Page 149 of 228 FirstFirst ... 4999139147148149150151159199 ... LastLast
Results 1,481 to 1,490 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #1481
    in other insane trump antics, trump tweets this morning that his political rivals, and current trump administration officials should be jailed for treason: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...n-meme-1023315

    this is normal, everything is normal, yes, lets debate if we should allow abortions in the 15th week, compared to the 14th.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  2. #1482
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Josh might get a feel for what it's like talking to him about about climate change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trump
    'They talked about at some point the planets could have freeze to death,' president claims
    ...
    Donald Trump has said he does not believe in manmade climate change because America?s water and air is ?right now at a record clean?.
    ...
    ?One of the problems that a lot of people like myself - we have very high levels of intelligence, but we?re not necessarily such believers,? Mr Trump told The Washington Post.
    ...
    ?You look at our air and our water, and it?s right now at a record clean. But when you look at China and you look at parts of Asia and when you look at South America, and when you look at many other places in this world, including Russia, including - just many other places - the air is incredibly dirty.

    ?And when you?re talking about an atmosphere, oceans are very small. And it blows over and it sails over. I mean, we take thousands of tons of garbage off our beaches all the time that comes over from Asia. It just flows right down the Pacific, it flows, and we say where does this come from? And it takes many people to start off with.?
    This man has a neurological condition.

  3. #1483
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    [sigh]

    Sorry for the brief and slightly confusing reply. This will be a bit better.

    What 'can be done' and 'how it is done' are slightly different topics, and I didn't make a nice clear line. That is what dictates this reply.

    How it is done is the state and the feds work together on a plan, they both sign off on it, and then proceed with money from the state and the feds to manage the property. This is within the laws of both, and while the feds can be a dictator if they want, how it is done is how I have described. They work together. Go read a couple plans for federal land. We did it a lot since my family owns a business in a national park and we had to work with both of them if we wanted to do much.

    But lets get into the brass tacks of it here.

    First, lets look at the claims:

    California has no control over Federal Land
    The President has control over Federal Land in a state

    My reply is the state and fed work together and have to follow eachother

    And you want to see:

    In other words, you need to show us a statute that requires the Federal government to agree with the state on how best to manage forests on the land the federal government owns.
    I don't need to show there is a requirement for that - this reply is a trap of a sort. I just need to show they work together, respect each others laws, since that is my claim. Your reply is bit of a strawman. But you are right in saying it is based on the Constitution.

    So, what is supposed to happen?:

    States have legal authority to manage federal lands within their borders to the extent Congress has given them such authority. (editors note - the president doesn't have this power, congress does) As an example, Congress has to a large extent allowed states to exercise management authority over wildlife as a traditional area of state concern. Congress could give states authority to manage certain other activities, resources, or other aspects of federal lands. Congress also could give federal agencies authority to delegate or assign responsibility for aspects of federal land management to states or other partners.

    Currently, some states are seeking more state and local control over federal lands and resources. Accordingly, some are considering measures to provide for or express support for the transfer of federal lands to states, to establish task forces or commissions to examine federal land transfer issues, and to assert management authority over federal lands..
    So, what they have in effect is ownership, but they allow the state to manage the property. How the actually do that is a very important distinction.

    That being said, in many ways you are Gordon are correct in the letter of the law, if not in the action of the law. Since you wanted supporting documentation, the above quote is from this document.

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44267.pdf

    In support of your position:

    States can obtain authority to own and manage federal lands within their borders only by federal, not state, law. As discussed above, Congress determines the scope of states* authority to manage federal lands within their borders, pursuant to Congress*s plenary authority over federal lands under the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution. States are precluded from appropriating authority over federal lands beyond the scope of congressional authorization under the Supremacy Clause.
    The Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, gives Congress
    authority over the lands, territories, or other property of the United States. It reads as follows:
    *The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations
    respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.* This provision provides
    Congress broad authority to manage the lands owned by the federal government, including
    authority to dispose of those lands. The Supreme Court has held that the Property Clause, *in
    broad terms, gives Congress the power to determine what are *needful* rules *respecting* the
    public lands* and has *repeatedly observed that *[the] power over the public land thus entrusted
    to Congress is without limitations.**
    8 When Congress exercises its authority over federal land, the
    federal legislation necessarily overrides conflicting state laws under the Supremacy Clause of the
    U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2.
    Like laws, federal agency regulations for federal land issued under these or other statutory authorities are the *supreme Law of the Land* under the Supremacy Clause and therefore override any conflicting state law
    So, to concede a portion of my position, the Federal Government can dictate what happens on their land. Well, Congress can give any of the 4 major programs they have the rights to do this.

    In support of my position:

    "In the past several years, roughly 20 states have taken actions to obtain or foster more state and local control over lands and resources. Supporters of such efforts have expressed concerns about the efficacy and efficiency of federal land management, accessibility of federal lands for certain types of recreation, and limitations on development of federal lands, among other issues. These states have considered a variety of measures, including the following:

    * to provide for or express support for transfer to states of federal lands or of
    certain categories of federal lands (e.g., agricultural lands);
    * to establish interstate compacts to secure the transfer of federal land;
    * to create task forces or commissions to examine federal land transfer issues;
    * to govern state management of transferred lands;
    * to assert management authority, or concurrent jurisdiction, over federal lands;
    * to allow state management of federal lands under long-term lease arrangements;
    * to authorize states to carry out certain activities on federal lands (e.g., forest,
    rangeland, and watershed restoration); and
    * to allow local governments to declare and demand abatement of specified poor
    resource conditions on federal lands.
    Although Congress has ultimate authority over federal lands under the Property Clause, states have legal authority to manage federal lands within their borders to the extent that Congress has chosen to give them such authority. The existence and extent of any such authority is determined by looking to the statutes applicable to the federal agency and management topic in question. For example, a number of land-management statutes recognize states* traditional authority to allocate water rights and to manage fish and resident wildlife. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, for instance, states:

    (m) State authority. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the authority,
    jurisdiction, or responsibility of the several States to manage, control, or regulate fish and
    resident wildlife under State law or regulations in any area within the System.
    Regulations permitting hunting or fishing of fish and resident wildlife within the System
    shall be, to the extent practicable, consistent with State fish and wildlife laws,
    regulations, and management plans.27
    What actually happens is this (for the BLM/State of California):

    https://www.blm.gov/programs/public-...nfo/california

    Years of severe drought and a dramatic rise in bark beetle infestation are leading to historic levels of tree die-off, which contributes to increased fire risk. The BLM is a member of the Governor's Tree Mortality Task Force.

    California's Federal, State, and local wildland firefighting agencies have formed extraordinary partnerships to fight fires, and together with local communities, to prevent or lessen fire danger.
    Like I stated, repeatedly, the Feds and State WORK TOGETHER to manage the land. They make plans, sign off and do it. The feds are not barring the State of California from managing the land as proposed by Steve (and Gordon?)

    What they DO DO, and HOW THEY DO IT, takes presence because of the history of how that land has been managed, and how it will be managed in the future, vs a potential for the land to be. The feds and state work together.

    The Position that the president can just 'Fix it' is wrong because Congress has that authority. Not the president.

    The Position that the state can't do anything on federal land is false also. They are worked directly with the feds to manage that land, and will in the future.

    The Position that state and fed work together and have to follow each other is partially faslified. (yes, my position is falsified.) They do not HAVE to work together. The feds choose to work with the state, and to some extent they do have to follow each others laws. The allowance of the work though is dictated by the feds, without state choice.

    While Congress does have some leeway to go in, dictator like, and command the state act in a certain way on the federal land they are on, they are not doing that in regard to forest management.

    And Trump is wrong on one factor of his tweet. He doesn't have the power to remove federal monies to help California. Congress does. And the GOP only has one house, and they don't always support Trump. So to make Gordon happy - that is a true lie from Trump. An idle threat he has some power to try and enact, but not one he has direct power over. Just as he doesn't have direct power to change how the forest is managed in California either. That comes from Congress.
    Last edited by pbjosh; 11-28-2018 at 11:28 AM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  4. #1484
    no, the president has the authority.

    he is the chief executive, the leader of the branch of the government that actually has the agencies which control and actually carry out policy decisions. USFS, USGS, BLM, these are agencies that report to the president. they write and perform policy for land management.


    how is this basic, school house rock level civic lesson not sunk in yet?

    same problem as the "trump can't be blamed for the child separation policy that he wrote, cause he doesn't have that power!"



    oh and BTW, catholic charities discovered that trump, against court orders, is still separating children for there families. super cool.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 11-28-2018 at 11:29 AM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  5. #1485
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    (see also the TSI),
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/...24h_latest.txt

    ; SORCE TIM Total Solar Irradiance
    ;
    ; ***SELECTION CRITERIA***
    ; data_set_name: SORCE Level 3 Total Solar Irradiance
    ; date_range: 20030225 to 20181120
    ; cadence: 24 hours
    ; version: 17
    ; number_of_data: 5748
    ; ***END SELECTION CRITERIA***
    ;
    ; ***DATA DEFINITIONS***, number = 15 [field name, type, format, (Col. #, description)]
    ; nominal_date_yyyymmdd R8 f12.3 (Column 1: Nominal Data Time, YYYYMMDD)
    ; nominal_date_jdn R8 f12.3 (Column 2: Nominal Data Time, Julian Day Number)
    ; avg_measurement_date_jdn R8 f15.6 (Column 3: Average Data Time, Julian Day Number)
    ; std_dev_measurement_date R4 f7.4 (Column 4: Stdev of Average Data Time, days, 1 sigma)
    ; tsi_1au R8 f10.4 (Column 5: Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at 1-AU, W/m^2)
    ; instrument_accuracy_1au R4 e10.3 (Column 6: Instrument Accuracy in 1-AU TSI, W/m^2, 1 sigma)
    ; instrument_precision_1au R4 e10.3 (Column 7: Instrument Precision in TSI at 1-AU, W/m^2, 1 sigma)
    ; solar_standard_deviation_1au R4 e10.3 (Column 8: Solar Standard Deviation in 1-AU TSI, W/m^2, 1 sigma)
    ; measurement_uncertainty_1au R4 e10.3 (Column 9: Total Uncertainty in TSI at 1-AU, W/m^2, 1 sigma)
    ; tsi_true_earth R8 f10.4 (Column 10: Total Solar Irradiance at Earth distance, W/m^2)
    ; instrument_accuracy_true_earth R4 e10.3 (Column 11: Instrument Accuracy at Earth distance, W/m^2, 1 sigma)
    ; instrument_precision_true_earth R4 e10.3 (Column 12: Instrument Precision at Earth distance, W/m^2, 1 sigma)
    ; solar_standard_deviation_true_earth R4 e10.3 (Column 13: Solar Standard Deviation in TSI at Earth, W/m^2, 1 sigma)
    ; measurement_uncertainty_true_earth R4 e10.3 (Column 14: Total Uncertainty in TSI at Earth distance, W/m^2, 1 sigma)
    ; provisional_flag I2 i2 (Column 15: Provisional Flag, 1=provisional data, 0=final data)
    ; ***END DATA DEFINITIONS***
    ;
    ; ***FORTRAN FORMAT SPECIFIER***
    ; (f12.3,f12.3,f15.6,f7.4,f10.4,e10.3,e10.3,e10.3,e1 0.3,f10.4,e10.3,e10.3,e10.3,e10.3,i2)
    ; ***END FORTRAN FORMAT SPECIFIER***
    ;

    20181120.500 2458443.000 2458442.960187 0.3617 1360.6791 6.070e-01 6.800e-03 4.512e-02 6.087e-01 1393.8021 6.218e-01 6.800e-03 2.189e-01 6.592e-01 0
    Line 5 is the adjusted, PMOD version you are clinging to (Bolded), and Line 10 (Bold, underline) is the actual change in wm^2 we encounter because our orbit is not perfectly round. That is the data as we receive it (line 10) and as we adjust is (line 5.) The variation is in the 100wm^2 range. Follow the data.

    Now, Willis E. from WUWT does agree with you. He shows a lot of cases where there is not a direct correlation with TSI and climate, and this is a skeptic site - not every one is in agreement, and it is hotly debated. That being said, I have shown many examples of TSI changing historically (thousands of years averages) and climate following.

    That a climate scientist 'knows' how TSI affects climate is still up in the air. They don't know, I don't know, and you sure as hell don't know.

    The IPCC holds it as a constant, and there had been, as I showed before, a Solar Max in 1998 that was the largest in 8000 year. Now we are seeing a trending in Solar Output that matches a potential Solar Minimum (a Maudner Minimum).

    As we go through this next solar cycle we should have a good idea as to how much TSI does affect temperature. That is why I posted the link - the head science writer for space@NASA is saying the decrease in TSI is affecting the Thermosphere, and it might affect the rest of the atmosphere here in the near future.

    Settled? Hell no. This is all just getting started. In the next 5-10 we will see if we enter a minimum, and if temperature follows it or CO2.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  6. #1486
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    no, the president has the authority.
    So, lets play pretends. Lets say he does have this authority: how does it look? What does he do?

    For example, does he go "Hey! You jerks at USFS! Just put in fire breaks! You! BLM! Start the burning now! Loggers! Log away my pretties!" [waves tiny hands of a demi-god in the air]

    Should he just do that? Is that how you want things to be resolved?

    And in the end, why didn't Obama or Bush do that? How would they resolve the problem? More money? Who made the plan before? Was that done by any president of the USA? Congress? How do you think it has been done over the course of a century on 640 million acres of land in the 50 different United States? The president drawing lines of fire breaks and telling people where to burn land? The feds marking off areas and cutting at will, the states wishes and laws be damned?

    No. It was done by the state of California, asking the feds if they can do [insert fire plan here] on the feds property. That is how all states do it. They go to the feds with a plan, work it out in a partnership, and go from there.

    That's how it works. That the process. Got it? [puts on his "I don't think he gets it face"]

    How do you, Gordon, want it done then? By dictatorial edict, a gold plated EO?
    ______________________________________________

    No matter how you talk around it, you avoid the point that Congress is the ones who allow Cali to manage that land. Cali has worked with the feds in the past - but the result is flawed. And that is based on bad policy. Short of his empty threat to take away funding, the history is straight on this:

    California DID mismanage the land. The land that belongs to them and the land they want to manage that belongs to the feds.

    They even told themselves this. Holding Trump responsible for decades of management before he became president is stupid - but I would hazard not as stupid as getting mad at him for not micromanaging it now, especially when you think all of his motives are racist, and that he is Evil. Or does evil things.

    You want the Evil, stupid, racist, orange, tiny hand man to come in above congress and the state and dictate to California how to enact forest management? I don't want that. Nobody wants that man. Well, some people might. But...no. That would be stupid, yet you seem to bark at us as if that is the way it should be solved.

    Really?
    Last edited by pbjosh; 11-28-2018 at 01:03 PM.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  7. #1487
    Thanks for the response Josh. Appreciate it. First off let me say I wasn't trying to trap you, I was trying to understand the issue and make sure there wasn't some statute I was missing. I don't care if I'm wrong in the end, I just want to make sure the discussion gets to the right answer. In the spirit of that, I went and read the the statutes cited in the CRS report you posted. 16 USC 1604 does require the federal government to coordinate with States on forest plans. California even sued the Feds over this in 2009. Cal. Res. Agency v USDA (2009, ND Cal) 39 ELR 20230. So you are absolutely right on the coordination aspect. That, however, would suggest both the Feds and CA share the blame for poor forest management, if that is the issue. That's a bit outside the scope of my knowledge to say the least.

    Also regarding, Congress setting the forest management policies, Congress delegated authority to the executive branch to manage the forests and gave it wide discretion on how to do so. So this would be something the Trump admin could take on immediately in coordination with CA to solve the issues.

  8. #1488
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    That a climate scientist 'knows' how TSI affects climate is still up in the air. They don't know, I don't know, and you sure as hell don't know.
    That's not really fair - it's impossible to mechanistically account for the historical record of warming through TSI. The IPCC and Santer specifically have dedicated a lot of time to bracketing the TSI forcing to <0.2C within reason.

    Gordon's just needling you anyway by putting "TSI" in every post. The Santer paper you like says at least that the models are well tuned for the physics they incorporate (which includes TSI) based on historical backtesting, but need some additional external negative forcings to explain the underwarming trend (compared to model) of the last few years. If there's a real stabilizing mechanism that would be great, but if it's random and we haven't seen the "true warming in the pipeline" then the next 5-10 years will be rough.

    So there's certainly a degree of wait and see (obvious statement is obvious) but I don't think TSI is the right tree to bark up.
    "So you've done this before?"
    "Oh, hell no. But I think it's gonna work."

  9. #1489
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/...24h_latest.txt



    Line 5 is the adjusted, PMOD version you are clinging to (Bolded), and Line 10 (Bold, underline) is the actual change in wm^2 we encounter because our orbit is not perfectly round. That is the data as we receive it (line 10) and as we adjust is (line 5.) The variation is in the 100wm^2 range. Follow the data.

    Now, Willis E. from WUWT does agree with you. He shows a lot of cases where there is not a direct correlation with TSI and climate, and this is a skeptic site - not every one is in agreement, and it is hotly debated. That being said, I have shown many examples of TSI changing historically (thousands of years averages) and climate following.

    That a climate scientist 'knows' how TSI affects climate is still up in the air. They don't know, I don't know, and you sure as hell don't know.

    The IPCC holds it as a constant, and there had been, as I showed before, a Solar Max in 1998 that was the largest in 8000 year. Now we are seeing a trending in Solar Output that matches a potential Solar Minimum (a Maudner Minimum).

    As we go through this next solar cycle we should have a good idea as to how much TSI does affect temperature. That is why I posted the link - the head science writer for space@NASA is saying the decrease in TSI is affecting the Thermosphere, and it might affect the rest of the atmosphere here in the near future.

    Settled? Hell no. This is all just getting started. In the next 5-10 we will see if we enter a minimum, and if temperature follows it or CO2.
    it doesn't matter. literally.

    because the TSI has not increased (it actually has essentially not changed), it can't be the source of climate change.

    period. end of story.

    you are fucking wrong. its that simple.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 11-28-2018 at 02:16 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  10. #1490
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    So, lets play pretends. Lets say he does have this authority: how does it look? What does he do?

    For example, does he go "Hey! You jerks at USFS! Just put in fire breaks! You! BLM! Start the burning now! Loggers! Log away my pretties!" [waves tiny hands of a demi-god in the air]

    Should he just do that? Is that how you want things to be resolved?

    And in the end, why didn't Obama or Bush do that? How would they resolve the problem? More money? Who made the plan before? Was that done by any president of the USA? Congress? How do you think it has been done over the course of a century on 640 million acres of land in the 50 different United States? The president drawing lines of fire breaks and telling people where to burn land? The feds marking off areas and cutting at will, the states wishes and laws be damned?

    No. It was done by the state of California, asking the feds if they can do [insert fire plan here] on the feds property. That is how all states do it. They go to the feds with a plan, work it out in a partnership, and go from there.

    That's how it works. That the process. Got it? [puts on his "I don't think he gets it face"]

    How do you, Gordon, want it done then? By dictatorial edict, a gold plated EO?
    ______________________________________________

    No matter how you talk around it, you avoid the point that Congress is the ones who allow Cali to manage that land. Cali has worked with the feds in the past - but the result is flawed. And that is based on bad policy. Short of his empty threat to take away funding, the history is straight on this:

    California DID mismanage the land. The land that belongs to them and the land they want to manage that belongs to the feds.

    They even told themselves this. Holding Trump responsible for decades of management before he became president is stupid - but I would hazard not as stupid as getting mad at him for not micromanaging it now, especially when you think all of his motives are racist, and that he is Evil. Or does evil things.

    You want the Evil, stupid, racist, orange, tiny hand man to come in above congress and the state and dictate to California how to enact forest management? I don't want that. Nobody wants that man. Well, some people might. But...no. That would be stupid, yet you seem to bark at us as if that is the way it should be solved.

    Really?
    that literally exactly how it works.

    trump says, hey dipshits, lets do things this way ... and thats what happens. its his organization. he can tell them to run any way he wants to (within the law as interpreted by the courts). it is well within the law for trump to say, we need more fire breaks, lets do that ... and then BLM and USGS etc go and do that. it does not take an act of congress to change mundane policy like this.

    its called executive power. trump has it.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 11-28-2018 at 02:17 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •