@BrettBrooks41@myfox8@StevenLDoyle 1/8》Brett, those Democrats were liberals, not conservatives. Those who say otherwise are lying to you. They're taking advantage of the fact that many people are too young to remember it, and most of the rest weren't paying attention.
My State Senator back then was Janet Cowell.
@BrettBrooks41@myfox8@StevenLDoyle 2/8》When the liberal Democrats were gerrymandering NC to disenfranchise blacks & Republicans, Republicans sought reform, but the Democrats blocked it. Here's a bill I mostly wrote, to end gerrymandering in NC: ncleg.gov/BillLookup/200…
@BrettBrooks41@myfox8@StevenLDoyle 4/8》It was introduced (with small variations) 5 times by Republicans, but Democrats wouldn't let it even have a Committee hearing. I tried to find Democrats to support the bill, but I failed. None of them would do so. Not even one.
@BrettBrooks41@myfox8@StevenLDoyle 5/8》One Democrat promised to, but she reneged. My (then quite junior) State Senator at the time was Democrat Janet Cowell. She promised me that she would sign and support the bill, but the Democratic leadership apparently ordered her not to, and she meekly complied.
@BrettBrooks41@myfox8@StevenLDoyle 6/8》The Democrats complaining about Republican-drawn districts had no problem with the much less fair and more brazen gerrymanders that the Democrats used to inflict on NC.
@BrettBrooks41@myfox8@StevenLDoyle 7/8》Liberals had no problem with Democrat gerrymanders for the same reason they're okay with proven widespread voter fraud that could be prevented by Voter ID: because they don't care about fairness, all they really want is to win, by hook or by crook. burtonsys.com/voterfraud/
@BrettBrooks41@myfox8@StevenLDoyle 8/8》It could be worse, it could be California. When I moved to NC, nearly four decades ago, I moved from California. At the time I left California I had no State Senator at all, because of the Democrats' gerrymander there. Read the gruesome details, here:
@illcommunicato@carhauler71@myfox8 1/7》If you Democrats really believed that that voter impersonation fraud was mostly by Republicans, then you wouldn't oppose all efforts to stop it.
@illcommunicato@carhauler71@myfox8 2/7》There's good reason to believe voter fraud, including voter impersonation & cross-state voting, benefits Democrats, because it's a crime, and criminals are more likely to commit crimes than are law-abiding citizens, and we know criminals tend to register and vote Democratic.
@illcommunicato@carhauler71@myfox8 3/7》That doesn’t mean all voter impersonation and cross-state voting is Democratic, but statistics show felons are much more likely to support Democrats than Republicans. Some politicians might not admit that, but they all know it.
Wrong. Le Chatelier's Principle should inform your intuition to EXPECT negative feedbacks. But OBSERVATION confirms it: all of the most important carbon feedbacks are very strongly negative / attenuating. chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Ph…
That's why climate industry propagandists emphasize OTHER hypothetical harms, like sharply worsening storms & sea-level rise. But none of them are actually happening.
Sea-level rise? sealevel.info/learnmore.html
I presume not, since sea-level trends haven't significantly accelerated. I trust that's obvious from this graph, of the highest-quality mid-Pacific measurement record:
@QuincyInst@WilliamHartung 2/25》The Dutch have done an especially good job of measuring sea-level (for obvious reasons). Here's one of their best measurement records:
@flimsin@krishgm@IPCC_CH@Channel4News Dr. Edwards, the AR6 concepts of "Transient Climate Response to cumulative CO2 emissions" (TCRE) & "Remaining Carbon Budget" (RCB) are based on the premise that, not merely does CO2 in the air cause warming, but that the mere MEMORY by Gaia, of CO2 formerly in the air, ALSO does.
@flimsin@krishgm@IPCC_CH@Channel4News In fact, the definition of TCRE presumes that CO2 which was once in the atmosphere, but has been removed by natural negative feedbacks like "greening" and dissolution into the oceans, still has JUST AS MUCH warming effect as CO2 which remains. sealevel.info/AR6_WG1_Table_…
@flimsin@krishgm@IPCC_CH@Channel4News They justify it by noting that two things which have both been increasing for the last 170 years are therefore correlated, and then concluding (with "high confidence") that means one causes the other — even though there's no physical mechanism by which it COULD cause the other.