Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Robert Roaldi]

...
Of course, that is what his family lawyer told him to do years ago - deny, deny, deny and lie. Until in court under oath it's all hearsay. i'd say he has followed that advice to the letter for a number of years.

Seems to have worked, mostly.

[Robert Roaldi]

Some headlines are just funny https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5732984-trump-switzerland-tariffs-phone-call/?tbref=hp.

Trump said a few days ago that he wants to shut down that new bridge between Windsor and Detroit. He may have even given a reason. The privately run competitor tolled bridge is owned by Trump supporters, but the local Congressman vows that the new bridge will open.

This (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5734021-house-speaker-defends-lutnick/?tbref=hp) came as a surprise to no one.

This must be the week for hilarious headlines https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5733567-bad-bunny-super-bowl-fcc/?tbref=hp. You know politicians have run out of things to say when they start criticizing song lyrics. It seems as if this has to happen in the US now and then. It never leads anywhere other than to have people fools of themselves. One mystery was solved though https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/5732232-bad-bunny-shirt-number-64-explanation/?tbref=hp.

Mysteriously, Gallup will stop publishing their Presidential approval poll https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5733236-gallup-stops-presidential-approval-ratings-polls/?tbref=hp. There's nothing odd about this timing.

I'm seeing headlines about Donald Trump's name appearing more than a million times in the somewhat less redacted version of the Epstein files. Whoever that other Donald Trump is, he sure gets around. Surely someone must have tracked down who he is by now.

[digitaldog]

Is the derranged one's only motivation (other than getting attention) going out of his way to ruin the world?
Time for the sycophant to regurgitate TDS again, but this is utter nonsense:

A leading American research lab is slated to lose its critical supercomputing facility, according to a letter released Thursday by the National Science Foundation.

The move is part of the Trump administration’s effort to disassemble the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, one of the world’s top weather and climate research centers, which the admin views as a source of climate change alarmism.

The computing center, which is slated to be turned over to an unspecified third party, runs weather and climate research models and is used by about 1,500 researchers from over 500 universities around the country. The work done on this supercomputer benefits the American people by leading to more accurate forecasts of extreme weather and climate events, aircraft turbulence and more.

[Ray]

Is the derranged one's only motivation (other than getting attention) going out of his way to ruin the world?
Time for the sycophant to regurgitate TDS again, but this is utter nonsense:

"The work done on this supercomputer benefits the American people by leading to more accurate forecasts of extreme weather and climate events, aircraft turbulence and more."

According to the Financial Post: https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/us-plans-to-dismantle-major-climate-research-center

"The US plans to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a key climate-science hub in Boulder, Colorado, which the Trump administration says strayed from its mission decades ago by taking up climate change research."

"A senior White House official on Wednesday called NCAR a stronghold for left-wing climate activism. Following a review, the official said, NSF will break up NCAR to eliminate climate research activities, while functions such as weather modeling and supercomputing will be moved to another site or entity."

It's obvious that Trump is against wasting money to create 'climate change alarmism', but the weather modeling and supercomputing will still be funded at another site or entity, so no need to worry about less accurate weather forecasts.

[Robert Roaldi]

"The work done on this supercomputer benefits the American people by leading to more accurate forecasts of extreme weather and climate events, aircraft turbulence and more."

According to the Financial Post: https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/us-plans-to-dismantle-major-climate-research-center

"The US plans to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a key climate-science hub in Boulder, Colorado, which the Trump administration says strayed from its mission decades ago by taking up climate change research."

"A senior White House official on Wednesday called NCAR a stronghold for left-wing climate activism. Following a review, the official said, NSF will break up NCAR to eliminate climate research activities, while functions such as weather modeling and supercomputing will be moved to another site or entity."

It's obvious that Trump is against wasting money to create 'climate change alarmism', but the weather modeling and supercomputing will still be funded at another site or entity, so no need to worry about less accurate weather forecasts.

You seem to be implicitly agreeing with the notion that climate change research is synonymous with climate change alarmism.

[Robert Roaldi]

The ex pardon attorney might have a bit of good news https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_fIKfKw_CVk. A day late and a dollar short for those two dead US citizens, but a step in the correct direction at least. Now, let's see if anything really happens.

[digitaldog]

You seem to be implicitly agreeing with the notion that climate change research is synonymous with climate change alarmism.

Or the prediction of the weather is a waste of money. It's obvious that Trump is against the benefits to the American people. Never himself.
In the absence of substantiating evidence, pundits resort to absurdity.
The work done on this supercomputer benefits the American people by leading to more accurate forecasts of extreme weather and climate events, aircraft turbulence and more.

[digitaldog]

It's obvious that Trump is against wasting money ...

Except when it benefits himself or his pals:

Trump Administration Sinks Hundreds of Millions of Public Dollars into Costly, Polluting Coal Boondoggle
This includes an executive order directing the Defense Department to pursue contracts for electricity from coal-fired power plants, as well as approximately $500 million in taxpayer funding for recommissioning and upgrading a handful of U.S. coal plants
https://www.ucs.org/about/news/trump-admin-sinks-public-funds-costly-polluting-coal

The Trump Administration Is Allowing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse To Fester in the Federal Oil and Gas Program
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administration-is-allowing-waste-fraud-and-abuse-to-fester-in-the-federal-oil-and-gas-program/

Trump Is Cutting Your Healthcare and Using the Money to Invade American Cities
This summer, the Trump administration has spent staggering amounts of taxpayer money invading cities like Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles with federal troops, against the wishes of local voters and their elected officials.
https://www.commoncause.org/articles/trump-is-cutting-your-healthcare-and-using-the-money-to-invade-american-cities/

[digitaldog]

In Iran:
Iranian authorities are fighting opposition by tapping a vast digital surveillance infrastructure to track down dissenters who participated in the recent anti-government demonstrations, according to human rights groups, researchers, and documents.

In the USA:
Federal immigration officers fanning out across Minnesota and other parts of the country are newly equipped with an array of state-of-the-art surveillance technologies, thanks to a bill passed last summer that transformed Immigration and Customs Enforcement into the country’s most highly funded law enforcement agency. ICE has wasted no time spending its war chest, buying new tools ranging from biometric trackers to mobile phone location databases, spyware and drones, while loosening restrictions on how it uses some of these technologies.

Trump saving money??? 🤯
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement expects to spend $38.3 billion to acquire warehouses across the country and retrofit them into detention centers.
The plan's $38 billion budget is more than the total annual spending for 22 states, according to state budget data.

[Ray]

You seem to be implicitly agreeing with the notion that climate change research is synonymous with climate change alarmism.

Climate change research is certainly associated with alarmism about the potentially disastrous effects of human CO2 emissions. Have you not noticed that? 

For the funding for research to remain, and hopefully increase, the alarm must be maintained, and any research which shows benefits to increasing CO2 levels, or falsifies the claims of harmful effects, must be squashed.

[digitaldog]

Climate change research is certainly associated with alarmism about the potentially disastrous effects of human CO2 emissions. Have you not noticed that? 

"Don't ask questions if you don't want to hear the answers". — Anonymous

Again: Do scientists agree on climate change?
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most leading science organizations worldwide have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and numerous other reputable scientific bodies.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

While the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change, you do not. Can you tell us where you got (at the bare minimum) your bachelor's degree in climatology or a related field, such as meteorology or atmospheric science?

[Ray]

"Don't ask questions if you don't want to hear the answers". — Anonymous

Again: Do scientists agree on climate change?
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most leading science organizations worldwide have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and numerous other reputable scientific bodies.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

While the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change, you do not. Can you tell us where you got (at the bare minimum) your bachelor's degree in climatology or a related field, such as meteorology or atmospheric science?

Thank God that 3 percent of climate scientists do not agree that humans are the 'main' cause of climate change, because that gives  us hope for progress. 

Scientific truth is determined by evidence rather than consensus or popularity. This was implied by Albert Einstein's response to a 1931 book in which a hundred authors opposed his theory of relativity.

His response was: "Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough".

A legitimate issue about this claimed 97% consensus is: To what extent are humans causing the current warming? 100%, 75%, 50%, 25%, 10%, 5%? Instead of 'cause', I would use the word 'contribute'. I would agree that at least 97% of all climate scientists, whether publishing or not, would agree that humans contribute to the current warming, at least to some extent, even if that extent is negligible. And I also agree that human activity, such as building concrete cities, black tarmac roads, and generating heat for all sorts of purposes, contributes to global warming.

Another issue is the projected harm to societies due to a warming climate. For example, when we have a heat wave, how often do you read that this is a bad result of a warming climate and will get worse? How often do you read that far more people die from cold spells than heat waves, globally? Any increase in the number of deaths from heat waves should be at least matched or exceeded by the reduction of deaths from cold spells, as a result of a warming climate.

[digitaldog]

Thank God that 3 percent of climate scientists do not agree that humans are the 'main' cause of climate change, because that gives  us hope for progress. 

Yet you're not one of them, at least you haven't answered my simple question. Not "us"; just speak for yourself.
You have a belief (a religion*), but a huge minority of Scientific truth determined by evidence:

"A belief is not evidence.”- Judge Linda Parker
"A belief is not true because it is useful." - Henri Amiel
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe."-Carl Sagan

Your religion* is not backed by the vast majority of scientists who have data to form their findings. It's pointless to debate religion* with you since you refuse to supply scientifically accepted data or answer simple questions about your understanding of said data.

"There is no God. No one directs the universe." -Stephen Hawking

[digitaldog]

And to add to the flat earth*, climate deniers who call it a hoax I present: 

* Only Two-Thirds Of American Millennials Believe The Earth Is Round. The survey found that those with an income less than $40,000 (79%) are much less likely to believe the world is round compared to those with an income over $80,000 (92%).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/04/04/only-two-thirds-of-american-millennials-believe-the-earth-is-round/

[Robert Roaldi]

Thank God that 3 percent of climate scientists do not agree that humans are the 'main' cause of climate change, because that gives  us hope for progress. 

Scientific truth is determined by evidence rather than consensus or popularity. This was implied by Albert Einstein's response to a 1931 book in which a hundred authors opposed his theory of relativity.

His response was: "Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough".

A legitimate issue about this claimed 97% consensus is: To what extent are humans causing the current warming? 100%, 75%, 50%, 25%, 10%, 5%? Instead of 'cause', I would use the word 'contribute'. I would agree that at least 97% of all climate scientists, whether publishing or not, would agree that humans contribute to the current warming, at least to some extent, even if that extent is negligible. And I also agree that human activity, such as building concrete cities, black tarmac roads, and generating heat for all sorts of purposes, contributes to global warming.

Another issue is the projected harm to societies due to a warming climate. For example, when we have a heat wave, how often do you read that this is a bad result of a warming climate and will get worse? How often do you read that far more people die from cold spells than heat waves, globally? Any increase in the number of deaths from heat waves should be at least matched or exceeded by the reduction of deaths from cold spells, as a result of a warming climate.

You seem to be implying that the scientists that are part of the 97% believe what they do because they want to be part of the consensus, but that the scientists in the 3% cohort (assuming your numbers are correct) are independent thinkers. Why do you assume this? It's just as easy to assume that the 3% are part of a paid-for cult, isn't it? Agreement with you does not imply objectivity.

Also, you have repeated the argument that you've used before, that the "consensus" scientists believe what they do in order to get their hands on all the research grant money being thrown their way. My only conclusion is that you don't know much about research or how it works. To accept this argument means that there is a vast international conspiracy to con everyone into believing in something that isn't true. Please go away and think about this. Just because the findings of a group of people do not confirm your biases does not make them false.

If you are unable to distinguish between climate research and climate alarmisn, it makes it very difficult to take your arguments seriously. You have obviously simply decided that all talk of climate change (caused by humans) is alarmist by definition.

[Robert Roaldi]

Trump seems to be on some sort of rampage against the Cuban people. I wonder if Americans realize how crazy this makes them seem to the rest of the world. Castro's revolution was a long time ago and he's dead. The few American enterprises that were kicked out, resort owners, fruit growers, organized crime, etc., made a gamble by investing in businesses in another country. Sometimes when you do that, you get burned. That's called free enterprise, they took a chance and lost. Tough, get over yourselves.

Why that historical revolutionary episode should carry any weight today is truly bizarre. Cuba is no danger to the USA. The people living there now certainly aren't. Any revolutionaries that the USA would like to extract revenge upon are all dead and buried anyway. Why starve their descendants? If the USA truly believes that fault is inherited, then they should start paying reparations to the descendants of slaves.

I can understand that the USA would not be too happy about Russian nuclear missiles being housed in Cuba, but that didn't happen because it was prevented. So, that's kind of over, isn't it? The USA dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan but I don't hear them whining about that every five minutes.

Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, Greenland, Detroit-Windsor bridge, dog-eating,  there must be something ever more evil in those Epstein files than I thought. Every phoney distraction just attracts more interest. If they're willing to go to these lengths, can't just be a simple sex scandal, must be more to it.

[digitaldog]

You seem to be implying that the scientists that are part of the 97% believe what they do because they want to be part of the consensus, but that the scientists in the 3% cohort (assuming your numbers are correct) are independent thinkers. Why do you assume this?

From another actual scientist: "Assumptions are made and most assumptions are wrong."- Albert Einstein

My only conclusion is that you don't know much about research or how it works.

That would explain Ray's inability to answer my simple question about his (at the bare minimum) bachelor's degree in climatology or a related field, such as meteorology or atmospheric science.

[digitaldog]

A new Yahoo!/YouGov poll shows more Americans approving of Bad Bunny than of his recent nemesis-in-chief, Donald J. Trump, in the wake of controversy over last weekend’s Super Bowl halftime show, by a margin of 42% for the Puerto Rican performer versus 39% for the president.

More than 1,700 U.S. adults were surveyed for the poll, with a slightly higher percentage of Republicans and conservatives included in the survey than their Democratic/liberal counterparts.

Those who consider themselves independents are even more adamant that Trump is less representative of America than the rapper. Just 27 percent say he does represent the country, while 46 percent back the musician

https://variety.com/2026/music/news/poll-bad-bunny-ahead-trump-who-represents-america-halftime-1236663647/

[Robert Roaldi]

A new Yahoo!/YouGov poll shows more Americans approving of Bad Bunny than of his recent nemesis-in-chief, Donald J. Trump, in the wake of controversy over last weekend’s Super Bowl halftime show, by a margin of 42% for the Puerto Rican performer versus 39% for the president.

More than 1,700 U.S. adults were surveyed for the poll, with a slightly higher percentage of Republicans and conservatives included in the survey than their Democratic/liberal counterparts.

Those who consider themselves independents are even more adamant that Trump is less representative of America than the rapper. Just 27 percent say he does represent the country, while 46 percent back the musician

https://variety.com/2026/music/news/poll-bad-bunny-ahead-trump-who-represents-america-halftime-1236663647/

The talk about Congressional examination of Bad Bunny's lyrics seems to have disappeared. I don't know his music and don't understand Spanish but descriptions that I've heard/read say that they are innocuous pop songs. Sooner or later flooding the zone just amounts to dumbass pablum and people quickly learn to ignore it.

I did watch a short bit of one video podcast today (titled 'I've had it') that told the story of how several of the pardoned Jan 6thers have been arrested on child molestation charges.

[Ray]

Yet you're not one of them, at least you haven't answered my simple question. Not "us"; just speak for yourself.
You have a belief (a religion*), but a huge minority of Scientific truth determined by evidence:

"A belief is not evidence.”- Judge Linda Parker
"A belief is not true because it is useful." - Henri Amiel
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe."-Carl Sagan

Your religion* is not backed by the vast majority of scientists who have data to form their findings. It's pointless to debate religion* with you since you refuse to supply scientifically accepted data or answer simple questions about your understanding of said data.

"There is no God. No one directs the universe." -Stephen Hawking

I thought that might be your response to my post when I wrote the term 'Thank God'. Just to enlighten you, this is the general meaning of the term.

"Thank God" is a common English interjection used to express profound relief, gratitude, or happiness, particularly when a potential disaster is avoided or a positive outcome occurs. While originally religious, the phrase is now largely idiomatic and used by both religious and non-religious people to signify that a situation turned out well."

I have no religious belief. I am an atheist. However, if one interprets belief as having a 'high confidence' in some process, then I have a belief in the effectiveness of applying the true methodology of scientific enquiry, which involves repeated experimentation under controlled conditions, and repeated attempts to falsify a particular hypothesis, rather than hiding or ignoring contradictory research.

It should be obvious to anyone interested in the subject of climate change, that it's a very complex and chaotic system which doesn't lend itself to scientific certainty.

Here's the view of the 'Working Group 1' section of an IPCC report. The Working Group 1 section is the scientific summary as opposed to the political summary which tends to differ in its emphasis.

"The IPCC Report (TAR) Working Group I states that the climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, making long-term prediction of future exact climate states impossible.
Chaotic System Dynamics: The climate system contains components that are inherently chaotic, with feedbacks that can switch sign, creating complex, non-linear, and sometimes abrupt, rather than gradual, changes."

However this uncertainty does not appear in the political summary of the IPCC reports, for obvious reasons which the deceased Dr Stephen Schneider explained. He was a renowned climatologist and professor at Stanford University, known for his work on climate modeling, policy, and public communication of climate science.
Here's what he wrote:

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."

Do you not think that 97% consensus claim is an exaggeration for political purposes?