A major issue should be decided by the public, not men and women in robes who are appointed for life by biased politicians who want their (politicians) opinions to be reflected for many more years than for which the public balloting process enabled them.
Further, as public opinion on specific issues shifts, the elected legislators can make the changes to laws that courts must administer and adhere to within reason and precedent. However, the above fails when the public elects politicians for one reason (e.g. economic environment) and a FEW such politicians use their position of power to legislate on other issues (global ‘something’). In some instances the elected legislators or administrators didn’t take a specific stance on the issue(s) during their campaign, and it affects MANY constituents.
Global Something has long term impacts on The Earth (which man cannot control, despite what is CLAIMED by Hoaxers; e.g. Al Gore’s failed forecasts; i.e. “An Inconvenient Result”) which should not be decided by politicians that hold their office for two or four or six years. Rather, it should be decided by the public over time, to possibly be changed as new information and results/ data become available, or hoaxes are dispelled by challengers.
The above suggest term limits on political offices is beneficial. However, more unbiased information made available to the voting public is a preferable alternative. Positive impacts a good politician might have had would be limited by term limits.
” Philip Gregory, a lawyer representing the young people, said in a phone interview that his clients plan to immediately seek a rehearing before a full appeals court.
“Given the urgency of climate change, we’re going to get this matter before the full 9th Circuit as quickly as possible,” he said. ”
Al Gore said the threat of oceans rising was imminent and we’d be underwater by now (paraphrasing for emphasis and brevity) in 2006 (“An Inconvenient Truth”… which never emerged). So, Phil, please tell us how YOUR projection of an imminent crisis is different from Scammer Als’ Hoax that earned him millions. How much are you charging to pursue this case?
Al Gore made some messed up claims. 20 years ago. Your president is still trying to pretend that he’s a very stable genius while half of his cabinet has been indicted and he’s the third president to be impeached. Maybe stop aiming at someone who’s not relevant in modern politics and worry about the criminal you elected?
You’re the only one still talking about Al Gore you sad old man LOL if we’re talking false claims how about the record-setting number of lies spouted by your president? Ever fact checked any of his stuff, or do you actually believe he’s a stable genius? LOL Let me just ask you this: Do you believe everything Trump has said? Do you believe he’s been honest 100% of the time? That’s what I thought LOL you’re a joke ya old denier
January 22, 2020 at 8:04 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Al Gore isn’t the only person to make “messed up claims”. I can think of dozens of celebrities, non-scientists, and self-proclaimed ‘Climate Scientists’ who made projections of doom and gloom that will arrive soon (e.g. end of the Earth in a decade or so, by AOC).
I enjoy reading/ listening to “messed up claims”. They’re amusing.
You really don’t like to research things do you, Polar? I mean if you did, you might have to actually learn something!
Enjoying listening to messed up claims is one thing. Using knowingly false claims to create a straw-man argument is why we get into it. You are willing to use cheap, false, downright slimy argument tactics to try and spread the right-wing agenda. Why don’t you try facts on for size for once?
January 21, 2020 at 8:26 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
9
9
Do down voters who already appeared, down-voted, and ran away, have ANY substantial facts that can convince the Chinese, Indians, and other Earth inhabitants that Global Something is substantially caused by Humans’ actions? If so, please post your evidence, arguments, or data instead of doing cowardly down-votes.
People who downvote you are simply exercising their free speech rights (I believe you said that once, Yogi). Maybe they don’t like the way you insist on bringing Al Gore into every discussion about climate, as though he was mentioned in the article or was somehow relevant in today’s society or Democratic party, for that matter. Weren’t you the one the other day who was lecturing about keeping posts away from politics and keeping them on topic, since this is, after all, an INSURANCE WEBSITE? Sensible people don’t argue with you because frankly, there’s no point. You’ve already made it very clear that you have no interest in listening to other points of view with an open mind, so why would anyone want to waste their time?
PS#3: I am not constrained to ‘recent examples’ that disprove Climate Hoaxers’ failures. Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Results” is a perfect, credible example of his lies because we are well beyond the point of no return, etc. in his failed predictions.
STOP INSULTING ME FOR NO REASON! I DIDN’T SAY ANYTHING!!
ALSO, HOW DO YOU NOT REMEMBER I’VE SAID THE ACA IS A “SUPER DUPER” FAILURE OVER A DOZEN TIMES? STOP LYING AND CLAIMING I SUPPORT IT!!!
Unless Polar’s comment gets removed, this post should be kept up because I am defending myself from an unprovoked personal attack, which is coming from the guy who just asked Andrew to ” fix the ‘glitch’ of specific posters who do nothing but insult others” over here https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/01/16/555111.htm/?comments
Link it, prove it’s from a credible news organization. Except you won’t, because that myth about the 183 people was dispelled last week. Remember when I provided a link that called you a liar last week and you mysteriously stopped responding to the thread entirely until just now when you’re making a bogus claim again? I do. Maybe you should try reading for once instead of spreading garbage, Agent.
No, I do not know that Conservatives are spreading disinformation. Prove that the Earth is warming due to Human Actions to prove that Conservatives are spreading disinformation. If you can’t, you are spreading disinformation about Conservatives. Check. Your move.
I can prove climate change is real, which your side was denying until recently. Now your side is denying specifically man-made climate change. Your side also lied to us about the AIDs epidemic. How about we stop trusting the side that’s lied to us repeatedly? Your side has proven to not have the American citizens’ best interests at heart. Some of us aren’t suckers and don’t want to keep listening to your lies, Polar.
We might have to, since you jokers on the right like to deny things that are plainly evident all the time. You know, like five years ago when the republican mantra was that climate change wasn’t real. Now you’re saying of course it’s real? That’s not what you goobers were saying a few years ago, sounds like flip flopping to me boomer :) but then we can’t expect you boomers to actually admit to being wrong, which is why we’re just making you more and more irrelevant every day. Soon you’ll be forgotten entirely!
Rather than write “we might have to”, please do (prove there is climate change, despite the fact that nearly everyone agrees it exists) to show you can.
A more challenging task would be to prove MAN-CAUSED Global Climate Something is real. Do that to prove your point.
January 22, 2020 at 8:15 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
“Soon you’ll be forgotten entirely!” is proof of the desire of liberals who cannot defend their positions to censor conservative opinions because of their frustration. The other proof of their frustration is personal attacks on Conservatives in lieu of rebuttals on the topic.
January 23, 2020 at 9:04 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
Yogi,
Personal attacks on conservatives like your attacks on liberals? How about an example?
MARCH 26, 2018 AT 11:08 AM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Don’t bother reading any of my posts. You wouldn’t understand them. Stick to Libitteral websites.
———————————————
Careful with that axe, Eugene.
January 21, 2020 at 1:15 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13
2
Did you notice the failure of the vast majority of countries to honor the commitments they made in the Paris Climate Accord?
Did you notice the article in Insurance Journal a couple months ago that pointed out that people who “believe in Climate Change” (whatever that means) do nothing more in their own lives to address it than do people who are skeptical about what we are being told?
Did you notice in your own life that you do next to nothing to offset your own “carbon footprint”?
Did you realize that all of these facts are enough for billions of people to stop taking you seriously? And that the reason nothing is being done is because of you?
Hi Craig!
Did you know that the wealthy in this country are actively conspiring against the poor? And your rhetoric of trying to make the poor responsible for fixing the planet is one of their more successful tactics?
vice.com/en_us/article/a39qba/leaked-video-shows-how-business-lobbyists-conspire-against-a-higher-minimum-wage
Or how about that the 62 people who control more than half of the world’s wealth could easily solve these problems you’re tasking the poorest americans with?
vice.com/en_us/article/d395yj/sixty-two-people-now-have-a-greater-net-worth-than-half-the-worlds-population
Or are you aware that your president actively tries to discredit the people charged with monitoring our climate?
vice.com/en_us/article/3a8dz8/trump-just-called-climate-scientists-foolish-fortune-tellers
Sure seems like the rich like to conspire against the poor, I wonder what you get out of it?
Polar and you have shown yourselves to be actual crazy people that won’t listen to reason or logic, and just purely want to spread misinformation. I thought maybe you could use some facts on the page as well, since you and Polar really REALLY hate providing credible resources for your argument. You should try reading more, sometime!
More personal attacks in lieu of rebuttals using facts, data and logic.
January 23, 2020 at 10:42 am
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
I agree, him calling me Karl Marx and no actual argument was more personal attacks instead of facts, data and logic. You goobers on the right really don’t like things like logic and data though! That’s why you never post any actual evidence for your arguments though huh? Unless it’s from a conspiracy theory website, or you’re spreading blatantly verifiably false information, like your claim that 91% of americans were more worried about terrorism than climate change. Remember that, Polar? Like two weeks ago when you kept spouting that garbage? And then it was found your “poll from January” was January 2016, and it said no such thing? Yeah, you will lie to try and win the argument, you’re not exactly a credible source bud.
January 21, 2020 at 3:03 pm
John says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Wow, Jon!! You are very well read….. vice. vice. vice. vice.
Climate scientists convinced the gullible to defer God in favor of flawed science.
Then they further deferred to children.
Who deferred to the courts.
And the courts said “No.”
Did anyone read the IJ article from several months back that the current climate patterns are similar to those of 3-5 million years ago? So how, exactly, are we destroying a planet when 3-5 million years ago, the current level of carbon emissions, and number of people, and the planet as we know it, did not exist? We are at the curve of a cycle. Further, if a climate cycle that lasted approximately 2 million years restored itself to an earth capable of surviving as long as it did, doesn’t this mean we are safe to assume they will write the same about us during the next climate crisis in 3-5 million years from now?
Climate hoaxers can’t have it both ways. It is or it isn’t. Our existence today says it was disproven. My children’s continued existence past 2031 will be further proof the climate crisis isn’t.
To climate action deniers Craig, Polar, Jack and others:
Now that you have wasted several decades, and you still do not like any of the solutions proposed by Democrats, environmentalists, climate scientists and others to curb climate change, what would you do? How much would you agree to spend? How serious is the problem in your view? How long do you think we have? What steps do you recommend? And, finally, why haven’t you or Republicans taken any of them?
Because all the Climate Zealots have been wrong so far. The Doom Sayers might want to fess up to all their false predictions, in the name of convincing anyone that the CURRENT predictions might be correct.
And again, when you use the term “denier”, you lose 90% of the audience. The failure of the Zealots to convince anyone with name calling is just so, what’s the word, predictable.
And FINALLY, the only real solutions are rejected by the Zealots: modern, safe nuclear energy and the planting of millions and millions of trees (a solution from actual Climate Scientists). The Zealots simply want to control our lives – see Jon’s eternal Marxist rant.
Pot to kettle: you are black. Your insistence that anyone who worries for the climate is a “Zealot” is just as bad as your claims that “denier” is namecalling. Poor little snowflake likes to call people zealots but can’t handle being called a denier while they deny things? Pathetic even for you bud. Once again, you refuse to consider the REAL solution of making the rich pay. You’ve been shown the math, you just want to pretend it’s not there. Cowardly.
I cannot deny that I zealously believe the rich Climate Hoaxers should pay.
Let it start with those who made big money on Climate Hoaxing; e.g. Al Gore. Then move on to such hypocrites are Ninny Nye, the Science Guy, Leanord DeCaprio and Obamartha’s Vineyard Home. They’ll balk at the idea that they should pay, so forget about them and ask the Chinese and Indian governments to pay for their factory pollution.
LOL Okay and what if you’re wrong? As usual, you’re unwilling to look at both sides critically, Polar. You’re so worried about the “rich climate h oaxers” What if you’re wrong? Then the rich oil executives, coal barons, lobbyists and polluters that you’ve been protecting for years? Yeah, they’re the ones that should pay. As I’ve been saying. And since they control the majority of wealth as opposed to a few liberal rich people (btw you’re a fool twice over if you think the left has more money than the right) that would solve our funding problems, wouldn’t it? Your problem is the worms in your brain have destroyed common sense bud.
January 23, 2020 at 9:04 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
OK, so what if I am right? See that?; two can play the ‘what if” game to avoid responding to a difficult question(s) with an intelligent reply.
Climate Change Caused by Man hoaxers are obligated to PROVE their claims that they say requires taxpayers to fund a dream scenario and thus ruin a nations’ economy and well-being.
January 23, 2020 at 10:45 am
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
LOL you clearly don’t get this “What if game” so if you’re right, then what? The rich keep getting richer and the planet is screwed anyway? Big success there, genius. We are under no obligation to PROVE our claims, Polar, because you’re the one making claims that contradict all the scientific data coming out today. You’re the one who posts things from conspiracy theory websites as fact. You’re the one who has literally never proven a single one of his arguments. You are a troll, is what I’m saying. And a hypocrite, and as noted above, a liar. Since as you stated, it was okay in your mind to call Rosenblatt a troll since you thought he was one, then by your own logic it’s okay to call you a troll, hypocrite and liar, right? Since you’ve displayed all three on this very board. Door swings both ways, bud.
January 22, 2020 at 1:32 pm
George says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
Ok Craig. Sorry to hurt your feelings. We will stop calling you deniers when you stop calling us hoaxers, liars, doomsayers, lefties, socialists, etc.
As for your non-responses and your solutions of tree planting and nuclear power, let’s give them the Republican once-over.
You have not answered some of the main questions such as:
How long do we have?
How much are you willing to spend?
Why have Republicans who have been in Washington and their states for years criticized and obstructed while doing nothing themselves?
Pres Trump said climate changes is a hoax—why spend money if it’s a hoax?
How many Republicans in Congress do not believe in manmade climate change? (Answer: 150)
Does Al Gore endorse your plan?
Questions on trees and nukes:
How many nuke plants do we need?
Where will they be built? Are there enough poor neighborhoods to place them in?
How long does it take to build a nuclear plant? How much time do we have?
Nuke plants are expensive to build. How much will the government subsidize them? Isn’t that socialism? How much will we need to raise taxes to pay for the subsidies and plants?
How much will businesses make off of this program?
How many jobs will the nuke plants displace? Do you have a plan to deport the displaced workers so they don’t end up on welfare?
Why do you recommend the blueprints from Chernobyl?
What will the effect be on cows?
Is the title of your tree plan the Full Employment for Illegal Immigrants Plan?
Who will plant all these trees? How much will the government pay illegal immigrants to plant them?
Where will we get these trees (Mexico?)? What types of trees will we buy?
How much will these trees cost? How much is that per leaf?
How much will we need to increase taxes to pay for the trees and to pay the illegal immigrants?
What are we supposed to do with all the extra leaves that will come down in the fall? Hire illegal immigrants to rake them?
Where will the trees be planted? Is there enough room in our rich, leafy neighborhoods for them?
How much will businesses make off of this program?
Will the trees interrupt cable reception?
What will the effect be on cows?
The several decades (“lost”) provide proof of the bogus MAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE claims, most famously by Al Gore. We should all be under water by now, according to the Hoaxer who made himself rich by lying, first as a politician, then as a ‘Climate Scientist’.
Plants need CO2 to make oxygen for animals. Climate cycles have occurred in the past millions of years and will continue despite what man tries to do to wrongly interfere with them.
I wonder how many people who think humans have little to no influence on the climate of our planet think it is worth trying to colonize Mars or another body in our solar system or even outside our solar system
Guess what “denier” said this before encouraging the world to plant millions of trees to address the issue?
“[T]o embrace the possibilities of tomorrow, we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse. They are the heirs of yesterday’s foolish fortune-tellers — and I have them and you have them, and we all have them, and they want to see us do badly, but we don’t let that happen. They predicted an overpopulation crisis in the 1960s, mass starvation in the ’70s, and an end of oil in the 1990s. These alarmists always demand the same thing: absolute power to dominate, transform, and control every aspect of our lives.”
Trump also was just impeached and has his cronies trying to cover it up LOL your president got caught and impeached by the house and actively shared the proof of said impeachable offense, not exactly a credible source of information there bud.
How many people associated with Trump have been indicted in the last 5 years?
How many people associated with Obama were indicted during his presidency?
You know the answer is widely available. Keep trying to cover for a criminal, you’re just a joke bud.
This feature article from NASA looks critically at the idea that planting trees will end or stave off climate change. As Dr. Saatchi says, planting trees can help but there are many questions to be asked. From the article: “Saatchi outlined a few of the many questions scientists and others will want to investigate. For example, how realistic are the study’s estimates of how much carbon can be sequestered through reforestation? How long will this approach take to make a dent in atmospheric carbon concentrations? Can grasslands and savanna ecosystems sustain increased tree cover? How might converting non-forest land to forests compete with food production? How much time, money and resources will it take to implement a global forest restoration of this magnitude? How do the costs of adopting such a climate mitigation strategy stack up against its potential benefits? How much carbon would be released to the atmosphere by restoring forests? How will global climate models respond to a massive forest restoration? Will an Earth with a billion hectares of new forests actually be cooler?” https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2927/examining-the-viability-of-planting-trees-to-help-mitigate-climate-change/
Right. It can’t be the only solution, as I said. Clean nuclear is the other part of the answer.
More and more lefties are getting on board with these ideas, realizing (those few who care enough to study the issue) that there is no other solution in a democracy where one side demonizes everyone who is a skeptic as a “denier” a bad person.
Kind of like a politician calling people a racist, sexist Islamaphobic deplorable clinging to guns and religion. That will usually be counterproductive.
My personal unvarnished opinion is that climate change is inevitable as the visible economic incentives for moving away from fossil fuels are too small, and will continue to be so until long after the point where the changes can be reversed or even slowed. What our government should be leading us in is the process of adapting to the coming changes. What is our plan for when more of our coastal communities submerge, or cropland is poisoned by salt water infiltration? How are we going to cope with groundwater scarcity? What can we do to make buildings more storm-proof? How do we make our energy and communications networks more storm/fire/earthquake proof? We need concrete plans and economic incentives to develop them.
Smart response. There should be more people like you and fewer like Jon and then Climate Change would get addressed promptly in a way that tries to assess the truth about a VERY complicated scientific issue.
While we agree, her response is smart, you’re pretty ballsy to act like you care in any way about addressing the issue of climate change at all. Yours is the side of ignoring climate change entirely, not dealing with it. If we dealt with it, that might affect your masters’ bottom line, after all. Don’t pretend you care about dealing with it in the slightest, your side still just wants to obfuscate and pretend there is nothing to deal with.
January 22, 2020 at 11:21 am
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
3
4
Climate Change is a problem that will not be solved and cannot be avoided because our economy is focused on business profits, lawyers and the courts that have no stake in solving the problem. All of the factors that are in control of our future are focused on the here and now, and not on the future and well being of the human kind. There is just too much money to be made in the here and now. There is a reason why human kind is alone in the Universe. Nothing lasts forever is the only constant in the Universe. Eventually, life on this planet will cease to exist. It will happen and it has happened before.
I mean, yeah. This is why I brought up the idea of science fiction becoming science reality in the past. We’re headed towards a dystopian future, clear as day. The idea of a utopian society cannot exist as a capitalist society, our endgame has always been oblivion. The problem is, a lot of us realize that we actually COULD have a utopia, if things like intelligence and wisdom take priority over greed and fear. The right in this country really, really wants to stick to the status quo, which ends in dystopia. We’ll all be working for Amazon one day in our pod apartments breathing respirators if the right has it’s way. We have to be better, and that starts by not following the dinosaurs who got us here. Polar’s generation.
Or it could be someone who was using their name not knowing there was currently a bob in here. I assumed it was not you as they capitalized the first B. Good attempt to try and pass it off onto someone pretending to be you instead of thinking of the logical answer (I say logical as Jon knows you are bob not Bob on here)!
That was a quick surrender, Craig. Democrats and climate activists have been dealing with similar barrages of inane questions from Republicans over every climate proposal for decades. Of course, it has all been about deny and delay for you. But you couldn’t even take it for a day when asked questions about your tree planting and nuke plants. You run and hide from what you like to call the scary monster..
You still have not answered the big questions about how long you think we have and how much money you think the U.S. should spend on climate action. Of course, you expect detailed answers from Democrats on these questions so you can pick them apart with clever slogans and stupid examples. You scoff at Democrats’ answers; so what are yours?
Seems like the monster has your team too scared to answer a few questions.
Okay, Big Boy. Man up and answer your own questions. You see, when one person is trying to convince another person (you trying to convince me), you need to back it up with facts and reason.
It is not on me to convince you. I really don’t care what you do or think. I simply assume you are like 90% of the chicken littles out there: you don’t care enough to study the issues in order to really know what we should do. And you probably do nothing different in your life than I do when it comes to carbon footprints.
And the proof will be that you won’t answer your own questions.
You made blanket statements, Craig. You tried to claim that planting trees etc. whatever garbage was the answer. George then asked you for a bunch of details on your answer. He wasn’t trying to convince you, he poked holes in your argument. You now are saying he needs to convince you, while dodging the valid questions he had. Because you don’t have answers. You really like to try and deflect whenever you can, goalpost shift, straw-man and all the other fallacies. We see what you’re doing, and it’s cowardly. Why don’t you man up and provide the evidence he asked for in the first place instead of trying to goalpost shift, again?
JANUARY 23, 2020 AT 12:33 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Thumb up 1Thumb down 3
Okay, Big Boy. Man up and answer your own questions. You see, when one person is trying to convince another person (you trying to convince me), you need to back it up with facts and reason.
To which, in his own words:
MARCH 14, 2018 AT 6:22 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Trying to teach a fish to do math is pointless . . .
Bob, the moment I read the phrase “There is a reason why human kind is alone in the Universe” you completely lost all credibility to me. How anyone can seriously believe the incomparably massive universe only contains one form of life as advanced as human kind is so beyond ignorant, not to mention arrogant. If human kind is the best this universe has to offer…
Again, common sense prevails!
A major issue should be decided by the public, not men and women in robes who are appointed for life by biased politicians who want their (politicians) opinions to be reflected for many more years than for which the public balloting process enabled them.
Further, as public opinion on specific issues shifts, the elected legislators can make the changes to laws that courts must administer and adhere to within reason and precedent. However, the above fails when the public elects politicians for one reason (e.g. economic environment) and a FEW such politicians use their position of power to legislate on other issues (global ‘something’). In some instances the elected legislators or administrators didn’t take a specific stance on the issue(s) during their campaign, and it affects MANY constituents.
Global Something has long term impacts on The Earth (which man cannot control, despite what is CLAIMED by Hoaxers; e.g. Al Gore’s failed forecasts; i.e. “An Inconvenient Result”) which should not be decided by politicians that hold their office for two or four or six years. Rather, it should be decided by the public over time, to possibly be changed as new information and results/ data become available, or hoaxes are dispelled by challengers.
The above suggest term limits on political offices is beneficial. However, more unbiased information made available to the voting public is a preferable alternative. Positive impacts a good politician might have had would be limited by term limits.
This should not stand unchallenged:
” Philip Gregory, a lawyer representing the young people, said in a phone interview that his clients plan to immediately seek a rehearing before a full appeals court.
“Given the urgency of climate change, we’re going to get this matter before the full 9th Circuit as quickly as possible,” he said. ”
Al Gore said the threat of oceans rising was imminent and we’d be underwater by now (paraphrasing for emphasis and brevity) in 2006 (“An Inconvenient Truth”… which never emerged). So, Phil, please tell us how YOUR projection of an imminent crisis is different from Scammer Als’ Hoax that earned him millions. How much are you charging to pursue this case?
I can’t believe this needs to be said…Al Gore is not a scientist.
Please cite a scientist.
The inventor of the internet is not a scientist?!
Al Gore made some messed up claims. 20 years ago. Your president is still trying to pretend that he’s a very stable genius while half of his cabinet has been indicted and he’s the third president to be impeached. Maybe stop aiming at someone who’s not relevant in modern politics and worry about the criminal you elected?
You’re the only one still talking about Al Gore you sad old man LOL if we’re talking false claims how about the record-setting number of lies spouted by your president? Ever fact checked any of his stuff, or do you actually believe he’s a stable genius? LOL Let me just ask you this: Do you believe everything Trump has said? Do you believe he’s been honest 100% of the time? That’s what I thought LOL you’re a joke ya old denier
Al Gore isn’t the only person to make “messed up claims”. I can think of dozens of celebrities, non-scientists, and self-proclaimed ‘Climate Scientists’ who made projections of doom and gloom that will arrive soon (e.g. end of the Earth in a decade or so, by AOC).
I enjoy reading/ listening to “messed up claims”. They’re amusing.
cnn.com/2019/01/24/politics/fact-check-trump-aoc-climate/index.html
You really don’t like to research things do you, Polar? I mean if you did, you might have to actually learn something!
Enjoying listening to messed up claims is one thing. Using knowingly false claims to create a straw-man argument is why we get into it. You are willing to use cheap, false, downright slimy argument tactics to try and spread the right-wing agenda. Why don’t you try facts on for size for once?
Do down voters who already appeared, down-voted, and ran away, have ANY substantial facts that can convince the Chinese, Indians, and other Earth inhabitants that Global Something is substantially caused by Humans’ actions? If so, please post your evidence, arguments, or data instead of doing cowardly down-votes.
People who downvote you are simply exercising their free speech rights (I believe you said that once, Yogi). Maybe they don’t like the way you insist on bringing Al Gore into every discussion about climate, as though he was mentioned in the article or was somehow relevant in today’s society or Democratic party, for that matter. Weren’t you the one the other day who was lecturing about keeping posts away from politics and keeping them on topic, since this is, after all, an INSURANCE WEBSITE? Sensible people don’t argue with you because frankly, there’s no point. You’ve already made it very clear that you have no interest in listening to other points of view with an open mind, so why would anyone want to waste their time?
PS#2 free speech doesn’t apply on a private site owned by private enterprises.
PS#3: I am not constrained to ‘recent examples’ that disprove Climate Hoaxers’ failures. Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Results” is a perfect, credible example of his lies because we are well beyond the point of no return, etc. in his failed predictions.
PS#4: did you notice the word beginning with “G” in the article’s title? It strongly implies politics. Hence my tack in my posts.
POLAR,
WHY ARE YOU INSULTING ME OUT OF THE BLUE?
STOP INSULTING ME FOR NO REASON! I DIDN’T SAY ANYTHING!!
ALSO, HOW DO YOU NOT REMEMBER I’VE SAID THE ACA IS A “SUPER DUPER” FAILURE OVER A DOZEN TIMES? STOP LYING AND CLAIMING I SUPPORT IT!!!
Unless Polar’s comment gets removed, this post should be kept up because I am defending myself from an unprovoked personal attack, which is coming from the guy who just asked Andrew to ” fix the ‘glitch’ of specific posters who do nothing but insult others” over here https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/01/16/555111.htm/?comments
Did you know that conservatives across the world are spreading disinformation? Yeah, it’s not just Polar you guys.
vice.com/en_uk/article/v74dx3/conservatives-across-the-world-are-spreading-disinformation-about-wildfires
Saw story that 183 people were arrested in Australia for Arson in starting their fires. You have no credibility.
Link it, prove it’s from a credible news organization. Except you won’t, because that myth about the 183 people was dispelled last week. Remember when I provided a link that called you a liar last week and you mysteriously stopped responding to the thread entirely until just now when you’re making a bogus claim again? I do. Maybe you should try reading for once instead of spreading garbage, Agent.
Imagine openly admitting that you are so easily duped. Thanks Agent.
No, I do not know that Conservatives are spreading disinformation. Prove that the Earth is warming due to Human Actions to prove that Conservatives are spreading disinformation. If you can’t, you are spreading disinformation about Conservatives. Check. Your move.
I can prove climate change is real, which your side was denying until recently. Now your side is denying specifically man-made climate change. Your side also lied to us about the AIDs epidemic. How about we stop trusting the side that’s lied to us repeatedly? Your side has proven to not have the American citizens’ best interests at heart. Some of us aren’t suckers and don’t want to keep listening to your lies, Polar.
Also, want to play chess? I wonder how you can tie your shoelaces, Polar. I would smoke you bud.
Why prove ‘climate change is real’? Are you next going to prove the sun rises in the East and sets in the West?
We might have to, since you jokers on the right like to deny things that are plainly evident all the time. You know, like five years ago when the republican mantra was that climate change wasn’t real. Now you’re saying of course it’s real? That’s not what you goobers were saying a few years ago, sounds like flip flopping to me boomer :) but then we can’t expect you boomers to actually admit to being wrong, which is why we’re just making you more and more irrelevant every day. Soon you’ll be forgotten entirely!
Rather than write “we might have to”, please do (prove there is climate change, despite the fact that nearly everyone agrees it exists) to show you can.
A more challenging task would be to prove MAN-CAUSED Global Climate Something is real. Do that to prove your point.
“Soon you’ll be forgotten entirely!” is proof of the desire of liberals who cannot defend their positions to censor conservative opinions because of their frustration. The other proof of their frustration is personal attacks on Conservatives in lieu of rebuttals on the topic.
Yogi,
Personal attacks on conservatives like your attacks on liberals? How about an example?
MARCH 26, 2018 AT 11:08 AM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Don’t bother reading any of my posts. You wouldn’t understand them. Stick to Libitteral websites.
———————————————
Careful with that axe, Eugene.
Did you notice the failure of the vast majority of countries to honor the commitments they made in the Paris Climate Accord?
Did you notice the article in Insurance Journal a couple months ago that pointed out that people who “believe in Climate Change” (whatever that means) do nothing more in their own lives to address it than do people who are skeptical about what we are being told?
Did you notice in your own life that you do next to nothing to offset your own “carbon footprint”?
Did you realize that all of these facts are enough for billions of people to stop taking you seriously? And that the reason nothing is being done is because of you?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I mentioned all the rich countries in the Paris Climate Accord who failed to live up to their promises. You bring up “the poor”.
I mention your hypocrisy. You bring up “the poor”.
I mention an Insurance Journal article on the hypocrisy of the “believers”. You bring up the poor.
This is like a running cartoon, with Karl Marx as the host.
Polar and you have shown yourselves to be actual crazy people that won’t listen to reason or logic, and just purely want to spread misinformation. I thought maybe you could use some facts on the page as well, since you and Polar really REALLY hate providing credible resources for your argument. You should try reading more, sometime!
More personal attacks in lieu of rebuttals using facts, data and logic.
I agree, him calling me Karl Marx and no actual argument was more personal attacks instead of facts, data and logic. You goobers on the right really don’t like things like logic and data though! That’s why you never post any actual evidence for your arguments though huh? Unless it’s from a conspiracy theory website, or you’re spreading blatantly verifiably false information, like your claim that 91% of americans were more worried about terrorism than climate change. Remember that, Polar? Like two weeks ago when you kept spouting that garbage? And then it was found your “poll from January” was January 2016, and it said no such thing? Yeah, you will lie to try and win the argument, you’re not exactly a credible source bud.
Wow, Jon!! You are very well read….. vice. vice. vice. vice.
I know! They’re great, right? I love how they point out the bogus claims made by right-wing posters on here all the time.
Yes, Craig. I did notice all of those observations.
Climate scientists convinced the gullible to defer God in favor of flawed science.
Then they further deferred to children.
Who deferred to the courts.
And the courts said “No.”
Did anyone read the IJ article from several months back that the current climate patterns are similar to those of 3-5 million years ago? So how, exactly, are we destroying a planet when 3-5 million years ago, the current level of carbon emissions, and number of people, and the planet as we know it, did not exist? We are at the curve of a cycle. Further, if a climate cycle that lasted approximately 2 million years restored itself to an earth capable of surviving as long as it did, doesn’t this mean we are safe to assume they will write the same about us during the next climate crisis in 3-5 million years from now?
Climate hoaxers can’t have it both ways. It is or it isn’t. Our existence today says it was disproven. My children’s continued existence past 2031 will be further proof the climate crisis isn’t.
To climate action deniers Craig, Polar, Jack and others:
Now that you have wasted several decades, and you still do not like any of the solutions proposed by Democrats, environmentalists, climate scientists and others to curb climate change, what would you do? How much would you agree to spend? How serious is the problem in your view? How long do you think we have? What steps do you recommend? And, finally, why haven’t you or Republicans taken any of them?
Because all the Climate Zealots have been wrong so far. The Doom Sayers might want to fess up to all their false predictions, in the name of convincing anyone that the CURRENT predictions might be correct.
And again, when you use the term “denier”, you lose 90% of the audience. The failure of the Zealots to convince anyone with name calling is just so, what’s the word, predictable.
And FINALLY, the only real solutions are rejected by the Zealots: modern, safe nuclear energy and the planting of millions and millions of trees (a solution from actual Climate Scientists). The Zealots simply want to control our lives – see Jon’s eternal Marxist rant.
Pot to kettle: you are black. Your insistence that anyone who worries for the climate is a “Zealot” is just as bad as your claims that “denier” is namecalling. Poor little snowflake likes to call people zealots but can’t handle being called a denier while they deny things? Pathetic even for you bud. Once again, you refuse to consider the REAL solution of making the rich pay. You’ve been shown the math, you just want to pretend it’s not there. Cowardly.
I cannot deny that I zealously believe the rich Climate Hoaxers should pay.
Let it start with those who made big money on Climate Hoaxing; e.g. Al Gore. Then move on to such hypocrites are Ninny Nye, the Science Guy, Leanord DeCaprio and Obamartha’s Vineyard Home. They’ll balk at the idea that they should pay, so forget about them and ask the Chinese and Indian governments to pay for their factory pollution.
LOL Okay and what if you’re wrong? As usual, you’re unwilling to look at both sides critically, Polar. You’re so worried about the “rich climate h oaxers” What if you’re wrong? Then the rich oil executives, coal barons, lobbyists and polluters that you’ve been protecting for years? Yeah, they’re the ones that should pay. As I’ve been saying. And since they control the majority of wealth as opposed to a few liberal rich people (btw you’re a fool twice over if you think the left has more money than the right) that would solve our funding problems, wouldn’t it? Your problem is the worms in your brain have destroyed common sense bud.
OK, so what if I am right? See that?; two can play the ‘what if” game to avoid responding to a difficult question(s) with an intelligent reply.
Climate Change Caused by Man hoaxers are obligated to PROVE their claims that they say requires taxpayers to fund a dream scenario and thus ruin a nations’ economy and well-being.
LOL you clearly don’t get this “What if game” so if you’re right, then what? The rich keep getting richer and the planet is screwed anyway? Big success there, genius. We are under no obligation to PROVE our claims, Polar, because you’re the one making claims that contradict all the scientific data coming out today. You’re the one who posts things from conspiracy theory websites as fact. You’re the one who has literally never proven a single one of his arguments. You are a troll, is what I’m saying. And a hypocrite, and as noted above, a liar. Since as you stated, it was okay in your mind to call Rosenblatt a troll since you thought he was one, then by your own logic it’s okay to call you a troll, hypocrite and liar, right? Since you’ve displayed all three on this very board. Door swings both ways, bud.
Ok Craig. Sorry to hurt your feelings. We will stop calling you deniers when you stop calling us hoaxers, liars, doomsayers, lefties, socialists, etc.
As for your non-responses and your solutions of tree planting and nuclear power, let’s give them the Republican once-over.
You have not answered some of the main questions such as:
How long do we have?
How much are you willing to spend?
Why have Republicans who have been in Washington and their states for years criticized and obstructed while doing nothing themselves?
Pres Trump said climate changes is a hoax—why spend money if it’s a hoax?
How many Republicans in Congress do not believe in manmade climate change? (Answer: 150)
Does Al Gore endorse your plan?
Questions on trees and nukes:
How many nuke plants do we need?
Where will they be built? Are there enough poor neighborhoods to place them in?
How long does it take to build a nuclear plant? How much time do we have?
Nuke plants are expensive to build. How much will the government subsidize them? Isn’t that socialism? How much will we need to raise taxes to pay for the subsidies and plants?
How much will businesses make off of this program?
How many jobs will the nuke plants displace? Do you have a plan to deport the displaced workers so they don’t end up on welfare?
Why do you recommend the blueprints from Chernobyl?
What will the effect be on cows?
Is the title of your tree plan the Full Employment for Illegal Immigrants Plan?
Who will plant all these trees? How much will the government pay illegal immigrants to plant them?
Where will we get these trees (Mexico?)? What types of trees will we buy?
How much will these trees cost? How much is that per leaf?
How much will we need to increase taxes to pay for the trees and to pay the illegal immigrants?
What are we supposed to do with all the extra leaves that will come down in the fall? Hire illegal immigrants to rake them?
Where will the trees be planted? Is there enough room in our rich, leafy neighborhoods for them?
How much will businesses make off of this program?
Will the trees interrupt cable reception?
What will the effect be on cows?
YIKES! Never mind. If I have to put up with this ridiculous babble, I say let the planet cook.
Please call me a denier. I’ll wear that label like a badge of honor and common sense.
“Now that you have wasted several decades, …,”
The several decades (“lost”) provide proof of the bogus MAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE claims, most famously by Al Gore. We should all be under water by now, according to the Hoaxer who made himself rich by lying, first as a politician, then as a ‘Climate Scientist’.
Plants need CO2 to make oxygen for animals. Climate cycles have occurred in the past millions of years and will continue despite what man tries to do to wrongly interfere with them.
I wonder how many people who think humans have little to no influence on the climate of our planet think it is worth trying to colonize Mars or another body in our solar system or even outside our solar system
Guess what “denier” said this before encouraging the world to plant millions of trees to address the issue?
“[T]o embrace the possibilities of tomorrow, we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the apocalypse. They are the heirs of yesterday’s foolish fortune-tellers — and I have them and you have them, and we all have them, and they want to see us do badly, but we don’t let that happen. They predicted an overpopulation crisis in the 1960s, mass starvation in the ’70s, and an end of oil in the 1990s. These alarmists always demand the same thing: absolute power to dominate, transform, and control every aspect of our lives.”
Trump. At Davos. Today.
Trump also was just impeached and has his cronies trying to cover it up LOL your president got caught and impeached by the house and actively shared the proof of said impeachable offense, not exactly a credible source of information there bud.
How many people associated with Trump have been indicted in the last 5 years?
How many people associated with Obama were indicted during his presidency?
You know the answer is widely available. Keep trying to cover for a criminal, you’re just a joke bud.
Topic of article: Climate Change Lawsuit by Juveniles Rejected By Court.
This feature article from NASA looks critically at the idea that planting trees will end or stave off climate change. As Dr. Saatchi says, planting trees can help but there are many questions to be asked. From the article: “Saatchi outlined a few of the many questions scientists and others will want to investigate. For example, how realistic are the study’s estimates of how much carbon can be sequestered through reforestation? How long will this approach take to make a dent in atmospheric carbon concentrations? Can grasslands and savanna ecosystems sustain increased tree cover? How might converting non-forest land to forests compete with food production? How much time, money and resources will it take to implement a global forest restoration of this magnitude? How do the costs of adopting such a climate mitigation strategy stack up against its potential benefits? How much carbon would be released to the atmosphere by restoring forests? How will global climate models respond to a massive forest restoration? Will an Earth with a billion hectares of new forests actually be cooler?”
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2927/examining-the-viability-of-planting-trees-to-help-mitigate-climate-change/
Right. It can’t be the only solution, as I said. Clean nuclear is the other part of the answer.
More and more lefties are getting on board with these ideas, realizing (those few who care enough to study the issue) that there is no other solution in a democracy where one side demonizes everyone who is a skeptic as a “denier” a bad person.
Kind of like a politician calling people a racist, sexist Islamaphobic deplorable clinging to guns and religion. That will usually be counterproductive.
My personal unvarnished opinion is that climate change is inevitable as the visible economic incentives for moving away from fossil fuels are too small, and will continue to be so until long after the point where the changes can be reversed or even slowed. What our government should be leading us in is the process of adapting to the coming changes. What is our plan for when more of our coastal communities submerge, or cropland is poisoned by salt water infiltration? How are we going to cope with groundwater scarcity? What can we do to make buildings more storm-proof? How do we make our energy and communications networks more storm/fire/earthquake proof? We need concrete plans and economic incentives to develop them.
Smart response. There should be more people like you and fewer like Jon and then Climate Change would get addressed promptly in a way that tries to assess the truth about a VERY complicated scientific issue.
While we agree, her response is smart, you’re pretty ballsy to act like you care in any way about addressing the issue of climate change at all. Yours is the side of ignoring climate change entirely, not dealing with it. If we dealt with it, that might affect your masters’ bottom line, after all. Don’t pretend you care about dealing with it in the slightest, your side still just wants to obfuscate and pretend there is nothing to deal with.
Climate Change is a problem that will not be solved and cannot be avoided because our economy is focused on business profits, lawyers and the courts that have no stake in solving the problem. All of the factors that are in control of our future are focused on the here and now, and not on the future and well being of the human kind. There is just too much money to be made in the here and now. There is a reason why human kind is alone in the Universe. Nothing lasts forever is the only constant in the Universe. Eventually, life on this planet will cease to exist. It will happen and it has happened before.
I mean, yeah. This is why I brought up the idea of science fiction becoming science reality in the past. We’re headed towards a dystopian future, clear as day. The idea of a utopian society cannot exist as a capitalist society, our endgame has always been oblivion. The problem is, a lot of us realize that we actually COULD have a utopia, if things like intelligence and wisdom take priority over greed and fear. The right in this country really, really wants to stick to the status quo, which ends in dystopia. We’ll all be working for Amazon one day in our pod apartments breathing respirators if the right has it’s way. We have to be better, and that starts by not following the dinosaurs who got us here. Polar’s generation.
Yeah, not me. And I largely suspect it’s you Jon.
whoever it is did you a service by posting that in your name. you should have just not said anything and let people believe it was you
Or it could be someone who was using their name not knowing there was currently a bob in here. I assumed it was not you as they capitalized the first B. Good attempt to try and pass it off onto someone pretending to be you instead of thinking of the logical answer (I say logical as Jon knows you are bob not Bob on here)!
That was a quick surrender, Craig. Democrats and climate activists have been dealing with similar barrages of inane questions from Republicans over every climate proposal for decades. Of course, it has all been about deny and delay for you. But you couldn’t even take it for a day when asked questions about your tree planting and nuke plants. You run and hide from what you like to call the scary monster..
You still have not answered the big questions about how long you think we have and how much money you think the U.S. should spend on climate action. Of course, you expect detailed answers from Democrats on these questions so you can pick them apart with clever slogans and stupid examples. You scoff at Democrats’ answers; so what are yours?
Seems like the monster has your team too scared to answer a few questions.
Okay, Big Boy. Man up and answer your own questions. You see, when one person is trying to convince another person (you trying to convince me), you need to back it up with facts and reason.
It is not on me to convince you. I really don’t care what you do or think. I simply assume you are like 90% of the chicken littles out there: you don’t care enough to study the issues in order to really know what we should do. And you probably do nothing different in your life than I do when it comes to carbon footprints.
And the proof will be that you won’t answer your own questions.
You made blanket statements, Craig. You tried to claim that planting trees etc. whatever garbage was the answer. George then asked you for a bunch of details on your answer. He wasn’t trying to convince you, he poked holes in your argument. You now are saying he needs to convince you, while dodging the valid questions he had. Because you don’t have answers. You really like to try and deflect whenever you can, goalpost shift, straw-man and all the other fallacies. We see what you’re doing, and it’s cowardly. Why don’t you man up and provide the evidence he asked for in the first place instead of trying to goalpost shift, again?
How about you be a big boy and man up and admit your 20% statistic was a lie?
Craig wrote,
JANUARY 23, 2020 AT 12:33 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Thumb up 1Thumb down 3
Okay, Big Boy. Man up and answer your own questions. You see, when one person is trying to convince another person (you trying to convince me), you need to back it up with facts and reason.
To which, in his own words:
MARCH 14, 2018 AT 6:22 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Trying to teach a fish to do math is pointless . . .
Bob, the moment I read the phrase “There is a reason why human kind is alone in the Universe” you completely lost all credibility to me. How anyone can seriously believe the incomparably massive universe only contains one form of life as advanced as human kind is so beyond ignorant, not to mention arrogant. If human kind is the best this universe has to offer…