

[Herman]

Ninety seven percent of climate scientists aint saying there is a climate crisis, One hundred percent of prog billionaires and their paid for political lackies are saying there is a climate crisis.



This is from Alex Epstein.



The myth that "97% of scientists agree" about a climate crisis

Most climate scientists agree that we have some climate impact. This does not at all justify the rapid elimination of fossil fuels.

 

Myth: 97% of climate scientists agree that we face a climate crisis that requires the rapid elimination of fossil fuels.



Truth: Most climate scientists agree that we have some climate impact. This does not at all justify the rapid elimination of fossil fuels.



If you've ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about calls to rapidly eliminate fossil fuel use to prevent a "climate crisis," you've probably heard the smug response: "97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and human-caused."



This response is inane.



While "97% of climate scientists agree" is presented as a logical, scientific argument against fossil fuels, it's an illogical, unscientific argument that



1. Falsely equates some climate impact with catastrophic climate impact



2. Ignores the huge benefits of fossil fuels



"97%" fallacy 1: falsely equating consensus about some climate impact with consensus about catastrophic climate impact



There is consensus that fossil fuel use has some climate impact, but the "97%" claim is used to make you believe the consensus on catastrophic impact.



The usual purpose of saying "97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and human-caused" is to make you believe our climate impact is catastrophic—a "climate crisis."



But neither the statement itself nor the studies it's based on say our impact is catastrophic.



Notice how insignificant the "97%" refrain is: "97% percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and human-caused." It tells us nothing about the change's magnitude or danger. In fact, it's consistent with mild, manageable, and economically beneficial change.



The basis of the "97% of climate scientists agree" claims consists of surveys of the field of climate science, such as looking at a large collection of papers and quantifying how many explicitly or implicitly claim that human beings are having some sort of impact on climate.



The "97%" surveys either agree on some unspecified impact or, at most, attribute rising CO2 levels so far as the leading cause (over 50 percent) of the mild 1°C warming we have experienced to date.



But they are abused to claim 97% agreement on catastrophic climate impact.



"97%" abuser John Kerry has falsely equated:



"97% of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible."



With:



"if we continue to go down the same path...the world as we know it will...change dramatically for the worse."¹



"97%" abuser Barack Obama, in response to a study that said "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming," Tweeted "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous"—just adding "dangerous" from nowhere.²





"97%" abuser Al Gore took a study about papers agreeing with the idea that "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities" and misrepresented it to mean "we're causing global warming and that it's a serious problem"—adding "serious problem" from nowhere.³



"97%" abuser The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) falsely equates "97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening" with "highly damaging impacts" that we should avoid.⁴

https://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/">https://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/





Going beyond "97%," "99%" abuser The Guardian took a paper claiming 99% agreement on humans impacting climate to some extent to mean "99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans." The "emergency" was just added because The Guardian felt like it.⁵





The 2021 paper found that an overwhelming number of papers sampled agreed with human impact on global warming, but most would not even quantify the human share of warming. This "consensus" definition is extremely vague and has no "emergency" or policy implications at all. ⁶





Revealingly, Mark Lynas, lead author of the paper The Guardian falsely labeled as a 99% endorsement of climate emergency, promoted this misrepresentation instead of correcting it, falsely concluding that "undermining the case for action on climate change is not based on science."⁷



Lynas, like many other authors of "consensus" studies (including Naomi Oreskes and John Cook) is clearly motivated by the desire to use insignificant consensus about some climate impact to drive their desired catastrophe narrative and anti-fossil-fuel political outcome.⁸







97% fallacy 2: It ignores the huge benefits, including climate benefits, of fossil fuels



By being coupled with the refrain "listen to the scientists," the "97%" claim is designed to make you only look at the climate side-effects of fossil fuels when making policy—ignoring fossil fuels' benefits.



The "97%" consensus as defined by the various papers seeking to find agreement among scientists is weak. It doesn't show consensus about the magnitude and danger of impacts. But even if it did, this would only be part of the relevant information to make an energy policy decision.



"Listen to the scientists" on fossil fuel policy sounds compelling, because clearly we need information from climate scientists. But these scientists themselves are not qualified to make fossil fuel policy, because that depends on multiple fields, e.g., energy, economics, and adaptation.



Policymaking must factor in that fossil fuels provide over 80% of global energy in a world that is desperately short of energy. 3 billion humans use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator, and billions more use amounts of energy that are unacceptable to Americans.⁹



Policymaking must factor in that fossil fuels have expanded human life expectancy by decades, made us healthier, our environments cleaner, and all of us safer from climate. "Climate" policies that would diminish or destroy these benefits would themselves be catastrophic.¹⁰





Fossil fuels actually overall make us far safer from climate by providing low-cost energy for the amazing machines that protect us against storms, protect us against extreme temperatures, and alleviate drought. Climate disaster deaths have decreased 98% over the last century.¹¹





But the "97% consensus" abusers try to avoid the discussion about fossil fuel benefits by pretending that the only relevant issue is whether fossil fuels have climate-side-effects—and so we should just "listen to" the anti-fossil fuel views of their preferred scientists.



An example of the peril of "listen to the scientists": climate scientist Michael Mann's book on fossil fuels and climate doesn't once mention the essential benefit of fossil fuel use to the availability of food—even though 8 billion people depend on diesel machinery and natgas fertilizer to eat!¹²



Summary: Using "97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and human-caused" to argue against fossil fuels is illogical and unscientific. It:



1. Falsely equates some climate impact with catastrophic climate impact

2. Ignores the huge benefits of fossil fuels



If someone tries to intimidate you into opposing fossil fuels by saying "97% of climate scientists agree," trying asking them:



1. What exactly do they agree about—do they agree there's a "climate crisis"?



2. Do you agree we should also factor in the benefits of fossil fuels?

[Herman]

Here is how things are lining up twenty months out.



Trump Vs. Biden, And What About Kamala Harris? Poll Shows Clear Winner Among Registered Voters





Despite several investigations and lawsuits haunting former President Donald Trump, a new poll finds that he is likely to come out on top if he is matched up with some of the potential Democratic contenders.



What Happened: About 46% of the respondents surveyed indicated their intention to vote for Trump, compared to 41% who said they would vote for President Joe Biden, the results of the Harvard CAPS-Harris poll showed, according to The Hill. The remaining 13% said they were unsure or did not know.



Between Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, the preference was for the former, the poll found. About 49% favored Trump as opposed to 39% who preferred Harris, with 13% responding that they were either unsure or did not know.



The poll was conducted between Feb. 15 and Feb. 16 among 1,838 registered voters.

[Oerdin]

I would much rather see DeSantis as the Republican nominee.

[Frood]

I don't trust him as a president.... and now Jeb Bush has endorsed him.... so, double don't trust him now.

[DKG]

I would much rather see DeSantis as the Republican nominee.

So would I.

[Oerdin]

He has a proven record of doing the right thing and actually enacting it into law.

[Lokmar]

Trump 2024. He's got a track record of fighting the swamp. He's got a track record of fighting the chanks too. The chanks and their conspirators over here must be eliminated.

[Herman]

Trump 2024. He's got a track record of fighting the swamp. He's got a track record of fighting the chanks too. The chanks and their conspirators over here must be eliminated.

He was the right candidate in 2016, but not in 2024.

[Frood]

Trump 2024. He's got a track record of fighting the swamp. He's got a track record of fighting the chanks too. The chanks and their conspirators over here must be eliminated.

He was the right candidate in 2016, but not in 2024.

There is nobody else worth taking a gamble on.



For all his faults, he's still the right person in 2024.

[DKG]

Trump 2024. He's got a track record of fighting the swamp. He's got a track record of fighting the chanks too. The chanks and their conspirators over here must be eliminated.

He was the right candidate in 2016, but not in 2024.

Time to pass the baton.

[Lokmar]

Trump 2024. He's got a track record of fighting the swamp. He's got a track record of fighting the chanks too. The chanks and their conspirators over here must be eliminated.

He was the right candidate in 2016, but not in 2024.

Thinking back, I was told the same thing in 2016. In fact, I was told the right guy was Ted Cruz. I voted Ted Cruz in the primary.