Global Warming Pie Chart

[JoeNormal]

Yes, your methods are so successful, you mandate that MTBE be added to gasoline to combat air pollution ignoring the experts from the sceptical side that warned you the consequences of that would be severe.

We were proven correct as thousands of water wells were polluted throughout California.

A classic example of "crisis mismanagement" which you all do on a regular basis.

I'll bet I can come up with a counter example for every similar criticism you have.

I remember all the pissing and moaning back in the 70's about cars having to meet more stringent emissions standards. The cars don't run right, gotta use unleaded gas, GD government mandating to the car companies... And I also remember the super crappy air we all had to breathe. There was a winter with 60 straight days of pea soup fog inversion. Now, with about 3 or 4 times the population, the air is much better than it was back then.

And I was one of those fighting for better air. What I do NOT condone is ignorant people mandating regulations that cause more harm than the problem they are trying to fix.

Do you understand that?

For truly catastrophic regulations like that and actions that have likewise caused massive destruction you look at the radical environmentalists because they don't care about the outcome, they only care about the perception they are doing something great.

The Kaibab Plateau disaster is another example of environmentalism run amock because they just couldn't be bothered to educate themselves on the issue.

Ok, maybe we're getting somewhere then. Before, it sounded to me like the point you were trying to make was that well intentioned regulations invariably lead to disaster.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's not what you said earlier, you said:

Sooo, now you are for things that maybe, might or possibly could?

Right, testing, researching and theorizing...All which you are against. Or now you're for it. or Both...yeah

no but Cool story

Did Edison try 52 times? Because earlier you said 52 failures and 2 success meant they should stop trying. btw cool story

Correct as long as its not more than 52 times.

Cool story, now we are on the same page. It's take more than a few times to find a solution but your premise is that these Envionmental Scienctist are doing the same things an infinite number of times without switching their technique. Did Gary Goodman tell you that or did you just make it up?



Ahhh, want to know why? Because they sold those things for profit. Which is very different. They invested in something that would bring a return. The only return in a cleaner planet is...a cleaner planet. Unless you sell the planet.

Paragraphs aside, do you support testing, researching and theorizing now or do you not support it like you said earlier? Both is not an answer btw

I never ever said I did not support testing, research, or theorizing and I would challenge you to find any post anywhere on the internet where I even suggested that I did not support testing, research, or theorizing.

Actually you did, I'll post it again for you:



Now that's the 2nd time I posted it. See it now?



Ahh you just made a statement of fact without reference. Link or you made it up?



Lets not, profits aren't bad and if someone profits from developing good science why are you in their pockets or mad about it. No matter why you are, it doesn't matter

But Edison didn't demand that storage and transmission facilities be built to supply electric lighting while he was in the process of finding out whether such a thing was feasible. He wasn't demanding that the less efficient and more dangerous gas and kerosene lighting be phased out because there might be electric lighting available in the future. And he wasn't demanding that the local or state or federal governments make policy toward that end or pay him money to do his research.

Why do you always talk about what didn't happen. Yeah, I know, what about it?

Edison was by no means the only one working on a viable incandescent electric light bulb, but he was the first to get to the patent office with a working model. The tumultous history of the development of the electric lighting industry is interesting and spans several decades with many others getting into the act. But in the process they changed the world forever.

Important​

Their efforts didn't cost anbody a dime other than themselves.

And they didn't ask a single soul to give up a single kerosene lantern or wax candle or gas light in the entire process. They produced a better product that people recognized as superior to what they had and were willing to pay to have it.

And THAT is difference between research, theory, and experimentation to accomplish a specific purpose and that which is designed to control and order the people without providing them a product they want or need or that has demonstrated that it has any necessary benefit.

Do you know what impact a cleaner earth has as compared to a light bulb? For you to compare the two is ridiculous. You cant live on a light bulb. Ecosystems don't live on light bulbs. I mean, be serious and talk about science and Global Warming / Climate Change and how we are supposed to find answers without research. I only posted you saying so 3 times already, I figured you would address the first time but you keep on with Light bulbs and stuff

Perhaps if you took time to read what I have posted, you would see that my quarrel with the whole AGW schtick is that the religionist, opportunistic politicians, and profiteers are taking away OUR liberties, choices, options, and opportunities based on UMPROVEN scientific theories, and they are forcing laws, taxes, policy, and debt on us to accomplish their motives without giving us anything verifiably valuable in return.

And people like you keep posting the same flawed graphs and charts and bogus 'scientific consensus' to avoid looking at whether the AGW science might be flawed or be causing far more harm than anything positive that is likely to be accomplished.

THAT is the difference between AGW research, experimentation, and theories done on the backs of the unwilling, as opposed to that done by people who just want to find out if something can be done and don't do it on the back of the free people and taxpayers.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I never ever said I did not support testing, research, or theorizing and I would challenge you to find any post anywhere on the internet where I even suggested that I did not support testing, research, or theorizing.

Actually you did, I'll post it again for you:



Now that's the 2nd time I posted it. See it now?



Ahh you just made a statement of fact without reference. Link or you made it up?



Lets not, profits aren't bad and if someone profits from developing good science why are you in their pockets or mad about it. No matter why you are, it doesn't matter




Why do you always talk about what didn't happen. Yeah, I know, what about it?

Edison was by no means the only one working on a viable incandescent electric light bulb, but he was the first to get to the patent office with a working model. The tumultous history of the development of the electric lighting industry is interesting and spans several decades with many others getting into the act. But in the process they changed the world forever.

Important​

Their efforts didn't cost anbody a dime other than themselves.

And they didn't ask a single soul to give up a single kerosene lantern or wax candle or gas light in the entire process. They produced a better product that people recognized as superior to what they had and were willing to pay to have it.

And THAT is difference between research, theory, and experimentation to accomplish a specific purpose and that which is designed to control and order the people without providing them a product they want or need or that has demonstrated that it has any necessary benefit.

Do you know what impact a cleaner earth has as compared to a light bulb? For you to compare the two is ridiculous. You cant live on a light bulb. Ecosystems don't live on light bulbs. I mean, be serious and talk about science and Global Warming / Climate Change and how we are supposed to find answers without research. I only posted you saying so 3 times already, I figured you would address the first time but you keep on with Light bulbs and stuff

Perhaps if you took time to read what I have posted, you would see that my quarrel with the whole AGW schtick is that the religionist, opportunistic politicians, and profiteers are taking away OUR liberties, choices, options, and opportunities based on UMPROVEN scientific theories, and they are forcing laws, taxes, policy, and debt on us to accomplish their motives without giving us anything verifiably valuable in return.

And with research, testing, theorizing, profits, investments, motives, power, Obama etc etc..

And people like you keep posting the same flawed graphs and charts and bogus 'scientific consensus' to avoid looking at whether the AGW science might be flawed or be causing far more harm than anything positive that is likely to be accomplished.

I posted no graph but I did post 3 times a question that you ignored 3 times

THAT is the difference between AGW research, experimentation, and theories done on the backs of the unwilling, as opposed to that done by people who just want to find out if something can be done and don't do it on the back of the free people and taxpayers.

Like I keep saying there is NO PROFIT in a cleaner planet. So I'll ask you again and again, who is supposed to pay for this cleaner planet if it doesn't turn a profit? And how is a light bulb like the planet earth?

 

[Foxfyre]

No profit in a cleaner planet CC? That's probably news to G.E. who is making billions off of Obama and others' green energy policies and who stands to make mega millions more if Obama is able to get his cap and trade policy through. But I won't bother to list all the others who are making huge amounts of money, many at tax payer expense, to pay homage to the great gods of AGW environmentalism.

And I'm not going to bother repeating what has become a completely tiresome and circular argument. You won't acknowledge or represent my arguments honestly and you keep repeating the same weary phrases that you cannot support with any objective source. And there's something to be said for the old maxim that only an idiot argues with. . . .

And I really don't enjoy these cut apart quotations and rebuttal, except on a very limited basis, because it too often distorts the whole message of the member quoted.

If you have something constructive or different to offer I'll be back.

 

[ClosedCaption]

No profit in a green world CC? That's probably news to G.E. who is making billions off of Obama and others' green energy policies and who stands to make mega millions more if Obama is able to get his cap and trade policy through. But I won't bother to list all the others who are making huge amounts of money, many at tax payer expense, to pay homage to the great gods of AGW environmentalism.

And I'm not going to bother repeating what has become a completely tiresome and circular argument. You won't acknowledge or represent my arguments honestly and you keep repeating the same weary phrases that you cannot support with any objective source. And there's something to be said for the old maxim that only an idiot argues with. . . .

And I really don't enjoy these cut apart quotations and rebuttal, except on a very limited basis, because it too often distorts the whole message of the member quoted.

If you have something constructive or different to offer I'll be back.

No profit in cleaning the earth. No....Profit in selling greener technologies to individuals. Sure. There is a difference tho. GE isn't going to clean the Potomac. Work to reduce smog? So who should do that?

Geez could I get a link to anything you've posted? Answer: No
Can you explain how you can find answers without theories and research? Answer: No
Can you explain how you know that scientists are doing the same thing over and over without innovating? Answer: No

Yet, these are all things you have claimed

 

[Foxfyre]

No profit in a green world CC? That's probably news to G.E. who is making billions off of Obama and others' green energy policies and who stands to make mega millions more if Obama is able to get his cap and trade policy through. But I won't bother to list all the others who are making huge amounts of money, many at tax payer expense, to pay homage to the great gods of AGW environmentalism.

And I'm not going to bother repeating what has become a completely tiresome and circular argument. You won't acknowledge or represent my arguments honestly and you keep repeating the same weary phrases that you cannot support with any objective source. And there's something to be said for the old maxim that only an idiot argues with. . . .

And I really don't enjoy these cut apart quotations and rebuttal, except on a very limited basis, because it too often distorts the whole message of the member quoted.

If you have something constructive or different to offer I'll be back.

Geez could I get a link to anything you've posted? Answer: No
Can you explain how you can find answers without theories and research? Answer: No
Can you explain how you know that scientists are doing the same thing over and over without innovating? Answer: No

Yet, these are all things you have claimed

I have not claimed a single one of those things. And I have posted quite a few links. But I accept that your reading comprehension doesn't allow you to see things the way they are, or understand things the way they are written. And it is your nature to assume things of people that they haven't said. And to accuse them of what they have not said. Which is what makes trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, extremely difficult.

 

[Freemason9]

The AGW Hypothesis Proven False Per Latest Data: Climate Sensitivity To CO2 Emissions Likely Very Low

A high climate sensitivity to growing human CO2 emissions is absolutely essential to the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW or AGW) hypothesis - the climate empirical evidence refutes the high sensitivity claim though.

In climate science reality, the actual global temperature observations over the last 15 years do not support the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis.

Central to the CAGW hypothesis is that increasing human CO2 emissions will raise atmospheric levels of this greenhouse gas. Subsequent to the atmospheric CO2 increase, global warming will automatically and consistently increase.

Once the globe starts warming, the AGW hypothesis states that a high climate sensitivity to CO2 will initiate a dangerous positive feedback loop: the rising temperatures will increase water evaporation; the powerful atmospheric greenhouse gas water vapor will then increase; then global temperatures will increase even more, the melting of ice sheets occurs; thus, less solar energy will be reflected into space; and global temperatures will then increase even more; and etc., etc.


This powerful and relentless positive feedback loop will produce unequivocal, robust, significant, unprecedented, irrefutable, rapid and accelerating global warming. At least that is what every "expert" climate model based on the CAGW hypothesis predicted.


But did the above prediction/scenario/forecast happen? Nope, not even close. In fact, the opposite happened.


The adjacent chart depicts the last 30 years of increasing CO2 levels and global temperature trends. This actual climate evidence is sliced into two time periods: the 15 years ending July 1997 and the 15 years ending July 2012. The real world evidence reveals the following:

C3: The AGW Hypothesis Proven False Per Latest Data: Climate Sensitivity To CO2 Emissions Likely Very Low

I don't see an author for the article you cited, Screaming Eagle. Also, it looks like something that someone just "made up," because I see no verifiable citations or references. It looks like a work of fiction--but that's the Internet. Anyone can write any damned thing, and it's up to the reader to have enough sense to verify.

 

[ClosedCaption]

No profit in a green world CC? That's probably news to G.E. who is making billions off of Obama and others' green energy policies and who stands to make mega millions more if Obama is able to get his cap and trade policy through. But I won't bother to list all the others who are making huge amounts of money, many at tax payer expense, to pay homage to the great gods of AGW environmentalism.

And I'm not going to bother repeating what has become a completely tiresome and circular argument. You won't acknowledge or represent my arguments honestly and you keep repeating the same weary phrases that you cannot support with any objective source. And there's something to be said for the old maxim that only an idiot argues with. . . .

And I really don't enjoy these cut apart quotations and rebuttal, except on a very limited basis, because it too often distorts the whole message of the member quoted.

If you have something constructive or different to offer I'll be back.

Geez could I get a link to anything you've posted? Answer: No
Can you explain how you can find answers without theories and research? Answer: No
Can you explain how you know that scientists are doing the same thing over and over without innovating? Answer: No

Yet, these are all things you have claimed

I have not claimed a single one of those things. And I have posted quite a few links. But I accept that your reading comprehension doesn't allow you to see things the way they are, or understand things the way they are written. And it is your nature to assume things of people that they haven't said. And to accuse them of what they have not said. Which is what makes trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, extremely difficult.

I've only asked you to explain to little ol me the exact thing you typed 4 times and you keep ignoring it. Maybe its because you don't have the time to explain...except that couldn't be true because you're responding to me.
What else could be the reason why you have ignored my question 4 times?

 

[ClosedCaption]

@ West...

If you're going to accuse me of lying or taking things out of context please show me where. I already know you're going to respond with something like "I don't have the time" "I said it so it's true" or "its a secret".

I dare you to show where I took anyones comments out of context. You are Fox accuse without facts.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The AGW Hypothesis Proven False Per Latest Data: Climate Sensitivity To CO2 Emissions Likely Very Low

A high climate sensitivity to growing human CO2 emissions is absolutely essential to the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW or AGW) hypothesis - the climate empirical evidence refutes the high sensitivity claim though.

In climate science reality, the actual global temperature observations over the last 15 years do not support the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis.

Central to the CAGW hypothesis is that increasing human CO2 emissions will raise atmospheric levels of this greenhouse gas. Subsequent to the atmospheric CO2 increase, global warming will automatically and consistently increase.

Once the globe starts warming, the AGW hypothesis states that a high climate sensitivity to CO2 will initiate a dangerous positive feedback loop: the rising temperatures will increase water evaporation; the powerful atmospheric greenhouse gas water vapor will then increase; then global temperatures will increase even more, the melting of ice sheets occurs; thus, less solar energy will be reflected into space; and global temperatures will then increase even more; and etc., etc.


This powerful and relentless positive feedback loop will produce unequivocal, robust, significant, unprecedented, irrefutable, rapid and accelerating global warming. At least that is what every "expert" climate model based on the CAGW hypothesis predicted.


But did the above prediction/scenario/forecast happen? Nope, not even close. In fact, the opposite happened.


The adjacent chart depicts the last 30 years of increasing CO2 levels and global temperature trends. This actual climate evidence is sliced into two time periods: the 15 years ending July 1997 and the 15 years ending July 2012. The real world evidence reveals the following:

C3: The AGW Hypothesis Proven False Per Latest Data: Climate Sensitivity To CO2 Emissions Likely Very Low

I don't see an author for the article you cited, Screaming Eagle. Also, it looks like something that someone just "made up," because I see no verifiable citations or references. It looks like a work of fiction--but that's the Internet. Anyone can write any damned thing, and it's up to the reader to have enough sense to verify.

the publisher/editor of the charts appears to be C3 Headlines which evidently gets the temp data for their charts from HadCRUT...which "is the dataset of monthly instrumental temperature records formed by combining the sea surface temperature records compiled by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the land surface air temperature records compiled by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia.[1]

The data is provided on a grid of boxes covering the globe, with values provided for only those boxes containing temperature observations in a particular month and year. Interpolation is not applied to infill missing values. The first version of HadCRUT initially spanned the period 1881–1993, and this was later extended to begin in 1850 and to be regularly updated to the current year/month in near real-time."

HadCRUT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


another C3 chart that shows the temps going down vs co2 rise...8/97-7/12

HadCRUT released their latest global temperature dataset today, which confirmed what both NOAA and NASA reported earlier this month - that global temps declined during July 2012.

In addition, the plot of the HadCRUT and CO2 data for the last 15 years, through July 2012, is very revealing.

Contrary to what the mainstream press reports and exaggerates about "global warming," the world has actually been in a stable-to-cooling phase since the El Nino temperature spike of 1997/98.

Of course, if the NYTimes or WAPO or CNN or CBS or the AP were ever to report the actual cooling trend over the last 15 years (despite the massive amounts of human CO2 emissions) this would establish that they have been grossly misleading the public for years about consensus "global warming."

And as the press fully realize, the public that primarily relies on traditional media outlets are extremely gullible with little intellectual curiosity. Thus the media gets away with hysterical fear-mongering, half-truths and deceptions.

C3: New HadCRUT Data Indicate Huge CO2 Emissions Have Little Impact On Last 15 Years of Global Cooling

 

[Freemason9]

AHEM.

As was noted in a discussion on this whole BS matter of HadCRUT data, it was highly manipulated ("adjusted," in the rhetoric of statisticians). Much like Gallop polling was "adjusted" in the last election to give Republicans what they wanted.

The discussion alleges 15 years of absence of warming from ENSO- adjusted data sets, NOT 15 years of absence of warming from raw temperature measurements. Many right wingers have embraced this and have presented it as representing fact, but that just plain wrong. Look at the website drroyspencer.com to see that there clearly has been warming in the ENSO-adjusted data set.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

AHEM.

As was noted in a discussion on this whole BS matter of HadCRUT data, it was highly manipulated ("adjusted," in the rhetoric of statisticians). Much like Gallop polling was "adjusted" in the last election to give Republicans what they wanted.

The discussion alleges 15 years of absence of warming from ENSO- adjusted data sets, NOT 15 years of absence of warming from raw temperature measurements. Many right wingers have embraced this and have presented it as representing fact, but that just plain wrong. Look at the website drroyspencer.com to see that there clearly has been warming in the ENSO-adjusted data set.

The latest incarnation of the CRUTEM land surface temperatures and the HadCRUT global temperatures are out this week. This is the 4th version of these products, which have undergone a number of significant changes over that time and so this is a good opportunity to discuss how and why data products evolve and what that means in the bigger scheme of things.

RealClimate: Updating the CRU and HadCRUT temperature data

 

[Foxfyre]

Absolutely! There must also be those who are willing to speak up on behalf of those that can't speak for themselves AKA silvery minnows. A compromise was reached between chicken factory farmers and those who wanted humane living conditions for the chickens when it was pointed out that larger cages resulted in healthier chickens. By reducing overcrowding the need to spend a fortune on antibiotics ever year was eliminated thus saving the farmers more than the one time cost to increase the size of the cages. Compromises are how we function as a society. Compromises need to be made with the ecosystem too since it is the only one your God gave us, right?

Certainly we need to make compromises that disrupt the natural ecology as little as possible. So long as it is recognized that humankind is also part of the ecology and what humans do is natural to them too. And humankind doing what comes naturally, even when it changes things, is not automatically a bad thing.

As a teenager I often walked along the base of the northern Sandias when we drove over here from Santa Fe. There were some areas we kids liked to hang out in. There was little there though other than bare dirt, rock, cactus, yucca, a few fern and rabbit bushes, and few other plants barely clinging to life. Aesthetically it was pretty grim.

Well humans have pretty well moved into that entire area now. All the trash and debris that had been carelessly dumped there is all cleaned up and there are lovely homes, elegant landscaping, artistic sculpted walls and terraces that blend in beautifully with the natural surroundings and have transformed a rather non descript desert into a place of beauty. The road runners enjoy running along the walls instead of the boring dirt paths now, the rock squirrels thrive, the coyotes still yip at night. It's all very harmonious.

But yeah, getting the building permits past the environmentalists who thought the desert should remain pristine wasn't easy to accomplish that.

The point is, if there is natural global warming, then lets focus on helping folks adapt to it. If humans are causing global warming, lets don't throw out the baby with the bath water while we seek remedies for that. And if we humans are having neglibible effect on climate change or are in fact improving where we live, then there's nothing at all to be done but let humans live and let live.

Yeah, humans have been moving into a whole bunch of new areas, thereby driving off the indigenous life forms in one way or another. And if they don't leave, we exterminate them in order to make room for our homes, our lawns, our roads, our stores, our farms, our businesses, etc.

I failed to respond to this. In a previous post, however, I provided some real life illustrations where humans moving into the area have not bothered the wildlife in the least and in some cases seem to have improved the habitat. Everything is relative. You get too many rabbits, and there is less food for other critters. You get too many deer, and none thrive well.

But yes, humans displace other earth creatures when we do what we do. Just as species have always displaced species throughout the anals of time. Birds, reptiles, and mammals migrate with changing climates and habitats. Beavers dam streams that displace countless other creatures and insects, but produces a pool that other creatures enjoy. If the bear destroys the beehive and it moves elsewhere, there may be insufficient pollination for the berry bushes and other plants that other creatures need, and they have to go elsewhere to find them. If lightning ignites a dry forest, thousands of creatures perish or must find new homes. Such is the way of nature.

But of all the creatures on Earth, the ONLY ones that even care what happens to any others are humans. The ONLY ones that intentionally go out of their way to protect, preserve, and encourage any species other than themselves are humans. And it seems wrong to think that what humans do as humans is any less natural than what any other species do.

And the fact is, most homeowners like knowing that a rare creature live on their property; most ranchers LIKE having a rare species hanging around - UNLESS - the government mandates that they can't use their property as intended because of the presence of the rare creature. That provides great motivation for the land owner to get rid of the rare creature before the government finds out it is there. But somehow, the environmentalists have never quite figured out that simple fact.

 

[westwall]

Of course we support testing. However I find it amusing that you equate Edison trying something 52 times with the abject failure of the "green" programs that Obama funded.

I didn't...Fox Fyre did and said since out of 52 times there were only 2 success' then it's not worth it because...the earth is...like a light bulb? Or something

The amount of resources committed for instance is orders of magnitude greater in the failures today. When one of Edisons guys failed in an experiment it cost a few hundred dollars and time.

Uh yeah, know why....Because it was a fucking light bulb not the Manhatten project

The projects that Foxfyre mentioned resulted in the squandering of billions that could have gone to projects that had a much higher chance of succeeding.

According to...? Btw Monday Morning Quarterbacking is different than playing the game. could things have been better? Sure...Was it a total loss? Nope, even Fox said there has been 2 in the win column. I bet you're going to say 3 would be better, right?

The one overiding reality is that all of the companies that got money were owned by "friends of Obama" save in one case.

That is called corruption my friend.

Friends how? And were they scientists doing science? Or not? statements of fact require proof...remember that

When it's my tax dollars at work I want it invested in something that has a CHANCE to work. Solyndra is the tip of the iceberg. It had NO chance to work. The other companies that got money for the most part also had NO CHANCE to work.

Do you get it yet?


"Crony Capitalism: With the election still more than eight months away, is it too soon to ask if the president can be re-elected with the green baggage piling up around him? Right now, that pile is deep — and getting deeper.

Obama's green energy scandal is more than Solyndra, the failed solar panel maker that squandered $535 million of Obama stimulus cash and hosted the president for a propaganda visit. It's a series of green-energy companies failing despite the administration's ceaseless promotion of the industry and the unseemly White House ties that run throughout.

While the legacy media often shills for Democrats, sometimes an outlet surprises us, as the Washington Post did with this week's story outlining the shady Obama links to the clean-energy industry and implying the administration has engaged in first-class corruption.

Post reporters, for instance, "found that $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers."


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: Obama's Growing Green Energy Scandal Is More Than Just The Failure Of Solyndra - Investors.com
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

 

[westwall]

@ West...

If you're going to accuse me of lying or taking things out of context please show me where. I already know you're going to respond with something like "I don't have the time" "I said it so it's true" or "its a secret".

I dare you to show where I took anyones comments out of context. You are Fox accuse without facts.

You took Foxfyres comments out off context quite clearly (and are continuing to do so) like some two bit lawyer trying to parse the meaning of "is".

 

[ClosedCaption]

@ West...

If you're going to accuse me of lying or taking things out of context please show me where. I already know you're going to respond with something like "I don't have the time" "I said it so it's true" or "its a secret".

I dare you to show where I took anyones comments out of context. You are Fox accuse without facts.

You took Foxfyres comments out off context quite clearly (and are continuing to do so) like some two bit lawyer trying to parse the meaning of "is".

Ahh, so you did opt to go with the 2nd option..."I said it, so it's true"

Predictable

 

[ClosedCaption]

When it's my tax dollars at work I want it invested in something that has a CHANCE to work. Solyndra is the tip of the iceberg. It had NO chance to work. The other companies that got money for the most part also had NO CHANCE to work.

Do you get it yet?


"Crony Capitalism: With the election still more than eight months away, is it too soon to ask if the president can be re-elected with the green baggage piling up around him? Right now, that pile is deep — and getting deeper.

Obama's green energy scandal is more than Solyndra, the failed solar panel maker that squandered $535 million of Obama stimulus cash and hosted the president for a propaganda visit. It's a series of green-energy companies failing despite the administration's ceaseless promotion of the industry and the unseemly White House ties that run throughout.

While the legacy media often shills for Democrats, sometimes an outlet surprises us, as the Washington Post did with this week's story outlining the shady Obama links to the clean-energy industry and implying the administration has engaged in first-class corruption.

Post reporters, for instance, "found that $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers."


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: Obama's Growing Green Energy Scandal Is More Than Just The Failure Of Solyndra - Investors.com
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Oh so you were Pro Global Warming / Climate Change before Obama and his crony capitalism?

 

[Foxfyre]

Geez could I get a link to anything you've posted? Answer: No
Can you explain how you can find answers without theories and research? Answer: No
Can you explain how you know that scientists are doing the same thing over and over without innovating? Answer: No

Yet, these are all things you have claimed

I have not claimed a single one of those things. And I have posted quite a few links. But I accept that your reading comprehension doesn't allow you to see things the way they are, or understand things the way they are written. And it is your nature to assume things of people that they haven't said. And to accuse them of what they have not said. Which is what makes trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, extremely difficult.

I've only asked you to explain to little ol me the exact thing you typed 4 times and you keep ignoring it. Maybe its because you don't have the time to explain...except that couldn't be true because you're responding to me.
What else could be the reason why you have ignored my question 4 times?

I answered you. You just didn't like the answer.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Actually, that's the opposite of what happened

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually, that's the opposite of what happened

I don't thnk so. And I'm pretty damn sure you can't provide any quotations, in context, by me that would say so.