President Biden thread

Beerman, BSN · Mar 18

heron said:

It is. Climate change deniers have been slinging that particular bit of drek for decades. Remember the same discussion here over lightbulbs, oh, 20 years ago or so? The argument is that if a single change isn't going to solve the problem once and for all, then it's not worth doing. Kinda stupid, I know. Like arguing that if insulin doesn't cure diabetes with one shot, then it's not an appropriate treatment for hyperglycemia.

Classic oil company schtick.

Disingenuous comparison. We know what a insulin shot will do for diabetes management. There is science to back it up. We don't have anything that shows replacing gas water heaters and furnaces will make a difference in climate change.

toomuchbaloney · Mar 18

Beerman said:

Disingenuous comparison. We know what a insulin shot will do for diabetes management. There is science to back it up. We don't have anything that shows replacing gas water heaters and furnaces will make a difference in climate change.

There's no data or science that you are aware of.

Natural gas is a fossil fuel. It is cleaner than other fossil fuels but it still contributes to our areas of concern. Are you admitting that the climate is changing?

Beerman, BSN · Mar 18

toomuchbaloney said:

There's no data or science that you are aware of.

Natural gas is a fossil fuel. It is cleaner than other fossil fuels but it still contributes to our areas of concern. Are you admitting that the climate is changing?

That's correct. Bravo. There is no data or science that I'm aware of. That's why I asked. Apparently none you're aware of either.

I've always acknowledged climate change.

And, I've asked several times over the last several years for evidence that green initiatives will effect climate change.

Still waiting....

heron, ASN, RN · Mar 18

Beerman said:

Disingenuous comparison. We know what an insulin shot will do for diabetes management. There is science to back it up. We don't have anything that shows replacing gas water heaters and furnaces will make a difference in climate change.

Not so disingenuous, really. We've had the science to back up the claims of atmospheric damage caused by burning fossil fuels since the 70's. Scientists working for the oil industry (Shell Oil, to be exact.) discovered the issue, reported it to their bosses, who immediately took a page from Big Tobacco and attacked the science in order to protect their profits.

Your attempt to invalidate small measures to reduce dependence because they won't solve the problem is what's disingenuous, here. Of course, any single move that would significantlLY affect atmospheric CO2 - ie banning fossil fuels completely - will be dismissed as too disruptive.

Y'see the boondoggle there? The argument is that small moves toward incremental changes are no good because the results are not dramatic or immediately obvious. Bigger changes with a more immediate measurable effect - like the temporary local changes we saw during covid - are no good because they are too destructive. So, no changes are made and taxpayers spend billions per year subsidizing oil companies' profits.

Tell me this: if human-sourced atmospheric CO2 is causing the damage we've seen over the last century, does it really make sense to continue to add to it, even in small ways?

You've been had.

toomuchbaloney · Mar 18

Beerman said:

That's correct. Bravo. There is no data or science that I'm aware of. That's why I asked. Apparently none you're aware of either.

I've always acknowledged climate change.

And, I've asked several times over the last several years for evidence that green initiatives will effect climate change.

Still waiting....

Your disingenuous questions weren't answered to your satisfaction. That's different than not getting answers to your disingenuous questions.

Beerman, BSN · Mar 18

heron said:

Not so disingenuous, really. We've had the science to back up the claims of atmospheric damage caused by burning fossil fuels since the 70's. Scientists working for the oil industry (Shell Oil, to be exact.) discovered the issue, reported it to their bosses, who immediately took a page from Big Tobacco and attacked the science in order to protect their profits.

Your attempt to invalidate small measures to reduce dependence because they won't solve the problem is what's disingenuous, here. Of course, any single move that would significantlLY affect atmospheric CO2 - ie banning fossil fuels completely - will be dismissed as too disruptive.

Y'see the boondoggle there? The argument is that small moves toward incremental changes are no good because the results are not dramatic or immediately obvious. Bigger changes with a more immediate measurable effect - like the temporary local changes we saw during covid - are no good because they are too destructive. So, no changes are made and taxpayers spend billions per year subsidizing oil companies' profits.

Tell me this: if human-sourced atmospheric CO2 is causing the damage we've seen over the last century, does it really make sense to continue to add to it, even in small ways?

You've been had.

Small measures? California for example is spending tens of billions on "clean" energy infrastructure.

It doesn't make sense to you to see some evidence that these costly measures will have equally worthy benefits?

Tweety, BSN, RN · Mar 18

I don't think that we can measure current green initiatives because we don't have the benefit of time looking back. Maybe in 30 years California will be able to be researched as to the impact its regulations had.

However, we can look back at things we did decades ago and find that we were able to close a hole in the ozone layer, we have made the air cleaner, we've dropped cars emissions to the point that Florida stopped requiring cars to be tested because we all were passing inspection and it was a waste of money, studies show water quality has improved the last 50 years, etc.

However, I still remain pessimistic about things as it would take trillions of dollars and an effort by everyone around the world at the same time. Not going to happen.

https://news.mit.edu/2017/cleaner-air-longer-lives-organic-aerosols-1225

subee, MSN, CRNA · Mar 18

Beerman said:

Let me rephrase. Show me the science that says replacing gas furnaces and water heaters with electric furnaces and water heaters will make a difference in climate change.

It's a big topic. It can't be answered in one sentence or one paragraph or one monograph. Start with how particles in the air change the amount of water that air can hold and how that affects the weather.

Beerman, BSN · Mar 20

"Willie Frank Peterson, 52, was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine in 2023, and was sentenced to six years and three months in jail. His sentence began on Sept. 13, 2023, according to court records obtained by Fox News Digital.

Per a Jan. 17 executive grant of clemency, Biden commuted Peterson's sentence to 20 months, allowing him to leave custody shortly after.

But on Monday, Peterson was booked for multiple drug-related offensives in Dothan, Alabama. The Dothan Police Department charged Peterson with two counts of unlawful possession of a controlled substance and one count of possession of marijuana. "

https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-prison-sentence-commuted-biden-facing-drug-firearms-related-charges

subee, MSN, CRNA · Mar 20

Beerman said:

"Willie Frank Peterson, 52, was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine in 2023, and was sentenced to six years and three months in jail. His sentence began on Sept. 13, 2023, according to court records obtained by Fox News Digital.

Per a Jan. 17 executive grant of clemency, Biden commuted Peterson's sentence to 20 months, allowing him to leave custody shortly after.

But on Monday, Peterson was booked for multiple drug-related offensives in Dothan, Alabama. The Dothan Police Department charged Peterson with two counts of unlawful possession of a controlled substance and one count of possession of marijuana. "

https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-prison-sentence-commuted-biden-facing-drug-firearms-related-charges

And then what happened to him? I can't get the link to open.

toomuchbaloney · Mar 20

subee said:

And then what happened to him? I can't get the link to open.

I'm not interested in trying to open the link. We all know by now that some of Trump's violent criminals were pardoned and then immediately were arrested again. Trump supporters really need to distract people from Trump's incompetence and intentional destruction of our rule of law by trying to pretend that Biden is similar. It's pretty amusing.

subee, MSN, CRNA · Mar 21

Beerman said:

"Willie No Frank Peterson, 52, was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine in 2023, and was sentenced to six years and three months in jail. His sentence began on Sept. 13, 2023, according to court records obtained by Fox News Digital.

Per a Jan. 17 executive grant of clemency, Biden commuted Peterson's sentence to 20 months, allowing him to leave custody shortly after.

But on Monday, Peterson was booked for multiple drug-related offensives in Dothan, Alabama. The Dothan Police Department charged Peterson with two counts of unlawful possession of a controlled substance and one count of possession of marijuana. "

https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-prison-sentence-commuted-biden-facing-drug-firearms-related-charges

No one here has said that Biden's "communtations" (not pardons) were a good thing.