Page 60 of 94 FirstFirst ... 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 ... LastLast
Results 1,476 to 1,500 of 2345
  1. #1476
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Not quite. The largest glacier in Greenland has been gaining mass the past 3 years: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145185/major-greenland-glacier-is-growing

    And its not the only one:
    Attachment 294000
    Attachment 294001
    Cherry pick much? You are incredibly dishonest. 2012 set the record for greatest melt in Greenland. 2019 came close to beating that record, and although it didn't, it continues the trend of the ice sheet melting.

    The long term trend is serious melting. You use one glacier and a three year time frame. Wow. How does that cherry taste?


    A 2019 study by Danish climate scientist Ruth Mottram looked at 28 glaciers in Greenland with long-term data. Nearly all are melting, with only one or two that could be considered somewhat stable.

    “One glacier retreating looks like carelessness, but 28 retreating is the sign of something going on,” Mottram told The Associated Press.

    A 2017 study concluded that coastal glaciers and icecaps — what Willis is studying — reached a “tipping point” for ice loss in 1997 and since then have been rapidly deteriorating. A NASA satellite found that Greenland’s ice sheet lost about 255 billion metric tons a year between 2003 and 2016, with the loss rate generally getting worse.
    https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/...greenland-ice/

  2. #1477
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    11,856
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Your hurricane reference confirms that you have no idea what you are talking about.
    I totally know that I want you to go kill yourself or leave this site you POS Troll
    Quote Originally Posted by leroy jenkins View Post
    I think you'd have an easier time understanding people if you remembered that 80% of them are fucking morons.
    That is why I like dogs, more than most people.

  3. #1478
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,866
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Global warming hasn't caused an increase in floods, so I'm not too worried about that.

    The point is we have no consensus whatsoever on how dangerous AGW is for society.
    Do you have 2 heads? One for up your ass and one in the sand

  4. #1479
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    You should know what I think because we've discussed this already. We went from a relatively violent volcanic period to a relatively quiet volcanic period.

    So it's not just a coincidence. The first so called big warming spike marked the end of the little ice age. In the early 1800s after a sequence of volcanic eruptions led to widespread global cooling, there was a natural warming period beginning in the mid 1800s to about the early 1900s characterized by pronounced spatio/climate variability, with only a minor contribution from anthropogenic greenhouse gases. After that, in addition to other natural forcing humans played a role as well.
    So you attribute the Little Ice Age to volcanic activity, and the early 1900's warming to the lack of volcanic activity? Then what do you make of the period from 1050-1100? There was a similar lack of volcanic activity like we see in the early 1900's, yet global temperatures decreased:
    Name:  volc.png
Views: 101
Size:  96.9 KB
    And what of 1400-1450? Similarly little volcanic activity and temperatures started decreasing. Why didn't we see more cooling from 1250-1300 given the massive amount of volcanic activity?

  5. #1480
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    Cherry pick much? You are incredibly dishonest. 2012 set the record for greatest melt in Greenland. 2019 came close to beating that record, and although it didn't, it continues the trend of the ice sheet melting.

    The long term trend is serious melting. You use one glacier and a three year time frame. Wow. How does that cherry taste?




    https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/...greenland-ice/
    When I hear this quote, "And they’re not just melting—they’re vanishing at an astonishing rate," I don't expect to find any glaciers growing. Nor do I expect to find that the Greenland ice sheet actually gained mass in 2017 and 2018 after two of the warmest years EVER!

  6. #1481
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,649
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    So you attribute the Little Ice Age to volcanic activity, and the early 1900's warming to the lack of volcanic activity? Then what do you make of the period from 1050-1100? There was a similar lack of volcanic activity like we see in the early 1900's, yet global temperatures decreased:

    - And what of 1400-1450? Similarly little volcanic activity and temperatures started decreasing. Why didn't we see more cooling from 1250-1300 given the massive amount of volcanic activity?
    - Maybe we're not looking at the same chart in the same way but multidecadal variability does look externally forced principally by changes in the frequency and amplitude of volcanic forcing. Location matter too. The series of 1800 era volcanic eruptions, for example, were mostly tropical.

    A lot of this is addressed in the previously cited paper. If you're asking why there are exceptions then there are other natural forcings independent of volcanic activity. Asking why volcanic activity is not a perfect analog is not addressing the point because, per our previous discussion, the focus was specifically on the end of the Little Ice Age during the late 1800s.


    -- So, per my previous comment early 1900's warming appears to be due to:

    1. Natural forcing: Early 20th-century Arctic warming intensified by Pacific and Atlantic multidecadal variability, sun activity, etc.
    2. A relative lack of volcanic activity
    3. Humans played a role as well

    --- If you want to argue that anthropogenic forcing was small that's ok but keep in mind you are also arguing the greenhouse effect is logarithmic so according to your argument the initial greenhouse effect might be greater than the later effect. Lots of CO2 and Methane were pumped into the atmosphere:

    Name:  greenhouse_gases_1750-2008.png
Views: 107
Size:  23.9 KB

    ---- Also keep in mind that along multi-decade timescales, natural internally-driven warming should go back to the equilibrium determined by any external factor. Instead, what we are seeing is a planet that once experienced lots of internal variability giving way to a slow-varying warming trend.

  7. #1482
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    When I hear this quote, "And they’re not just melting—they’re vanishing at an astonishing rate," I don't expect to find any glaciers growing. Nor do I expect to find that the Greenland ice sheet actually gained mass in 2017 and 2018 after two of the warmest years EVER!
    What? Your fingers have so much cherry juice on them it is hard to read your writing. I am glad to see you accept that the last five years globally have been the hottest on record however.

    To bring context to the global goal of limiting warming to 2°C, we compare the global temperatures to an earlier, pre-industrial 1880-1910 baseline. 2018’s global temperatures were 1.90°F (1.06°C) above that baseline — more than halfway there. This made 2018 the second-warmest year on record without an El Nińo event, behind only 2017. (El Nińo can enhance warming, but it can’t explain all of it). Only 2016 and 2015 were warmer years, and 2014 rounds out the top five. With the five warmest years on record happening during the past five years — and the 20 warmest occurring over the past 22 — a consistent warming trend couldn’t be clearer. Meanwhile, monthly averaged atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen to 411 ppm at Mauna Loa Observatory, thanks in part to an estimated 2.7 percent increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.
    https://www.climatecentral.org/galle...ears-on-record

    As Mark Twain said, "Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get."

    Global warming doesn't mean every place every day is warm. July 2019 was the hottest year on record in human history, but it was quite cool here in Montana (where did you say you live again?). Do you understand the word global?

    As for your growing glacier, "A Greenland glacier is growing. That doesn't mean melting is over.
    A pulse of cooler water at its edge let part of the glacier gain some mass. But overall, the melting across Greenland continues apace."

    IT’S MELTING AND it’s not coming back. That’s something we often hear about our shifting climate and the ice that, in a sense, holds it together. Throughout the Arctic, glaciers are shrinking, right?

    Maybe not quite the way we think.

    NASA's Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project has revealed Greenland’s Jakobshavn Glacier, the island’s biggest, is actually growing, at least at its edge. In research published Monday in Nature Geoscience, researchers report that since 2016, Jakobshavn’s ice has thickened slightly, thanks to relatively cool ocean waters at its base—which have caused the glacier to slow down its melt. This reverses the glacier’s 20-year trend of thinning and retreating. But because of what else is happening on the ice sheet, and the overall climate outlook, that’s not necessarily a good thing for global sea level.

    That's because, despite the fact that this particular glacier is growing, the whole Greenland ice sheet is still losing lots and lots of ice. Jakobshavn drains only about seven percent of the entire ice sheet, so even if it were growing robustly, mass loss from the rest of the ice sheet would outweigh its slight expansion.

    It may sound a bit confusing, but that’s because the reality of climate change isn’t a straight line, say NASA researchers.

    “The thinking was once glaciers start retreating, nothing's stopping them,” explains Josh Willis, an oceanographer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and OMG’s lead scientist. “We've found that that's not true.”

    Other Arctic glaciers may be undergoing similar growth. That suggests the ebb and flow of glaciers in a warming world may be more complicated and harder to predict than previously thought, says Willis.

    One important factor is that it’s not just about a warming atmosphere. “The water is warming, too,” says Willis. “Oceans are doing a huge part of the work in terms of driving Greenland's ice melt.”

    “All this is an indicator of how sensitive glaciers are to ocean temperatures,” says the study’s lead author, Ala Khazendar, a glaciologist with OMG.

    Why is Jakobshavn growing? The scientists point to a recent influx of unusually cold water from the north Atlantic pushing into the Arctic. This has been particularly marked in Disko Bay, which spills over into the Illulisat Icefjord, the glacier’s home. At a depth of 820 feet, temperatures have dropped two degrees Celsius since 2014. And that colder water has helped the glacier slow its melt and even grow slightly.

    This influx of cold waters isn't an isolated event: Thanks to a natural cycle in the Atlantic Ocean that switches back and forth between warm and cold about once every 20 years, cooler waters are penetrating far up the western coast of Greenland. But the phase will switch again at some point and warmer waters will return.

    So, while the overall melt on the continent isn’t on hold—and the overall ice balance of the ice sheet is still declining as the world warms—these cycles show that climate change isn’t necessarily creating impacts in a straight line. It also means that conditions might be a bit more complicated than previously thought for Greenland’s 200-plus glaciers throughout the continent-sized island.

    Complex interactions
    Glaciers like Jakobshavn extend out into the ocean, which explains how water temperature can impact their size and movement and may mean that the overall melting trend—while still happening—may be happening slower than we thought.

    Between 2000 and 2010, Jakobshavn contributed the largest solid ice discharge in all of Greenland’s ice sheet, equivalent to nearly a millimeter to global sea rise. Greenland holds 10 percent of the world's freshwater in a deep freeze. If it melted completely, it could raise oceans about 25 feet (see what would happen if all the world’s ice melted).

    Willis says experts had thought the shape of the seafloor is what largely controlled a glacier’s retreat, because the ice can get stuck on undersea ridges that delay its movement. “We found you also have to pay attention to what the ocean’s doing,” he says. And as ice melts on the surface, the water drills through the ice sheet and comes down at the bottom of the glacier.

    This mix of fresh and ocean water under the glacier drives melting and increases calving, the real hard-luck consequence of the findings. So, while the glacier is growing, the ice sheet is still losing tremendous mass and contributing to sea-level rise.

    “That’s how the warming of the ocean translates,” Khazendar says.

    It’s also why despite serious implications for Greenland’s near future ice loss, researchers caution the findings don’t mean we’ve found a magic climate reverse. It’s in fact akin to a pendulum. Jakobshavn had periods of fast retreat in the 20th century, followed by thickening, then retreat, Khazendar says—but on average the air and sea are warming, and that means retreats are always going to be bigger than advances, adds Willis.

    Retreating “even faster than it was before”
    “Over 90 percent of the heat that’s trapped from greenhouse gases are warming the oceans,” he says. “So we know in the long run, this cooling is going to pass. When it does, the glacier is going to retreat even faster than it was before.”

    NASA’s OMG, which began in 2016 to track the ice’s seasonal ebb and flow to help predict global sea-level rise, now plans to determine if that hypothesis is accurate. One way the team determines ice thickness is by flying above the glacier and using an airborne topographic mapper, which employs radar to scan and measure the ice cap at an accuracy of about three feet. Much climate research studies the air. OMG, which is also tagging narwhals to measure ocean depth and temperature, studies the water and the glaciers themselves.

    Later this year, NASA’s Grace Follow On mission, which tracks earth’s water in motion, will reveal how much mass Greenland has lost the last two years, which Willis says “may help us learn if this ocean effect is more widespread and could affect mass balance in a positive sense in less ice loss in previous years. We don’t know how to put the Jakobshavn results in context of the whole of Greenland until we get that extra data.”

    “I think the story is basically correct,” says David Holland, a New York University professor who was not involved with the research but who has studied ice-ocean interaction at Jakobshavn for 12 years. He thinks this type of ocean interaction could be widespread, from the Arctic to Antarctic.

    “You can see in the summer, Jakobshavn’s advancing, not slowing down,” Holland continues. “I think the question is why does the glacier do what it does and I’m of the opinion that the ocean is a dominant player controlling it.”
    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...d-ice-growing/

  8. #1483
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    20,113
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    When I hear this quote, "And they’re not just melting—they’re vanishing at an astonishing rate," I don't expect to find any glaciers growing. Nor do I expect to find that the Greenland ice sheet actually gained mass in 2017 and 2018 after two of the warmest years EVER!
    Can you specify a referfence for the Greenland ice sheet growing?
    Here it says it's shrinking over all despite the Jakobshavn growing: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...d-ice-growing/

    A pulse of cooler water at its edge let part of the glacier gain some mass. But overall, the melting across Greenland continues apace.

    That's because, despite the fact that this particular glacier is growing, the whole Greenland ice sheet is still losing lots and lots of ice. Jakobshavn drains only about seven percent of the entire ice sheet, so even if it were growing robustly, mass loss from the rest of the ice sheet would outweigh its slight expansion.
    ...

    So, while the overall melt on the continent isn’t on hold—and the overall ice balance of the ice sheet is still declining as the world warms—these cycles show that climate change isn’t necessarily creating impacts in a straight line
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  9. #1484
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    20,113
    This is like the claim that there was no evidence of collusion with Russia or evidence of obstruction of justice on the part of the Trump administration.

    No matter how many times one points out the data, some people just can't get there.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  10. #1485
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    - Maybe we're not looking at the same chart in the same way but multidecadal variability does look externally forced principally by changes in the frequency and amplitude of volcanic forcing. Location matter too. The series of 1800 era volcanic eruptions, for example, were mostly tropical.
    1050-1100 is already going into a cooling trend before any volcanic forcing, same for 1400-1450.

    A lot of this is addressed in the previously cited paper. If you're asking why there are exceptions then there are other natural forcings independent of volcanic activity. Asking why volcanic activity is not a perfect analog is not addressing the point because, per our previous discussion, the focus was specifically on the end of the Little Ice Age during the late 1800s.
    You said it wasn't a coincidence that the early 20th century warming shows such a significant temperature increase in the instrumental record because we went from a relatively violent volcanic era to abnormally low volcanic era. If that is your reasoning for why the instrumental record shows such an increase in early 20th century warming, then you would expect to see comparable warming and cooling over similar historical periods.

    For the record, the Little Ice Age isn't solely attributed to volcanic activity. Orbital cycles, solar activity, and ocean circulation have all been theorized to have played a role.

    -- So, per my previous comment early 1900's warming appears to be due to:

    1. Natural forcing: Early 20th-century Arctic warming intensified by Pacific and Atlantic multidecadal variability, sun activity, etc.
    2. A relative lack of volcanic activity
    3. Humans played a role as well
    I don't see you would expect the warming rates of the early 20th century shown in the instrumental record to not be a coincidence due to these reasons.

    --- If you want to argue that anthropogenic forcing was small that's ok but keep in mind you are also arguing the greenhouse effect is logarithmic so according to your argument the initial greenhouse effect might be greater than the later effect. Lots of CO2 and Methane were pumped into the atmosphere:

    Name:  greenhouse_gases_1750-2008.png
Views: 107
Size:  23.9 KB
    It's not my argument, thats the consensus. Also note that aerosols are thought to have contributed some cooling during this period.

    ---- Also keep in mind that along multi-decade timescales, natural internally-driven warming should go back to the equilibrium determined by any external factor. Instead, what we are seeing is a planet that once experienced lots of internal variability giving way to a slow-varying warming trend.
    So what you are saying is that the climate is kept in check by negative feedbacks. Why then is it assumed that positive feedbacks are going to amplify this human caused warming?

  11. #1486
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,649
    I'm saying that essentially early twentieth century warming doesn’t really defy our overall understanding of human driven warming.

    As you can see from your chart, in the past the more natural warming, the more natural cooling to follow all within a somewhat narrow range. However, in the early 20th century natural warming which followed volcanic cooling did not cool in the decades that followed, the system did not follow the long term average. After a pause likely due to aerosols, the system kept warming in the second half of the 20th century, instead.

    The models support this conclusion. The time series of monthly global mean surface temperature (GST) since 1891 has been successfully reconstructed from known natural and anthropogenic forcing factors.

    Also, increases of greenhouse gases contribute significantly to the early 20th-century warming trend but by no means fully explain it.

    More here: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/6/eaao5297

  12. #1487
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    What? Your fingers have so much cherry juice on them it is hard to read your writing. I am glad to see you accept that the last five years globally have been the hottest on record however.
    Instrumental record sure, I don't take issue with that.

    Global warming doesn't mean every place every day is warm. July 2019 was the hottest year on record in human history, but it was quite cool here in Montana (where did you say you live again?). Do you understand the word global?
    No shit, but the article said the glaciers are "vanishing at an astonishing rate." They aren't.

    As for your growing glacier, "A Greenland glacier is growing. That doesn't mean melting is over.
    A pulse of cooler water at its edge let part of the glacier gain some mass. But overall, the melting across Greenland continues apace."
    Never said melting is over. There was no melt in 2017 and 2018, but Al Roker just got back from Greenland, and "he's horrified by what he saw there."

  13. #1488
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    Can you specify a referfence for the Greenland ice sheet growing?
    Here it says it's shrinking over all despite the Jakobshavn growing: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...d-ice-growing/

    A pulse of cooler water at its edge let part of the glacier gain some mass. But overall, the melting across Greenland continues apace.

    That's because, despite the fact that this particular glacier is growing, the whole Greenland ice sheet is still losing lots and lots of ice. Jakobshavn drains only about seven percent of the entire ice sheet, so even if it were growing robustly, mass loss from the rest of the ice sheet would outweigh its slight expansion.
    ...

    So, while the overall melt on the continent isn’t on hold—and the overall ice balance of the ice sheet is still declining as the world warms—these cycles show that climate change isn’t necessarily creating impacts in a straight line
    https://sciencenordic.com/climate-ch...n-2017/1450063

    https://sciencenordic.com/denmark-fo...13632-36461565

  14. #1489
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    This is like the claim that there was no evidence of collusion with Russia or evidence of obstruction of justice on the part of the Trump administration.

    No matter how many times one points out the data, some people just can't get there.
    I feel the same way.

    But I thought there was no evidence of collusion with Russia? At least, thats what Jimmy Dore and Aaron Mate told me.

  15. #1490
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bellevue
    Posts
    5,072
    HuhName:  Screenshot_20190914-193345.jpeg
Views: 70
Size:  136.3 KB

  16. #1491
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,866
    The entire global ocean is warming, but some parts are changing much faster than others — and the hot spot off Uruguay is one of the fastest. It was first identified by scientists in 2012, but it is still poorly understood and has received virtually no public attention.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...?noredirect=on

  17. #1492
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    I'm saying that essentially early twentieth century warming doesn’t really defy our overall understanding of human driven warming.
    That has nothing to do with our current argument. I'm claiming that I don't think that it's a coincidence that the highest (mostly natural) warming rate by far of the past 2,000 years shows up as soon as the data switches from proxy to instrumental. You were trying to make a case for it being a coincidence.

  18. #1493
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,866
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    But I thought there was no evidence of collusion with Russia? At least, thats what Jimmy Dore and Aaron Mate told me.
    sarcasm??!! because anyone with functioning brain cells knows "collusion" isn't a actual offense, it's obstruction of justice

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ustice-summary

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...n-you-tell-us/

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...on-helps-trump

  19. #1494
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,649
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    That has nothing to do with our current argument. I'm claiming that I don't think that it's a coincidence that the highest (mostly natural) warming rate by far of the past 2,000 years shows up as soon as the data switches from proxy to instrumental. You were trying to make a case for it being a coincidence.

    It has everything to do with our current argument. I know what you are claiming but just because you want to frame the argument in different way, which is obvious, doesn't change the facts. In a nutshell:

    - Early twentieth century warming doesn’t really defy our overall understanding of human driven warming.

    -- Increases of greenhouse gases contribute significantly to the early 20th-century warming trend but by no means fully explain it.

  20. #1495
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,866
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    That has nothing to do with our current argument. I'm claiming that I don't think that it's a coincidence that the highest (mostly natural) warming rate by far of the past 2,000 years shows up as soon as the data switches from proxy to instrumental. You were trying to make a case for it being a coincidence.
    strawman, moving goal posts, cherry picking, deflection, redirection...you've got 'em all!!!!

  21. #1496
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,866
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    It has everything to do with our current argument. The fact that you want to frame the argument in different way is obvious but doesn't change the facts. In a nutshell:

    - Early twentieth century warming doesn’t really defy our overall understanding of human driven warming.

    -- Increases of greenhouse gases contribute significantly to the early 20th-century warming trend but by no means fully explain it.
    you can't talk sense to a moron

  22. #1497
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    It has everything to do with our current argument. I know what you are claiming but just because you want to frame the argument in different way, which is obvious, doesn't change the facts. In a nutshell:

    - Early twentieth century warming doesn’t really defy our overall understanding of human driven warming.

    -- Increases of greenhouse gases contribute significantly to the early 20th-century warming trend but by no means fully explain it.
    I think you understand what I'm saying, but none of your responses relate to the point I'm trying to make, so I'm not sure if you do understand. To be clear, I am saying that it is a stretch to be able to make bold conclusions about 20th/21st century warming rates compared to the warming rates of the previous 2,000 years because of the differences in proxy records vs instrumental records. I don't think that it is a coincidence that as soon as we start using instrumental records to look at warming rates, we start seeing the highest warming rates of the past 2,000 years. The authors of the Neukom paper would not begrudge me for this perspective.

  23. #1498
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    sarcasm??!! because anyone with functioning brain cells knows "collusion" isn't a actual offense, it's obstruction of justice

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ustice-summary

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...n-you-tell-us/

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...on-helps-trump
    If collusion isn't an actual offense, then what was the point of investigating Trump for colluding with Russia?

  24. #1499
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    If collusion isn't an actual offense, then what was the point of investigating Trump for colluding with Russia?
    For conspiracy numbnuts

  25. #1500
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    7,522
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    sarcasm??!! because anyone with functioning brain cells knows "collusion" isn't a actual offense, it's obstruction of justice

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ustice-summary

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...n-you-tell-us/

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...on-helps-trump
    At least we aren't lacking evidence of collusion between WaPO, CNN, NYT, DNC and the intelligence agencies to create a perpetuate the wussia, wussia story.

    Is it illegal? Probably not.

Posting Permissions

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