I got yer mmgw proof of bs right here

calfoxwc · July 1, 2014

One time, and that is your excuse for all the other hundreds of times?

ha. Liberal emotional cya.

The first one worked fine, you knucklehead.

TXDawg · July 2, 2014

TX, you have a really strange way of saying what you're saying! I think I understand what you're saying though. You haven't seen any evidence of global warming (cal's point of view)? To that, I say you're not looking hard enough, but then, why should you? If you're interested, check out the nasa website for the basics of the science.

It sounds then like you're saying that we can't reverse the warming (if any is taking place), steve's viewpoint. So we need to adapt as a species to our new environment? That's an interesting take - it's not something that we can stop so we'd better learn to live with it.

On top of that you're saying that the only thing we can do is innovate. So the only thing we can do is invent new ways of doing things? you've said that anyone claiming to need your money to combat global warming is a con artist, yet you've said above that 'money is a major motivator for innovation' - so where's the money coming from? Big business shouldn't be relied on to lead the charge. They'll make the decision that's best for them, and what's best for them is profits, and covering their building in solar panels (for example) isn't a money spinner.

I would be more open to the idea of global warming if the solutions weren't always the liberal agenda. That's kinda telling, is it not?

what global warming alarmist are saying we should go to war with india and china? what is the answer to this? how is my money and forfeiture of freedom going to address the vast majority of global polluters?

there-are-more-people-living-inside-this

you can't motivate someone by giving them money, you motivate them by giving them the possibility of money. (the market)

The enlightenment period lead to the industrial revolution so (IMO) to put your hopes in government innovating a solution isn't a very good bet. The government is force. It is a gun to men and an insurance policy to women. Nothing more. It simply does not have any credibility or a past of being innovative and efficient. It has a past of corruption, mass murder, slavery. Are we really wanting to turn to the #1 cause of unnatural death in the 20th century for a solution to save lives?

big business & government are the same now.

the major inventions in the world were not created by government or big business. they were invented by people, like these girls:

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/african-girls-pee-powered-generator-raises-questions-f1C6956099

sorry, it's late, hopefully that ramble is coherent. Giving the govt money and control is like volunteering yourself to be managed by a pimp.

MLD Woody · July 3, 2014

liar. Here's some proof that you blow smoke out of your ass on the subject.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/16/PLS-HOLD-FOR-TUESDAY-9-17-AFTER-11AM-ET-Climate-Study-Evidence-Leans-Against-Human-Caused-Global-Warming

Have a nice day, woodypeckerhead.

Here's the link... but hey, you won't read it anyways.

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/

A study put out funded by a group that is clearly biased.

"How does the NIPCC spread doubt, given the temperature record and consensus of professional scientists? The answer is manufactured partisanship.

The IPCC (no N) produces a comprehensive and critical overview of climate change science for governments. It is written by hundreds of scientists, anyone can volunteer to review drafts, and those comments appear online.

IPCC reports openly discuss the strengths, weaknesses, criticisms and uncertainties of the science. The reports provide policy makers with a range of plausible outcomes given rising atmospheric CO2.

Heartland's NIPCC partially mimics the IPCC, but with key differences. It is written and reviewed by dozens of people, almost exclusively drawn from the "sceptic" community, and is consequently highly partisan.

Indeed, the NIPCC advocates an adversarial approach to assessing climate science, with partisan "teams" arguing for different positions.

This call for an adversarial debate has also been repeated in recent op-eds by Bob Carter, Judith Curry and Gary Johns.

The call for adversarial debate is a variant of the debate ploy, a common pseudoscience tactic. At first glance having two teams present competing positions seems entirely reasonable, but this approach only works if the intended audience can effectively assess the arguments presented"

No one is taking the NIPCC report seriously.

Expert Credibility in Climate Change: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/pdf

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: http://cmbc.ucsd.edu/Research/Climate_Change/Oreskes%202004%20Climate%20change.pdf

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

American Association for the Advancement of Science: http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/1021climate_letter1.pdf

National Academy of Science: http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4
American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

International academies: Joint statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11

U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

IPCC-emblem-with-canvass-and-border.jpg?

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

*IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.

List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations

(Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)

I'm not even listing all of the sources, papers, organizations, etc.

MLD Woody · July 3, 2014

I would be more open to the idea of global warming if the solutions weren't always the liberal agenda. That's kinda telling, is it not?

what global warming alarmist are saying we should go to war with india and china? what is the answer to this? how is my money and forfeiture of freedom going to address the vast majority of global polluters?

What freedoms are you going to forfeit?

Yes, money drives innovation. Govt., under the guidance of the scientific community, can use taxes and regulations to guide the free market in a way that is most beneficial to our society in the long term.

The enlightenment period lead to the industrial revolution so (IMO) to put your hopes in government innovating a solution isn't a very good bet. The government is force. It is a gun to men and an insurance policy to women. Nothing more. It simply does not have any credibility or a past of being innovative and efficient. It has a past of corruption, mass murder, slavery. Are we really wanting to turn to the #1 cause of unnatural death in the 20th century for a solution to save lives?

#1 cause of unnatural death, really? Do you have any data to back that up?

"No credibility or a past of being innovative... past of corruption, mass murder...." huh. sounds like another thing I can think of...

big business & government are the same now.

the major inventions in the world were not created by government or big business. they were invented by people, like these girls:

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/african-girls-pee-powered-generator-raises-questions-f1C6956099

sorry, it's late, hopefully that ramble is coherent. Giving the govt money and control is like volunteering yourself to be managed by a pimp.

TXDawg · July 3, 2014

I would be more open to the idea of global warming if the solutions weren't always the liberal agenda. That's kinda telling, is it not?

what global warming alarmist are saying we should go to war with india and china? what is the answer to this? how is my money and forfeiture of freedom going to address the vast majority of global polluters?

What freedoms are you going to forfeit?

i'll take the layup and move on. property rights.

Yes, money drives innovation. Govt., under the guidance of the scientific community, can use taxes and regulations to guide the free market in a way that is most beneficial to our society in the long term.

This sounds familiar... (lol at the free market part)

The enlightenment period lead to the industrial revolution so (IMO) to put your hopes in government innovating a solution isn't a very good bet. The government is force. It is a gun to men and an insurance policy to women. Nothing more. It simply does not have any credibility or a past of being innovative and efficient. It has a past of corruption, mass murder, slavery. Are we really wanting to turn to the #1 cause of unnatural death in the 20th century for a solution to save lives?

#1 cause of unnatural death, really? Do you have any data to back that up?

"No credibility or a past of being innovative... past of corruption, mass murder...." huh. sounds like another thing I can think of...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/democide-vs-other-causes-of-death/

" According to Rummel, democide passed war as the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century"

big business & government are the same now.

the major inventions in the world were not created by government or big business. they were invented by people, like these girls:

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/african-girls-pee-powered-generator-raises-questions-f1C6956099

sorry, it's late, hopefully that ramble is coherent. Giving the govt money and control is like volunteering yourself to be managed by a pimp.

calfoxwc · July 3, 2014

Simply put, mmgw is a theory that has begun

to fade in credibility:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/

MLD Woody · July 3, 2014

Simply put, mmgw is a theory that has begun

to fade in credibility:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/

Cal, I'm not debating the fact you can find scientists (most of the time without any expertise in climate) that dissent from the overwhelming opinion. 1000 sounds like a big number, but they're throwing in chemists and engineers... Not exactly climate experts. Even then, that's a small fraction of the overall scientific community.

My last post shows a view studies showing the consensus, and lists tons of scientific groups that agree with man made climate change.

So... Do you want to try any more specific arguments against "mmgw"? You spout off a few every post. What do you think is your best case?

gftChris · July 3, 2014

Actually that's not a bad idea - Cal, come up with a top 5? list of arguments and Woody and I will do our best to address them. If you feel you absolutely need a couple more, then go for it.

Edit: And anyone else that feels like it.

MLD Woody · July 3, 2014

That's what I've been asking for. He did like 1 or 2 in this thread that were easily debunked.

In that last thread where he want on a little tirade and posted like a dozen or so I got around to debunking about 4 or 5.

But like i have said a few times Cal follows that science denier playbook I posted exactly. He'll just overwhelm you with shit and if you don't address all points to his liking you lose. So I'm trying to get him to go one at a time

calfoxwc · July 3, 2014

You're a sissy woodypeckerhead.

I have just debunked every post you've ever posted.

You just go ahead and bitch and bitch and bitch, and you

could "debunk" every prommgw post you've ever posted.

MLD Woody · July 3, 2014

Alright Cal...we're giving you the opportunity to prevent your side, and you're responding with insults. You haven't "debunked" anything.

You've posted "points" against "mmgw" in many threads and I've explained why they're faulty many times, including this thread.

Anyone looking at this thread for from outside in to assess the state of this "debate" would probably be able to pick a clear winner.

Now, if you are so confident in you're reasoning. If you are so confident that every major, respected scientific organization is incorrect, then provide your reasoning. Give us a few of your best points (no more than 5 please, don't just throw shit at the wall). Myself or Chris (or maybe others) will be happy to respond.

calfoxwc · July 4, 2014

Let me explain yourself to you - you bitch and rationalize anything away that

doesn't fit your politics.

I simply say that the debate is really only beginning.

Of course there are a lot of scientific orgs that officially agree about mmgw....

but it all stems from political expediency, and funding. The UN is your major force behind

the mmgw bs, that's where the money is.

Orgs who don't agree with mmgw don't get funding. It's been admitted by scientists.

And, UN woodpecker - do you actually think your UN is not partisan? Seriously?

calfoxwc · July 4, 2014

1. Google "un official global warming redistribution of wealth" and see what you get.

Maybe if you do your own searches, you'll read the links.

2. This is a complicated issue. CO2 is not a poison, but it absorbs solar flare activity,

the trouble is, CO2 has increased, and the temp has not. If you want to say that one day,

a certain level of CO2 would all of a sudden send our global temp into a warming period,

I'm "cool" with that. Except we don't know that, and our global temps have been cooling for years,

and scientists are baffled, along with more ice in the polar regions, when those polar regions

were supposed to have already melted away completely, sending oceans to flood major parts of

the continents.

Instead, it was baloney. And when I see baloney, I call it baloney.

For a very good summary of both sides of the issue, here is one link I will give you,

since you are very poor about finding them: It mentions deforestation, which is a great thing.

Don't go liberal cherry p..e...cking woodpecker if it's at all possible... read the entire article.

Like I said above, google about the UN admitting that redistribution of wealth to poor countries

needs mmgw.

Which also drives a lot of the desperation and intimidation of scientists who don't agree with mmgw.

http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-anthropogenic-global-warming

TXDawg · July 4, 2014

#climatejustice on twitter is my fav

TXDawg · July 4, 2014

@LightSolar: Chk this @Solar_Sister's blog 4 @Greenversations Journeys of Light: Whn Women Pwer Meets Green Pwer http://t.co/Oas6GsFYsr #climatejustice

@EPA: Climate change is affecting Blackfoot tribal traditions. http://t.co/C0TMtSKaW0 #ClimateJustice

@TheElders: "The poor have done the least to cause global warming and yet they pay the highest price." @KofiAnnan http://t.co/7Lh1WRsjVL #climatejustice

@tempus_flies: "There is no #climatejustice without #genderjustice": http://t.co/mv9IILy6lx Excellent post by @brontehogarth @1millionwomen

@DrBobBullard: Should #climate change be added to the civil rights agenda? YES, called #climatejustice! http://t.co/Jwp1tK2U7P

@brentinmock: Majority white enviro groups have to get out the way for people of color to lead on #climatechange http://t.co/KxYMuIiJoB #climatejustice

@melanie_ward: Appalling attempts by US to derail global climate talks at need to compensate poor countries for damage http://t.co/50XlpcPa #climatejustice

Yup, sounds purely scientific.

Not at all a tool for leftist.

MLD Woody · July 4, 2014

So what is the one point you chose, the CO2 isn't a poison? Nothing else?

Yes Cal, all of the most respected and legitimate scientists and scientific organizations across the entire world are all being paid off. They didn't at all look at independent, peer reviewed data and come to the same conclusion. It is all one big conspiracy by the liberals! .... just like everything else...

You can't just keep saying I "don't read your posts" or I just "rationalize" your arguments. They are all clearly disputed and shot down. Anyone with half a brain that doesn't ahve their head up a political party's ass can see that.

Again, you take the position of the type of person hurting the country as a whole, congratulations. "The vast majority of expert scientists on climate change think it is an issue, but The Blaze and Fox News told me it wasn't, and they had some guy with a PhD on there, so I am going to vote against doing anything." Fucking smart.

MLD Woody · July 4, 2014

TXDawg, I don't care what any super liberal site says. I am not, nor do I need to use the left counterparts of TheBlaze, TopRightNews, etc to make my point.

I can look at PNAS, NASA, The National Academy of the Sciences, etc for my evidence, articles, etc. Unless you believe these are "liberal biased" organizations as well.... then I really can't help you.

TXDawg · July 4, 2014

My point is when countries are trying to

Get millions from "climate justice" their scientist are no longer credible.

And when 1st world Scientist are funded by govt they become unreliable as well now that the left has gone all in. Hand that feeds you.

Feminist statistics come from, oh shit, we have to justify our grants.

It's not like Obama can go, oops, I was wrong. He's all in. The left needs scientist now, their agenda is wrapped in it.

You can't ignore that.

Scientist are bought and paid for.

And if climate change was so drastically important, then call out the wackos because their hurting credibility. Not just the "deniers", call out the piggy backing gender warriors.

But it's not that important is it?

Wealth redistribution

Higher taxes

Gender/Race Victim profiteering

Not about innovation

Or

India

Or

Anything that helps fix this "problem"

Yet, who's calling them out? No one.

People aren't going to buy it, al gore making millions, blaming (false) rape stats on gw, blaming every weather related incident on climate change (a Karl rove phrase)

Cmon man... It just doesn't float. There is a maxing credibility issue .

If al gore truly believed in this, he would kill himself on the steps of the Abraham Lincoln memorial saying he was doing it to help fight climate change by eliminating his footprin.

Extream. Lol, yea...

But he's lighting trees at night.

The Cysko Kid · July 4, 2014

Everything is an nefarious plot to re - distribute your wealth, cal. Global warming, Cloward-Piven, Obamacare, all of it is designed to redistribute your wealth. You figured it out at last. Now the brownshirts are going to be coming for you harder than ever. I'd be down in the old root cellar with a gun eatin' cans of navy beans until it all blows over if I were you.

calfoxwc · July 4, 2014

Here's an expert opinion - even worked with the UN

*****************************

http://www.napsnet.com/pdf_archive/34/50144.pdf

calfoxwc · July 4, 2014

Here's another one:

http://sciencespeak.com/SimpleProof.pdf

calfoxwc · July 4, 2014

Yep. A collection of scientific studies debunking mmgw.... but the presenter gets kicked out by the UN.

You don't touch the UN's golden goose - mmgw.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/13919-new-report-man-made-global-warming-is-a-farce

calfoxwc · July 4, 2014

Ah, this is fun !

Here's a scientist who explains the censorship of the truth about mmgw:

http://www.climatechangechallenge.org/News/Featured-Articles/bellamy_climate_change_not_man_made.htm

calfoxwc · July 4, 2014

Here's a respectable article, with references... remember, the Antarctic ice is growing?

Read on:

http://www.sott.net/article/279216-Antarctica-is-it-melting-or-not-Man-made-global-warming-cant-explain-this-climate-paradox

calfoxwc · July 4, 2014

Here's one One of the first PHD's in Canada says it's baloney, in so many words.

He's a scientist, you know. You aren't, woodpecker.

Read on:

http://www.oism.org/news/s49p1828.htm

calfoxwc · July 4, 2014

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/deweese121404.htm

Scientists are Not on the Global Warming Bandwagon

And so too is it an outrage for the news media to tell you that most true scientists now agree that man-made global warming is a fact. What it doesn't tell you is that roughly 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992, just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming. Today that figure has grown to over 4,000 scientists. Americans aren’t being told that a 1997 Gallop Poll of prominent North American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them disagreed with the man-made global warming theory.

And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the end of 1996 saying global warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report, two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft. Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis, said:

1. "[N]one of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."

2. "[N]o study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to…man-made causes."

Obviously, those two paragraphs aren’t consistant with the political agenda the UN is pushing. So, science be damned. Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world--bar none.

calfoxwc · July 4, 2014

hmm. I didn't know this... Hansen, of NASA, was a political activist who

supported mmgw with Al Gore.

but his supervisor at NASA? Says the mmgw stuff embarrassed NASA.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1A5E6E32-802A-23AD-40ED-ECD53CD3D320

calfoxwc · July 4, 2014

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-peer-reviewed-admission-that-global-surface-temperatures-did-not-rise-dr-david-whitehouse-on-the-pnas-paper-kaufmann-et-al-2011/

From the GWPF:

Comments by Dr David Whitehouse on the PNAS paper Kaufmann et al.

Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998 – 2008.

It is good news that the authors recognise that there has been no global temperature increase since 1998. Even after the standstill appears time and again in peer-reviewed scientific studies, many commentators still deny its reality. We live in the warmest decade since thermometer records began about 150 years ago, but it hasn’t gotten any warmer for at least a decade.

The researchers tweak an out-of-date climate computer model and cherry-pick the outcome to get their desired result. They do not use the latest data on the sun’s influence on the Earth, rendering their results of academic interest only.

They blame China’s increasing coal consumption that they say is adding particles into the atmosphere that reflect sunlight and therefore cool the planet. The effect of aerosols and their interplay with other agents of combustion is a major uncertainty in climate models. Moreover, despite China’s coal burning, data indicate that in the past decade the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere has not increased.

The researchers seek to explain the temperature standstill between 1998 and 2008. They say that the global temperature has increased since then.

This is misleading. There was an El Nino in 2010 (natural cyclic warming) but even that did not raise temperatures above 1998. In fact the standstill has continued to 2010 and 2011 appears to be on course to be a cooler year than any of the preceding ten years.

Tweaking computer models like this proves nothing. The real test is in the real world data. The temperature hasn’t increased for over a decade. For there to be any faith in the underlying scientific assumptions the world has to start warming soon, at an enhanced rate to compensate for it being held back for a decade.

Despite what the authors of this paper state after their tinkering with an out of date climate computer model, there is as yet no convincing explanation for the global temperature standstill of the past decade.

Either man-made and natural climatic effects have conspired to completely offset the warming that should have occurred due to greenhouse gasses in the past decade, or our estimation of the ‘climate sensitivity’ to greenhouse gasses is too large.

This is not an extreme or ‘sceptic’ position but represents part of the diversity of scientific opinion presented to the IPCC that is seldom reported.

Dr David Whitehouse

calfoxwc · July 4, 2014

Yep. The NIPCC sees it like more and more scientists are seeing it.

mmgw alarmism is at worst,

http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2b/ccr2biologicalimpacts.html insignificant.

MLD Woody · July 4, 2014

My point is when countries are trying to
Get millions from "climate justice" their scientist are no longer credible.

And when 1st world Scientist are funded by govt they become unreliable as well now that the left has gone all in. Hand that feeds you.

Feminist statistics come from, oh shit, we have to justify our grants.

It's not like Obama can go, oops, I was wrong. He's all in. The left needs scientist now, their agenda is wrapped in it.

You can't ignore that.
Scientist are bought and paid for.

And if climate change was so drastically important, then call out the wackos because their hurting credibility. Not just the "deniers", call out the piggy backing gender warriors.

But it's not that important is it?

Wealth redistribution
Higher taxes
Gender/Race Victim profiteering

Not about innovation
Or
India
Or
Anything that helps fix this "problem"

Yet, who's calling them out? No one.

People aren't going to buy it, al gore making millions, blaming (false) rape stats on gw, blaming every weather related incident on climate change (a Karl rove phrase)

Cmon man... It just doesn't float. There is a maxing credibility issue .

If al gore truly believed in this, he would kill himself on the steps of the Abraham Lincoln memorial saying he was doing it to help fight climate change by eliminating his footprin.

Extream. Lol, yea...

But he's lighting trees at nighte

We get it, you don't like the govt. We don't need hyperbole as well. But then again you've basically compared all govt to Nazis, said it just creates mass murder, etc. We get it. You can't just take a blanket over every scientific organization related to the govt in any way an claim they aren't credible anymore. The anti-science belief on this board in incredible. You project your distaste of the govt on to scientists and then apparently they're untrustworthy as well. I mean, who are these "experts" any way with their fancy shmancy degrees. What do they know? Damn elitist liberals... who cares about all those things they've made, improved, discovered. We don't need em

Also, how does climate change relate back to gender and race exactly?

Sign In

I got yer mmgw proof of bs right here

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived