History will not reflect kindly on this Presidency. People will die as a result of this ill-informed decision. The U.S. should be leading the fight against Climate Change, instead we are turning backward. This should be a non-partisan issue. We all breathe the same air.
I can’t possibly have all of the facts or know enough about climate change to evaluate the cause & effects. But I do know that back in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s the pillars of industry, the very people we regarded as the brightest in our country, dumped chemicals, raw sewage and other debris in our lakes and rivers without any regard for our water quality or who was using it downstream. I can only assume they were too naïve to know the long term effects. Can’t help but think today’s discussions (and denials)on climate change are similar paths.
The infinitesimal difference is not worth the cost to the USA. Meanwhile China is allowed to belch out the pollution. We would be competing with one hand tied behind our back.
China allows pollution of its rivers and streams which allows poisons to denigrate its farming industry. Ever see photos of Chinese people wearing a face mask going about their business in the dark, smokey cities? Are we going to end up like that, too?
Funny that you say that, since one of the first things President Trump did in office is roll back regulation preventing coal mining companies from dumping toxic waste in rivers and streams.
We may end up like the Chinese people who wear masks to avoid air pollution if the Chinese and Indians continue to pollute AND continue to receive money from other countries obeying the Paris Climate Accord/Treaty.
It’s only a matter of time until TWO more SCOTUS Judges are appointed by TrumPresident. THAT may make Libitterals flee to Cana-duh in droves. And that will help MAGA.
‘Paris Accord’ because Obama knew the US Senate would NEVER approve a Treaty, with all the implications thereof, at the required 2/3rds majority threshold. So, the USA, as a Republic, was never involved in a mandatory manner in the agreement… it was ALWAYS voluntary compliance, accordi.. er, per the will of the POTUS at the time.
Double Hooray for our President for seeing the world with clear eyes and doing the right thing for America. The Climate Hoaxers will be the first to die of cardiac arrest that their applecart has been upset.
…Learn perspective of others. In the capacity that he means it, it is punitive.
Most these countries that agree to go by the climate deal you speak of would put in place taxes to do so, which is in the very definition of punitive:
“(of a tax or other charge) extremely high”.
And they agree to spend 100 billion dollars. I wonder who is going to get that, and where it will come from? Someone is going to get morally unquestionable revenue and taxes. That is something that is cause for concern.
There has been too much fake research leading up to the hoax. For millions of years there has been global warming and global cooling. Hot periods and ice ages. Man might have accelerated the next age [which is scheduled to be an ice age] but he has not caused it. People will die whether we are in or out of the Climate Pact. It’s immaterial. The entire hoax has been a gravy train for some people and some companies. Game over. Accept nature and try to understand it. And to prove your point you will point out the melting of he polar ice caps. However, you also said that sea levels would have risen significantly. Gee, that hasn’t happened because of the surface area of the sea and atmospherical absorption. Chicken Little still thrives though tired from screaming for nothing.
Here is the Governer of Louisiana in a state of emergency proclamation stating that the state has lost 1,800 square miles of land from 1932 to 2010 and expects to lose another 2,250 in the next 50 years. The top two reasons cited for this loss? Climate Change and Sea Level Rise.
You are not a scientist, MightyQuinn. Scientists, Meteorologists, Climatologists, and many other people far more intelligent than you or I, with factual and verifiable science to back it up, have concluded that man is the primary cause of the planet’s rapid climate change.
The only reason you believe otherwise is because you listen to “news corporations” who are backed by titans of industry with billions to lose if they have to implement changes to their business practices to save the environment.
This isn’t new science or some other relative unknown. Scientists back in 1968 realized the dangers of what was to come and reported their results to the Oil industry, who chose to bury it instead.
As always, the almighty dollar is way more important to them than the Almighty. The pursuit of money is more important than the care for your brother and country.
No, I’m not a scientist but chances are that I’ve lived a lot longer on this planet and have witnessed more than you. I do not need safe spots or talking heads to make up my mind. Understand this, man is insignificant and what we do or do not do will make no difference in the long run. You, Sir, are just as insignificant so cool your jets and recognize that you will make no difference as to whether or not this planet or its people survive.
Your anecdotal evidence blinds you from the truth. There are things happening all over the world that uses the scientific method to support man-made climate change. You need to look beyond your own backyard and realize that man is insignificant, but mankind is not.
One only needs to look at how we decimated the species of passenger pigeon over the course of only about two decades to realize what mankind can accomplish when we put our minds to it. Having hundreds of millions of CO2 and CO-producing cars, factories, power plants, etc. around the world is, in fact warming the planet. It is, quite literally, science. You can debate ideals and morals, but not science.
There is the Governor of Louisiana in a state of emergency proclamation stating that the state has lost 1,800 square miles of land from 1932 to 2010 and expects to lose another 2,250 in the next 50 years. The top two reasons cited for this loss? Climate Change and Sea Level Rise.
You are not a scientist, MightyQuinn. Scientists, Meteorologists, Climatologists, and many other people far more intelligent than you or I, with factual and verifiable science to back it up, have concluded that man is the primary cause of the planet’s rapid climate change.
The only reason you believe otherwise is because you listen to “news corporations” who are backed by titans of industry with billions to lose if they have to implement changes to their business practices to save the environment.
This isn’t new science or some other relative unknown. Scientists back in 1968 realized the dangers of what was to come and reported their results to the Oil industry, who chose to bury it instead.
As always, the almighty dollar is way more important to them than the Almighty.
“Your argument is that man may have accelerated the next stage, which is an ice age, and that shows up in a drastically warmer climate?”
“I did not say that. Read what I did say.”
“Man might have accelerated the next age [which is scheduled to be an ice age] but he has not caused it.”
“Did you go to school?”
The next intelligent, non-POS conservative will be a major groundbreaker in the modern conservative movement. Unintelligent, uneducated nuts, every single one.
We will take your idiotic rants over almost 100% of climate scientists for sure.
The US is NOT legally bound to this “Agreement” and legally can’t be until and unless the US Senate ratifies it. The US Constitution takes precedence over any US president’s signature … it is irrelevant how many other countries agreed if the US Senate did not or does not ratify the “agreement.”
You know when 194 nations sign on to agree to curb pollution and America is the only one “smart enough” to realize that climate change is a “hoax”, that we are in trouble as a nation. The level of anti-intellectualism and anti-science understanding is destroying this country mentally, and it’s going to do it physically, as well with increased pollution from lax industrial standards.
Scott Pruitt and President Trump have buried their heads in the sand, and millions of people around the country are willing to blindly follow them, since their Cable News Channel of choice tells them to do so.
Doug,
Hear ye, hear ye! These are the same people who claim to worship a Christian God who provided us Earth. Yet, are quick to poison God’s gift and destroy the only proven planet which can sustain life. Earth is a living organism and it must be nurtured. She is showing us she is sick. Would these same people pour poison down the throats of their children?
And of course, instead of thinking that they have not been convinced of climate change, you instead think they are hypocrites who don’t love mother Earth or mankind.
Reasons to doubt climate change, which I just went over with UW.
These speak for themselves. Watch them, go over the global temperatures, and think for yourself.
The NOAA combines too many different types of ratios, has been proven to hide source data, and has too high of a margin of error, combined with the fact that their amount of warming and metrics changes nearly annually, showing it isn’t all the reliable, and combine that with when they do these changes they hide the original charts, you have unreliable data.
Now, what is something to worry about, is when a bunch of nations move to pass laws and taxes that would be so immoral to debate, that they become untouchable laws. That is what to worry about, and that is clearly the goal here. Silencing opposition to taxes and laws that favor their friends. It’s clever, I’ll give them that, but I won’t allow this, nor people like myself.
Your analysis of the liberals is correct, but it seems like it will be wasted, as they have become very closed minded, and some are not willing to listen to others’ opinions.
Like the opinions of almost 100% of climate scientists? Geez, I wonder what has to be put out there to convince a Birther?
June 6, 2017 at 3:30 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
“Like the opinions of almost 100% of climate scientists? Geez, I wonder what has to be put out there to convince a Birther?”
I already showed consensus of a catastrophic level of warming, or of the primary driver of climate change being man, is not at nearly 100%. You are misleading people.
Also, argument from authority is not argument.
One point Agent made that is correct, is studies for climate papers would certainly be biased to show a high percentage, because you only receive government funding currently if you are pro global warming and write papers backing that narrative. You will find that scientists in general, as I have shown before, especially ecologists, who do have the training to look into this, have huge petitions in the tens of thousands saying that the climatologists are wrong, and you discredit them by saying they aren’t the right type of scientist. This was set up on purpose by democrats to shape public opinion.
What you will need to do is present facts. I’ve given you scientific folks’s opinions, and when you think they are discredited, you say this because someone else said it, not because you digested the data.
Grow up UW. You’re debating outside your league.
June 1, 2017 at 11:41 am
Yup says:
Like or Dislike:
4
4
Thank you for that comment. These people don’t even need an understanding of science. you would think the lone company of Nicaragua and Syria would be enough to tell them that pulling out of Paris is a bad idea.
No, pulling out of an ACCORD should tell you that the SENATE thought it was a bad idea, thus Obama went the route of agreeing to an ACCORD, which did not need to be ( and wouldn’t have been ) approved by 2/3 of the US Senate…. as would a TREATY… which is what most other participants agreed to.
Think about that for just a moment before you reply. IF you do, I’ll bet you won’t reply.
It is a voluntary agreement. There are no string attached. Any aid or payment, or action taken by the US is meant to promote doing the right thing and helping to save our environment across the globe. The US, being world leaders, should be leading the way and providing an example, as we do, and have done with so many separate issues. The public announcement that the US will no longer continue to be apart of this action is downright shameful. This is a good faith effort to help, and we just told the world to F off.
We are no longer THE country that stands for something.
When can we start putting these low-life 7 year olds to work in my chimney again? Our President’s move is so awesome, I feel like grabbing some cat and making fun of disabled people!
June 2, 2017 at 3:37 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Hyperbole is a tool of those on the losing side of debates.
June 5, 2017 at 8:54 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yogi,
That’s interesting. So, now I understand why you tell us all the time Dumb Donnie Dufus 2 Scoops is using hyperbole all the time. Speaking of tools…
June 5, 2017 at 9:54 am
RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
… so I was was wrong in characterizing hyperbole as ONLY a tool of those losing debates by not properly qualifying THAT statement as only applicable to that particular discussion.
Bear culpa.
June 1, 2017 at 1:30 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
You are exactly right. They are unintelligent and repeat what they hear on right wing sites word-for-word. The most prescient book on this is the Hofstadter book, Anti-intellectualism in American Life.
The right-wing nuts here and elsewhere don’t even know what is in the agreement. They whine about China while China had agreed to accelerate their goals. There is no other way to say it, even though it’s not PC, but the people pushing this stuff against it are just dumb.
“You are exactly right. They are unintelligent and repeat what they hear on right wing sites word-for-word.”
No they don’t, and to quote you “citation needed or it didn’t happen”.
Irony here, is that you use what you think is a 97% consensus to prove a point, in other words, using other’s arguments words in place of your words to make a conclusion, instead of looking at their data. Hypocrite thy name is UW.
“The right-wing nuts here and elsewhere don’t even know what is in the agreement”
Incorrect, and we worry about the precedent this establishes for the far left to start to implement methods of taxes that are beyond question, due to being beyond debate and a moral issue to many, now that the left sells it as such.
“They whine about China while China had agreed to accelerate their goals.”
Not all republicans do, but they would have reason to, whether China agrees to accelerate goals, they are a heavy producer, and they should.
“There is no other way to say it, even though it’s not PC, but the people pushing this stuff against it are just dumb.”
Oooo, you’re so radical and hip. You’re speaking against the norm, aren’t you? You’re just so not pc.
You libeled me for 3 months about the Cook Study, and proved your ignorance and dishonesty. I gave you every opportunity to say you were wrong or provide a link. I even linked to the story for you and you couldn’t do either because you are nuts. Stop mentioning me in every 3rd post and stop commenting at me. I have said dozens of times I’m done debating your nonsense and lies with you. You lie nonstop and disregard data that refutes your claims, even when it is data you provided.
F off, leave me alone. IJ, deletes liberal comments even slightly critical of 2-3 people here but allow personal threats by the same people. Just stop. LEAVE ME ALONE, NUTJOB.
“You libeled me for 3 months about the Cook Study, and proved your ignorance and dishonesty”
Ah, so this is finally what you meant about libel. That is not libel. I thought you meant that I accused you of encouraging potentially violent riots as a means of civil discourse. I did not libel you, perhaps you need to know what that word means, considering how much you insist on proper word usage. Regarding the Cook study, we had confusions, on both ends. I used the wrong terms, this is me admitting error, which you don’t do. The debate was ultimately whether cook et al showed what you said it did, I argued that if we went off of how many scientists agreed we were the primary driving factor, and whether there was consensus on if it was catastrophic climate change. Now I finally know what you’re holding on to, stop being a psychopath. That was a normal disagreement UW. We both clearly have our opinions, and I’ve researched even more, and posted more regarding it.
” I gave you every opportunity to say you were wrong or provide a link. I even linked to the story for you and you couldn’t do either because you are nuts.”
When we debated this I proved the errors of your study, by metrics. I am not nuts, I disagree with you.
“Stop mentioning me in every 3rd post and stop commenting at me.”
I don’t mention you every 3rd post, when you’re not involved in the conversation. Also, if you think your ideas can run rampant without rebuttal, you’re wrong. You aren’t in your own echo chamber and world, other than the cage in your own head.
“I have said dozens of times I’m done debating your nonsense and lies with you.”
I am not presently lying or being nonsensical, what you are actually doing is refusing civil discourse.
“You lie nonstop”
Provide one example, or as you said, “it didn’t happen”. I do not lie here.
“and disregard data that refutes your claims,”
This would not be a lie, as I suspect you think it is given sentence positioning, and moreover, provide an example, or it didn’t happen. I just gave even more info on global warming, climate change, it is data, that refutes YOUR claims. You are here disregarding it. Hypocrisy thy name is UW.
“even when it is data you provided.”
Provide an example. This is simply not true. My data does not contradict my claims.
“F off, leave me alone. IJ, deletes liberal comments even slightly critical of 2-3 people here but allow personal threats by the same people.”
No, due to you they are deleting even Confused’s at this point, and mine when I replied to others with no insults. I have not done any personal threats.
“Just stop. LEAVE ME ALONE, NUTJOB.”
Grow up.
June 1, 2017 at 4:26 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
My post to you was rational by the way. The more you whine here for rational comments, that is why they are deleted UW.
When you get on a page, suddenly everyone’s comments get deleted and you blame IJ. You have an issue here dude.
Nothing I said above was out of line but you are probably literally hyper ventilating. Read your posts!
June 1, 2017 at 6:15 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“I argued that if we went off of how many scientists agreed we were the primary driving factor, and whether there was consensus on if it was catastrophic climate change”
Lie. You claimed for months I said the paper addressed climate scientists’ projections on how catastrophic it would be. We went over this for months, I asked dozens of times for proof, restated my self and provided links. You misquoted me as proof I was a liar and refused to provide quotes even with a link. I won’t go over this with you again because the results will be the same: lies, BS, and stupidity. STILL, you have it wrong and clearly have not read the paper. It doesn’t look at the level of catastrophe, but that didn’t stop you from calling me a liar for months.
You have libeled me on numerous occasions, with nothing done by IJ, however whenever a person mentions that you are an admitted accused serial rapist they delete it, and it seems even banned the people that did it most. You are full of it on Cook, still. I know what libel means, which is why I used it, genius.
You are still claiming the study shows something it doesn’t even address. We know, you know more about every single topic, but somehow you still can’t get basic facts right.
You went crazy when I showed your spending claims under Reagan did not match the data you provided, and in fact we’re opposite, and you refused to even look at the charts. Same with data on cities (Chicago, I think), same with another person (Planet or Confused) when they pointed out the data proving a climate change conspiracy you linked to did not exist, and what was there did not show what you claimed. It happens with literally every piece of data you cite.
I don’t care though, I’m not going over it again. You are, IMO, and that of many others, mentally unstable, LEAVE ME ALONE.
Congrats, you were civil for half a comment. You always do that, freak out, curse everybody out, write one normal comment, and lecture about civility. Kick rocks, Einstein. Nobody likes you. You are bored because only Yogtard and Agent respond to you consistently, and they are so unoriginal, uneducated, and uninformed it’s boring you. Too bad, grow up, get mental health, and learn to admit you are wrong and stop lying. That’s obviously impossible, so just LEAVE ME ALONE, PLEASE
June 1, 2017 at 7:18 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
“UW says:
“I argued that if we went off of how many scientists agreed we were the primary driving factor, and whether there was consensus on if it was catastrophic climate change”
Lie. You claimed for months I said the paper addressed climate scientists’ projections on how catastrophic it would be.”
No, it didn’t, and it couldn’t. That is why I used this study by comparison UW:
And that is why I focused on this particular spot:
“Respondent options were:
Yes: Mostly human
Yes: Equally human and natural
Yes: Mostly natural
Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
Yes: Don’t know cause
Don’t know if global warming is happening
Global warming is not happening”
I did not lie, I used the wrong terms, when I said your paper did not address catastrophic climate change, you even multiple times asked what I was talking about. This is called confusion. What I meant was this above, how much of it was man made, on one end, and on another separately, whether it was considered to be severe enough to be catastrophic specifically due to man made contributions, which you did not address, nor did your study UW! I finally got to the point where you finally realized what I meant, then you said I changed what I said on purpose because I lost the debate, and called me a liar. And I said no, otherwise why are we debating climate change? There is 97% consensus that what? That was my question, and why I said cook et al was misleading people about that consensus and what it meant. This time I am finally making my point clearer, and I am fixing my flaw. However, there were no lies. That was my error, my bad. I should have said it as above. Now we’re going to move on, the 97% consensus is wildly misleading when you consider what it shows.
“We went over this for months, I asked dozens of times for proof, restated my self and provided links.”
And I provided my proof, you clearly didn’t read it, because you kept on getting confused by what I was saying. Part of this is my fault, but you should have got the point UW, considering that the evidence did not prove what you were saying either, that there was a 97% consensus that man made warming was going to cause catastrophic effects.
“You misquoted me as proof I was a liar”
That’s what you’re doing with me now! No! I said you were misleading people regarding the 97% consensus, and no such consensus existed.
“and refused to provide quotes even with a link.”
I provided numerous links.
“I won’t go over this with you again because the results will be the same: lies, BS, and stupidity.”
Oh come on, do you really have this low of an ability to understand others and yourself?
“STILL, you have it wrong and clearly have not read the paper.”
Is what I said above incorrect? There is no 97% consensus that man made global warming will be catastrophic. There isn’t even a 97% consensus that mankind is the primary factor of change in climate! Are either of these statements incorrect!!! FOCUS KID!!! Stop blabbering on off topics calling people liars.
“It doesn’t look at the level of catastrophe, but that didn’t stop you from calling me a liar for months.”
AH HA! So admission I was correct! You in fact called ME a liar for months!
“You have libeled me on numerous occasions, with nothing done by IJ,”
I have not libeled you. You have a moniker, there is no libel damage. I have tried to debate with you and make my points. However, you said I wanted Muslim families TO BE MURDERED while for MONTHS I said this was not true. That isn’t libel either, but you have to start thinking with your head UW. Everything you claim I did, I can prove you did, with examples. What Libel did I do? How did I misrepresent you?
“however whenever a person mentions that you are an admitted accused serial rapist they delete it,”
I AM NOT AN ADMITTED SERIAL RAPIST.
“and it seems even banned the people that did it most.”
Deservedly so on that one. This is harassment.
“You are full of it on Cook, still.”
No, I’m not.
“I know what libel means, which is why I used it, genius.”
Clearly you don’t.
“You are still claiming the study shows something it doesn’t even address. We know, you know more about every single topic, but somehow you still can’t get basic facts right.”
See above, stop ranting and raving.
“You went crazy when I showed your spending claims under Reagan did not match the data you provided, and in fact we’re opposite,”
Citation needed. I don’t go crazy. I showed you however that Reagan did not propose spending increases, and passed a plan put forth by a democrat, and listed his name. I even showed a link of the CBO rated spending amounts that would have gone into play automatically in the absence of new law, due to Carter. You’re a fool, this is old. You are not recalling things correctly, so let’s refresh the argument in the now, instead of talking about an argument from over a year ago. How about that? Go ahead and debate me. What’s your point here?
“and you refused to even look at the charts.”
Wrong.
“Same with data on cities (Chicago, I think),”
Wrong. Data with regards to what in cities? I always look at data, and I beg for it. Give me this data. I’ll digest it.
“same with another person (Planet or Confused) when they pointed out the data proving a climate change conspiracy you linked to did not exist, and what was there did not show what you claimed. It happens with literally every piece of data you cite. ”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. WRONG. The NOAA deleted the source links! It DID exist. And I later showed that numerous sites were telling people the NOAA was deleting their source data. And no, it doesn’t happen with literally every piece of data I cite. I sourced an article which had a chart showing the before and after of NOAA data, it had the source link below, but the links were broken. I don’t click all source links, all the time, neither do you for yours. However, those numbers are not simply lies. Confused said who can we trust? The data is gone? And I said how about we trust the person who originally sourced it, instead of the person that deleted their archives, and has been called on it! About a month later I showed that the NOAA was called out specifically on what confused and I talked about, publicly! Whistleblowers abounded.
“I don’t care though, I’m not going over it again. You are, IMO, and that of many others, mentally unstable, LEAVE ME ALONE. ”
Then debate the here and now and stop being a psychopath.
“Congrats, you were civil for half a comment.”
And you never were.
“You always do that, freak out, curse everybody out,”
When I’m mistreated and call Timothy McVeigh for 7 months, a serial rapist for explaining what Trump was talking about, and talked about normal sexual behavior, and when I was called a murder, yes, I get mad. I’ve personally taken responsibility when I’ve been mad, and it is no more or less than anyone else treated as I have been.
“write one normal comment, and lecture about civility.”
I don’t lecture about civility. I lecture about not staying on topic, I even tell people they can throw in some insults, the only person I don’t allow it is you, because it gets out of control, and you make the argument ABOUT insults.
“Kick rocks, Einstein. Nobody likes you.”
Ah yes, argue like a true bully. “nobody likes you”. Did you think before you wrote this? I am astounded at your pure crud.
“You are bored because only Yogtard and Agent respond to you consistently, and they are so unoriginal,”
Ah, I see that you latched onto my bored comment as I thought you would. Here’s the issue Confused. My IQ was tested at 156 by the time I was 5. I set you up all the time, you just don’t see it. I was waiting for this from you. I wanted to see how much of an ego you had. You didn’t disappoint. But I have more of a goal there, you’ll see soon enough. I won’t spoil it.
“uneducated,”
Untrue, and all this because I dare to post facts you don’t like.
“and uninformed it’s boring you.”
No, apply all this to you and that’s why you bore me. I’m not bored with talking to them. I rarely do. I’m bored with your lame arguments. What is your point. Why don’t you show me some facts now? I just put up more about the climate issue. You haven’t responded.
“Too bad, grow up, get mental health,”
You. It is more than clear you are mentally unstable.
“and learn to admit you are wrong and stop lying.”
I don’t lie. I just said where I made mistakes, TWICE TODAY. When will it be enough for you? What should I say now? What will make you stop calling me these names? I want a real answer, because this is not continuing UW, and if it does, I will contact the FBI about harassment, as well as IJ, and have them involved.
“That’s obviously impossible, so just LEAVE ME ALONE, PLEASE”
I just went over this. And no, I will not stop freely posting here. You are free to comment to people here with your ideals, and I’m free to comment about your ideals. I see what you’re setting up now, my IQ was smart enough to gather it off the bat.
How close am I:
You have begun inserting “PLEASE STOP” so you can tell IJ I am harassing you and not respecting your wishes of ending contact. However, you cannot restrict non hostile responses on a site where you yourself are insulting others, as you have (not myself) on this page alone, to anyone who has dared contradict what you put here. When you put something up, it will be contradicted. You will never succeed in your goal. You are also aiming to use that to have IJ delete my comments. I caught it fast. But you also caught what I caught, and that’s why you’re trying to appear a victim. You realized your comments are being deleted, like crazy, and you hate it. Otherwise you would simply likely ignore me and take no action other than insult me.
I know it bothers you that you’re getting outwitted, but really, you need to stop this victim act to get me banned or removed. It’s really low.
June 1, 2017 at 7:25 pm
RiceSusan Hacked the 2012 Election says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Not ‘Libeled’, but ‘labeled’ as wrong.
i.e. told you/ everyone reading about YOUR ERRONEOUS claims.
June 1, 2017 at 7:33 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Also, I only just now gave one link, for one study, that highlighted the issue I had with your study. I gave others.
I am glad you are admitting your study didn’t cover exactly what I said it didn’t cover.
Now, can you understand why saying 97% of scientists believe man affects climate,
Is substantially different than claiming that 97% of scientists believe we are killing the planet, for example?
I have no issue with the first. I have an issue with the second. Are you unable to grasp this? Is this the most extreme lying thing for you?
Break it down to it’s simplest form.
What is your issue with this comment above?
If only 52% believe we are a large driving factor in climate change, this seems to suggest that half of scientists would not really think passing a multitude of laws would actually affect climate to any large degree, and that we can’t destroy the planet, doesn’t it?
Are you going to tell me you have not talked about or told people here that Climate change is something that could destroy the world or is important enough to fight this hardcore about?
You’re just nevertheless pretty sure we could mess things up us republicans, and kill the whole world, aren’t you?
Get help yourself. I don’t need it, buddy.
June 2, 2017 at 10:11 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
“Lie. You claimed for months I said the paper addressed climate scientists’ projections on how catastrophic it would be.”
No, it didn’t, and it couldn’t. That is why I used this study by comparison UW:”
Lie. You pretend now you didn’t claim that, but you are full of it. Your statement:
“Do you admit that Cook et al says less than half of scientists agree man made global warming will be catastrophic?”
This is what you always do: lie, lie, lie, smear and insult and then when you realize it, change your story, hope nobody will look back and call them liars. I gave you months with the link to prove it, you couldn’t, but you kept lying and saying it was proof I lied. There was no misunderstanding, it was stated very clearly. Dirtbag and like I say, fundamentally dishohest to the core.
“I AM NOT AN ADMITTED SERIAL RAPIST.
I didn’t say you were, I said “accused.” I’ve also said in the past I don’t care, but that’s the definition of what you said you were accused of, regardless of how you interpret it.
You lied and continue to lie, and seem no more mentally stable. Go away.
June 2, 2017 at 1:42 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Exactly, I provided a quote and link proving you lied, and coincidentally you didn’t read that and are done. What an Fing joke you are.
Good, and good riddance. But you will be back in a week, interrupting another conversation and denying it. Sad, sad, liar. 2
June 2, 2017 at 1:45 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
You are right Planet, but King Loser has been replying and interrupting every thread I’m in. I stopped all, and will do again because he has SEVERE mental problems and is a pathological liar.
June 6, 2017 at 10:17 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
King Loser? Severe mental problems? Pathological liar? Oooh, oooh, I know! I know! You are talking about our President!
June 1, 2017 at 1:58 pm
MightgyQuinn says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
And what you hear from the left wing media is BS. Lemmings all of you.
You just ‘libeled’ Fox News anchors. Oh, wait! They’re celebrities and insulting / criticizing them is fair game. Carry on!
June 2, 2017 at 1:11 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Almost 100% of climate scientists that believe what?
You are misrepresenting them.
I ask they believe what, precisely because their opinions vary. 97% believe man can affect climate. That’s as far as it goes.
There is not consensus to any degree that man can cause any sort of catastrophic changes to the climate.
June 2, 2017 at 1:18 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Oh dear God Agent. We better contact Fox News and the proper authorities and let them know.
In some ways UW sounds a lot like Trump.
He’s certainly “opening up libel laws” in his own way. I sincerely hope people know enough about Trump to know what I just did.
I would like to know the last time a democrat or liberal here did this regarding Obama. I just burned Trump, and UW, and compare an aspect of a liberal to Trump.
June 1, 2017 at 3:31 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Seriously, if they were capable of critical thinking they wouldn’t be Republicans anymore.
(Oil Companies in 1968) – Man-made Climate Change is a thing. Going to start affecting the Earth’s temperature around the year 2000.
A report in 2015 stated: “Earth has broken monthly heat records 25 times since the year 2000, but hasn’t broken a monthly cold record since 1916.” Since then, 2015 and 2016 have both been the hottest years on record, and 2017 is already shaping up to be hotter…
Keep burying your head in the sand, though, I am sure that will keep it nice and cool…
Get ready for it…I want to hear the conservatives call weather.com biased puppets of the liberal mainstream media. You know it’s coming…just do it so I can have my laugh at your expense…
Gore, a former US VP, but FAILED candidate for POTUS in 2000, said he’d keep lines of communication open with TrumPresident on the issue. But after the latest move by Gore, it looks like he’s not going to receive any return calls from TrumPresident.
History will not reflect kindly on this Presidency. People will die as a result of this ill-informed decision. The U.S. should be leading the fight against Climate Change, instead we are turning backward. This should be a non-partisan issue. We all breathe the same air.
I can’t possibly have all of the facts or know enough about climate change to evaluate the cause & effects. But I do know that back in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s the pillars of industry, the very people we regarded as the brightest in our country, dumped chemicals, raw sewage and other debris in our lakes and rivers without any regard for our water quality or who was using it downstream. I can only assume they were too naïve to know the long term effects. Can’t help but think today’s discussions (and denials)on climate change are similar paths.
“… people will die…”
Immortality for all; vote Democrat in 2018?
A truly horrible decision that will have negative consequences for decades.
Name the consequences. Ready, steady, … GO!
The infinitesimal difference is not worth the cost to the USA. Meanwhile China is allowed to belch out the pollution. We would be competing with one hand tied behind our back.
China allows pollution of its rivers and streams which allows poisons to denigrate its farming industry. Ever see photos of Chinese people wearing a face mask going about their business in the dark, smokey cities? Are we going to end up like that, too?
Hey Eco – Simple answer is NO!
Funny that you say that, since one of the first things President Trump did in office is roll back regulation preventing coal mining companies from dumping toxic waste in rivers and streams.
Seriously.
We may end up like the Chinese people who wear masks to avoid air pollution if the Chinese and Indians continue to pollute AND continue to receive money from other countries obeying the Paris Climate Accord/Treaty.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Re-re-posted due to right wing censorship:
Breaking news – “POS-Tus is pulling out of Paris Climate Pact.”
Paris Climate Pact – “We never felt he was ever in.”
It’s only a matter of time until TWO more SCOTUS Judges are appointed by TrumPresident. THAT may make Libitterals flee to Cana-duh in droves. And that will help MAGA.
‘Paris Accord’ because Obama knew the US Senate would NEVER approve a Treaty, with all the implications thereof, at the required 2/3rds majority threshold. So, the USA, as a Republic, was never involved in a mandatory manner in the agreement… it was ALWAYS voluntary compliance, accordi.. er, per the will of the POTUS at the time.
Hooray for TrumPresident! The sooner he backs out of that disastrous, punitive, misguided agreement, the better!
Double Hooray for our President for seeing the world with clear eyes and doing the right thing for America. The Climate Hoaxers will be the first to die of cardiac arrest that their applecart has been upset.
It’s not punitive. Learn the words you use, or learn about the deal you wrote about 20x a day for the last 5 months.
…Learn perspective of others. In the capacity that he means it, it is punitive.
Most these countries that agree to go by the climate deal you speak of would put in place taxes to do so, which is in the very definition of punitive:
“(of a tax or other charge) extremely high”.
And they agree to spend 100 billion dollars. I wonder who is going to get that, and where it will come from? Someone is going to get morally unquestionable revenue and taxes. That is something that is cause for concern.
Better: economically punitive and highly inefficient use of many nation’s wealth & resources. ‘Punitive’ alone was just too vague.
There has been too much fake research leading up to the hoax. For millions of years there has been global warming and global cooling. Hot periods and ice ages. Man might have accelerated the next age [which is scheduled to be an ice age] but he has not caused it. People will die whether we are in or out of the Climate Pact. It’s immaterial. The entire hoax has been a gravy train for some people and some companies. Game over. Accept nature and try to understand it. And to prove your point you will point out the melting of he polar ice caps. However, you also said that sea levels would have risen significantly. Gee, that hasn’t happened because of the surface area of the sea and atmospherical absorption. Chicken Little still thrives though tired from screaming for nothing.
http://gov.louisiana.gov/assets/EmergencyProclamations/43-JBE-2017-Coastal-Louisiana.pdf
Here is the Governer of Louisiana in a state of emergency proclamation stating that the state has lost 1,800 square miles of land from 1932 to 2010 and expects to lose another 2,250 in the next 50 years. The top two reasons cited for this loss? Climate Change and Sea Level Rise.
You are not a scientist, MightyQuinn. Scientists, Meteorologists, Climatologists, and many other people far more intelligent than you or I, with factual and verifiable science to back it up, have concluded that man is the primary cause of the planet’s rapid climate change.
The only reason you believe otherwise is because you listen to “news corporations” who are backed by titans of industry with billions to lose if they have to implement changes to their business practices to save the environment.
This isn’t new science or some other relative unknown. Scientists back in 1968 realized the dangers of what was to come and reported their results to the Oil industry, who chose to bury it instead.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/13/climate-change-oil-industry-environment-warning-1968
As always, the almighty dollar is way more important to them than the Almighty. The pursuit of money is more important than the care for your brother and country.
No, I’m not a scientist but chances are that I’ve lived a lot longer on this planet and have witnessed more than you. I do not need safe spots or talking heads to make up my mind. Understand this, man is insignificant and what we do or do not do will make no difference in the long run. You, Sir, are just as insignificant so cool your jets and recognize that you will make no difference as to whether or not this planet or its people survive.
Your anecdotal evidence blinds you from the truth. There are things happening all over the world that uses the scientific method to support man-made climate change. You need to look beyond your own backyard and realize that man is insignificant, but mankind is not.
One only needs to look at how we decimated the species of passenger pigeon over the course of only about two decades to realize what mankind can accomplish when we put our minds to it. Having hundreds of millions of CO2 and CO-producing cars, factories, power plants, etc. around the world is, in fact warming the planet. It is, quite literally, science. You can debate ideals and morals, but not science.
There is the Governor of Louisiana in a state of emergency proclamation stating that the state has lost 1,800 square miles of land from 1932 to 2010 and expects to lose another 2,250 in the next 50 years. The top two reasons cited for this loss? Climate Change and Sea Level Rise.
You are not a scientist, MightyQuinn. Scientists, Meteorologists, Climatologists, and many other people far more intelligent than you or I, with factual and verifiable science to back it up, have concluded that man is the primary cause of the planet’s rapid climate change.
The only reason you believe otherwise is because you listen to “news corporations” who are backed by titans of industry with billions to lose if they have to implement changes to their business practices to save the environment.
This isn’t new science or some other relative unknown. Scientists back in 1968 realized the dangers of what was to come and reported their results to the Oil industry, who chose to bury it instead.
As always, the almighty dollar is way more important to them than the Almighty.
“Accept nature and try to understand it”. Now that’s some good BS right there.
Your argument is that man may have accelerated the next stage, which is an ice age, and that shows up in a drastically warmer climate?
That is so dumb it would be unbelievable if it wasn’t for the modern state of conservatives.
I did not say that. Read what I did say. Did you go to school?
Yes, unfortunately, he went to school… a liberal-controlled school.
“Your argument is that man may have accelerated the next stage, which is an ice age, and that shows up in a drastically warmer climate?”
“I did not say that. Read what I did say.”
“Man might have accelerated the next age [which is scheduled to be an ice age] but he has not caused it.”
“Did you go to school?”
The next intelligent, non-POS conservative will be a major groundbreaker in the modern conservative movement. Unintelligent, uneducated nuts, every single one.
We will take your idiotic rants over almost 100% of climate scientists for sure.
The US is NOT legally bound to this “Agreement” and legally can’t be until and unless the US Senate ratifies it. The US Constitution takes precedence over any US president’s signature … it is irrelevant how many other countries agreed if the US Senate did not or does not ratify the “agreement.”
You know when 194 nations sign on to agree to curb pollution and America is the only one “smart enough” to realize that climate change is a “hoax”, that we are in trouble as a nation. The level of anti-intellectualism and anti-science understanding is destroying this country mentally, and it’s going to do it physically, as well with increased pollution from lax industrial standards.
Scott Pruitt and President Trump have buried their heads in the sand, and millions of people around the country are willing to blindly follow them, since their Cable News Channel of choice tells them to do so.
Use some critical thinking, people.
Doug,
Hear ye, hear ye! These are the same people who claim to worship a Christian God who provided us Earth. Yet, are quick to poison God’s gift and destroy the only proven planet which can sustain life. Earth is a living organism and it must be nurtured. She is showing us she is sick. Would these same people pour poison down the throats of their children?
And of course, instead of thinking that they have not been convinced of climate change, you instead think they are hypocrites who don’t love mother Earth or mankind.
Reasons to doubt climate change, which I just went over with UW.
htt ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDK1aCqqZkQ
htt ps://www.corbettreport.com/climatologist-breaks-the-silence-on-global-warming-groupthink/
ht tp://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
These speak for themselves. Watch them, go over the global temperatures, and think for yourself.
The NOAA combines too many different types of ratios, has been proven to hide source data, and has too high of a margin of error, combined with the fact that their amount of warming and metrics changes nearly annually, showing it isn’t all the reliable, and combine that with when they do these changes they hide the original charts, you have unreliable data.
Now, what is something to worry about, is when a bunch of nations move to pass laws and taxes that would be so immoral to debate, that they become untouchable laws. That is what to worry about, and that is clearly the goal here. Silencing opposition to taxes and laws that favor their friends. It’s clever, I’ll give them that, but I won’t allow this, nor people like myself.
I should note something more:
The reason you aren’t convincing anyone of climate change, is you aren’t convincing them, you are shaming them into believing in climate change.
This is ironic considering you seem to believe moral positions are bad to take, and one should make decisions based on facts.
It’s also ironic considering I make decisions on this basis, and yet am told I do the opposite.
If you want people to join your side, convince them.
Your analysis of the liberals is correct, but it seems like it will be wasted, as they have become very closed minded, and some are not willing to listen to others’ opinions.
Like the opinions of almost 100% of climate scientists? Geez, I wonder what has to be put out there to convince a Birther?
“Like the opinions of almost 100% of climate scientists? Geez, I wonder what has to be put out there to convince a Birther?”
I already showed consensus of a catastrophic level of warming, or of the primary driver of climate change being man, is not at nearly 100%. You are misleading people.
Also, argument from authority is not argument.
One point Agent made that is correct, is studies for climate papers would certainly be biased to show a high percentage, because you only receive government funding currently if you are pro global warming and write papers backing that narrative. You will find that scientists in general, as I have shown before, especially ecologists, who do have the training to look into this, have huge petitions in the tens of thousands saying that the climatologists are wrong, and you discredit them by saying they aren’t the right type of scientist. This was set up on purpose by democrats to shape public opinion.
What you will need to do is present facts. I’ve given you scientific folks’s opinions, and when you think they are discredited, you say this because someone else said it, not because you digested the data.
Grow up UW. You’re debating outside your league.
Thank you for that comment. These people don’t even need an understanding of science. you would think the lone company of Nicaragua and Syria would be enough to tell them that pulling out of Paris is a bad idea.
No, pulling out of an ACCORD should tell you that the SENATE thought it was a bad idea, thus Obama went the route of agreeing to an ACCORD, which did not need to be ( and wouldn’t have been ) approved by 2/3 of the US Senate…. as would a TREATY… which is what most other participants agreed to.
Think about that for just a moment before you reply. IF you do, I’ll bet you won’t reply.
RiceSusan,
It is a voluntary agreement. There are no string attached. Any aid or payment, or action taken by the US is meant to promote doing the right thing and helping to save our environment across the globe. The US, being world leaders, should be leading the way and providing an example, as we do, and have done with so many separate issues. The public announcement that the US will no longer continue to be apart of this action is downright shameful. This is a good faith effort to help, and we just told the world to F off.
We are no longer THE country that stands for something.
Make America Gray Again!
When can we start putting these low-life 7 year olds to work in my chimney again? Our President’s move is so awesome, I feel like grabbing some cat and making fun of disabled people!
Hyperbole is a tool of those on the losing side of debates.
Yogi,
That’s interesting. So, now I understand why you tell us all the time Dumb Donnie Dufus 2 Scoops is using hyperbole all the time. Speaking of tools…
… so I was was wrong in characterizing hyperbole as ONLY a tool of those losing debates by not properly qualifying THAT statement as only applicable to that particular discussion.
Bear culpa.
You are exactly right. They are unintelligent and repeat what they hear on right wing sites word-for-word. The most prescient book on this is the Hofstadter book, Anti-intellectualism in American Life.
The right-wing nuts here and elsewhere don’t even know what is in the agreement. They whine about China while China had agreed to accelerate their goals. There is no other way to say it, even though it’s not PC, but the people pushing this stuff against it are just dumb.
“You are exactly right. They are unintelligent and repeat what they hear on right wing sites word-for-word.”
No they don’t, and to quote you “citation needed or it didn’t happen”.
Irony here, is that you use what you think is a 97% consensus to prove a point, in other words, using other’s arguments words in place of your words to make a conclusion, instead of looking at their data. Hypocrite thy name is UW.
“The right-wing nuts here and elsewhere don’t even know what is in the agreement”
Incorrect, and we worry about the precedent this establishes for the far left to start to implement methods of taxes that are beyond question, due to being beyond debate and a moral issue to many, now that the left sells it as such.
“They whine about China while China had agreed to accelerate their goals.”
Not all republicans do, but they would have reason to, whether China agrees to accelerate goals, they are a heavy producer, and they should.
“There is no other way to say it, even though it’s not PC, but the people pushing this stuff against it are just dumb.”
Oooo, you’re so radical and hip. You’re speaking against the norm, aren’t you? You’re just so not pc.
You libeled me for 3 months about the Cook Study, and proved your ignorance and dishonesty. I gave you every opportunity to say you were wrong or provide a link. I even linked to the story for you and you couldn’t do either because you are nuts. Stop mentioning me in every 3rd post and stop commenting at me. I have said dozens of times I’m done debating your nonsense and lies with you. You lie nonstop and disregard data that refutes your claims, even when it is data you provided.
F off, leave me alone. IJ, deletes liberal comments even slightly critical of 2-3 people here but allow personal threats by the same people. Just stop. LEAVE ME ALONE, NUTJOB.
“You libeled me for 3 months about the Cook Study, and proved your ignorance and dishonesty”
Ah, so this is finally what you meant about libel. That is not libel. I thought you meant that I accused you of encouraging potentially violent riots as a means of civil discourse. I did not libel you, perhaps you need to know what that word means, considering how much you insist on proper word usage. Regarding the Cook study, we had confusions, on both ends. I used the wrong terms, this is me admitting error, which you don’t do. The debate was ultimately whether cook et al showed what you said it did, I argued that if we went off of how many scientists agreed we were the primary driving factor, and whether there was consensus on if it was catastrophic climate change. Now I finally know what you’re holding on to, stop being a psychopath. That was a normal disagreement UW. We both clearly have our opinions, and I’ve researched even more, and posted more regarding it.
” I gave you every opportunity to say you were wrong or provide a link. I even linked to the story for you and you couldn’t do either because you are nuts.”
When we debated this I proved the errors of your study, by metrics. I am not nuts, I disagree with you.
“Stop mentioning me in every 3rd post and stop commenting at me.”
I don’t mention you every 3rd post, when you’re not involved in the conversation. Also, if you think your ideas can run rampant without rebuttal, you’re wrong. You aren’t in your own echo chamber and world, other than the cage in your own head.
“I have said dozens of times I’m done debating your nonsense and lies with you.”
I am not presently lying or being nonsensical, what you are actually doing is refusing civil discourse.
“You lie nonstop”
Provide one example, or as you said, “it didn’t happen”. I do not lie here.
“and disregard data that refutes your claims,”
This would not be a lie, as I suspect you think it is given sentence positioning, and moreover, provide an example, or it didn’t happen. I just gave even more info on global warming, climate change, it is data, that refutes YOUR claims. You are here disregarding it. Hypocrisy thy name is UW.
“even when it is data you provided.”
Provide an example. This is simply not true. My data does not contradict my claims.
“F off, leave me alone. IJ, deletes liberal comments even slightly critical of 2-3 people here but allow personal threats by the same people.”
No, due to you they are deleting even Confused’s at this point, and mine when I replied to others with no insults. I have not done any personal threats.
“Just stop. LEAVE ME ALONE, NUTJOB.”
Grow up.
My post to you was rational by the way. The more you whine here for rational comments, that is why they are deleted UW.
When you get on a page, suddenly everyone’s comments get deleted and you blame IJ. You have an issue here dude.
Nothing I said above was out of line but you are probably literally hyper ventilating. Read your posts!
“I argued that if we went off of how many scientists agreed we were the primary driving factor, and whether there was consensus on if it was catastrophic climate change”
Lie. You claimed for months I said the paper addressed climate scientists’ projections on how catastrophic it would be. We went over this for months, I asked dozens of times for proof, restated my self and provided links. You misquoted me as proof I was a liar and refused to provide quotes even with a link. I won’t go over this with you again because the results will be the same: lies, BS, and stupidity. STILL, you have it wrong and clearly have not read the paper. It doesn’t look at the level of catastrophe, but that didn’t stop you from calling me a liar for months.
You have libeled me on numerous occasions, with nothing done by IJ, however whenever a person mentions that you are an admitted accused serial rapist they delete it, and it seems even banned the people that did it most. You are full of it on Cook, still. I know what libel means, which is why I used it, genius.
You are still claiming the study shows something it doesn’t even address. We know, you know more about every single topic, but somehow you still can’t get basic facts right.
You went crazy when I showed your spending claims under Reagan did not match the data you provided, and in fact we’re opposite, and you refused to even look at the charts. Same with data on cities (Chicago, I think), same with another person (Planet or Confused) when they pointed out the data proving a climate change conspiracy you linked to did not exist, and what was there did not show what you claimed. It happens with literally every piece of data you cite.
I don’t care though, I’m not going over it again. You are, IMO, and that of many others, mentally unstable, LEAVE ME ALONE.
Congrats, you were civil for half a comment. You always do that, freak out, curse everybody out, write one normal comment, and lecture about civility. Kick rocks, Einstein. Nobody likes you. You are bored because only Yogtard and Agent respond to you consistently, and they are so unoriginal, uneducated, and uninformed it’s boring you. Too bad, grow up, get mental health, and learn to admit you are wrong and stop lying. That’s obviously impossible, so just LEAVE ME ALONE, PLEASE
“UW says:
“I argued that if we went off of how many scientists agreed we were the primary driving factor, and whether there was consensus on if it was catastrophic climate change”
Lie. You claimed for months I said the paper addressed climate scientists’ projections on how catastrophic it would be.”
No, it didn’t, and it couldn’t. That is why I used this study by comparison UW:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/
And that is why I focused on this particular spot:
“Respondent options were:
Yes: Mostly human
Yes: Equally human and natural
Yes: Mostly natural
Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
Yes: Don’t know cause
Don’t know if global warming is happening
Global warming is not happening”
I did not lie, I used the wrong terms, when I said your paper did not address catastrophic climate change, you even multiple times asked what I was talking about. This is called confusion. What I meant was this above, how much of it was man made, on one end, and on another separately, whether it was considered to be severe enough to be catastrophic specifically due to man made contributions, which you did not address, nor did your study UW! I finally got to the point where you finally realized what I meant, then you said I changed what I said on purpose because I lost the debate, and called me a liar. And I said no, otherwise why are we debating climate change? There is 97% consensus that what? That was my question, and why I said cook et al was misleading people about that consensus and what it meant. This time I am finally making my point clearer, and I am fixing my flaw. However, there were no lies. That was my error, my bad. I should have said it as above. Now we’re going to move on, the 97% consensus is wildly misleading when you consider what it shows.
“We went over this for months, I asked dozens of times for proof, restated my self and provided links.”
And I provided my proof, you clearly didn’t read it, because you kept on getting confused by what I was saying. Part of this is my fault, but you should have got the point UW, considering that the evidence did not prove what you were saying either, that there was a 97% consensus that man made warming was going to cause catastrophic effects.
“You misquoted me as proof I was a liar”
That’s what you’re doing with me now! No! I said you were misleading people regarding the 97% consensus, and no such consensus existed.
“and refused to provide quotes even with a link.”
I provided numerous links.
“I won’t go over this with you again because the results will be the same: lies, BS, and stupidity.”
Oh come on, do you really have this low of an ability to understand others and yourself?
“STILL, you have it wrong and clearly have not read the paper.”
Is what I said above incorrect? There is no 97% consensus that man made global warming will be catastrophic. There isn’t even a 97% consensus that mankind is the primary factor of change in climate! Are either of these statements incorrect!!! FOCUS KID!!! Stop blabbering on off topics calling people liars.
“It doesn’t look at the level of catastrophe, but that didn’t stop you from calling me a liar for months.”
AH HA! So admission I was correct! You in fact called ME a liar for months!
“You have libeled me on numerous occasions, with nothing done by IJ,”
I have not libeled you. You have a moniker, there is no libel damage. I have tried to debate with you and make my points. However, you said I wanted Muslim families TO BE MURDERED while for MONTHS I said this was not true. That isn’t libel either, but you have to start thinking with your head UW. Everything you claim I did, I can prove you did, with examples. What Libel did I do? How did I misrepresent you?
“however whenever a person mentions that you are an admitted accused serial rapist they delete it,”
I AM NOT AN ADMITTED SERIAL RAPIST.
“and it seems even banned the people that did it most.”
Deservedly so on that one. This is harassment.
“You are full of it on Cook, still.”
No, I’m not.
“I know what libel means, which is why I used it, genius.”
Clearly you don’t.
“You are still claiming the study shows something it doesn’t even address. We know, you know more about every single topic, but somehow you still can’t get basic facts right.”
See above, stop ranting and raving.
“You went crazy when I showed your spending claims under Reagan did not match the data you provided, and in fact we’re opposite,”
Citation needed. I don’t go crazy. I showed you however that Reagan did not propose spending increases, and passed a plan put forth by a democrat, and listed his name. I even showed a link of the CBO rated spending amounts that would have gone into play automatically in the absence of new law, due to Carter. You’re a fool, this is old. You are not recalling things correctly, so let’s refresh the argument in the now, instead of talking about an argument from over a year ago. How about that? Go ahead and debate me. What’s your point here?
“and you refused to even look at the charts.”
Wrong.
“Same with data on cities (Chicago, I think),”
Wrong. Data with regards to what in cities? I always look at data, and I beg for it. Give me this data. I’ll digest it.
“same with another person (Planet or Confused) when they pointed out the data proving a climate change conspiracy you linked to did not exist, and what was there did not show what you claimed. It happens with literally every piece of data you cite. ”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.. WRONG. The NOAA deleted the source links! It DID exist. And I later showed that numerous sites were telling people the NOAA was deleting their source data. And no, it doesn’t happen with literally every piece of data I cite. I sourced an article which had a chart showing the before and after of NOAA data, it had the source link below, but the links were broken. I don’t click all source links, all the time, neither do you for yours. However, those numbers are not simply lies. Confused said who can we trust? The data is gone? And I said how about we trust the person who originally sourced it, instead of the person that deleted their archives, and has been called on it! About a month later I showed that the NOAA was called out specifically on what confused and I talked about, publicly! Whistleblowers abounded.
“I don’t care though, I’m not going over it again. You are, IMO, and that of many others, mentally unstable, LEAVE ME ALONE. ”
Then debate the here and now and stop being a psychopath.
“Congrats, you were civil for half a comment.”
And you never were.
“You always do that, freak out, curse everybody out,”
When I’m mistreated and call Timothy McVeigh for 7 months, a serial rapist for explaining what Trump was talking about, and talked about normal sexual behavior, and when I was called a murder, yes, I get mad. I’ve personally taken responsibility when I’ve been mad, and it is no more or less than anyone else treated as I have been.
“write one normal comment, and lecture about civility.”
I don’t lecture about civility. I lecture about not staying on topic, I even tell people they can throw in some insults, the only person I don’t allow it is you, because it gets out of control, and you make the argument ABOUT insults.
“Kick rocks, Einstein. Nobody likes you.”
Ah yes, argue like a true bully. “nobody likes you”. Did you think before you wrote this? I am astounded at your pure crud.
“You are bored because only Yogtard and Agent respond to you consistently, and they are so unoriginal,”
Ah, I see that you latched onto my bored comment as I thought you would. Here’s the issue Confused. My IQ was tested at 156 by the time I was 5. I set you up all the time, you just don’t see it. I was waiting for this from you. I wanted to see how much of an ego you had. You didn’t disappoint. But I have more of a goal there, you’ll see soon enough. I won’t spoil it.
“uneducated,”
Untrue, and all this because I dare to post facts you don’t like.
“and uninformed it’s boring you.”
No, apply all this to you and that’s why you bore me. I’m not bored with talking to them. I rarely do. I’m bored with your lame arguments. What is your point. Why don’t you show me some facts now? I just put up more about the climate issue. You haven’t responded.
“Too bad, grow up, get mental health,”
You. It is more than clear you are mentally unstable.
“and learn to admit you are wrong and stop lying.”
I don’t lie. I just said where I made mistakes, TWICE TODAY. When will it be enough for you? What should I say now? What will make you stop calling me these names? I want a real answer, because this is not continuing UW, and if it does, I will contact the FBI about harassment, as well as IJ, and have them involved.
“That’s obviously impossible, so just LEAVE ME ALONE, PLEASE”
I just went over this. And no, I will not stop freely posting here. You are free to comment to people here with your ideals, and I’m free to comment about your ideals. I see what you’re setting up now, my IQ was smart enough to gather it off the bat.
How close am I:
You have begun inserting “PLEASE STOP” so you can tell IJ I am harassing you and not respecting your wishes of ending contact. However, you cannot restrict non hostile responses on a site where you yourself are insulting others, as you have (not myself) on this page alone, to anyone who has dared contradict what you put here. When you put something up, it will be contradicted. You will never succeed in your goal. You are also aiming to use that to have IJ delete my comments. I caught it fast. But you also caught what I caught, and that’s why you’re trying to appear a victim. You realized your comments are being deleted, like crazy, and you hate it. Otherwise you would simply likely ignore me and take no action other than insult me.
I know it bothers you that you’re getting outwitted, but really, you need to stop this victim act to get me banned or removed. It’s really low.
Not ‘Libeled’, but ‘labeled’ as wrong.
i.e. told you/ everyone reading about YOUR ERRONEOUS claims.
Also, I only just now gave one link, for one study, that highlighted the issue I had with your study. I gave others.
I am glad you are admitting your study didn’t cover exactly what I said it didn’t cover.
Now, can you understand why saying 97% of scientists believe man affects climate,
Is substantially different than claiming that 97% of scientists believe we are killing the planet, for example?
I have no issue with the first. I have an issue with the second. Are you unable to grasp this? Is this the most extreme lying thing for you?
Break it down to it’s simplest form.
What is your issue with this comment above?
If only 52% believe we are a large driving factor in climate change, this seems to suggest that half of scientists would not really think passing a multitude of laws would actually affect climate to any large degree, and that we can’t destroy the planet, doesn’t it?
Are you going to tell me you have not talked about or told people here that Climate change is something that could destroy the world or is important enough to fight this hardcore about?
You’re just nevertheless pretty sure we could mess things up us republicans, and kill the whole world, aren’t you?
Get help yourself. I don’t need it, buddy.
“Lie. You claimed for months I said the paper addressed climate scientists’ projections on how catastrophic it would be.”
No, it didn’t, and it couldn’t. That is why I used this study by comparison UW:”
Lie. You pretend now you didn’t claim that, but you are full of it. Your statement:
“Do you admit that Cook et al says less than half of scientists agree man made global warming will be catastrophic?”
From this article:
ht tp://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/11/23/433132.htm/?comments
This is what you always do: lie, lie, lie, smear and insult and then when you realize it, change your story, hope nobody will look back and call them liars. I gave you months with the link to prove it, you couldn’t, but you kept lying and saying it was proof I lied. There was no misunderstanding, it was stated very clearly. Dirtbag and like I say, fundamentally dishohest to the core.
“I AM NOT AN ADMITTED SERIAL RAPIST.
I didn’t say you were, I said “accused.” I’ve also said in the past I don’t care, but that’s the definition of what you said you were accused of, regardless of how you interpret it.
You lied and continue to lie, and seem no more mentally stable. Go away.
Exactly, I provided a quote and link proving you lied, and coincidentally you didn’t read that and are done. What an Fing joke you are.
Good, and good riddance. But you will be back in a week, interrupting another conversation and denying it. Sad, sad, liar. 2
You are right Planet, but King Loser has been replying and interrupting every thread I’m in. I stopped all, and will do again because he has SEVERE mental problems and is a pathological liar.
King Loser? Severe mental problems? Pathological liar? Oooh, oooh, I know! I know! You are talking about our President!
And what you hear from the left wing media is BS. Lemmings all of you.
Yes, along with almost 100% of climate scientists who people like you think should be viewed as equivalent with Fox News anchors. Like I said, dumb.
You just ‘libeled’ Fox News anchors. Oh, wait! They’re celebrities and insulting / criticizing them is fair game. Carry on!
Almost 100% of climate scientists that believe what?
You are misrepresenting them.
I ask they believe what, precisely because their opinions vary. 97% believe man can affect climate. That’s as far as it goes.
There is not consensus to any degree that man can cause any sort of catastrophic changes to the climate.
Oh dear God Agent. We better contact Fox News and the proper authorities and let them know.
In some ways UW sounds a lot like Trump.
He’s certainly “opening up libel laws” in his own way. I sincerely hope people know enough about Trump to know what I just did.
I would like to know the last time a democrat or liberal here did this regarding Obama. I just burned Trump, and UW, and compare an aspect of a liberal to Trump.
Seriously, if they were capable of critical thinking they wouldn’t be Republicans anymore.
Making a statement like that, you don’t sound ‘serious’.
(Oil Companies in 1968) – Man-made Climate Change is a thing. Going to start affecting the Earth’s temperature around the year 2000.
A report in 2015 stated: “Earth has broken monthly heat records 25 times since the year 2000, but hasn’t broken a monthly cold record since 1916.” Since then, 2015 and 2016 have both been the hottest years on record, and 2017 is already shaping up to be hotter…
Keep burying your head in the sand, though, I am sure that will keep it nice and cool…
Get ready for it…I want to hear the conservatives call weather.com biased puppets of the liberal mainstream media. You know it’s coming…just do it so I can have my laugh at your expense…
Weather.communists are puppets of the left.
Hooray!
Today is ANOTHER day that will live in infamy… for Climate Hoaxers & Liberals.
Al Gore is pissed! Hooray!
http://www.thewrap.com/al-gores-inconvenient-sequel-final-cut-feature-trump-climate-accord-exit/
Gore, a former US VP, but FAILED candidate for POTUS in 2000, said he’d keep lines of communication open with TrumPresident on the issue. But after the latest move by Gore, it looks like he’s not going to receive any return calls from TrumPresident.