Uh, the dark blue checkmark next to this graph says that Paul Ryan voted for the Economic Downturn.
While you can make an argument that he voted for legislation that contributed to, enabled, or helped the economic downturn... it's wrong to say that he voted for the Economic Downturn, because that wasn't a piece of legislation.
It's out of place in the image, because 3 of the 4 WERE legislative and he did for vote them and the image doesn't have the same kick if it was saying 3 out of 4.
Regardless, it's important to be precise in our language, otherwise we open ourselves up to attack. We weaken the message if we allow it to have such an obvious point of attack which will allow people to dismiss the 3 out of 4 part of it as well.
I have no doubt that our climate is changing, but there is a problem with your numbers somewhere. You're saying that since 1900 we've seen a 1.4 degree increase, but you also say that a 2 degree increase is likely to cause the sea to rise 60-70 feet. If both of those things are correct, then we should have already seen a dramatic rise in sea level.. something on the other order of 45 feet if the growth is linear or let's say 20+ feet assuming things will accelerate to make up the difference. However, from the sea level rise data I've seen, the sea was only currently rising about 1-2mm per year during the 20th century. 200mm from 1900-2000 which is less than 8 inches.
Don't get me wrong, I think global climate change needs to be addressed, but the numbers above don't pass the smell test.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Uh, the dark blue checkmark next to this graph says that Paul Ryan voted for the Economic Downturn.
While you can make an argument that he voted for legislation that contributed to, enabled, or helped the economic downturn... it's wrong to say that he voted for the Economic Downturn, because that wasn't a piece of legislation.
It's out of place in the image, because 3 of the 4 WERE legislative and he did for vote them and the image doesn't have the same kick if it was saying 3 out of 4.
Regardless, it's important to be precise in our language, otherwise we open ourselves up to attack. We weaken the message if we allow it to have such an obvious point of attack which will allow people to dismiss the 3 out of 4 part of it as well.
May I ask what part of my post do you claim is incorrect?
I have no doubt that our climate is changing, but there is a problem with your numbers somewhere. You're saying that since 1900 we've seen a 1.4 degree increase, but you also say that a 2 degree increase is likely to cause the sea to rise 60-70 feet. If both of those things are correct, then we should have already seen a dramatic rise in sea level.. something on the other order of 45 feet if the growth is linear or let's say 20+ feet assuming things will accelerate to make up the difference. However, from the sea level rise data I've seen, the sea was only currently rising about 1-2mm per year during the 20th century. 200mm from 1900-2000 which is less than 8 inches.
Don't get me wrong, I think global climate change needs to be addressed, but the numbers above don't pass the smell test.