# When Did The Republican Party Become Stupid?



## midcan5 (Sep 25, 2014)

And how?  The republican party, especially at the state level, is engaging in a Taliban like fight against science and the scientific method. In two areas they are particularly short sighted, evolution and global warming. Religious belief and corporate propaganda work their magic and even control education, see first link. If this were another nation the same people would be condemning them. Why is it OK here?  

How The Koch Brothers Corrupted Florida State University 163 Other Colleges Young Turks Informed Comment

Your republican congressman engaging a scientist below. And you wonder why America scores low in math and science, wonder no more.



"The rise of conservative politics in postwar America is one of the great puzzles of American political history. For much of the period that followed the end of World War II, conservative ideas about the primacy of the free market, and the dangers of too-powerful labor unions, government regulation, and an activist, interventionist state seemed to have been thoroughly rejected by most intellectual and political elites. Scholars and politicians alike dismissed those who adhered to such faiths as a "radical right," for whom to quote the Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter politics "becomes an arena into which the wildest fancies are projected, the most paranoid suspicions, the most absurd superstitions, the most bizarre apocalyptic fantasies." How, then, did such ideas move from their marginal position in the middle years of the twentieth century to become the reigning politics of the country by the century's end?" Kim Phillips-Fein ('Invisible Hands')


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 25, 2014)

One can only watch this and share Stewart's exasperation.


----------



## gipper (Sep 25, 2014)

Both parties are "stupid."  That is clear to anyone capable of thinking.

Yet many on the left only identify and condemn stupidity by the R party...now that is really stupid.


----------



## Sarah G (Sep 25, 2014)

midcan5 said:


> And how?  The republican party, especially at the state level, is engaging in a Taliban like fight against science and the scientific method. In two areas they are particularly short sighted, evolution and global warming. Religious belief and corporate propaganda work their magic and even control education, see first link. If this were another nation the same people would be condemning them. Why is it OK here?
> 
> How The Koch Brothers Corrupted Florida State University 163 Other Colleges Young Turks Informed Comment
> 
> ...


 I believe it was the onset of the Teaparty.  I mean these people are scary stupid.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 25, 2014)

They call us Taliban and then wail the Tea Party are the scary ones

you can't make this stuff up folks...Look up Saul Alinsky and start calling the Democrats what they are, the new commies who COMPARES you people to TERRORIST if you in any way disagree with them

oops, not the tea party
*F*** the Police’: Communists, Radicals Spotted Throughout Climate March in New York City Demanding ‘Revolution, Nothing Less’

Communists Radicals Spotted Throughout Climate March In Nyc Demanding revolution Nothing Less US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 25, 2014)

How stupid do you have to be to believe in global warming?   It's more than stupid, it's deliberately clinging to a myth on the scale of sacrificing virgins to make it rain.


----------



## Boss (Sep 25, 2014)

Wow... So Jon Stewart, a liberal comedian who isn't even as funny as Craig Ferguson, puts together a moronic hit piece on those who oppose climate change, and this is supposed to prove something? 

Climate change is but another liberal ruse, like health care. We're supposed to care so much about the emotive bleats, that we willingly turn over freedoms and liberties to government so they can save us from ourselves. Government is the answer, it's always the answer, and any time you can have government control more power over corporations, the better. 

The science shows a very slight increase in median temperature over a century. Most of that century, we had no ecological or environmental regulations whatsoever. Centuries before, show much more significant increases and declines, without any presence of human industrialization or carbon emissions. There is nothing in the fact that we've had this slight increase which points directly to human cause. In fact, other scientists who weren't climatologists, have confirmed that there are several viable and credible explanations for the increase.  But you see, those explanations don't let government control capitalists.


----------



## boedicca (Sep 25, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> One can only watch this and share Stewart's exasperation.




One can only watch this and feel increasingly dismayed at the extreme ignorance and gullibility of the Left.

If anyone has corrupted Universities, it's the Left which has instituted thought police like control with speech codes and lack of tolerance for anything that doesn't toe the Progressive line.


----------



## teddyearp (Sep 25, 2014)

Yeah, Boss, once I saw comedy central, I just rolled my eyes . . . .


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2014)

midcan5 said:


> And how?  The republican party, especially at the state level, is engaging in a Taliban like fight against science and the scientific method. In two areas they are particularly short sighted, evolution and global warming. Religious belief and corporate propaganda work their magic and even control education, see first link. If this were another nation the same people would be condemning them. Why is it OK here?
> 
> How The Koch Brothers Corrupted Florida State University 163 Other Colleges Young Turks Informed Comment
> 
> ...


 
*politics "becomes an arena into which the wildest fancies are projected, the most paranoid suspicions, the most absurd superstitions, the most bizarre apocalyptic fantasies."*

No kidding. We're all gonna drown when the ice caps melt........unless we pay a carbon tax and give the government a lot more power.

Bizarre.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 25, 2014)

Whenever the GOP falls from power, the far right raises its serpent head with dripping fang and strikes the mainstream of the party, infecting it with venomous hate.

The far right reactionaries always act this way: nothing new.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 25, 2014)

SNIP:
*Climate Movement Drops Mask, Admits Communist Agenda*
September 23rd, 2014 - 4:31 pm

Communists along with a few environmental groups staged a “People’s Climate Rally” in Oakland, California on Sunday, September 21, in conjunction with the larger “People’s Climate March” in New York City on the same day.
Wait — did I say _communists_? Isn’t that a bit of an exaggeration?
Well…no.
At the New York event, many people noticed that gee, there sure are a lot of communists at this march. But in Oakland — always on the cutting edge — the entire “climate change” movement at last fully, irrevocably and overtly embraced communism as its stated goal. Any concerns about “optics” or operating in “stealth mode” were abandoned.
The “climate change” “crisis” is now nothing but the latest justification for “total revolution” and getting rid of capitalism forever.




Yes, capitalism itself is the problem. The primary message of the People’s Climate Rally was this: Climate change is caused by capitalism, and merely attempting to _reform_ capitalism will not stop global warming; it is impossible to work within the existing system if we want to save the planet. We must replace it with a new social and economic system entirely.
Until recently, those attacking the capitalist system as the cause of global warming were intentionally a little vague as to what will replace it if we are to solve the problem. But on Sunday in Oakland, that curtain was drawn back and the new system was finally revealed: Communism. Or at least hardcore socialism as Marx defined it — the necessary transitional phase before true complete communism (i.e. no private property, no families, no individualism). Most countries we tend to think of as “communist” actually self-defined as “socialist”: The USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for example, was (as its name reveals) socialist. I point out this detail in case anybody reading this article thinks that the “socialism” advocated at the rally was merely some kind of squishy soft-hearted semi-capitalism; no, it is the same type of socialism one finds in places generally thought of as communist.
Below you will find irrefutable proof that communist ideologies, organizations and phraseologies have completely moved to the forefront of the “climate change” movement. (I was originally tempted to say that the communists, as they are wont to do, have merely “co-opted” environmentalism. But that would imply that the goal of global warming scaremongering was something other than “destroying capitalism” in the first place. At this point I now know that destroying capitalism has always been the goal; the only thing that changed on Sunday is that the mask was dropped.)
This proof will necessarily entail posting a _lot_ of photographs; in situations like this, the only way to conclusively demonstrate a point is through repetition of evidence. One could summarize the evidence with a few shorthand images, but that would leave open the possibility that the case was being overstated. To quash that counter-argument before it arises, I will post lots and lots and lots and lots of images from all over the rally, from the sponsors, to the attendees, to the booths, to the speakers, to show beyond any doubt that the entire rally was thoroughly saturated with communism and socialism to the point where these ideologies were the overarching theme of the event.
Ready? All the photos below were taken at the People’s Climate Rally in Oakland on September 21, 2014.




As you enter the rally you encounter booths hosted by *Socialist Action*, a Trotskyist/Marxist group…




…and the Communist Party USA, a Marxist-Leninist political party who like to think of themselves as _the_ communists, since they’ve been around for almost a century…




…and the Revolutionary Communist Party USA, a Maoist political cult devoted to overthrowing the United States in a total revolution.
Along the way, you encounter the rally’s attendees, carrying signs advocating concepts like…




…”eco-socialism,” which I nominate as “word of the day,” since the theme of the rally was the fusion of ecology with socialism.




*“Another Big, Fat, straight, Midwestern, White Man for WORLD REVOLUTION.”

all of it here but remember folks it's the TEA PARTY who act like the TALABAN...
Zombie Climate Movement Drops Mask Admits Communist Agenda*


----------



## whitehall (Sep 25, 2014)

Another wonderful political analysis by the comedy channel. Actually atheists should be up in arms about the global warming issue because it has become a religion to the radical left. Anybody on the left know why they still call it the "theory" of man-made global warming? Because it isn't a scientific fact.


----------



## Boss (Sep 25, 2014)

The out-dated argument they have for the melting icecaps is always amusing to me. Let's forget the fact that the icecaps are not melting, that we've seen a growth in the southern sea ice which more than offsets the declines in the north, but let's just pretend that they are right and this ice is melting into the oceans.... gonna flood all this land along our coastlines... that's the 'sky is falling' fear, right?

Well, a simple understanding of convection currents and how they function, is very relevant here. Because there are things going on in our ocean that happen as a result of heat transfer. The introduction of enough melting ice water to cause flooding, would obliterate the natural convection currents in the ocean. Without these, basically everything alive in the ocean will be dead before we have to worry about floods. 

Don't get me wrong, it's very possible for our planet to go out of kilter and destroy all life as we know it. In fact, it has happened a few times in the past that we know of. But the problem with liberals is, they think government can save us when this happens.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 25, 2014)

The debate is over. I suggest that even entertaining a discussion about whether or not we are facing a climate change problem is foolish. 

I think a debate regarding how to go about solving the problem is reasonable. There are various interests who should have a say.....so there will be differences of opinion. 

But....if you are still discussing the very existence of the problem as though it is debatable.......you are wasting everyone's time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> The debate is over. I suggest that even entertaining a discussion about whether or not we are facing a climate change problem is foolish.
> 
> I think a debate regarding how to go about solving the problem is reasonable. There are various interests who should have a say.....so there will be differences of opinion.
> 
> But....if you are still discussing the very existence of the problem as though it is debatable.......you are wasting everyone's time.


 
What's the problem? Warmer?
Look at history, when it was warmer, mankind thrived.
Those periods were called climatic optimums.
When it was colder, people starved, died, in huge numbers.

So why is the temperature in 1980 or 1900 or whatever arbitrary year you pick, the perfect temperature?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 25, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > The debate is over. I suggest that even entertaining a discussion about whether or not we are facing a climate change problem is foolish.
> ...



You are wasting your own time. This is no longer up for debate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


 
I agree, warmer is better.


----------



## Kimura (Sep 25, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2014)

Kimura said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


 
Feel free to tell me what year we had the perfect temperature and why.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 25, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > The debate is over. I suggest that even entertaining a discussion about whether or not we are facing a climate change problem is foolish.
> ...



It's not just getting "Warmer", though. It's the pace of change that causes ecosystems to die out. 

When you have massive die-offs on coral reefs because the water is too warm, or coastal areas flooding because the water is too high, that's really a problem.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


 
What's the pace been over the last 16 years?


----------



## Boss (Sep 25, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> *The debate is over.* I suggest that even entertaining a discussion about whether or not we are facing a climate change problem is foolish.
> 
> I think a debate regarding how to go about solving the problem is reasonable. There are various interests who should have a say.....so there will be differences of opinion.
> 
> But....if you are still discussing the very existence of the problem as though it is debatable.......you are wasting everyone's time.


This is often the problem with EVERY liberal argument. The debate is over before we even have the debate, the liberal has declared it. No need in arguing, no point can be made in a debate that is over. One time in human history, this was known as shallow-minded stubbornness and we thought the Age of Enlightenment may have eradicated it, but I guess not. 

No one is debating whether the planet gets warmer or cooler. We all should understand that our temperature is never the same. There has never even been a time on Earth where all temperature was the same at the same time. Temperature varies all over the planet for a number of reasons. We also know that our planet goes through cycles of warmer and colder periods, we have the ice core records to prove this, and it has been happening for millions of years. 

What is up for debate at this time is how much (if any) humans are responsible for recent rises in temperature. That is, if we are actually experiencing a rise. Records indicate we've not had a rise in over 18 years and we may be in a cooling cycle. Now, it could be that while the planet is in a cooling phase, we are heating it up by doing our evil human business, in which case we can thank industrialization for saving us from another ice age. Or, could be, humans have very little actual effect on changing global temperature averages. 

The hysteria over carbon dioxide is amazingly stupid... almost to the level of Chicken Little. CO2 is responsible for everything living on the planet. Don't know if you libtards knew that or not, but it's true. Without CO2, we'd have no atmosphere and no plant life. Without plant life, we would simply deplete the oxygen supply and die. Plants and trees depend on CO2. In fact, commercial greenhouses pump in CO2 to help the plants grow more vibrantly. Botanists say that up until about 1,500 years ago, our planet was actually starving for carbon dioxide. 

We see the proof of this with the Stradavarius. The reason this particular violin made by this one man is so off-the-charts awesome, is because of the dense wood he used to create them. Dense wood created by a climate with too little CO2, which no longer exists.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 25, 2014)

snip:
Upcoming Anniversary: October 1st Will Mark 18 Years Of No Global Warming…






Little things like facts don’t bother the Goracle and his disciples.

Upcoming Anniversary October 1st Will Mark 18 Years Of No Global Warming US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Boss (Sep 25, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> It's not just getting "Warmer", though. It's the pace of change that causes ecosystems to die out.
> 
> When you have massive die-offs on coral reefs because the water is too warm, or coastal areas flooding because the water is too high, that's really a problem.



Again, you are positing theories that have absolutely no basis in scientific evidence. We have had massive die-offs on coral reefs and coastal flooding for centuries. The warming and cooling in the ocean is what creates a convection current. Without that, nothing can live in the ocean.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 25, 2014)

when did the Democrat party become so stupid? 

SNIP:
*Secretary of State John Kerry Explains the Greenhouse Effect*
byMYRON EBELLonSEPTEMBER 16, 2014
inBLOG




One of the disturbing aspects of the global warming debate is that so many of the leading public officials who espouse alarmism know so little about the basics of climate science.  I have seen many instances of ignorance over the years and have largely gotten used to it, but I recently happened on an example from Secretary of State John Kerry that astounded me.

*Reporters and commentators noted that in his major speech on climate change given in Jakarta on 16th February, Secretary Kerry claimed that “climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”* 

But reporters and commentators (including me) overlooked an even more remarkable passage in that long speech in which Secretary Kerry explains some “simple” climate science.  According to the State Department’s web site, here is what Secretary Kerrysaidabout the greenhouse effect in Jakarta on 16th February:


> In fact, this is not really a complicated equation. I know sometimes I can remember from when I was in high school and college, some aspects of science or physics can be tough – chemistry. But this is not tough. This is simple. Kids at the earliest age can understand this.
> 
> Try and picture a very thin layer of gases – a quarter-inch, half an inch, somewhere in that vicinity – that’s how thick it is. It’s in our atmosphere. It’s way up there at the edge of the atmosphere. And for millions of years – literally millions of years – we know that layer has acted like a thermal blanket for the planet – trapping the sun’s heat and warming the surface of the Earth to the ideal, life-sustaining temperature. Average temperature of the Earth has been about 57 degrees Fahrenheit, which keeps life going. Life itself on Earth exists because of the so-called greenhouse effect. But in modern times, as human beings have emitted gases into the air that come from all the things we do, that blanket has grown thicker and it traps more and more heat beneath it, raising the temperature of the planet. It’s called the greenhouse effect because it works exactly like a greenhouse in which you grow a lot of the fruit that you eat here.
> This is what’s causing climate change. It’s a huge irony that the very same layer of gases that has made life possible on Earth from the beginning now makes possible the greatest threat that the planet has ever seen.




For those who followed former-Senator Kerry at committee hearings over the past three decades, his belief that greenhouse gases are “a very thin layer of gases – a quarter-inch, half an inch, somewhere in that vicinity –….way up there at the edge of the atmosphere” is perhaps not surprising.  Nonetheless, it is remarkable that Kerry’s explanation, which sets a new standard for utter imbecility, got by the highly-educated State Department officials in charge of vetting the Secretary’s prepared remarks.

ALL of it here:
Secretary of State John Kerry Explains the Greenhouse Effect


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 25, 2014)

The debate is over. We have a climate change problem. We can do something about it. You will join the effort or you won't.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Sep 25, 2014)

midcan5 said:


> And how?



You ask when the Republicans became stupid and you're a viewer of The Young Turks? 

Notice the irony?


----------



## Rikurzhen (Sep 25, 2014)

Sarah G said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > And how?  The republican party, especially at the state level, is engaging in a Taliban like fight against science and the scientific method. In two areas they are particularly short sighted, evolution and global warming. Religious belief and corporate propaganda work their magic and even control education, see first link. If this were another nation the same people would be condemning them. Why is it OK here?
> ...



Except for the Inconvenient Truth of the TEA Party being wealthier and better educated than the general public.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> The debate is over. We have a climate change problem. We can do something about it. You will join the effort or you won't.


 
The climate used to be stable back when humans burned dung for fuel?


----------



## Rikurzhen (Sep 25, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> The debate is over.



Even climate scientists don't go that far. Nice of you to define the parameters for everyone.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 25, 2014)

midcan5 said:


> And how?  The republican party, especially at the state level, is engaging in a Taliban like fight against science and the scientific method. In two areas they are particularly short sighted, evolution and global warming. Religious belief and corporate propaganda work their magic and even control education, see first link. If this were another nation the same people would be condemning them. Why is it OK here?
> 
> How The Koch Brothers Corrupted Florida State University 163 Other Colleges Young Turks Informed Comment
> 
> ...


It became stupid when it began to let democrats switch hats and turn the republican party into a moderate socialist party.


----------



## Boss (Sep 25, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> The debate is over. We have a climate change problem. We can do something about it. You will join the effort or you won't.



The debate is far from over, we do not have a climate change problem and if we did, there would be little humans could do about it. No one is joining your effort, in case you hadn't noticed. You are quickly becoming a laughing stock and a nutter. If you don't cut this nonsense you'll run the risk of being typecast. You'll forever be known in the company of the flat-earthers and tin-foil hat wearers.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 25, 2014)

Boss said:


> [
> Again, you are positing theories that have absolutely no basis in scientific evidence. We have had massive die-offs on coral reefs and coastal flooding for centuries. The warming and cooling in the ocean is what creates a convection current. Without that, nothing can live in the ocean.



95% of climate scientist think it's getting warmer too fast and that humans are responsible. 

Now, I know you guys don't WANT it to be true.  You don't want evolution to be true.   You want to pretend socialized medicine and gun control don't work.  (Just pretend Japan and Europe don't exist.)


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 25, 2014)

Boss said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > The debate is over. We have a climate change problem. We can do something about it. You will join the effort or you won't.
> ...



You got the wrong guy, dipshit. I'm just telling you like it is. I have very little, if any, respect for you. So...I'm not really concerned with what you think. But...I'm no environmentalist and I'm no climate activist. I just have an interest in facts. 

The debate is over.


----------



## Rikurzhen (Sep 25, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> The debate is over.


----------



## guno (Sep 25, 2014)

midcan5 said:


> And how?  The republican party, especially at the state level, is engaging in a Taliban like fight against science and the scientific method. In two areas they are particularly short sighted, evolution and global warming. Religious belief and corporate propaganda work their magic and even control education, see first link. If this were another nation the same people would be condemning them. Why is it OK here?
> 
> How The Koch Brothers Corrupted Florida State University 163 Other Colleges Young Turks Informed Comment
> 
> ...


----------



## guno (Sep 25, 2014)

guno said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > And how?  The republican party, especially at the state level, is engaging in a Taliban like fight against science and the scientific method. In two areas they are particularly short sighted, evolution and global warming. Religious belief and corporate propaganda work their magic and even control education, see first link. If this were another nation the same people would be condemning them. Why is it OK here?
> ...




"But the larger point this brings up is that the mainstream not just media but culture doesn’t sufficiently take stock of the fact that within our culture we have a subculture which is literally a fifth column of insanity that is bred from birth, through home school, Christian school, evangelical college, whatever to reject facts as a matter of faith."


----------



## Boss (Sep 25, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



No, 95% of climatologists have said we are in a warming cycle. That may not even be true. Climatologists are not the only scientists who've studied this "global warming" phenomenon. A good many botanical scientists totally disagree with your "too much CO2" theories. A good many geologists have totally refuted the myth that our planet is experiencing something unordinary with change in climate. And most physicists laugh at the notion that humans could ever change what happens with regard to the atmosphere. 

This has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution or if it's correct. It also has nothing to do with the fact that socialized medicine and gun control do not work. The only pretenders are morons like you, who've bought into the liberal socialist propaganda to allow government to control capitalism some more.


----------



## Boss (Sep 25, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



I don't care how much respect you have for me or anyone else. What you are, is a liberal turd head who thinks the debate is over. It's very clear to me from the response to this thread, the debate is certainly NOT over. Not only that, but your side is not winning the debate. Perhaps your idiot ass should stop chortling "the debate is over" and start refuting the counter-arguments being made, they are piling up.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Sep 25, 2014)

Sarah G said:


> I believe it was the onset of the Teaparty.  I mean these people are scary stupid.



Before the TEA Party we had the 'Moral Majority'.  

It actually goes back to the 50's & 60's when Christians began to see their political power, both assumed and real, being eroded in the courts as groups began to demand the equal protection promised by the word "all" in the founding documents.

Their plan, starting in the 70's, was a good one, take the state legislatures and Gerrymander a foothold in the state legislatures that would influence the national stage for decades.


----------



## Kimura (Sep 25, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Climate has always varied to a certain extent, some understood, some more than others. In the modern context, climate change is very well understood and documented. Pointing out that something happened in the past without the hand of man doesn't prove that humans aren't involved today.

For example, scientists know from ice core records in Greenland and Antarctica that the earth phased in and out of glacial time periods in 120,000 year periods. The other important fact is that today's pace of climate change is like ten times faster than what scientists have found in the ice core records.

This type of warming or climate change on a global scale is beyond rare in the geological records. While this isn't completely unprecedented, there is an abundant amount of evidence that such changes are catastrophic for the biosphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2014)

Kimura said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...


 
*Pointing out that something happened in the past without the hand of man doesn't prove that humans aren't involved today.*
Sure. So what?

*This type of warming or climate change on a global scale is beyond rare in the geological records.*

I don't believe the evidence backs up your claim.

You never answered, when did we have the perfect temperature?


----------



## Kimura (Sep 25, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I'd have to go with the pre-industrial Holocene but that's an open ended question. It's liking asking a physician to define perfect health.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Sep 25, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> The debate is over.



If that's the case why does half the country not believe you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2014)

Kimura said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...


 
*I'd have to go with the pre-industrial Holocene*

So the perfect temperature is...............?


----------



## Boss (Sep 26, 2014)

Kimura said:


> Climate has always varied to a certain extent, some understood, some more than others. In the modern context, climate change is very well understood and documented. Pointing out that something happened in the past without the hand of man doesn't prove that humans aren't involved today.
> 
> For example, scientists know from ice core records in Greenland and Antarctica that the earth phased in and out of glacial time periods in 120,000 year periods. The other important fact is that *today's pace of climate change is like ten times faster than what scientists have found in the ice core records.*
> 
> This type of warming or climate change on a global scale is beyond rare in the geological records. While this isn't completely unprecedented, there is an abundant amount of evidence that such changes are catastrophic for the biosphere.



*today's pace of climate change is like ten times faster than what scientists have found in the ice core records.*

This is not true. It appears to be based on the discredited hockey stick graph which was a fraud. The only scientific evidence for global warming is a 1 degree rise in median temperature over the past 100 years. This is not rare in the geological records, it has been much colder and much warmer in the past. In 1816, because of a volcano, median temperature dropped 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F) in one year. It was dubbed _Year Without a Summer._* 
*
Now, it is very important to note, in 1816, they didn't get into some worldwide panic and launch some monumental effort to do something about it, they let nature take it's course because... well, that's all you can really do. In spite of tons and tons of gasses, ash and smoke, filling our atmosphere to the point of blocking the sun and causing median temperatures to drop so low we didn't have a summer, guess what eventually happened? That's right, Mother Nature cleaned itself up, dusted herself off, and the climate returned to it's normal cycle. 

I wonder though... How was Mother Nature able to do that without a Liberal?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 26, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > The debate is over.
> ...





Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > The debate is over.
> ...



First.....I'm not suggesting that anyone believe ME. I'm not a climatologist nor an expert on the subject in any way. I just have the ability to listen to those who are. The debate is over. 

Regarding your  ridiculous claim about half the country not "believing".....you ought to seek out some facts.  75% of Americans think "global warming"  is a problem and over half think it is largely due to man's activities. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/science/global-warming-concerns-grow.html?_r=0

http://climatechangecommunication.org/sites/default/files/reports/Politics_and_Global_Warming.pdf

In general, politically conservative people are the only people who deny that climate change is a problem. One of these days, the reality will hit you. At which time you will fall back on the secondary position that nutters have. You know.....the one where they say they believe it is happening, but not caused by man. Baby steps for you, I suppose.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 26, 2014)




----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 26, 2014)

Boss said:


> No, 95% of climatologists have said we are in a warming cycle. That may not even be true. Climatologists are not the only scientists who've studied this "global warming" phenomenon. A good many botanical scientists totally disagree with your "too much CO2" theories. A good many geologists have totally refuted the myth that our planet is experiencing something unordinary with change in climate. And most physicists laugh at the notion that humans could ever change what happens with regard to the atmosphere.
> 
> This has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution or if it's correct. It also has nothing to do with the fact that socialized medicine and gun control do not work. The only pretenders are morons like you, who've bought into the liberal socialist propaganda to allow government to control capitalism some more.



Botanists aren't climatologists. Neither are Geologists. 

And, frankly, I don't feel like having our descendants deal with the results of AGW because you don't want the rich people to be denied a Dressage Horsie. 

Here's the problem. You are right, if we are going to address this, we need government to control a lot of things. The thing about it is, dumbasses like you have been conditioned to think this is a bad thing.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > No, 95% of climatologists have said we are in a warming cycle. That may not even be true. Climatologists are not the only scientists who've studied this "global warming" phenomenon. A good many botanical scientists totally disagree with your "too much CO2" theories. A good many geologists have totally refuted the myth that our planet is experiencing something unordinary with change in climate. And most physicists laugh at the notion that humans could ever change what happens with regard to the atmosphere.
> ...



Class Warfare Card played...............

Who pays for the policies...........The poor when your cult of Enviro Wacks pass the bill on to the consumer when their bills go up in your fight for trying to save the planet................Save the planet......save the planet.

Problem, who is going to save us from your BS policies, that hurt the poor more than anyone else in higher bills.  And spend money via the tax payer to study COW BURPS..........

Bunch of dumb asses who did too much dang acid in the 60's and fried their brains.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Sep 26, 2014)

Whether the debate is over or not is a personal question.  Whether you BELIEVE that it's all bullshit, or BELIEVE that the planet is warming and human industry is a contributing factor, if you BELIEVE, the debate is over for you.

The only folks for whom the debate is *not* over are the undecideds.
______________

Whether or not Jon Stewart has any credibility as a 'journalist' is moot - the people who voted for the congressmen featured in the clips in the O/P video should be embarrassed.  At best, those committee members are playing stupid to advance an agenda, at worse, they really are _that_ stupid.

Whether or not the planet is warming and human industry is a contributing factor is also moot, ass-u-me-ing one is not stupid enough to believe that pollution in the air is something we should just have to live (and die) with.

  Did we learn NOTHING from the successful clean-up imposed on industry in the 1970's?​


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 26, 2014)

AVG-JOE said:


> Whether the debate is over or not is a personal question.  Whether you BELIEVE that it's all bullshit, or BELIEVE that the planet is warming and human industry is a contributing factor, if you BELIEVE, the debate is over for you.
> 
> The only folks for whom the debate is *not* over are the undecideds.
> ______________
> ...



Opinions are personal.  Absolutely.  My opinion is that the policies of the Global Warming Crowd have economic effects to those least able to afford it.

Then they claim they are attacking the rich, statements for RICH DEM POLITICIANS SAYING IT, and cause the poor to get hit in the pocket book via higher prices............

Then have the nerve to say they are helping the poor by making their cost of living go up and are proud of it.

You just can't make this stupid BS up.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 26, 2014)

eagle1462010 said:


> [
> 
> Class Warfare Card played...............
> 
> ...



Actually, the consumer will be far better off if we passed simple laws.  If we all drove fuel efficient cars, we'd save thousands per year. 

Global Warming is class warfare.  The rich are always going to be able to afford air conditioned offices and homes.  Meanwhile, we have a major heat wave, and they are stacking poor people in refrigerator trucks because we don't have room for them in the Morgues.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Spare me the BS...........Enviro policies cause utility prices to increase which hurts the people least able to afford it.  You are part of the problem.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 26, 2014)

eagle1462010 said:


> [
> 
> Spare me the BS...........Enviro policies cause utility prices to increase which hurts the people least able to afford it.  You are part of the problem.



Really? Frankly, utility prices have actually FALLEN when adjusted for inflation. Do you even bother to fact check?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 26, 2014)

AVG-JOE said:


> Whether the debate is over or not is a personal question.  Whether you BELIEVE that it's all bullshit, or BELIEVE that the planet is warming and human industry is a contributing factor, if you BELIEVE, the debate is over for you.
> 
> The only folks for whom the debate is *not* over are the undecideds.
> ______________
> ...



Sorry Joe,

I'm done trying to mollify those who will not accept the science. I am not discussing my beliefs here. I am discussing the science. Those who claim that climate change is not occurring and that it isn't a problem....do not get to claim equal standing with me. They are to be mocked.

The debate is over.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Tell me about the effect of the Kemper Power plant to utility rates and get back to me.

Tell me about the costs of installing EPA mandated devices and get back to me.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 26, 2014)

eagle1462010 said:


> [
> 
> Tell me about the effect of the Kemper Power plant to utility rates and get back to me.
> 
> Tell me about the costs of installing EPA mandated devices and get back to me.



A lot of those devices pay for themselves.  For instance, converting from a old HVAC system to a new high efficiency one will save $900.00 a year in utilities.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 26, 2014)

gipper said:


> Both parties are "stupid."  That is clear to anyone capable of thinking.
> 
> Yet many on the left only identify and condemn stupidity by the R party...now that is really stupid.


This fails as an attempt to deflect.


The thread is about the ignorance and stupidity that is unique to the right:


'...for whom...politics "becomes an arena into which the wildest fancies are projected, the most paranoid suspicions, the most absurd superstitions, the most bizarre apocalyptic fantasies."'


We see examples of this from the right on this very forum.


So no, the two parties are not the same.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 26, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Whether the debate is over or not is a personal question.  Whether you BELIEVE that it's all bullshit, or BELIEVE that the planet is warming and human industry is a contributing factor, if you BELIEVE, the debate is over for you.
> ...



The debate is never over.............You position is a typical leftist position........you either agree with me or your wrong.............even when data goes against you..........even as the GW crowd is proven to falsify data to keep your cult going.........................

It's never over...........I oppose your position because your policies eventually hose the little people in this country by your ideals on this subject.

We are opposed..............I refuse to back down and you do as well...............Grid lock...........and a Lame Duck POTUS in office.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



And how much will it cost to replace every coal burner in this country and replace with Gas Turbines and other forms of Electrical power generation....................We still get our power at about 40% coal.  and Industry that you want to die off...........

Irregardless of the costs of doing so............Your THE ONE IN OFFICE has openly stated that rates would necessarily SKY ROCKET..........which is the END RESULT OF YOUR AGENDA................

We are OPPOSED.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 26, 2014)

eagle1462010 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



What policies? I haven't discussed a single policy here. I have said that there is still a debate to be had concerning HOW to address the problem. But...you failed to see that, I suppose.

The debate regarding the existence of a problem is over. Period.

If you can't come to terns with that fact, you won't be useful at all when it comes to solving it. That is why I will mock you.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 26, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Both parties are "stupid."  That is clear to anyone capable of thinking.
> ...



The thread is about the ignorance of stupidity of the left on it's current crusade to kill fossil fuels who IGNORE THE ECONOMIC effects of these policies..........................

When rates go up............and the poor have trouble paying for their air conditioning and heat............you'll say OH WELL..........we are SAVING THE PLANET................ too bad you have no A/C when it's 100 outside.............

Or then you will save them via subsidies to keep the bills lower to save them from your policies that caused it in the first place.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 26, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Your economic Stupidity is why I'll mock you.....Your policy hurts the poor.........It raises rates.........Your lack of caring for what happens to the people you claim to support by your Stupid policies is why I'll Mock you as well.

That's Gridlock buddy.......and part of the Checks and Balances of the Constitution.....We are opposed...........PERIOD.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 26, 2014)

eagle1462010 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



What policy?


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 26, 2014)

We have become a nation of sheep not free thinking people anymore

when hear people spout off but the consensus of scientist says so


----------



## Boss (Sep 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > No, 95% of climatologists have said we are in a warming cycle. That may not even be true. Climatologists are not the only scientists who've studied this "global warming" phenomenon. A good many botanical scientists totally disagree with your "too much CO2" theories. A good many geologists have totally refuted the myth that our planet is experiencing something unordinary with change in climate. And most physicists laugh at the notion that humans could ever change what happens with regard to the atmosphere.
> ...



Again, there is other science besides climatology. I understand there are thousands of climatologists awaing a sweet government grant, no need to bring them into this or call them rich people. Your kids are going to laugh at what an utter buffoon you were. 

The government should only control what it is allowed to control in the constitution. Any other government control is tyranny and usurps freedom. So, yes, government control in this area is a bad thing. 

We don't need to address this, there is nothing to address. It is a 100% charlatan liberal ruse to grab power from capitalists. Plain and simple, that's ALL this is. There is no threat from man-made greenhouse gas. There is no alarming catastrophe in the making. If Earth's natural cycles want to produce more heat or cold, they will, and there isn't a damn thing any one can do about it.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 26, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Ten Thousand Commandments An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State Competitive Enterprise Institute

Take your dang pic........Stop saying their isn't back door EPA regs to attack industry like Coal.  The Administration has openly stated it wants it gone, so at least own up to the issue that they want Coal gone............

And while your at it, give the cost of doing so.............

And if you say that policy will not raise the price of utilities as it has done so in Europe, then I'll call you a LIAR..........


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 26, 2014)

eagle1462010 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



It is pointless to discuss policies aimed at solving the climate change problem with you UNTIL YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE PROBLEM EXISTS. 

Do you understand this? I've not expressed support for or even suggested any policy. We are still at the point of getting idiots to acknowledge the problem.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Sep 26, 2014)

eagle1462010 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Can we at least agree that unfettered pollution is a bad thing?

Whether or not global warming is real or imagined, choking on the smoke pumped in to the air by an unregulated coal burning plant is NOT good for anyone's economy, sans those who profit from the operation of the plant.


----------



## Boss (Sep 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> A lot of those devices pay for themselves.  For instance, converting from a old HVAC system to a new high efficiency one will save $900.00 a year in utilities.



Hey, I believe in capitalism baby. If the device can save $900 a year, there is a market. People like to save, especially on utilities. And capitalists LOVE to save on utilities because that helps the bottom line, you see.

A friend of mine up north worked out an independent energy system. It totally allows you to live off the grid and cost less than ($5k per 1000sf.) It uses solar, wind and biofuel. Provides air and heat system, hot water system, standard electric box and outlets in every room and interior/exterior lighting. He sold the crap out of these things until the State banned living off the grid.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 26, 2014)

AVG-JOE said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Clearly, I agree. Cleaning our shit up should be reason enough to begin taking serious steps in the right direction. You'd think even the most ardent nutter would support measures to reduce pollution.

But....by saying "Whether or not global warming is real or imagined", you are simply giving the denier too much respect. It's real.....and this is no longer in question.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 26, 2014)

Boss said:


> [
> 
> Again, there is other science besides climatology. I understand there are thousands of climatologists awaing a sweet government grant, no need to bring them into this or call them rich people. Your kids are going to laugh at what an utter buffoon you were.



Uh, guy, other sciences aren't studying climate.  Climatologists are.  

And trust me, if Climatologists COULD be bought, the Koch brothers would have bought them a long time ago. 



Boss said:


> [
> The government should only control what it is allowed to control in the constitution. Any other government control is tyranny and usurps freedom. So, yes, government control in this area is a bad thing.



Again, guy, i live in the 21st Century, I'm not interested in 18th century government. 



Boss said:


> [
> We don't need to address this, there is nothing to address. It is a 100% charlatan liberal ruse to grab power from capitalists. Plain and simple, that's ALL this is. There is no threat from man-made greenhouse gas. There is no alarming catastrophe in the making. If Earth's natural cycles want to produce more heat or cold, they will, and there isn't a damn thing any one can do about it.



In short, Science might get in the way of your greed, so you want to ignore the science. 

Kind of like the Christian who ignores the evidence for evolution because it disproves God. 

I can see in my own 52 years how the climate has gotten warmer.  I remember how brutal the winters in Chicago were in the 1970's and how mild they are in the "teens".


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 26, 2014)

Boss said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of those devices pay for themselves.  For instance, converting from a old HVAC system to a new high efficiency one will save $900.00 a year in utilities.
> ...



Wonderful. 

BUt you know what, Capitalism isn't a holy system.  Sometimes you just do things because they are the right thing to do, even if you don't get a personal gain out of it.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Sep 26, 2014)

AVG-JOE said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



We have been adding processes to limit the amount of pollution to address that problem for decades.  Billions have already been spent to limit those emissions.  Scrubbers and Precipitators have been installed at the cost of Billions to limit emissions in ppms..............even with that they now want all coal burners gone completely.

That has severe economic consequences on the eventual cost of power.


----------



## Boss (Sep 26, 2014)

AVG-JOE said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Is there somewhere people are choking on smoke from coal? Didn't we already have 1972? Seems like we did, but I am not sure anymore, it's almost as if we've jumped back into the 1850s. Plants with any kind of emissions, including coal burning, are subject to a litany of EPA regulations, reporting, compliance, inspections, etc. Pursuant to Congressional order under the 1972 Clean Air Act and various other supporting environmental legislation. So all these evil plants spitting out smoke and choking people to make a buck... they don't exist.

I am very much an environmentally conscious person. I don't feel the need to reel off a long list of things I do to help the environment but there are plenty. I'm all for that. I am a conservative and that means conservationist to be perfectly literal. I think everyone should care about the environment, it is our civic duty to protect it. I just don't feel that is government's role. It's certainly not government's role if government is holding court with activist liberal front groups to shake down big business.


----------



## Boss (Sep 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Wonderful.
> 
> BUt you know what, Capitalism isn't a holy system.  Sometimes you just do things because they are the right thing to do, even if you don't get a personal gain out of it.



Nonsense. Even when you "do the right thing" you get a personal gain out of it. Your conscious is eased knowing you did the right thing. That's what makes this propaganda you've been listening to so dangerous. It's giving you this personal satisfaction of knowing you're doing the right thing, you're here daily to beat down those mean ol' conservatives all funded by the Koch Brothers. 

Capitalism isn't a holy system, but it should be. We should worship something so awesome. No other system has produced as many millionaires and billionaires in the history of man.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Sep 26, 2014)

The debate is over.... 

"I'm not a scientists, and i haven't done shit to research the subject, but I can listen to people and therefore, the debate is over."




That is some serious simpleton, goofball shit right there.


----------



## Boss (Sep 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


*And trust me, if Climatologists COULD be bought, the Koch brothers would have bought them a long time ago.*
Ahh, so those climatologists who were bought and produced the fraudulent data and hockey stick graph, those were the only dishonorable climatologists, and the rest of them are incapable of being bought off? And I suppose, all other disciplines of science are being bought off, since they don't seem to be towing the line for the climatologists? 

*Again, guy, i live in the 21st Century, I'm not interested in 18th century government.*
Oh okay, well what you'll need to do then is have a revolt. See, we have a government which was established in the 18th century and a Constitution. To have something else, you need to stage a coup and overthrow the existing government, then you can set up a 21st century government. 

*In short, Science might get in the way of your greed, so you want to ignore the science.*
Are you kidding? Nothing gets in the way of my greed. But this isn't about me. It's about you, and your liberal charlatans who want to shake down big business. Shut the hell up with the science crap, there is no science, it's all made up, trumped up, exaggerated paranoia. Our fucking globe goes through dramatic changes and shifts in temperatures all the time. 

* Kind of like the Christian who ignores the evidence for evolution because it disproves God.*
Great.. you all are like a fucking CULT!  Evolution in NO WAY disproves God. *MORON!*


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



really, you found this out AFTER you made all yours and is now retired? capitalism was good to you then I bet
as if we haven't been doing the right things on OUR OWN. No, we need this government to PUNISH us some more


----------



## mudwhistle (Sep 26, 2014)

Sarah G said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > And how?  The republican party, especially at the state level, is engaging in a Taliban like fight against science and the scientific method. In two areas they are particularly short sighted, evolution and global warming. Religious belief and corporate propaganda work their magic and even control education, see first link. If this were another nation the same people would be condemning them. Why is it OK here?
> ...


Yup, demanding spending cuts is tantamount to terrorism.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 26, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > midcan5 said:
> ...



Just unbelievable the NAMES they are calling "we the people" who are Republicans and don't bow down to "their" way of thinking

I've never seen it this bad


----------



## mudwhistle (Sep 26, 2014)

Democrats have George Soros, so they created a boogeyman known as the Koch Brothers.

The other day Harry Reid actually said on the floor of the Senate that Republicans are high on coke. He blames the Koch Bros. for every evil in the world, regardless how irrational the claim may be.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Sep 26, 2014)

Boss said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


So you do agree.   Good to know.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > No, 95% of climatologists have said we are in a warming cycle. That may not even be true. Climatologists are not the only scientists who've studied this "global warming" phenomenon. A good many botanical scientists totally disagree with your "too much CO2" theories. A good many geologists have totally refuted the myth that our planet is experiencing something unordinary with change in climate. And most physicists laugh at the notion that humans could ever change what happens with regard to the atmosphere.
> ...


 
*You are right, if we are going to address this, we need government to control a lot of things. The thing about it is, dumbasses like you have been conditioned to think this is a bad thing.*

Dumbasses like you think government _can_ control a lot of things. 
Government has proven that they can fuck up a lot of things.
Ruin a lot of things, at a very high cost.
That the government "fixes" end up causing bigger, even more expensive problems.
But dumbasses like you think that government failure just requires even more government 
spending, even more government control.
No thanks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2014)

AVG-JOE said:


> Whether the debate is over or not is a personal question.  Whether you BELIEVE that it's all bullshit, or BELIEVE that the planet is warming and human industry is a contributing factor, if you BELIEVE, the debate is over for you.
> 
> The only folks for whom the debate is *not* over are the undecideds.
> ______________
> ...



That was a great ad campaign.
Great Italian actor!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


 
* If we all drove fuel efficient cars, we'd save thousands per year.*

We should pass a law!
All poor people have to drive a Prius.
Too expensive? Think how much nicer traffic will be when you
force the poor to take the bus.
They'll be better off, right? Asshole.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


 
Imagine how high rates will be when the enviro-idiots ban fracking and all electricity is wind and solar.
Talk about a hockey stick!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Whether the debate is over or not is a personal question.  Whether you BELIEVE that it's all bullshit, or BELIEVE that the planet is warming and human industry is a contributing factor, if you BELIEVE, the debate is over for you.
> ...



*Those who claim that climate change is not occurring and that it isn't a problem....*

What's the problem again?
Milder winters? Lower winter gas bills?
Fewer cold related deaths? That would be awful!


----------



## Nosmo King (Sep 26, 2014)

Science and Conservatives do not mix.  Science shows with empirical evidence that things aren't the way Conservatives say they are.  Science shows that the myth of Genesis is just that: myth.  Science shows that if we dump enough carbon into our atmosphere we can alter and damage that atmosphere.

Now, why are those issues so dire for Conservative ideology?  If mankind was not deposited on this planet fully formed like some potted geranium, how can Conservatives insist on teaching mythology as science in classrooms all over the country? 

If we can damage the environment, the Conservative belief that captains of industry and barons of Wall Street should shoulder the responsibility to clean it up.  But that means spending profits for abatement, and where's the profit in abatement?  Conservatives lean on business for answers and solutions while Liberals lean on the collective actions of government, where at least we have a say in what goes on.

Conservatives will ALWAYS dismiss facts as "junk science" and they will ALWAYS seek to blame government while seeking shelter beneath the board room table.


----------



## mudwhistle (Sep 26, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Science and Conservatives do not mix.  Science shows with empirical evidence that things aren't the way Conservatives say they are.  Science shows that the myth of Genesis is just that: myth.  Science shows that if we dump enough carbon into our atmosphere we can alter and damage that atmosphere.
> 
> Now, why are those issues so dire for Conservative ideology?  If mankind was not deposited on this planet fully formed like some potted geranium, how can Conservatives insist on teaching mythology as science in classrooms all over the country?
> 
> ...



You're confusing conservatism with religion.


----------



## mudwhistle (Sep 26, 2014)

Man can effect the environment, but when it comes to carbon we're like a mouse farting in a hurricane.


----------



## Nosmo King (Sep 26, 2014)

mudwhistle said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Science and Conservatives do not mix.  Science shows with empirical evidence that things aren't the way Conservatives say they are.  Science shows that the myth of Genesis is just that: myth.  Science shows that if we dump enough carbon into our atmosphere we can alter and damage that atmosphere.
> ...


You're confusing reading with understanding.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Sep 26, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



As your link confirms, half the country doesn't believe you, so tell me again how the debate is over.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 26, 2014)

snip:
Massachusetts Electric Rates Shoot Up 37 Percent

all of it here:
Massachusetts electric rates shoot up 37 percent - Massachusetts news - Boston.com

*100 Comments*


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Sep 26, 2014)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Both parties are "stupid."  That is clear to anyone capable of thinking.
> ...



When did you move to the right, Clayton?


----------



## mudwhistle (Sep 26, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


No I'm not.


----------



## Kimura (Sep 26, 2014)

Boss said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Climate has always varied to a certain extent, some understood, some more than others. In the modern context, climate change is very well understood and documented. Pointing out that something happened in the past without the hand of man doesn't prove that humans aren't involved today.
> ...




First of all, there isn't one hockey-stick data set of historical temperatures. There’s other data sets which demonstrate that over the last few centuries the earth has been getting warmer. This data was extrapolated and assembled from ice core samples, tree rings and other methodologies of direct measurement from around the world. Notwithstanding their locations, they all demonstrate temperatures have been rising.

Hypothetically, let’s play what if. What if the hockey stick was wrong? So what? The data assembled for anthropogenic global warming was originally extrapolated from climate mechanic studies, not reconstructive data models. The warnings about current warming trends existed YEARS before Mann’s hockey stick. Let’s say the plant was warmer 1,000 years ago, it doesn't change the fact that there’s been a sharp and dramatic increase in CO2, which explains the current trend of warming much better than any theory of “natural” warming.

In terms of the Little Ice Age or Medieval Warm Period, I would point you to NOAA.

Click Here


----------



## Kimura (Sep 26, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I don't know if there's anyway to define the "perfect temperature" for our planet. It's definitely better now than it was 20-30,000 years ago when most of the land was encased under ice sheets.  I would say, from the available data, any point from our most recent climate and the extreme we're heading towards, such as tropic forests within the arctic circle, is a good indicator as any other. 

The problems are not what the temperature is, or even variations, or even where it may head in a decade. The issue of critical importance is where it's heading at such a rapid pace.


----------



## Kimura (Sep 26, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...


----------



## Boss (Sep 26, 2014)

Kimura said:


> First of all, there isn't one hockey-stick data set of historical temperatures. There’s other data sets which demonstrate that over the last few centuries the earth has been getting warmer. This data was extrapolated and assembled from ice core samples, tree rings and other methodologies of direct measurement from around the world. Notwithstanding their locations, they all demonstrate temperatures have been rising.
> 
> Hypothetically, let’s play what if. What if the hockey stick was wrong? So what? The data assembled for anthropogenic global warming was originally extrapolated from climate mechanic studies, not reconstructive data models. The warnings about current warming trends existed YEARS before Mann’s hockey stick. Let’s say the plant was warmer 1,000 years ago, it doesn't change the fact that there’s been a sharp and dramatic increase in CO2, which explains the current trend of warming much better than any theory of “natural” warming.
> 
> ...


*Notwithstanding their locations, they all demonstrate temperatures have been rising.*
Every bit of credible data shows the median temperature average has risen 1 degree over the past 100 years. There are literally dozens of things which can explain this nominal increase without jumping to the conclusion man is causing it. 

*The warnings about current warming trends existed YEARS before Mann’s hockey stick.*
Actually, they didn't. In the 1960s and 70s, I vividly recall being warned we were heading into the next ice age. In the 80s, the "crisis" was the ozone layer, because they observed a hole in it at the poles. As it turned out, man wasn't blowing a hole in the ozone layer, it just naturally doesn't form at the poles and the "hole" is normal.  Of course this was after the 'chicken little' policies of the day had cost capitalists billions of dollars reformulating products and updating production. 

I personally think the problem is fundamentalist wackos. Whenever you abandon God and adopt a religious faith in science, there are problems society can't deal with. Like people believing everything science theorizes as absolute truth and gospel. Because this becomes their convicted faith, they can't seem to understand that science is often times wrong about things. When science replaces God, science becomes infallible and perfect.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 26, 2014)

Boss said:


> [
> Nonsense. Even when you "do the right thing" you get a personal gain out of it. Your conscious is eased knowing you did the right thing. That's what makes this propaganda you've been listening to so dangerous. It's giving you this personal satisfaction of knowing you're doing the right thing, you're here daily to beat down those mean ol' conservatives all funded by the Koch Brothers.
> 
> Capitalism isn't a holy system, but it should be. We should worship something so awesome. No other system has produced as many millionaires and billionaires in the history of man.



No, there's nothing awesome ab out selfishness and greed. 

Nor to I consider billionaires to be a good thing when children go to bed hungry at night.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 26, 2014)

Boss said:


> *And trust me, if Climatologists COULD be bought, the Koch brothers would have bought them a long time ago.*
> Ahh, so those climatologists who were bought and produced the fraudulent data and hockey stick graph, those were the only dishonorable climatologists, and the rest of them are incapable of being bought off? And I suppose, all other disciplines of science are being bought off, since they don't seem to be towing the line for the climatologists?




Uh, the other "disciplines" mostly agree with the Climatologists.  Except the few on Corporate Payrolls. 




Boss said:


> *Again, guy, i live in the 21st Century, I'm not interested in 18th century government.*
> Oh okay, well what you'll need to do then is have a revolt. See, we have a government which was established in the 18th century and a Constitution. To have something else, you need to stage a coup and overthrow the existing government, then you can set up a 21st century government.




Uh, no, all we need to do is pass laws and establish agencies. Sorry. 




Boss said:


> *In short, Science might get in the way of your greed, so you want to ignore the science.*
> Are you kidding? Nothing gets in the way of my greed. But this isn't about me. It's about you, and your liberal charlatans who want to shake down big business. Shut the hell up with the science crap, there is no science, it's all made up, trumped up, exaggerated paranoia. Our fucking globe goes through dramatic changes and shifts in temperatures all the time.




Again, guy, the science is settled. But keep shining the big man's shoes, he'll recognize your toady ass some day. 




Boss said:


> * Kind of like the Christian who ignores the evidence for evolution because it disproves God.*
> Great.. you all are like a fucking CULT!  Evolution in NO WAY disproves God. *MORON!*



Actually, Evolution completely disproves the Abrahamic God.  Man wasn't created in God's image, he evolved into the most advantageous form for his environment. .


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 26, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> really, you found this out AFTER you made all yours and is now retired? capitalism was good to you then I bet
> as if we haven't been doing the right things on OUR OWN. No, we need this government to PUNISH us some more



Capitalism hasn't been anything but a shit sandwich. 

And i doubt I'll ever be able to retire.


----------



## Boss (Sep 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Well capitalism isn't selfish or greedy. I've explained how they can't be greedy, it defies their purpose as a capitalist to be greedy. A capitalist seeks to continue being a capitalist so he has to please a customer. Greed doesn't please many in a business transaction. In capitalism it is anathema to success be too greedy. 

Part of pleasing your customer is image. The most successful corporations realize this. That's why you have DuPont sponsoring public broadcasting, or you see where something was made possible by a grant from so-and-so. Large companies routinely participate in charity, are strong in their community support with Partners in Education programs, sponsor scholarships... all kinds of benevolent things. This all falls under "public relations" and is part of their image. 

You see... a SUCCESSFUL capitalist does not want to be perceived as "selfish" by a potential customer. Again.... anathema to capitalism. Are there some greedy and selfish people practicing capitalism? Sure... there are greedy and selfish people aren't there? We find them in every facet of society, so why wouldn't some capitalist also have these attributes? The point is, they will never be great and successful capitalists because the chickens will eventually come home to roost. Are there capitalists who break the law and commit fraud? Sure... we're supposed to punish those people by sending them to prison and we do. 

*I [don't] consider billionaires to be a good thing when children go to bed hungry at night.*
I disagree. It is the billionaire who holds the secret to how an American can not go to bed hungry at night. Some of them even started out that way themselves and this motivated them to be successful and become a billionaire.

When I was a young man, while most of my friends were looking at their dad's Playboy collection, I was at the library checking out books on people like Getty, DuPont,  Ford, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Howard Hughes.... I wanted to know about these people, to learn what they did, how they became successful and wealthy. 

One of my first jobs as a young man was at an Italian eatery, _Mando's. _It was operate by a guy named Armando... Mando for short. Now, Armando was not italian. He was cuban. He came here in 1957 or 58, fleeing a revolting Cuba. He was basically a refugee. He had no money, nothing but the clothes on his back. He worked as a busboy at several restaurants but managed to work his way up at this one Italian place. He became the manager and eventually managed several locations. When the owner retired, he offered Mando the opportunity to buy him out, and so Mando had saved up his money and was able to own his own business. 

His story doesn't end there, it only begins. He struggled the first several years, had to close all but one location. He focused himself on making that the best location anywhere for Italian food. BOOM. His efforts paid off and he made a fortune. 

If this man can do it, anyone can. That has been an inspiration to me my whole life.


----------



## Kimura (Sep 26, 2014)

Click Here[/QUOTE]
*Notwithstanding their locations, they all demonstrate temperatures have been rising.*
Every bit of credible data shows the median temperature average has risen 1 degree over the past 100 years. There are literally dozens of things which can explain this nominal increase without jumping to the conclusion man is causing it.[/quote]

We're looking at 0.8 degree Celsius since about 1880-ish. Since 1975, for example, two-thirds of warming has occurred at or around 0.15-.20 degrees celsius per decade.

A global change of one degree is important because it takes massive quantities of heat to warm land, oceans, the atmosphere, etc. All is took was a one to two degree change to sent the planet into the Little Ice Age. A five degree drop resulted in the vast majority of North America under a copious amounts of ice 20,000 years ago.


*



			The warnings about current warming trends existed YEARS before Mann’s hockey stick.
		
Click to expand...

*


> Actually, they didn't. In the 1960s and 70s, I vividly recall being warned we were heading into the next ice age. In the 80s, the "crisis" was the ozone layer, because they observed a hole in it at the poles. As it turned out, man wasn't blowing a hole in the ozone layer, it just naturally doesn't form at the poles and the "hole" is normal.  Of course this was after the 'chicken little' policies of the day had cost capitalists billions of dollars reformulating products and updating production.



It's undoubtedly true there were some predictions about an ice age in the 1970s, but those warnings compared to today are night and day. There was tiny amount of scientific speculation based on glacial cycles and some of slight cooling that occurred as result of air pollution blocking sunlight. We didn't have copious amounts of data or papers being published back them. We had no UN commissions, no institutions, etc. You could have found more of a consensus on a sighting of Lindbergh baby.

Today, there's a scientific consensus, supported by national academies and the major scientific institutions around the world, including the CIA and US military, which all get behind the assembled data that temperature is increasing, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary, and it will only get worse until we decrease emissions. I really don't understand why this causes cognitive dissonance among certain ideological segments of our population. It's not even a big deal, it can be dealt with.




> personally think the problem is fundamentalist wackos. Whenever you abandon God and adopt a religious faith in science, there are problems society can't deal with. Like people believing everything science theorizes as absolute truth and gospel. Because this becomes their convicted faith, they can't seem to understand that science is often times wrong about things. When science replaces God, science becomes infallible and perfect.



Science doesn't require faith or belief, quite the contrary. Since deals with and studies natural phenomena in the observable universe, so it cannot confirm or deny the existence of God if that makes sense. I think about half of scientists claim a religious affiliation of some sort. 

People tend to get confused when a scientist says he/she believes in X or Y hypothesis or theory. What they mean is that he/she accepts X or Y idea, that he/she thinks said scientific idea is the most accurate bases on the evidence. Scientific ideas are accepted and rejected based on the assembled evidence for them or again them. Belief, faith, dogma, etc. aren't part of the scientific method in any capacity.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2014)

Kimura said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...



Milder winters, lower winter gas bills and fewer cold related deaths would be a good thing.
Seriously.
Despite your serial confusion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 26, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > really, you found this out AFTER you made all yours and is now retired? capitalism was good to you then I bet
> ...


 
Kill the greddy kulaks, eh comrade?


----------



## Boss (Sep 27, 2014)

Kimura said:


> > *Notwithstanding their locations, they all demonstrate temperatures have been rising.*
> > Every bit of credible data shows the median temperature average has risen 1 degree over the past 100 years. There are literally dozens of things which can explain this nominal increase without jumping to the conclusion man is causing it.
> 
> 
> ...



One degree in 100 years. That's what we have, whether or not man is causing it. In the past 18 years, we've not had warming, it has been getting cooler. If it continues on the current trend, we won't be having a 1 degree increase for the century. There are dozens of factors other than the greenhouse ceiling. There is the Sun and sunspot activity. There are volcanic eruptions. Solar flares. Not to mention all the assorted cyclical climate patterns we have on Earth. 


*






			The warnings about current warming trends existed YEARS before Mann’s hockey stick.
		
Click to expand...



Click to expand...

*


> > Actually, they didn't. In the 1960s and 70s, I vividly recall being warned we were heading into the next ice age. In the 80s, the "crisis" was the ozone layer, because they observed a hole in it at the poles. As it turned out, man wasn't blowing a hole in the ozone layer, it just naturally doesn't form at the poles and the "hole" is normal.  Of course this was after the 'chicken little' policies of the day had cost capitalists billions of dollars reformulating products and updating production.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hogwash. You're now citing "UN commissions" as if they are some kind of scientific authority. These are diplomats, not scientists. Same with the CIA or military. No one is "getting behind" global warming anymore. It's dead. It's cognitive dissonance to continue insisting man is causing some catastrophic overheating. It's just not happening. 

It's silly to even think man is capable of emitting too much CO2. If you took all the human-made emissions from all of history, and all human-made emissions man of the future will create for the next 100k years, you will have approximately the equivalent to ONE major volcanic eruption. Now, we have a major volcanic eruption about once every decade. This has been happening forever. With a single volcanic eruption, there is more CO2 dispersed than man has produced since the Industrial Revolution. 




> > personally think the problem is fundamentalist wackos. Whenever you abandon God and adopt a religious faith in science, there are problems society can't deal with. Like people believing everything science theorizes as absolute truth and gospel. Because this becomes their convicted faith, they can't seem to understand that science is often times wrong about things. When science replaces God, science becomes infallible and perfect.





> Science doesn't require faith or belief, quite the contrary. Since deals with and studies natural phenomena in the observable universe, so it cannot confirm or deny the existence of God if that makes sense. I think about half of scientists claim a religious affiliation of some sort.
> 
> People tend to get confused when a scientist says he/she believes in X or Y hypothesis or theory. What they mean is that he/she accepts X or Y idea, that he/she thinks said scientific idea is the most accurate bases on the evidence. Scientific ideas are accepted and rejected based on the assembled evidence for them or again them. Belief, faith, dogma, etc. aren't part of the scientific method in any capacity.



Oh you need to talk with Joe then, he just told me that Evolution disproves the God of Abraham. And you need to check your own self as well, here you are presenting science to support your _INSISTENCE_ there is man made global warming. So if science doesn't require faith and belief, why do you have so much faith and belief in this science? Can't it be wrong? 

If we are going to say that science isn't a belief, dogma, faith, etc. We must admit that science does not 'conclude things as fact.' Because as soon as science has done this, there is no more science, there is only faith and belief in your conclusion. You see, it is MAN who concludes things as fact.' This is based on faith and belief in the science. But the science never concludes.


----------



## Politico (Sep 27, 2014)

midcan5 said:


> *When Did The Republican Party Become Stupid?*


Around the same time all the Democrats stuck their heads up their asses.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Sep 27, 2014)

Capitalism isn't a bad thing in and of itself...

It's unfettered, unregulated, industrialized capitalism that fucks things up.

True Story!  ​


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 27, 2014)

Boss said:


> [
> 
> Well capitalism isn't selfish or greedy. I've explained how they can't be greedy, it defies their purpose as a capitalist to be greedy. A capitalist seeks to continue being a capitalist so he has to please a customer. Greed doesn't please many in a business transaction. In capitalism it is anathema to success be too greedy.
> .



Guy, i'm not going to plod through your whole fucking word cloud in praise of greed.  Lots of people work hard their whole lives.  My Dad came back from WWII, got a union job, worked hard, raised five kids, build a vacation property he was quite proud of.  

ANd then he died at 56 because some greedy Corporate Asshole neglected to tell him the Asbestos he worked with every day as a sheet metal worker was a carcinogen. 

Now, while you might embrace the "I've got mine, fuck you" mentality, the reality is that when you have 40% of the population with less than 1% of the wealth, while 1% controls 43% of the wealth, and those numbers get worse every day, social upheaval is inevitable. 

Captialism might work for you, or at least you pretend it does, but it doesn't work for most people and there's only a matter of time before you get someone who makes Obama or HIllary look like Little Mary Sunshine.


----------



## Boss (Sep 27, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, i'm not going to plod through your whole fucking word cloud in praise of greed.  Lots of people work hard their whole lives.  My Dad came back from WWII, got a union job, worked hard, raised five kids, build a vacation property he was quite proud of.



Well I didn't praise greed. I explained how greed is never part of successful capitalism. I also didn't say anything about working hard. Most capitalists who have become wealthy work harder than your dad. You see, a capitalist doesn't have a union spokesperson. There is no one there to say you can't work more than 48 hrs. a week, or you have to be paid double overtime, or you get 6 weeks of family leave time per year. The capitalist goes it on his own. 



> ANd then he died at 56 because some greedy Corporate Asshole neglected to tell him the Asbestos he worked with every day as a sheet metal worker was a carcinogen.



Was that Corporate Asshole aware of the danger? If so, your dad is eligible for compensation. But you see, capitalists are not wizards or psychics, they can't see into the future and know things like asbestos being a carcinogen, they don't know until it is discovered. Now, if they are negligent, the law is very specific about that, and people win billion-dollar lawsuits every day because of it. 



> Now, while you might embrace the "I've got mine, fuck you" mentality, the reality is that when you have 40% of the population with less than 1% of the wealth, while 1% controls 43% of the wealth, and those numbers get worse every day, social upheaval is inevitable.
> 
> Captialism might work for you, or at least you pretend it does, but it doesn't work for most people and there's only a matter of time before you get someone who makes Obama or HIllary look like Little Mary Sunshine.



I don't embrace a "I've got mine, fuck you" mentality, I embrace a "I've got mine, let me show you how to get yours" mentality, that's why I am posting a response to your stupidness. All those percentage arguments you just reeled off, they are from Chairman Mao and the People's Revolution. 

If you admit, the numbers are getting worse every day, then that means people are getting rich every day. Do you have a problem with people getting rich? More importantly, do you believe wealth and prosperity are limited resources? When you start regurgitating Maoist claptrap, it sounds like you believe wealth is limited, we only have so much and there will never be any more. We create wealth and prosperity, it is unlimited. The only percentage that matters is this... 100% of Americans live in a country where they are free to pursue their dreams and become wealthy.


----------



## Boss (Sep 27, 2014)

AVG-JOE said:


> Capitalism isn't a bad thing in and of itself...
> 
> *It's unfettered, unregulated, industrialized capitalism that fucks things up.*
> 
> True Story!  ​



Well, we don't really know this, it's never been tried in this country. Since the birth of the nation we've had some degree of restraint, regulation or bridle on capitalism. We've passed 200 years worth of laws to further regulate and restrict capitalism. As long as we have a constitution with a commerce clause, we'll have some regulation on capitalism. 

What fucks things up are liberals running around screaming "unfettered capitalism!" fettering up capitalism some more. If we could somehow unfetter some of the capitalism liberals have trussed up the past century, we could produce even more millionaires and billionaires. But somehow, it has become a bad thing to get rich.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 27, 2014)

Boss said:


> I don't embrace a "I've got mine, fuck you" mentality, I embrace a "I've got mine, let me show you how to get yours" mentality, that's why I am posting a response to your stupidness. All those percentage arguments you just reeled off, they are from Chairman Mao and the People's Revolution.



Um, no, they are established facts from the US Census Bureau. 










Boss said:


> If you admit, the numbers are getting worse every day, then that means people are getting rich every day. Do you have a problem with people getting rich? More importantly, do you believe wealth and prosperity are limited resources? When you start regurgitating Maoist claptrap, it sounds like you believe wealth is limited, we only have so much and there will never be any more. We create wealth and prosperity, it is unlimited. The only percentage that matters is this... 100% of Americans live in a country where they are free to pursue their dreams and become wealthy.



Yes, wealth is limited, and unfairly distributed.  and you can scream Maoist and Communist all day, but frankly, there's only so long people will keep eating the shit sandwich you guys serve. 

The Capitalist is a parasite that has convinced stupid people it's a vital organ.


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > I don't embrace a "I've got mine, fuck you" mentality, I embrace a "I've got mine, let me show you how to get yours" mentality, that's why I am posting a response to your stupidness. All those percentage arguments you just reeled off, they are from Chairman Mao and the People's Revolution.
> ...



Doesn't matter where your data comes from, the notion that the rich get richer faster than poor people and they control all the wealth, is Maoist claptrap. It was used by Mao Zedong to work Chinese peasants into a frenzy so they would overthrow their government. They did, it was called the "People's Revolution" ...Mao's policies (like yours) were all about helping the people, getting rid of those evil capitalists, spreading the wealth. Result: 70 million dead Chinese. $1 a day avg. wage. 

Since you are so into the US Census Bureau, here is a graph you need to see...

 ,
This shows us several things. First, the wealthy are getting wealthier, the number of wealthy families is growing. Second, the middle class is declining, as you often love to point out... but where are they going? The poor families are actually down from 1967, so the middle isn't joining the poor. What's happening to the middle class? That's right, they are becoming wealthier. So are the poor. 




> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > If you admit, the numbers are getting worse every day, then that means people are getting rich every day. Do you have a problem with people getting rich? More importantly, do you believe wealth and prosperity are limited resources? When you start regurgitating Maoist claptrap, it sounds like you believe wealth is limited, we only have so much and there will never be any more. We create wealth and prosperity, it is unlimited. The only percentage that matters is this... 100% of Americans live in a country where they are free to pursue their dreams and become wealthy.
> ...



Wealth is not limited. If it were, you could only have so many millionaires and billionaires. We would never be able to overcome recessions, depressions, economic downturns and disasters.

There is nothing unfair about the distribution. In fact, in America, it is more fair than any system ever devised by man because it allows entrepreneurial capitalist freedom.  

You are right about the people only taking so much but wrong about who is stupid. History shows, if you preach propaganda about the "greedy capitalists" long enough, you can spark a revolution like Mao did in China. More stupid people are born every day. But in America, even the stupid have the freedom to create wealth beyond their wildest expectations.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 28, 2014)

Sigh.  Hey, guy, the China of 1976 was a superpower.  the China of 1949 was a battered mess of a country. I mean, if you really want to scream about Mao, maybe you need to actually talk to some Chinese, who rate him up the way we do George Washington or Abe Lincoln.


----------



## Boss (Sep 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Sigh.  Hey, guy, the China of 1976 was a superpower.  the China of 1949 was a battered mess of a country. I mean, if you really want to scream about Mao, maybe you need to actually talk to some Chinese, who rate him up the way we do George Washington or Abe Lincoln.



Well that's because they lived under his brutal despot rule for 40 years. All those big giant pictures you see, the people painted those in tribute and honor to Mao. Again... he was a hero before he was a ruler in the eyes of the people. To this day, years after his death, you find many Mao loyalists among the people. People, largely, who are stuck in dismal poverty making $1/day and a bowl of rice. 

In 1976, China was a superpower because of it's size and military. Mao militarized most all youth in the population. But you have to go further back to discover how Mao built such a formidable army. You see, his policies toward capitalism were to round up all the capitalists and wealthy, seize their wealth, and put a bullet in their head. So we have his first years as the most brutal dictator to ever live, where he amassed a huge War Chest. 

Wow... a True Liberal Hero right there! 

Then, after Mao had killed off all the people who were capitalists, who knew how to create wealth through capitalism and prosper.... those people are gone now, they are no longer an asset. Government has replaced capitalism. Profit goes to the government and the government will act in it's own greedy self interests. The problem in a dictatorship is, there is no recourse. If you don't like the policies of government, you are going to die a young man in most totalitarian regimes. 

This is why the average Chinese makes so much less than the average American. China only began any kind of economic climb following Mao, when a completely new generation of reformists came in and re-introduced capitalism. Until then, they were a joke... they still are, in some circles. Ever heard the expression "Made in China?" Ever thought about what that really means? 

I don't have to scream about Mao, there are countless history books out there, he is one of the most studied individuals to have ever lived. I think he is the Progressive Godfather or something. The man killed over 70 million people, took their wealth and assets, and built the biggest socialist clusterfuck you could ever imagine.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 29, 2014)

Guy, you need to put down the Bircher Propaganda and maybe read a history book.


----------



## Kimura (Sep 29, 2014)

Boss said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > > *Notwithstanding their locations, they all demonstrate temperatures have been rising.*
> ...





The chaotic nature of weather means that we can’t extrapolate a conclusion from one single data set. The temperature in one part of the planet at any one time is simply the weather, and tell us nothing about overall climate, much less climate change on a global level.

I’ve never read any scientists claim that CO2 was the sole mitigating factor in controlling global temperature in the ocean/atmosphere climate system. It’s a massive and complex system, subject to various forces. Anthropocentric global warming simply says that CO2 is has been the primary driver of warming over the past century. This hasn't been an incremental increase, nor should we expect it to occur this way.

Also, there has been work done to reconstruct the solar irradiance record over the past hundred years. We haven't seen an increase in solar irradiance sice 1940. Most of this work was carried out by the Max Place Institute. The reconstruction does demonstrate an increase over the first part of the century from 1900-1940. It's still not enough to explain  all the warming from those years, though. You can view this chart of observed temperature, modeled temperatures, and the variations the have contributed to climate change thus far.

There is a scientific consensus among the leading science academies. The science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom have arrived at a consensus. We also have the US military which views climate change as the greatest national security threat facing the country. There also a ton of other American and international science academies and institutions.


Here:


Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## chikenwing (Sep 29, 2014)

midcan5 said:


> And how?  The republican party, especially at the state level, is engaging in a Taliban like fight against science and the scientific method. In two areas they are particularly short sighted, evolution and global warming. Religious belief and corporate propaganda work their magic and even control education, see first link. If this were another nation the same people would be condemning them. Why is it OK here?
> 
> How The Koch Brothers Corrupted Florida State University 163 Other Colleges Young Turks Informed Comment
> 
> ...




]\Only a dishonest ass would compare ether party to the Taliban,but then look who they are trying to inject fear into,their voting base. The, by far the most successful thing the left has done is demonize the right,low information voters eat it up like candy.


----------



## chikenwing (Sep 29, 2014)

midcan5 said:


> And how?  The republican party, especially at the state level, is engaging in a Taliban like fight against science and the scientific method. In two areas they are particularly short sighted, evolution and global warming. Religious belief and corporate propaganda work their magic and even control education, see first link. If this were another nation the same people would be condemning them. Why is it OK here?
> 
> How The Koch Brothers Corrupted Florida State University 163 Other Colleges Young Turks Informed Comment
> 
> ...



People like this one bitch when others call them on the settled science shlick.

One simple question,why haven't a single modeled climate claim been true? Not one projected event has happened not one. So when others ask why, we are labeled deniers and ignorant,when that label falls squarely on people that think is settled science..


----------



## mamooth (Sep 29, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> One simple question,why haven't a single modeled climate claim been true?



Models have been remarkably accurate across the board on many topics.

You also don't seem to know what the term "settled science" refers to. Deniers should understand that their failure to understand certain concepts does not invalidate those concepts.

Pop quiz: If nearly the whole planet says you're wrong about something, what's the most likely explanation?
A. You made a mistake
B. The whole world is plotting a vast secret socialist conspiracy against you.

(Those not consumed with narcissism and paranoia tend to answer "A")


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 29, 2014)

Republicans became stupid when they started turning to Comedy Central for their news....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 29, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> The debate is over. I suggest that even entertaining a discussion about whether or not we are facing a climate change problem is foolish.



Of course you do. You're a Communist - you HATE science and only subscribe to absolute faith.

Those who engage in serious research are HERETICS who must never question.



> I think a debate regarding how to go about solving the problem is reasonable. There are various interests who should have a say.....so there will be differences of opinion.
> 
> But....if you are still discussing the very existence of the problem as though it is debatable.......you are wasting everyone's time.



Of course you do - you're an inbred hick who looks to others to tell you what you think - lacking any intellect of your own.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 29, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > The debate is over. I suggest that even entertaining a discussion about whether or not we are facing a climate change problem is foolish.
> ...



Great post! Was it difficult for you? 

You said: 

I'm a communist. Not even close to being accurate. 

I hate science. I did in 8th grade......but it was temporary. I hated any class that I didn't ace. I was insecure that way. 

I'm an inbred hick. Nope. I'm a mutt and have seen more of the world than most. 

I look to others to tell me what to think. Wrong again. And that is what pisses you off the most. You have trouble with original thought and you despise those who don't. 

I re-issue my challenge to you. We ask each other questions....any questions...any subject. The only rule is that no lies are allowed. Total honesty. Let's see who gives up first.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 29, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Great post! Was it difficult for you?



No, it was rather simple - I looked at an uneducated and ignorant fool, spewing stupidity on the interwebz and went from there,



> You said:
> 
> I'm a communist. Not even close to being accurate.
> 
> I hate science. I did in 8th grade......but it was temporary. I hated any class that I didn't ace. I was insecure that way.



So outside of P.E., you had a hell of a time in school....



> I'm an inbred hick. Nope. I'm a mutt and have seen more of the world than most.



Sure Cletus..









> I look to others to tell me what to think. Wrong again. And that is what pisses you off the most. You have trouble with original thought and you despise those who don't.
> 
> I re-issue my challenge to you. We ask each other questions....any questions...any subject. The only rule is that no lies are allowed. Total honesty. Let's see who gives up first.



Okay - do you really think science is belief that abhors questioning assumptions?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 29, 2014)

Nope. Never said any such thing. 

Please make your next question a little less schizo. Thanks. 

My question to you. Have you ever posted a comment that you later learned was untrue....and never retracted the comment?


----------



## Boss (Sep 29, 2014)

Kimura said:


> The chaotic nature of weather means that we can’t extrapolate a conclusion from one single data set. The temperature in one part of the planet at any one time is simply the weather, and tell us nothing about overall climate, much less climate change on a global level.
> 
> I’ve never read any scientists claim that CO2 was the sole mitigating factor in controlling global temperature in the ocean/atmosphere climate system. It’s a massive and complex system, subject to various forces. Anthropocentric global warming simply says that CO2 is has been the primary driver of warming over the past century. This hasn't been an incremental increase, nor should we expect it to occur this way.
> 
> ...



Okay, here is an important lesson for you today: Whenever you are saying "it's a consensus here, it's a consensus there..." What you are really trying to say is "our minds are made up." In other words, "we have abandoned science in favor of our belief in the consensus." No need for further scientific evaluation, we've all observed any relevant science and reached a conclusion. It doesn't matter if I point out flaws in your arguments, present other relative scientific data, or talk until I am blue in the face, you've made up your mind. 

You see, the instant you uttered the words "it's a consensus," you've abandoned science and adopted a faith. Science is useless to a consensus. Of course, I doubt seriously that you know every individual of every agency you listed and can vouch for what they personally believe. So the truth of the matter is, there is certainly NOT a consensus. But the important thing is, you believe there is a consensus, that everyone has made up their mind and all the science data is in. Now you've adopted a faith, much like a religious fanatic. 

I will point out again, for you and all the people who've "reached consensus" on this, man-made global warming is no more of a "problem" than natural global warming. In fact, the things that nature sometimes does makes human activity pale in comparison. One major volcanic eruption dumps into our atmosphere, more debris and ash, more carbon dioxide, methane and sulfur, than man has produced in all of human history. The ocean, just in it's natural processes of what it does, emits more carbon dioxide than man millions of times over each year. So if CO2 in the atmosphere is the problem, mother nature is a far worse culprit than man.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 30, 2014)

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 30, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions


ROFL that's so funny.


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 30, 2014)

the name calling with this bunch in the cult of Globull warming is showing they are losing with the people of the country...
 as is this disgusting party called the, Democrat/progressive/commie party of the United States

they got Taliban and stupid in this one, now they're dragging up RACIST and the Tea party again

Even the elected asses from the progressive party has taken to calling the people he suppose to represent, racist


*



			Subject: Terrifying From: John Lewis <dccc@dccc.org >
Date: September 27, 2014 8:58:29 AM EDT
To: Drew

Barack Obama’s election was one of the proudest days of my life.
I felt like I had spent decades fighting for that moment…and in many ways I had.
But now 6 years later, Republicans are trying once again to tear the President down. And quite frankly, it terrifies me what they could do if they grow their Tea Party Majority in this election.
That’s why I need your help. That’s why I need you to answer President Obama’s call-to-action right now. I’m not ready to give up on his last 2 years in office. And you shouldn’t be either.
The most critical deadline of the election is in 3 days. Can I count on you right now?
		
Click to expand...


FROM:
Dem Rep. John Lewis Says He 8217 s 8220 Terrified 8221 Racist Tea Party Will Tear Obama Down 8230 Weasel Zippers*

You can't disagree with them without being called something dumb like, DENIER, birthers, Taliban, etc

I hope the people are tired of it.


----------



## chikenwing (Sep 30, 2014)

mamooth said:


> chikenwing said:
> 
> 
> > One simple question,why haven't a single modeled climate claim been true?
> ...



Really ?? please supply a list a accurate climate models,you must have hundreds ready to go?


----------



## Kimura (Sep 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > The chaotic nature of weather means that we can’t extrapolate a conclusion from one single data set. The temperature in one part of the planet at any one time is simply the weather, and tell us nothing about overall climate, much less climate change on a global level.
> ...




Obviously, there are a host of yet to be resolved problems being actively debated and studied within climate science. However, if you read the research papers and items being put out, the debates revolve around subjects such as outgoing longwave radiation within the atmosphere differing from satellite measurements, the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds, etc.

There aren’t any scientists in the science community debating whether or not changes in the composition of CO2 alter warming effects, or if our current warming trend falls outside of the range of natural or cyclical, or whether sea levels have increased over the past one hundred years.

This where there is a scientific consensus.

We know:

a)  The result of an increase in CO2 is a direct result of burning fossil fuels.

b)  If CO2 continues to increase over the next hundred years, warming will increase.

c)  The climate is changing and undergoing a warming trend beyond what scientists have determined as an acceptable range of natural variability.

d)  The most pronounced factor of observable warming is an increasing level of greenhouse gas CO2.

Besides the national academies of most OECD countries, the following institutions deals with ocean/earth, climate and atmospheric sciences. If you think there is some conspiracy or they aren't doing the proper research, I suggest you contact them directly.


a)  NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

b)  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

c)  National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

d)  State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

e)  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

f)  Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)

g)  American Geophysical Union (AGU)

h)  American Institute of Physics (AIP)

i)  National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

j)  American Meteorological Society (AMS)

k)  Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)


Also, your statement regarding volcanoes is categorically false. It's incorrect and couldn't possibly be correct given the CO2 record from all the sampling stations located around the world. If this myth was correct, and individual volcanic eruptions were responsible for all human emissions (and hence a rise in CO2 levels), all the CO2 records would be full of massive spikes, one for each eruption more or less. The records demonstrate a regular and linear trend.


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2014)

Kimura said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



But there still isn't a consensus. All of those things are highly debatable. We may have information to suggest something might be true, that is not a consensus conclusion. Science doesn't form consensus or make conclusions, that's what man does with science data. Science keeps asking questions and exploring possibilities to predict probability. 



> We know:
> 
> a)  The result of an increase in CO2 is a direct result of burning fossil fuels.
> 
> ...



But we simply don't KNOW any of this. (a) An increase in overall global CO2 might be the result of natural phenomenon humans have no control over. (b) There is no parallel between increasing CO2 and temperature. Over the past 600 years, (c) CO2 levels have increased consistently while our average temperatures have fluctuated to extremes. The current warming trend, we are not even certain is a trend. Over the past 18 years, we've had a cooling trend.  (d) Again, CO2 levels have been steadily increasing the past 18 years and there has been a cooling trend. The most pronounced greenhouse gas is water vapor. We don't see initiatives aimed at decreasing human emissions of water vapor because it's a) not something we can practically do, and b) it doesn't give liberals a means to grab power from capitalists. 



> Besides the national academies of most OECD countries, the following institutions deals with ocean/earth, climate and atmospheric sciences. If you think there is some conspiracy or they aren't doing the proper research, I suggest you contact them directly.



Look, I can't debate there is a lot of money and political power behind AGW. Billions and billions of taxpayer dollars go to fund research grants, pay for studies to be done, etc. You don't find many welfare recipients who feel the government should cut social entitlements... so when you cite these institutions who happen to have an opinion favorable to continuing their gravy train, it's not surprising. 



> Also, your statement regarding volcanoes is categorically false. It's incorrect and couldn't possibly be correct given the CO2 record from all the sampling stations located around the world. If this myth was correct, and individual volcanic eruptions were responsible for all human emissions (and hence a rise in CO2 levels), all the CO2 records would be full of massive spikes, one for each eruption more or less. The records demonstrate a regular and linear trend.



Well, that's if nothing were working on the CO2 in nature, but CO2 is part of the natural cycle. Much of the CO2 is absorbed by plant life and the oceans, some of it dissipates out into space. The average global temperature does indeed show major spikes following every major volcanic eruption. Such eruptions in the past have plunged our planet into "years without summer" and even caused mass extinction events. But you know what DIDN'T happen? The sky didn't fall... the end never came... there was no doomsday. 

Our remarkable planet is fully capable of handling any extreme. Our ecosystem is self-cleaning. More CO2 simply means more healthy and vibrant plant life. This increases oxygen levels, which is good for oxygen-breathers.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 30, 2014)

Gullible Warming....LOLz


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 30, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Whenever the GOP falls from power, the far right raises its serpent head with dripping fang and strikes the mainstream of the party, infecting it with venomous hate.
> 
> The far right reactionaries always act this way: nothing new.



Fuck off, Fakey.

You and Rove get your walking papers after the midterms


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 30, 2014)

You know it's the opposite.

Your time is almost at an end.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 30, 2014)

the DeStarkifiction of the Republican continues unabated.

Cruz, Rubio, Rand Paul are rising stars while Christ, Rove and Starkey move further to their Axis of Weasels home base in the DNC


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 30, 2014)

Kimura said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



Hey Sparky, can you find one (1) single experiment that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 30, 2014)

Cruz has been emasculated and Rand is using the far right.  Rubio may have a future.  The far right has stepped all over its yet again.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 30, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Cruz has been emasculated and Rand is using the far right.  Rubio may have a future.  The far right has stepped all over its yet again.


snicker...  yeah Cruz and Rand are done for ROFL


but I do like Rubio.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 30, 2014)

Not what I said.  Their power has been curtailed dramatically, as has that of most of the TPM.  Rightly so.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 30, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Not what I said.  Their power has been curtailed dramatically, as has that of most of the TPM.  Rightly so.


Their "power"?  WTF are you talking about?  The TP is a loose group of Americans that were formed to discuss stuff.. They have no power, they did not seek power. Cruz and Rand are merely congressmen.  Power... ROFL


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 30, 2014)

RMK is PC's damaged friend mentally.

Try that again, sonny.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 30, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> RMK is PC's damaged friend mentally.
> 
> Try that again, sonny.


Who's RMK and who's PC? Try what again?  

Can anyone translate what this retard is saying to English?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 30, 2014)

So you deny TPM has political muscle.

Good.  Then, the interp is that your input does not matter.


----------



## RKMBrown (Sep 30, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> So you deny TPM has political muscle.
> 
> Good.  Then, the interp is that your input does not matter.


What Tea Party?  Are you mentally handicapped? What political muscle? Who's running the TP? WTF are you talking about?  Saying the tea party has political muscle is like saying the elderly have political muscle or the drug users have political muscle or foot ball fans have political muscle... it's just a group of people.  In the case of the TP it's a very loose group of people with no clear mission any more.


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> the DeStarkifiction of the Republican continues unabated.
> 
> Cruz, Rubio, Rand Paul are rising stars while Christ, Rove and Starkey move further to their Axis of Weasels home base in the DNC



When Did The Republican Party Become Stupid?
I actually thought the OP was going to be about the Establishment totally abandoning Conservatism. 

You know, if the elites would show half as much passion for fighting Harry Reid and Democrats as they show fighting the Tea Party, there would be no need for a Tea Party.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 30, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Nope. Never said any such thing.



I thought you were going to answer truthfully?

{The debate is over. I suggest that even entertaining a discussion about whether or not we are facing a climate change problem is foolish. }

Those WERE your words, right? So clearly you DID claim that to question is "foolish."



> Please make your next question a little less schizo. Thanks.
> 
> My question to you. Have you ever posted a comment that you later learned was untrue....and never retracted the comment?



I post a great deal of things, on occasion posts can be wrong. Generally I will acknowledge a mistake, but it depends on the time lapse. Also, questions of opinion are not factual errors, so if you claimed that Obama IZ TOO god, I said he was not, and you're waiting for me to admit I was wrong - well, keep waiting.

My turn: Do you honestly believe that government rulers are better suited to determine the price one should pay for goods and services than the invisible hand is?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 30, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. Never said any such thing.
> ...



Nope. Never said that either. You are asking very strange questions. Maybe you are mistaking me for someone else. 

Your question. Have you ever knowingly repeated an untruth in order to make a political point?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 30, 2014)

OK, TPM and the folks associated with the philosophy are not worth crap.

We have been telling you that.


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2014)

LoneLaugher said:


> Nope. Never said that either. You are asking very strange questions. Maybe you are mistaking me for someone else.
> 
> Your question. *Have you ever knowingly repeated an untruth in order to make a political point?*



Well we know for certain that you have, in fact, it would be hard to find a thread where you didn't.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 30, 2014)

An opinion of course is a factual error if the opiner knows it to be so.

Normally such an act is used for an illicit purpose.


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> OK, TPM and the folks associated with the philosophy are not worth crap.
> 
> We have been telling you that.



Who has been telling who that? First of all, it's NOT a "philosophy." It could be loosely defined as a core set of constitutional conservative principles, but even with that, the movement has millions of individual supporters with various ideas and philosophies about that. It's not like Republican or Democrat where you have an official stated platform. 

Now, are ALL of these people "not worth crap" or just some of them? On what basis are they crap... because they won't tow the party line and get behind Boehner and McConnell? Because they support Ted Cruz and like Sarah Palin? Or do they have to be "crap" because you are so wonderful and they don't see things your way?


----------



## Boss (Sep 30, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> An opinion of course is a factual error if the opiner knows it to be so.
> 
> Normally such an act is used for an illicit purpose.



I don't think you know what a "factual error" means. That's when you state something as a fact that is erroneous. An opinion is never a fact. The opinion may be based on erroneous facts or factual errors, but an opinion is just an opinion. 

Opinions can be right or wrong, but they can also be both or neither. Now if someone has an opinion that is based on factual error, the question becomes, do they know that to be so? If they know their opinion is based on erroneous information, they are liars.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 30, 2014)

Boss, a factual error expressed deliberately as an opinion is what you are doing.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Sep 30, 2014)

Boss said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. Never said that either. You are asking very strange questions. Maybe you are mistaking me for someone else.
> ...



Cool. Find one, then. Or fuck off.


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Boss, a factual error expressed deliberately as an opinion is what you are doing.



There is no such thing, idiot.  I just explained it to you. I am presenting an opinion, just like everyone else. It's not a fact, it's my opinion. If something about my opinion is based on an erroneous fact, that is YOUR job to make the case. There, there is a huge gaping leap to demonstrate I am deliberately presenting false information (lying). You've done none of this, you've just made up a new definition for an opinion, like some kind of moronic goofball.


----------



## Kimura (Oct 1, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Kimura said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



It’s definitely true that CO2 has increased in the past, especially in the glacial/interglacial periods. During this period of time, CO2 has increased and decreased by 100ppm, from roughly 180-330ppm. These increases occurred over a 400,000 year period. This was roughly 5,000-20,000 years depending on the glacial cycle.

However, with that being said, Sparky, we’ve seen an increase of 100ppm in 150 years. Click here to look at the comparison between slow glacial termination vs the industrial revolution.

When scientists analyzed the isotopes of the carbon/oxygen atoms comprising the atmospheric CO2, which is similar to carbon dating, they determined a human fingerprint of sorts. They discovered old carbon which is a result of fossil fuel deposits, then combined with newer oxygen found in the air nowadays. The present and continued combustion of hydrocarbons is definitely the source of increasing CO2 levels.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2014)

Kimura said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Kimura said:
> ...



...and yet, even after asking for years, no one has ever posted one single experiment that shows how a 120PPM increase in CO2 can raise temperature.

Why do you suppose that is?


----------



## Kimura (Oct 1, 2014)

> But there still isn't a consensus. All of those things are highly debatable. We may have information to suggest something might be true, that is not a consensus conclusion. Science doesn't form consensus or make conclusions, that's what man does with science data. Science keeps asking questions and exploring possibilities to predict probability.



There is a consensus among the scientific community no matter how much you keep saying there isn't. Sure, theories and viewpoints may differ and conflict, we're dealing with a minuscule minority. For example, if we require absolute consensus and unanimity before we're confident, we can't be sure the moon isn't made of cheese either or that the earth may indeed be flat.



> But we simply don't KNOW any of this. (a) An increase in overall global CO2 might be the result of natural phenomenon humans have no control over. (b) There is no parallel between increasing CO2 and temperature. Over the past 600 years, (c) CO2 levels have increased consistently while our average temperatures have fluctuated to extremes. The current warming trend, we are not even certain is a trend. Over the past 18 years, we've had a cooling trend.  (d) Again, CO2 levels have been steadily increasing the past 18 years and there has been a cooling trend. The most pronounced greenhouse gas is water vapor. We don't see initiatives aimed at decreasing human emissions of water vapor because it's a) not something we can practically do, and b) it doesn't give liberals a means to grab power from capitalists.



If we look at the temperatures during the 1990s, for example, you’ll see a sharp decrease in 1992, 1993 and 1994. This was the resuly of massive ejections into our stratosphere by Mount Pinatubo. It doesn’t mean that CO2 went on vacation and stopped affecting global temperatures.

This is similar to the cooling we found the 1940s and 1950s. The CO2 warming was affected by other factors, such as aerosol and other human particulates. We saw a decrease in these types of emission in the 1960s and 1970s due to improved regulations and technology, but the CO2 footprint started to increase again.



> Look, I can't debate there is a lot of money and political power behind AGW. Billions and billions of taxpayer dollars go to fund research grants, pay for studies to be done, etc. You don't find many welfare recipients who feel the government should cut social entitlements... so when you cite these institutions who happen to have an opinion favorable to continuing their gravy train, it's not surprising.



There's research being done on every country on earth by every major scientific institution and academy of science.

In science, all that matters is the balance and preponderance of evidence, and theories give us an explanation of evidence. Scientists, where applicable, make predictions and create experiments to confirm, deny or change their theories. They change theories as new information is available.

In the case of AGW, there is a theory, which was developed well over 100 years ago based of the laws of physics. It’s consistent with a plethora of data and observations. It’s supported by climate models which can successfully reproduce the climate’s behavior over the last century.



> Well, that's if nothing were working on the CO2 in nature, but CO2 is part of the natural cycle. Much of the CO2 is absorbed by plant life and the oceans, some of it dissipates out into space. The average global temperature does indeed show major spikes following every major volcanic eruption. Such eruptions in the past have plunged our planet into "years without summer" and even caused mass extinction events. But you know what DIDN'T happen? The sky didn't fall... the end never came... there was no doomsday.



But we do, I just posted why the volcano and natural warming theories you posted aren't correct. Please read over the idea, stop categorically ignoring the assembled research.

In order to identify this alleged natural cycle, a mechanism needs to be identified. If you can’t find this anomaly, there isn't a change in global energy balance. We have a changing balance, whether natural or not, so we must determine this mysterious cause.

Also, those that adopt this cyclical/natural warming explanation better come up with a reason why a 35% increase in the second most critical greenhouse goes doesn't affect global temperature in any capacity. Theory predicts that temperatures will increase given a rise in the greenhouse effect.



> Our remarkable planet is fully capable of handling any extreme. Our ecosystem is self-cleaning. More CO2 simply means more healthy and vibrant plant life. This increases oxygen levels, which is good for oxygen-breathers.



Um....no it's not.

CO2 is plant food


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2014)

Who's going to be the first to post the temperature per 10PPM of CO2 change measurements from 280 to 400?

Anyone?

What do the experiments show for a temperature drop if we drop CO2 from 400  back to 360PPM?

Anyone?

Bueller?


----------



## mamooth (Oct 1, 2014)

Frank, hush. The grownups are trying to talk.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Frank, hush. The grownups are trying to talk.



The "grown ups" could just post the experiments.  I mean, that is, if they existed and showed the vicious CO2 molecule pummeling temperature and whipping it into a frenzy with only an additional 120PPM


----------



## Boss (Oct 1, 2014)

Kimura said:


> > But there still isn't a consensus. All of those things are highly debatable. We may have information to suggest something might be true, that is not a consensus conclusion. Science doesn't form consensus or make conclusions, that's what man does with science data. Science keeps asking questions and exploring possibilities to predict probability.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a consensus among the scientific community no matter how much you keep saying there isn't. Sure, theories and viewpoints may differ and conflict, we're dealing with a minuscule minority. For example, if we require absolute consensus and unanimity before we're confident, we can't be sure the moon isn't made of cheese either or that the earth may indeed be flat.



You can continue to foolishly argue that science has defied itself by drawing a conclusion and stating a fact, or you can grow the fuck up and understand science can't ever do this because it can't. Conclusions and consensus are made by man, not science. There is no such thing as "consensus and absolute consensus" ...you either have consensus or you don't. Now you are admitting that you don't have "absolute" consensus, but that's okay somehow. 



> > But we simply don't KNOW any of this. (a) An increase in overall global CO2 might be the result of natural phenomenon humans have no control over. (b) There is no parallel between increasing CO2 and temperature. Over the past 600 years, (c) CO2 levels have increased consistently while our average temperatures have fluctuated to extremes. The current warming trend, we are not even certain is a trend. Over the past 18 years, we've had a cooling trend.  (d) Again, CO2 levels have been steadily increasing the past 18 years and there has been a cooling trend. The most pronounced greenhouse gas is water vapor. We don't see initiatives aimed at decreasing human emissions of water vapor because it's a) not something we can practically do, and b) it doesn't give liberals a means to grab power from capitalists.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, Mt. Pinatubo caused more global climate change than man has caused in the past 200 years, and the earth is still spinning on it's axis, the sun still rises every morning. All the ice didn't melt and flood coastal lands. It had no significant impact on man or the environment. 

And why in the hell are you now trying to blame aerosol on affecting CO2 levels? Aerosol was supposedly affecting the OZONE layer, not CO2. And it turned out, the ozone layer wasn't really being affected by aerosols. We had the same nutcase "scientists" bleating the same doom and gloom, insisting that government fuck capitalists in the ass over spray cans because, if we don't... oh my, oh dear, we're not going to have any more ozone layer! Everybody is going to die! So we went out there and spent billions of dollars refining new technologies, redesigning productions, trashing product, rendering less expensive processes obsolete, so that we could "save the planet" from the ozone crisis. Turns out, the ozone naturally dissipates at the poles and has always had a hole there. There was never a crisis. 



> > Look, I can't debate there is a lot of money and political power behind AGW. Billions and billions of taxpayer dollars go to fund research grants, pay for studies to be done, etc. You don't find many welfare recipients who feel the government should cut social entitlements... so when you cite these institutions who happen to have an opinion favorable to continuing their gravy train, it's not surprising.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, in science, what matters is the next question, the next test, the next observation. What does not matter to science is conclusions. What you are trying to do is say conclusions ARE part of science and if we conclude something wrongly we can change it tomorrow. But that's not a conclusion. When you conclude something, it's permanent. It means there is nothing else to add, nothing will be found tomorrow, all the facts are in, the debate is over. Conclusion have consequences. Things are changed based on the conclusion. Further evaluation doesn't happen because something has been concluded. With a conclusion, science has no role.



> In the case of AGW, there is a theory, which was developed well over 100 years ago based of the laws of physics. It’s consistent with a plethora of data and observations. It’s supported by climate models which can successfully reproduce the climate’s behavior over the last century.



Again... Global temperature has risen a whopping one degree in the last century! Whether man has contributed to that or not is irrelevant because it's such an insignificant amount. But hey... let's freak out about all kinds of things man is doing... like, we're using up fossil fuels! No more dinosaurs are dying, so eventually it will be all gone. That's going to happen long before capitalists melt the North Pole. Population growth is booming due to medicines enabling man to live longer, eventually we will run out of room to put people... all the statistics show an increase in population every stinking year. We can't wait until the stack up on each other because some of the land has to be used to produce resources for the population, so the overcrowding will happen abruptly as we discover there is no longer enough land to sustain our needs. What's being done about that? It will be a problem long before you see Manhattan sink into the Hudson.  



> > Well, that's if nothing were working on the CO2 in nature, but CO2 is part of the natural cycle. Much of the CO2 is absorbed by plant life and the oceans, some of it dissipates out into space. The average global temperature does indeed show major spikes following every major volcanic eruption. Such eruptions in the past have plunged our planet into "years without summer" and even caused mass extinction events. But you know what DIDN'T happen? The sky didn't fall... the end never came... there was no doomsday.
> 
> 
> 
> But we do, I just posted why the volcano and natural warming theories you posted aren't correct. Please read over the idea, stop categorically ignoring the assembled research.



Again... Volcanoes change our climate dramatically and abruptly. Your data confirms that, and shows 3 years of climate change which happened due to a volcano. Now in this case the temperatures cooled but that is because a volcano releases ash which blocks the sun. Our factories and stuff aren't producing much ash and debris anymore, so the release of CO2 doesn't block the sun. If the warmness gets to be too bad, maybe capitalists can come up with some "healthy" way to release smog and cause global cooling to happen? //tongueincheek



> In order to identify this alleged natural cycle, a mechanism needs to be identified. If you can’t find this anomaly, there isn't a change in global energy balance. We have a changing balance, whether natural or not, so we must determine this mysterious cause.
> 
> Also, those that adopt this cyclical/natural warming explanation better come up with a reason why a 35% increase in the second most critical greenhouse goes doesn't affect global temperature in any capacity. Theory predicts that temperatures will increase given a rise in the greenhouse effect.



There is not an "alleged natural cycle" any more than there is an "alleged planet" or an "alleged nature." We have a planet, we have nature, and we have natural cycles of the planet's nature. We constantly have changing energy balances, day in an day out. In fact, I bet there are not two days in the history of the planet where energy balances were the same across the board. Things are in a constant state of change. That's one of the remarkable aspects of our miraculous planet. 

The "Greenhouse Effect" is a good thing. Without it, there would be no life on Earth and we'd be like Mars. Okay, here's an idea, let's send capitalists to Mars and let them "pollute" the atmosphere with CO2, so Mars can get some greenhouse effect going? Then we'll send you warmers to Mars to tell the Martians how they need to do something about global warming! 



> > Our remarkable planet is fully capable of handling any extreme. Our ecosystem is self-cleaning. More CO2 simply means more healthy and vibrant plant life. This increases oxygen levels, which is good for oxygen-breathers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Blah Blah Blah... more of the same tripe. Your little blog post about CO2 being plant food is totally hilarious. A great example of spinning the PR in your favor. Basically it says, yeah... okay, so CO2 is plant food and they do thrive on it, BUT... conditions have to be right and they won't be if we don't solve global warming! LOL


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 1, 2014)

The Republican Party began to go to hell when they began to discover that they could effectively ignore minorities and women and labor and gays, and various other groups,

and still prosper politically by putting together a mostly white mostly Christian conservative coalition.


----------



## RKMBrown (Oct 1, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Republican Party began to go to hell when they began to discover that they could effectively ignore minorities and women and labor and gays, and various other groups,
> 
> and still prosper politically by putting together a mostly white mostly Christian conservative coalition.


bullshit you POS racist ass


----------



## mamooth (Oct 2, 2014)

Boss said:


> You can continue to foolishly argue that science has defied itself by drawing a conclusion and stating a fact, or you can grow the fuck up and understand science can't ever do this because it can't.



According to your very peculiar way of defining things, since that there is no absolute consensus that the earth is round, we therefore don't know for certain the earth is round. That's why nobody pays attention to your very peculiar way of defining things.



> Yes, Mt. Pinatubo caused more global climate change than man has caused in the past 200 years,



You're still badly detached from reality on the topic of volcanoes.



> And why in the hell are you now trying to blame aerosol on affecting CO2 levels? Aerosol was supposedly affecting the OZONE layer, not CO2.



That's funny. You clearly have no idea what "aerosol" means. You seem to think a can of hairspray represents "aerosols".



> And it turned out, the ozone layer wasn't really being affected by aerosols.



Yes, yes, your fringe political cult has a whole pack of realty-defying conspiracy theories which the cultists are commanded to parrot. Global warming denial is one, ozone depletion theory denial is another. I'm sure you'll also tell us how DDT is harmless, since that's another required cult belief.



> Again... Global temperature has risen a whopping one degree in the last century! Whether man has contributed to that or not is irrelevant because it's such an insignificant amount.



Let me introduce you to a concept called "the future". Those possessing common sense will try to prevent bad things from happening in the future. Those without common sense will jump off a building and say, as they're going down "No problems yet!".



> But hey... let's freak out about all kinds of things man is doing...



You're implying that addressing one problem makes it impossible to address any other problems. That's another failure of logic and common sense on your part.



> There is not an "alleged natural cycle" any more than there is an "alleged planet" or an "alleged nature." We have a planet, we have nature, and we have natural cycles of the planet's nature.



Now you're waving your hands about madly as you fling out red herrings.

Natural cycles have causes. We know what those causes are. Those natural cycles are now trying to force earth into a slow cooldown. Instead, we're seeing fast warming, because humans are overriding those natural cycles.

We measure the changing heat balance of the earth. We measure outgoing IR radiation squeezing down in the greenhouse gas absorption bands. We measure downward IR backradiation going up. Those are smoking guns. Global warming theory explains such observations perfectly, and is the only theory that explains it. If you have a "natural cause" that explains it, I suggest you publish and collect your Nobel Prize.



> We constantly have changing energy balances, day in an day out. In fact, I bet there are not two days in the history of the planet where energy balances were the same across the board. Things are in a constant state of change. That's one of the remarkable aspects of our miraculous planet



"I refuse to believe people are smart enough to measure and understand these things!" fallacy. You refusing to believe it doesn't change anything.



> The "Greenhouse Effect" is a good thing. Without it, there would be no life on Earth and we'd be like Mars. Okay, here's an idea, let's send capitalists to Mars and let them "pollute" the atmosphere with CO2, so Mars can get some greenhouse effect going? Then we'll send you warmers to Mars to tell the Martians how they need to do something about global warming!



And a wish to banish your political enemies, check. There's a definite streak of Stalinism present in your cult.


----------

