Dear US voters,
the world is holding its breath. The stakes are high in the upcoming US elections. At stake is a million times more than which email server one candidate used, or how another treated women. The future of humanity will be profoundly affected by your choice, for many generations to come.
The coming four years is the last term during which a US government still has the chance, jointly with the rest of the world, to do what is needed to stop global warming well below 2°C and closer to 1.5°C, as was unanimously decided by 195 nations in the Paris Agreement last December. The total amount of carbon dioxide the world can still emit in order to have at least a 50% chance to stop warming at 1.5 °C will, at the current rate of emissions, be all used up in under ten years! This time can only be stretched out by making emissions fall rapidly.
Even 2°C of global warming is very likely to spell the end of most coral reefs on Earth. 2°C would mean a largely ice-free Arctic ocean in summer, right up to the North Pole. Even 2°C of warming is likely to destabilize continental ice sheets and commit the world to many meters of sea-level rise, lasting for millennia. Further global warming will likely lead to increasing extreme weather, droughts, harvest failures, and the risk of armed conflict and mass migration.
Meltwater on the Greenland Ice Sheet. Photo with kind permission by Ragnar Axelsson.
In case you have any doubts about the science: in the scientific community there is a long-standing consensus that humans are causing dangerous global warming, reflected in the clear statements of many scientific academies and societies from around the world. None of the 195 governments that signed the Paris Agreement saw any reasons for doubting the underlying scientific facts; doubts about the science that you see in some media are largely manufactured by interest groups trying to fool you.
You have a fateful choice to make. The policies of candidates and parties on climate change could hardly be more different. Hillary Clinton would continue to work with the international community to tackle the global warming crisis and help the transition to modern clean and renewable energies. Donald Trump denies that the problem even exists and has promised to go back to coal and to undo the Paris Agreement, which comes into force today, the 4th of November 2016, as culmination of over twenty years of negotiations.
Please consider this carefully. This is not an election about personalities, it is about policies that will determine our future for a long time to come. While the presidential race has gotten the most attention, voters should consider climate not just at the ‘top of the ticket’, but all the way down the ballot. Don’t make a choice that you, your children and your children’s children will regret forever.
David Archer, Rasmus Benestad, Ray Bradley, Michael Mann, Ray Pierrehumbert, Stefan Rahmstorf and Eric Steig
39 nigel jones, I agree with you re cap and trade. It’s a myth as a solution.
“Business [ie swales of Money, extreme Ideology, Personal Self-Importance/Greed and imagined Superiority] has huge influence on politics…” everywhere!
That’s why there is climate science denial in the first place. :-)
33 Chris O’Neill says: “Australia adopted a Carbon tax which was thrown out by voters at the subsequent election.”
Hi Chris, you are flat out wrong there. 100%
Labor govt passed laws for a Cap and Trade System – and that is what it always was — the “carbon tax” was and still is a MISNOMER – the successful efforts of the media and the right wing fossil fuel corporate interests to RE-FRAME the facts into a myth.
You cannot have a cap and trade system without having a (floating) price on Carbon – and that is what was Legislated.
It was repealed BEFORE the Cap aspects were lowered or the Trade aspects kicked in in any significant way.
41
Kevin McKinney says:
“could you please tell us how many of the 195 voted on the subject?”
195, obviously. ;-)
Then could you direct us to to the ballot counts ?
re: 39. “Regarding Trump versus Clinton. Trump and Clinton both have bad character, so it has to be decided on their policies.”
Wow, staggeringly huge false equivalency there.
what are you going to do when we have record cold next year? Caused by cyclical changes in solar activity
I dont understand what you want
In the past, I would often approach a close election worried that my candidate might not win. But I would tell always myself that if my candidate did not win, it would not be the end of the world. This time I am not sure that logic holds.
Ilma @20, your vacuous incredulity, non-existent grasp of the science, and complete ignorance of the evidence is duly noted.
How naive. How can otherwise intelligent show such poor insight? I guess people are people are people and climate scientists are no less bullied by propaganda than anyone else – at least, this is the conclusion one draws from watching intelligent men fall to propaganda and fail to accurately analyze the situation.
The idea Trump is less dangerous than Clinton borders on the absurd. Government and economics are run on power, and Trump has none. The man is disliked by his own party. He has a die-hard cabal of seemingly intellectually challenged and/or Authoritarian followers, but not in government. You think Obama was obstructed? Wait till you see Trump try some hair-brained silliness. They will follow him nowhere, except the banks. Taxes? He’ll get those votes. Deregulation? Sure. But all this stuff about destroying the world? Won’t happen because it mostly can’t.
While the U.S. president does negotiate treaties, Congress must approve. The president doesn’t solely determine treaty statuses, i.e. The economy? Presidents rarely have any real impact, and in this case, anything Trump would do, so would Clinton. She has stated clearly – and it was exceedingly obvious already – she seeks, and holds, the center of both the Left and the Right. There will be no great lurch of the economy in either case.
Climate? Seriously? The Fracking Queen will work together to save the world from itself? How in the name of god does that happen when she’s never met a fossil fuel or war or economic surge she didn’t like? Climate change is a direct result of the economics of humans, and Clinton has little interest in reeling in economic activity. She could no more imagine a truly sustainable future than be kind to her protection detail.
Clinton wants an unfettered economy, and this will drive continued high emissions because you cannot replace FF’s with electricity.
We have far too many examples of people talking about how Clinton is in private to continue to ignore them because we see the exact same nastiness when she lets down her guard. A female activist from Greenpeace and a female BLM protester can attest to this, as can anyone here: We have video.
Clinton/Trump is not a choice, it’s a joke. There is but one climate candidate, and that is Stein. Clinton will divide this nation, ending it’s ability to respond to climate. And, under her “leadership” we will move further away from sustainability as decision after decision is for the owners of capital. Do you want 8 more years of nothing but economics for the rich and 70% of all legislation favoring the 1%? Do you want more wars? Clinton has supported every war since Iraq, and was a primary cause of us going into Libya. That turned out great.
Demonize Trump all you wish, but in not also demonizing Clinton, you all show a severe lack of judgement and understanding of what the *solutions* to climate and resource limits are.
Consumption is our greatest failing. Neither will do anything about that. Both will drive that. Both hate people unlike themselves, but one of the two wears so many faces nobody sees what lies beneath even though members of the FBI and Secret Service have made it abundantly clear what kind of person she is: Spiteful, hate-filled, angry, foul-mouthed, patronizing, royalty-like in her demands for obedience and deference from others.
She is, imo, as unstable as Trump, and more dangerous.
Stein
#2 Russell > how many [nations at COP21, or parties to the conference] voted on the subject?
It’s not an in-or-out vote. But to find the numbers use the “Paris Agreement Tracker Tool” & map:
http://cait.wri.org/indc/#/ratification
193 Parties signed. [Signature signals support.] 101 Parties, representing 70% of global emissions, have ratified or otherwise joined.
The mechanism–with context and numbers–by which The Paris Agreement came into force (November 4) is outlined on this Climate Nexus page:
http://climatenexus.org/about-us/paris-agreement/factsheet-entry-force-process-paris-agreement
Links at the bottom include CarbonBrief entry-into-force explainer.
The Agreement could not have come this far without a process that respects diversity and sovereignty. It is exemplary in this regard. Welcome to COP22.
With the new format, I can’t see past comment #50 and can’t get to the next page of comments.
JF 55: what are you going to do when we have record cold next year? Caused by cyclical changes in solar activity
BPL: I’ll wonder how nearly all of climate science could have been so completely wrong for so many decades.
“The idea Trump is less dangerous than Clinton borders on the absurd.”
It is, Killian, it is, but I think you meant it the other way ’round.
True, Presidential power is limited by Congressional power, but the idiots in the House have been limited by President Obama, who has managed some positive steps despite them. Put Trump in the White House, and that would go away–and so would any meaningful American participation in the Paris Accord. Without that, what would the enthusiasm for the process be? Wouldn’t everyone abroad who wished to obstruct progress be turning the American denialati argument inside out to claim that “There is no point in little old us doing our bit, when the Americans are just going to go on polluting as long as they can keep making a buck?”
Clinton climate policy may be less aggressive that Stein’s, but it’s moot as long as Stein has no pathway to victory. I don’t blame Mike R. for voting for her; he made the rational calculation that CA is a safe state, and that he could afford to use his vote to ‘send a message.’ Such votes in swing states however are, IMO, utterly irresponsible.
Ilma:
Ilma sounds like a creationist. Richard Dawkins once interviewed Wendy Wright, president of a group called “Concerned Women for America”, for a documentary Dawkins was making. According to a review in the New York Times,
Wright’s obdurate ignorance made even a fellow creationist, one Mike Felker, cringe:
Felker’s tip applies equally well to AGW-deniers like Ilma. IMO, they should be encouraged to display their confident cluelessness at every opportunity 8^D!
“We have far too many examples of people talking about how Clinton is in private to continue to ignore them because we see the exact same nastiness when she lets down her guard. A female activist from Greenpeace and a female BLM protester can attest to this, as can anyone here: We have video.”
Wow, posting/regurgitating anecdotal (at best) crap like this on a science board. Really showing a complete failure of critical thinking there.
At 35 Chris G said:
I wish it was true that we could persuade others that AGW is a major threat, but it is the media who influence what people think. We need a “Trump”, someone who can speak to the people leading our campaign. Al Gore tried, but he was not supplied with the ammunition to handle the task.
Political battles are not won with facts. They are won based on emotions – hatred and fear. The skeptic think tanks are using those weapons, and until the scientists start describing the worst case scenarios then no action will be taken. They should be telling the press of their worst fears. Until the public are afraid the politicians are unable to act.
But the problem is that the scientists are in denial. They still believe that the Arctic sea ice will last another thirty years, but it collapsing and will gone within ten years.
The Arctic temperature is hovering over 10C above normal for the time of year. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2016.png
The Arctic sea ice extent is lower than it has ever been at this time of year https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent and is struggling to refreeze this winter.
When the sea ice in the Nordic Seas suddenly disappeared at the end of the Younger Dryas stadial temperature in Greenland rose by 20degC (36F). If this happens when the Arctic sea ice melts, then the climate change in the NH will disrupt agriculture, and accelerate the melting of the Greenland ice sheet.
#60 Update: 103 Parties have joined the Paris Agreement now, accounting for 73% of global emissions.
The World Resources Institute updates and explains in great detail:
http://www.wri.org/faqs-about-how-paris-agreement-enters-force
Besides these numbers the interactive map displays the kind of domestic processes that are in place in various countries for joining the Agreement, i.e, a graphic summary of this info (Table 1, Domestic Processes):
http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/Domestic_Processes_for_Joining_the_Paris_Agreement.pdf
60
Patrick, the authors point out that this is the last :
However, the agreement of the COP delegates does not amount to popular ratification of the agreement by democratic process or, as the American constitutional requires, by the advice and consent of the elected representatives of the people.
Well, well, well. Apparently the Polls were wrong.
68: “We need a “Trump”, well you’ve got one now. Thank you very much America, I guess myself and future generations can now look forward to a new era of global instability and the full effects of climate change following a business as usual scenario. Another triumph of emotion over rationality.
“and until the scientists start describing the worst case scenarios then no action will be taken…”. That has been attempted, and all that happens is that scientists are accused of alarmism and then ignored. The average Joe public is not going to give up their cushy comfortable unsustainable Western lifestyle unless they absolutely have too, by which time it will be too late. Whilst it is good to hang on to hope, about all I can feel now is that I hope I die before the worst happens, because if it does, I reckon death will be an easier way to go than living.
With Trump’s election and continued Republican control of both the Senate and the House, I think that whatever chance there was to avoid 2°C warming has just vanished.
My condolences fly out to all american citizens. I can not believe it. I don’t want to believe it. I can not take it.
Love,
Nemesis
The wages of lukewarmism–our last, best hope shattered.
“It was nice knowing you, civilization. I know it’s not goodbye, yet, but the end of our time together seems to be coming.”
I’ll never quit fighting for a livable future, but this is a huge setback, and not really recoverable. Now it’s a matter of how fast we are traveling when we hit the inevitable wall. Still worth stomping on the brake, but there *will* be a crash.
Due to the very high support of the climate denialist candidate I was thinking even yesterday before the election that maybe we could hold a funeral for the late great life on Earth. It could be used as a teaching moment, bec people will be responding with, “Everything’s fine, life on earth is not dead or even dying out.” Then we could say, it’s sort of like cancer in the olden days — a diagnosis meant certain death, even though it may take years, but people couldn’t perceive that they had cancer in the early stages. They had to rely on medical tests to detect it, and by the time they could perceive it on their own, it was way too late. Same way, many are not able to perceive climate change happening at this point; only the experts can tell us it is happening and its eventual impacts. And even now it is possibly too late to halt grave harm to life on Earth for decades and centuries to come (that includes people too). But if we wait a couple of more decades until climate change is very well perceptible, it most certainly will be too late to halt annihilation of a large portion of life on Earth, including of humanity.
What a shame.
Well, we’ll see.
Computer models of immensely complex (possibly chaotic), non-linear, dynamic systems using coefficients that are unknown in combination with uncertain assumptions are neither science nor evidence.
Correlation is not causation.
Anyone who tries to tell you that the immature, primitive field known as “climate science” represents “settled science” is not being truthful.
Thomas
2000 and 2002 were both drier than the short spell of dry weather the NC is having at the moment. And a few years ago from the spring of 2010 to 2012 there was heaps of rain – or had you forgotten the Brisbane flood? And Brisbane had a good hailstone just a few days ago. El Niño/La Nina – makes a difference around here.
Killian @59, I would agree Clinton and Trump both have failings,(many of them) but I think you are mistaken about several other things there.
You say “Trump will get those votes. Taxes? He’ll get those votes.Deregulation? Sure. But all this stuff about destroying the world? Won’t happen because it mostly can’t.”
And “The economy? Presidents rarely have any real impact, and in this case, anything Trump would do, so would Clinton.”
Firstly you are contradicting yourself. You cant say Trump will get votes on various policies he puts forward then say he has no economic power. While it does come down to a vote in the house, presidents set the potential agenda. Trumps entire policy agenda is just crazy and will hurt ordinary people. Anyone with any understanding of economics can see that, sadly his poorly educated supporters don’t.
Clinton would definitely not do the same things. Her history and policy details show this.
And remember Trump does have considerable power on foreign affairs and through executive orders. So he could cause global chaos. I agree Clinton is too much of a foreign policy hawk. But then Trump is quite capable of starting a war and is far more impulsive and easily angered.
You say “climate change is a direct result of the economics of humans, and Clinton has little interest in reeling in economic activity. She could no more imagine a truly sustainable future than be kind to her protection detail.Clinton wants an unfettered economy, and this will drive continued high emissions because you cannot replace FF’s with electricity.”
This just doesn’t make sense. Its entirely possible to have economic growth and climate change mitigation. Fossil fuels can largely be replaced with other fuels and electricity. They dont have to be entirely replaced, just mostly and this is clearly feasible.
What a sad day. For the first time in my life I’m depressed about politics.
America has made an awful choice. Trumps policies wont help ordinary people, they are pure snake oil, and it has set climate change mitigation back a decade or more.
However hopefully the rest of the world ignores America, and gets on with things and the Paris agreement.
Any thoughts on Myron Ebell for the EPA? Which I guess is now a certainty?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/
Kevin McKinney wrote: “Now it’s a matter of how fast we are traveling when we hit the inevitable wall.”
It’s not a wall. It’s a cliff with a 1,000 foot drop onto jagged rocks below.
So it really doesn’t matter how fast we are going when we go over the cliff.
We need to stop before we reach the cliff.
Trump has promised to stomp on the accelerator pedal.
Trump voters largely reject warming. In a way that is the whole point of why he won, that is the rejection of all ‘expert’ opinion or even facts. It may sound overly dramatic but the age of reason and even the Enlightenment are over.
I am sure nobody cares nor probably should they about my opinion but there was zero chance that there would be any lowering CO2 emissions enough to make any real difference, by political choice. Such is beyond the power of politics in our age of economics.
That does not mean however that they won’t be reduced. Not at all. Economic dislocation will probably ‘save’ us but the the cure for you will be worse than the disease.
I did some digging into RCP election data down to county level. It’s clear as day that again Trump/Repubs won big majorities in all the towns and rural counties outside the major cities.
So if any pro-climate science communicator wants to know where are the people needing a fuller clear explanation about AGW/CC they will find them in Red Counties across the USA. Relying upon the MSM, websites blogs and Facebook/Twitter is not ever going to make a difference.
Against the odds, the polls and the ‘too smart for their own good’ pundits Trump surprisingly won these 8 key ‘swing/blue’ states last night – Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Trump won them by an average of only 80,000 votes per state. MI by 19K. PA by 67K. NH by only 127 votes. Repubs gained 3 new Governors
IBD/TIPP Tracking again sets the standard for the most accurate consistent polling bar none! http://www.realclearpolitics.com
No! The scientists are afraid of describing the worst case scenarios because they fear they will be accused of alarmism, if not by the public then by their own colleagues!
Well then the scientists have to tell the average Joe public that they absolutely must take action now, especially in Florida and North Carolina. Voting for Trump is not going to save them from sea level rise.
RE: 55 – I’m not sure what you’re talking about, solar radiance from what I understand varies little, and is not at a particularly high level today, not only that we’re experiencing a mild La Nina and in the American midwest we’re experiencing a fall that is off the charts in terms of temperature.
The only surprises I’m worried about are on the upside
72 SecularAnimist says: “With Trump’s election and continued Republican control of both the Senate and the House, I think that whatever chance there was to avoid 2°C warming has just vanished.”
Yes.
That’s in a world where only 3 Greens Senators would hold the balance of power between the two mega-corporate parties.
If only pro-climate science American’s could apply basic logic better into the future – iow think ahead and plan ahead and have acted before it was too late.
If only Bernie Sanders had won the Primaries – oh hang on, he pretty much did win them.
If only something had been done about Political Donations, SuperPacs and funding of election campaigns by Foreign Govts etc.
But now, it will be ‘sold’ to the gullible as being all Trumps fault.
I still highly recommend the intelligent science info found in the videos by Dr Kroth and Prof Lakoff – AGW deniers are not the only people who suffer from delusions.
Facing reality can be a huge mental and emotional challenge:
re …voters should consider climate not just at the ‘top of the ticket’, but all the way down the ballot.
“With 99 percent of returns in, Toomey led Democrat Katie McGinty, a former environmental policy advisor in President Clinton’s administration and as Department of Environmental Protection secretary under Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, by 49-47 percent.”
That’s one of many examples this election cycle.
Colleagues:
My view from America is grim….as a researcher who has worked on climate change mitigation since 1980, I feel that the American public let the world down.
Trump already promises to push for more coal consumption, natural gas fracking (hello, Oklahoma earthquakes!) and other poor policy choices.
However, please know that many alternatives are now “baked in”….wind power in the USA is easily competitive with fossil fuels; large utilities will resist building new coal-fired power plants if, in four years, Trump is voted out and we have a change in parties once again….rooftop solar continues to gain adherents, and our industries continue to take steps to reduce fossil fuel consumption and carbon emissions. I believe that these trends are now too great to be turned back.
Dr. Archer, thank you for your kind comments after your presentation to Fermilab for your book tour for “The Long Thaw,” you helped to inspire me. Better to light a candle than curse the darkness. Cheers, Charles
Americans have just elected as their leader, a mentally ill, narcissist, fraud, whom fact checkers have determined, lied 86 percent of the time during the election campaign.
Consider this question at length…What does this say about the intelligence and moral integrity of the American people?
Just before George Bush Jr, was elected and how his lying through the campaign was obvious, and his statements factually incorrect, one Republican woman was kind enough to explain the Republican mind set to me.
“You don’t understand” She said… “We don’t care what you say. We don’t believe you. George Bush is a good Christian.”
And that was the end of it. Her mind was closed to facts because facts didn’t matter. To Republicans reality is something that can be whisked away and replaced with fundamentalist ideology.
To them, Facts are silly things, as Ronald Reagan once said.
Bush and Trump is what you get when a population grows so ignorant that it can no longer think rationally enough to govern itself.
The view of many here is that deep down, Republicans are reasonable people who can be reasoned with. If only they new the facts they would act rationally. But that is no the case. Republicans don’t care if their leader lies 86 percent of the time. Lying, truth, it’s all the same to them, as long as they get what they want.
That is now America. And America is now the prime enemy of the rational world.
These cpl of short vids may help bring some understanding to what just happened and why it is so.
Australian Journo/Doco maker John Pilger: ‘The truth is… there was no one to vote for’
@7mins about the MSM ‘they are not journalists, they are anti-journalists’ […] ‘the exposure of journalism as an extension of that same corrupt established power that I have been speaking about. They are not independent they are echo chambers, they amplify and echo that which is handed down to them’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1Ho8OrBzig
and fwiw that same very same (conservative and liberal) Media are the biggest proponents for anti-climate science anti-agw/cc mitigation policy globally, but especially in the US.
25th Oct – Michael Moore Explains Why Donald Trump Will Win!
Michael Moore part one in Ohio ‘Trumpland’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lMp_363B2c
and Michael Moore part two
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFrTORta5MU
Obviously the last 25 years has not been working as planned or hoped for. Hillary and Donald are not the answer. Democrats and Republicans are not the answer. The Scientific Facts are not the answer either.
And so it’s back to the drawing board for everyone (both scientists and others) who accept agw/cc is at a crisis point right now.
imo, now is the time to wake up and to face reality as it is.
To change the approach to a successful communication strategy that is based on science and not on faith or habit.
OR once again ignore reality and keep doing the same things over and over again that do not work.
Election didn’t pan out on this issue. Lead by example and do your own mitigating things. There’s no way everyone will, possibly ever.
IF man-made carbon dioxide is warming atmosphere and seas, which it may be just a bit, then it is hastening the end of the present warm interglacial phase of the 2.5 million year old Ice Age. So very shortly – long before your “global warming catastrophe” arrives – the cold glacial phase will kick in – and do so very rapidly.
Look at it like this: there’s a fellow standing in the middle of a road looking at a bloke on a bike pedaling towards him and he’s worrying about the danger, quite unaware that bearing down on him from the other direction at 60 mph is a 60-ton truck.
Is it just possible that he ought to turn his head and look at reality, do you think? Might there be a way to stop that truck if the fellow comes to his senses fast enough? Actually, there is a way, but while we have thousands of “environmental experts” making their fortunes by shouting at the fellow-in-the-road to keep looking at the bloke-on-the-bike, he’s just going to stand there looking stupid until he’s splattered all over the road.The only good prospect in this scenario is that all you “experts” will be similarly splattered too.
The presidency of George W Bush almost destroyed America. The presidency of Donald J. Trump will destroy America and the rest of the world with it.
I share the sense of desperation many have expressed here.
There are some excellent posts at both Climate Central, Skeptical Science discussing this rather grim development. I won’t post a bunch of links, you know where they are but will close with something from Tamino a few years back: I’ll continue to do what I can come hell or high water. Expect both.
And from today’s ATTP post: Good luck everyone, we might need it.
Keep up the good work RC crew, we need it now more than ever!
JG 77: Anyone who tries to tell you that the immature, primitive field known as “climate science” represents “settled science” is not being truthful.
BPL: Anyone who calls climate science an “immature, primitive field” is grossly ignorant of it.
Read and learn:
http://bartonlevenson.com/ClimateTimeLine.html
PS 93: IF man-made carbon dioxide is warming atmosphere and seas, which it may be just a bit, then it is hastening the end of the present warm interglacial phase of the 2.5 million year old Ice Age. So very shortly – long before your “global warming catastrophe” arrives – the cold glacial phase will kick in – and do so very rapidly.
BPL: Your “then” is a non sequitur. Ice ages are due to Milankovic cycles. The next stade, 20,000 years from now, has been obviated by global warming. The one after that isn’t due until 50,000 years from now. Approaching ice ages are not a real problem. Anthropogenic global warming is.
DEAR MODERATORS:
Please delete denialist bullshit like Peter Smith’s post, currently #93.
ZERO TOLERANCE FOR DENIAL.
Thank you.
re: 85
“IBD/TIPP Tracking again sets the standard for the most accurate consistent polling bar none! http://www.realclearpolitics.com”
Absolutely false. IBD showed Trump winning by 1 percent…of the popular vote, not the electoral vote. In fact, he lost the popular vote so that IBD was wrong. Since this is a science blog site, data matter. I will grant you that with the margin of error on most polls being around 3 percent, IBD would be considered correct…as would many other polls that were within 3 percent.
67: Alastair B. McDonald says:
Political battles are not won with facts. They are won based on emotions – hatred and fear. The skeptic think tanks are using those weapons, and until the scientists start describing the worst case scenarios then no action will be taken. They should be telling the press of their worst fears. Until the public are afraid the politicians are unable to act.
We need more people like Michael Moore. He understands this country better than the democratic leadership did. Still: HILLARY CLINTON WON THE POPULAR VOTE. Democrats have won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections but taken the White House only 4 times. The electoral college subverted the will of the people twice in the last 16 years.
We need to grab Donald Trump by the short hairs and drag him to a halt. The damage he has plans is a clear and present danger to our children. Perhaps a national call in sick day is warranted but it will take far more than that. Trump’s radical agenda needs to be halted in its tracks.
In reality you don’t want trump, because he will end your gravy-train