Republican Policy: DENY Human Contribution To Climate Change

[martybegan]

.
It is Republican Party’s duty to serve the needs of Big Business of every sort, and has been for decades. Big Oil companies are major political contributors, and therefore must be given the very best service available from the GOP.

To this end, Republican politicians must, MUST, deny all evidence of human causes related to global warming, and MUST instill this denial in their conservative voter base.

FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the corporate puppets tasked with brainwashing the simple-minded conservatives have done their job well, which might not be such good news for Limbaugh’s audience in Florida in the coming days.

On his Monday radio show Limbaugh implied hurricane warnings were overblown as part of the liberal conspiracy to convince the public climate change is real. Limbaugh stated he wanted to, “remind everybody that there are people throughout levels of government that believe in climate change, it’s an emotional issue,and they look at for any evidence they can to prove it.”

Limbaugh has always been one of the GOP’s head cheerleaders in their campaign to promote climate change denial.

The Big Orange Idiot knew jumping on the Republicans‘ “climate change denial bandwagon”, as part of his presidential campaign to woo the mindless conservatives would be successful. Big Orange, like everyone else, knows it is a long tradition among conservatives to deny all facts they find contrary to their needs and beliefs. Climate change is high on their list of issues that must be denied.

Due to their consistent denial and blind faith in conservative and Republican snake oil, Limbaugh’s listeners in Florida will be betting their lives on Limbaugh’s lies if they refuse to evacuate from Hurricane Irma’s path.

Unfortunately, there will be no data collected that shows how many conservatives, who chose to take Limbaugh seriously and ride out Irma’s winds and storm surge, died due to this foolish decision.

Of course, if data were collected and proved these people died needlessly, conservatives would immediately follow Limbaugh’s orders to deny it.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/hurricane-scientists-have-never-seen-an-image-like-this-before/ar-AArtxSw?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

http://www.newsweek.com/irma-hurricane-limbaugh-climate-change-liberal-conspiracy-trump-deep-state-659890

https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2017/09/06/rush-limbaugh-thinks-irma-warnings-are-exaggerated-for-climate-change-agenda


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________


View attachment 148107 View attachment 148108

Conservatives have become easier and easier to fool as each year passes. The Big Orange Idiot's presidency is proof.



.

Tell ya what snowflake, if you have all this science behind you then you should be able to tell us exactly what percent of climate change can be attributed to man.

Excuses to begin in 5-------------------4-----------------------3------------------2-----------------

Or you can admit the have no fucking clue.


.

Sweet heart....when we have the resources to have clean air and clean energy why can't let go of the pollution? not far ago having asthma was very rare, now every other kid has asthma, eczema and tons for respiratory problems.

We're getting less than 13.5% of our energy from renewables and that's only if you count the hydroelectric sources that have been in operation for decades. Wind and solar aren't practical for the majority of the country. The most practical solution is nuclear, but the environazis won't have that.


.

Well to be fair, Fusion would solve everything, but it has been "50 years away" for the last 50 years or so....

They still keep trying though.

The improbable dream.


.

It looks more and more like that each passing year, however that's what people used to say about flight.

The hardest part is containment while maintaining enough temperature and pressure to sustain ignition.

 

[OKTexas]

Tell ya what snowflake, if you have all this science behind you then you should be able to tell us exactly what percent of climate change can be attributed to man.

Excuses to begin in 5-------------------4-----------------------3------------------2-----------------

Or you can admit the have no fucking clue.


.

Sweet heart....when we have the resources to have clean air and clean energy why can't let go of the pollution? not far ago having asthma was very rare, now every other kid has asthma, eczema and tons for respiratory problems.

We're getting less than 13.5% of our energy from renewables and that's only if you count the hydroelectric sources that have been in operation for decades. Wind and solar aren't practical for the majority of the country. The most practical solution is nuclear, but the environazis won't have that.


.

Well to be fair, Fusion would solve everything, but it has been "50 years away" for the last 50 years or so....

They still keep trying though.

The improbable dream.


.

It looks more and more like that each passing year, however that's what people used to say about flight.

The hardest part is containment while maintaining enough temperature and pressure to sustain ignition.

Yep, that's why I used improbable instead of impossible.


.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't deny a human contribution. I just don't know how much it is. Since you are expert could you enlighten us Bert?

WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF HUMAN CONTRIBUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE?

You need only respond with a number. Please spare us your riveting dialogue.

Just about 100%. As long as we are talking about the warming. You see, the climate was changing, and has been for a couple of thousand years. It was cooling, just as it should have been by the Milankovic Cycles. The rapid warming that we are experiencing is entirely due to the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs. The sun is presently is a minor low TSI, so even by the solar energy, we should be cooling.

Quite frankly you're wrong. The earth has not been cooling for thousands of years. The 1200s are believed to have been warmer than present. From around 1300 to 1800 there was what is referred to as a mini ice age. Following was a consistent warming until 1940, with small variations along the way. In 1940 there was a cooling period until around 1970. Since then there has been a gradual warming. Also we are not in a solar minimum, we are just entering a solar minimum.

Do you realize that there are 4 ways in which they collect global temp data. The one that is considered the least reliable are ground stations, ground stations are used almost exclusively by the GW community. The other three say we have basically been in a holding pattern since 1998.

It amazes me that anyone could say that all of this is settled science. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Climate sciences are in their infancy.

The biggest fight I see now is between the GW community and physicists and planetary scientists. The physicists and planetary scientists are saying that they know the properties of greenhouse gases and that there is just not enough of them to account for the changes being cited. Of course that is if the changes are true, which has yet to be shown.

Actually, the way I see it we've just hit a peak and we should be in a cooling process right now.

We hit that peak, you can see it, and then it dropped, and then it's gone back up again. If you see all of the other times, it hit a peak and then dropped considerably, now, it's remained where it is.

To me this whole situation is worrisome because we are not seeing the normal bare knuckle, toe to toe battles that science has relied on forever. I continually hear scientists speak about the creator of the so called "hockey stick" graph, I believe his name is Michael Mann. They all same the same thing, Mann will not under any circumstances debate the subject nor open his data and methods to peer review. One physicist said that if Mann was a lawyer they would be moving to disbar him.

The most troubling aspect of Mann's work, according to those that are contrary, is that when they look at his graphs the historical data has changed, leaving many to wonder how that's possible, It should be the same data set that has been used for at least decades, many decades. The best example I've seen of this was a series of graphs from NOAA that are put out at regular intervals. The series I saw starts in 1958. In 58 the graph shows the warmer temps in the 1200s, the "mini ice age" 1300-1800, and a noticeable cooling starting in 1940. The next was 1980, it shows all the same with the 1940 cooling ending in 1970. In 1990 the graph looks the same. In 1999 the warm period in the 1200s, the "mini ice age" 1300-1800 and the dip 1940-70 are gone. Just plain gone. How is that possible?

Another aspect of Mann's work I hear attacked often is his reliance on ground stations. Supposedly there are something like 3600 of these stations globally. In the past they insisted that 90% of those stations reporting was necessary for a valid input. Again supposedly, Mann is using about 40% of those stations and using algorithms to fill in the blanks. As one person put it
"what does that mean"?

The problems with ground stations goes further. The example I heard given went like this. In Colorado there are 3 stations within 50 miles of each other, all in relatively similar terrain. I honestly can't remember the time frame used but it wasn't more than 60 or 80 years. The first station used showed a 2 deg increase. The second showed almost no change. The 3rd showed a 3 deg decrease until 10 years ago and since a 2 deg increase. Baffled someone looked into it.

The first, 2 degree increase, had been moved from a farm where it was in a grass field to a parking lot with black asphalt.
The 2nd, no change, was where it always was. The third, 3 deg decrease followed by 2 deg increase, had been in a grass
field where over time it had been overtaken by forest, 3 deg decrease. 10 years ago there was a forest fire that destroyed the trees, 2 deg increase. If true, this is not good science.

It's all just getting weird. I mean when they say they are noting global temps many people don't realize that they are claiming to show the average temp of the entire earth over the course of an entire year to within a 1/10 of a degree. Does anyone honestly buy that?

But we're not talking about a graph which goes back 1000 years as the Michael Mann one does. We're talking about ones that go back 500,000 years. So, why you've brought this up, I don't know.

 

[toobfreak]

.
It is Republican Party’s duty to serve the needs of Big Business of every sort, and has been for decades. Big Oil companies are major political contributors, and therefore must be given the very best service available from the GOP.

To this end, Republican politicians must, MUST, deny all evidence of human causes related to global warming, and MUST instill this denial in their conservative voter base.

FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the corporate puppets tasked with brainwashing the simple-minded conservatives have done their job well, which might not be such good news for Limbaugh’s audience in Florida in the coming days.

On his Monday radio show Limbaugh implied hurricane warnings were overblown as part of the liberal conspiracy to convince the public climate change is real. Limbaugh stated he wanted to, “remind everybody that there are people throughout levels of government that believe in climate change, it’s an emotional issue,and they look at for any evidence they can to prove it.”

Limbaugh has always been one of the GOP’s head cheerleaders in their campaign to promote climate change denial.

The Big Orange Idiot knew jumping on the Republicans‘ “climate change denial bandwagon”, as part of his presidential campaign to woo the mindless conservatives would be successful. Big Orange, like everyone else, knows it is a long tradition among conservatives to deny all facts they find contrary to their needs and beliefs. Climate change is high on their list of issues that must be denied.

Due to their consistent denial and blind faith in conservative and Republican snake oil, Limbaugh’s listeners in Florida will be betting their lives on Limbaugh’s lies if they refuse to evacuate from Hurricane Irma’s path.

Unfortunately, there will be no data collected that shows how many conservatives, who chose to take Limbaugh seriously and ride out Irma’s winds and storm surge, died due to this foolish decision.

Of course, if data were collected and proved these people died needlessly, conservatives would immediately follow Limbaugh’s orders to deny it.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/hurricane-scientists-have-never-seen-an-image-like-this-before/ar-AArtxSw?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

http://www.newsweek.com/irma-hurricane-limbaugh-climate-change-liberal-conspiracy-trump-deep-state-659890

https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2017/09/06/rush-limbaugh-thinks-irma-warnings-are-exaggerated-for-climate-change-agenda


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________


View attachment 148107 View attachment 148108

Conservatives have become easier and easier to fool as each year passes. The Big Orange Idiot's presidency is proof.
.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

For one thing, Bert, there are more RICH people, I mean REALLY RICH, in the Democratic Party, so once again, you've shit in your own pants!

But I'll tell you what---- ----if we have two CAT 5 hurricanes in the Atlantic NEXT fall, and the year after that, I'll give you that there does indeed appear to be a significant change in the climate! That is evidence PRETTY HARD to ignore! But it is still anyone's guess as to how much of it is our fault.

 

[whitehall]

The mantra used to be that humans cause climate change and now it seems that lefties have moderated their propaganda to "humans contribute to climate change". If humans contribute to climate change at the same ratio as hate filled angry lefties contribute to disaster relief we are in pretty good shape.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

.
It is Republican Party’s duty to serve the needs of Big Business of every sort, and has been for decades. Big Oil companies are major political contributors, and therefore must be given the very best service available from the GOP.

To this end, Republican politicians must, MUST, deny all evidence of human causes related to global warming, and MUST instill this denial in their conservative voter base.

FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the corporate puppets tasked with brainwashing the simple-minded conservatives have done their job well, which might not be such good news for Limbaugh’s audience in Florida in the coming days.

On his Monday radio show Limbaugh implied hurricane warnings were overblown as part of the liberal conspiracy to convince the public climate change is real. Limbaugh stated he wanted to, “remind everybody that there are people throughout levels of government that believe in climate change, it’s an emotional issue,and they look at for any evidence they can to prove it.”

Limbaugh has always been one of the GOP’s head cheerleaders in their campaign to promote climate change denial.

The Big Orange Idiot knew jumping on the Republicans‘ “climate change denial bandwagon”, as part of his presidential campaign to woo the mindless conservatives would be successful. Big Orange, like everyone else, knows it is a long tradition among conservatives to deny all facts they find contrary to their needs and beliefs. Climate change is high on their list of issues that must be denied.

Due to their consistent denial and blind faith in conservative and Republican snake oil, Limbaugh’s listeners in Florida will be betting their lives on Limbaugh’s lies if they refuse to evacuate from Hurricane Irma’s path.

Unfortunately, there will be no data collected that shows how many conservatives, who chose to take Limbaugh seriously and ride out Irma’s winds and storm surge, died due to this foolish decision.

Of course, if data were collected and proved these people died needlessly, conservatives would immediately follow Limbaugh’s orders to deny it.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/hurricane-scientists-have-never-seen-an-image-like-this-before/ar-AArtxSw?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

http://www.newsweek.com/irma-hurricane-limbaugh-climate-change-liberal-conspiracy-trump-deep-state-659890

https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2017/09/06/rush-limbaugh-thinks-irma-warnings-are-exaggerated-for-climate-change-agenda


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________


View attachment 148107 View attachment 148108

Conservatives have become easier and easier to fool as each year passes. The Big Orange Idiot's presidency is proof.



.

Its not man. The planets are being perturbed. Its going to get worse.

 

[Little-Acorn]

.
It is Republican Party’s duty to serve the needs of Big Business of every sort, and has been for decades. Big Oil companies are major political contributors, and therefore must be given the very best service available from the GOP.
To this end, Republican politicians must, MUST, deny all evidence of human causes related to global warming, and MUST instill this denial in their conservative voter base.

When an OP starts with this many lies and insults, there's no point in reading further.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The tree huggers caused all of these fires. How much carbon is being spewed into the air because of that?

 

[baileyn45]

I don't deny a human contribution. I just don't know how much it is. Since you are expert could you enlighten us Bert?

WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF HUMAN CONTRIBUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE?

You need only respond with a number. Please spare us your riveting dialogue.

Just about 100%. As long as we are talking about the warming. You see, the climate was changing, and has been for a couple of thousand years. It was cooling, just as it should have been by the Milankovic Cycles. The rapid warming that we are experiencing is entirely due to the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs. The sun is presently is a minor low TSI, so even by the solar energy, we should be cooling.

Quite frankly you're wrong. The earth has not been cooling for thousands of years. The 1200s are believed to have been warmer than present. From around 1300 to 1800 there was what is referred to as a mini ice age. Following was a consistent warming until 1940, with small variations along the way. In 1940 there was a cooling period until around 1970. Since then there has been a gradual warming. Also we are not in a solar minimum, we are just entering a solar minimum.

Do you realize that there are 4 ways in which they collect global temp data. The one that is considered the least reliable are ground stations, ground stations are used almost exclusively by the GW community. The other three say we have basically been in a holding pattern since 1998.

It amazes me that anyone could say that all of this is settled science. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Climate sciences are in their infancy.

The biggest fight I see now is between the GW community and physicists and planetary scientists. The physicists and planetary scientists are saying that they know the properties of greenhouse gases and that there is just not enough of them to account for the changes being cited. Of course that is if the changes are true, which has yet to be shown.

Actually, the way I see it we've just hit a peak and we should be in a cooling process right now.

We hit that peak, you can see it, and then it dropped, and then it's gone back up again. If you see all of the other times, it hit a peak and then dropped considerably, now, it's remained where it is.

To me this whole situation is worrisome because we are not seeing the normal bare knuckle, toe to toe battles that science has relied on forever. I continually hear scientists speak about the creator of the so called "hockey stick" graph, I believe his name is Michael Mann. They all same the same thing, Mann will not under any circumstances debate the subject nor open his data and methods to peer review. One physicist said that if Mann was a lawyer they would be moving to disbar him.

The most troubling aspect of Mann's work, according to those that are contrary, is that when they look at his graphs the historical data has changed, leaving many to wonder how that's possible, It should be the same data set that has been used for at least decades, many decades. The best example I've seen of this was a series of graphs from NOAA that are put out at regular intervals. The series I saw starts in 1958. In 58 the graph shows the warmer temps in the 1200s, the "mini ice age" 1300-1800, and a noticeable cooling starting in 1940. The next was 1980, it shows all the same with the 1940 cooling ending in 1970. In 1990 the graph looks the same. In 1999 the warm period in the 1200s, the "mini ice age" 1300-1800 and the dip 1940-70 are gone. Just plain gone. How is that possible?

Another aspect of Mann's work I hear attacked often is his reliance on ground stations. Supposedly there are something like 3600 of these stations globally. In the past they insisted that 90% of those stations reporting was necessary for a valid input. Again supposedly, Mann is using about 40% of those stations and using algorithms to fill in the blanks. As one person put it
"what does that mean"?

The problems with ground stations goes further. The example I heard given went like this. In Colorado there are 3 stations within 50 miles of each other, all in relatively similar terrain. I honestly can't remember the time frame used but it wasn't more than 60 or 80 years. The first station used showed a 2 deg increase. The second showed almost no change. The 3rd showed a 3 deg decrease until 10 years ago and since a 2 deg increase. Baffled someone looked into it.

The first, 2 degree increase, had been moved from a farm where it was in a grass field to a parking lot with black asphalt.
The 2nd, no change, was where it always was. The third, 3 deg decrease followed by 2 deg increase, had been in a grass
field where over time it had been overtaken by forest, 3 deg decrease. 10 years ago there was a forest fire that destroyed the trees, 2 deg increase. If true, this is not good science.

It's all just getting weird. I mean when they say they are noting global temps many people don't realize that they are claiming to show the average temp of the entire earth over the course of an entire year to within a 1/10 of a degree. Does anyone honestly buy that?

But we're not talking about a graph which goes back 1000 years as the Michael Mann one does. We're talking about ones that go back 500,000 years. So, why you've brought this up, I don't know.

I bring it up because Mann's data is the basis of the current hyperbole. The "hockey stick" graph is what has everyone freaked out. The fact that he backs it up with nothing and the media and those receiving govt funding seem to swear to it without question is bothersome to say the least. For me this goes beyond the current GW debate, it gets to the heart of scientific inquiry. I wonder sometimes if the GW community will seek to have anyone questioning Mann's work

I don't deny a human contribution. I just don't know how much it is. Since you are expert could you enlighten us Bert?

WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF HUMAN CONTRIBUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE?

You need only respond with a number. Please spare us your riveting dialogue.

Just about 100%. As long as we are talking about the warming. You see, the climate was changing, and has been for a couple of thousand years. It was cooling, just as it should have been by the Milankovic Cycles. The rapid warming that we are experiencing is entirely due to the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs. The sun is presently is a minor low TSI, so even by the solar energy, we should be cooling.

Quite frankly you're wrong. The earth has not been cooling for thousands of years. The 1200s are believed to have been warmer than present. From around 1300 to 1800 there was what is referred to as a mini ice age. Following was a consistent warming until 1940, with small variations along the way. In 1940 there was a cooling period until around 1970. Since then there has been a gradual warming. Also we are not in a solar minimum, we are just entering a solar minimum.

Do you realize that there are 4 ways in which they collect global temp data. The one that is considered the least reliable are ground stations, ground stations are used almost exclusively by the GW community. The other three say we have basically been in a holding pattern since 1998.

It amazes me that anyone could say that all of this is settled science. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Climate sciences are in their infancy.

The biggest fight I see now is between the GW community and physicists and planetary scientists. The physicists and planetary scientists are saying that they know the properties of greenhouse gases and that there is just not enough of them to account for the changes being cited. Of course that is if the changes are true, which has yet to be shown.

Actually, the way I see it we've just hit a peak and we should be in a cooling process right now.

We hit that peak, you can see it, and then it dropped, and then it's gone back up again. If you see all of the other times, it hit a peak and then dropped considerably, now, it's remained where it is.

To me this whole situation is worrisome because we are not seeing the normal bare knuckle, toe to toe battles that science has relied on forever. I continually hear scientists speak about the creator of the so called "hockey stick" graph, I believe his name is Michael Mann. They all same the same thing, Mann will not under any circumstances debate the subject nor open his data and methods to peer review. One physicist said that if Mann was a lawyer they would be moving to disbar him.

The most troubling aspect of Mann's work, according to those that are contrary, is that when they look at his graphs the historical data has changed, leaving many to wonder how that's possible, It should be the same data set that has been used for at least decades, many decades. The best example I've seen of this was a series of graphs from NOAA that are put out at regular intervals. The series I saw starts in 1958. In 58 the graph shows the warmer temps in the 1200s, the "mini ice age" 1300-1800, and a noticeable cooling starting in 1940. The next was 1980, it shows all the same with the 1940 cooling ending in 1970. In 1990 the graph looks the same. In 1999 the warm period in the 1200s, the "mini ice age" 1300-1800 and the dip 1940-70 are gone. Just plain gone. How is that possible?

Another aspect of Mann's work I hear attacked often is his reliance on ground stations. Supposedly there are something like 3600 of these stations globally. In the past they insisted that 90% of those stations reporting was necessary for a valid input. Again supposedly, Mann is using about 40% of those stations and using algorithms to fill in the blanks. As one person put it
"what does that mean"?

The problems with ground stations goes further. The example I heard given went like this. In Colorado there are 3 stations within 50 miles of each other, all in relatively similar terrain. I honestly can't remember the time frame used but it wasn't more than 60 or 80 years. The first station used showed a 2 deg increase. The second showed almost no change. The 3rd showed a 3 deg decrease until 10 years ago and since a 2 deg increase. Baffled someone looked into it.

The first, 2 degree increase, had been moved from a farm where it was in a grass field to a parking lot with black asphalt.
The 2nd, no change, was where it always was. The third, 3 deg decrease followed by 2 deg increase, had been in a grass
field where over time it had been overtaken by forest, 3 deg decrease. 10 years ago there was a forest fire that destroyed the trees, 2 deg increase. If true, this is not good science.

It's all just getting weird. I mean when they say they are noting global temps many people don't realize that they are claiming to show the average temp of the entire earth over the course of an entire year to within a 1/10 of a degree. Does anyone honestly buy that?

But we're not talking about a graph which goes back 1000 years as the Michael Mann one does. We're talking about ones that go back 500,000 years. So, why you've brought this up, I don't know.

I bring it up because Mann's work is the basis of the current GW hyperbole. His work is beyond suspect and borders on fraud, at least according to some nobel laureates. The idea that his work and the basis of the current Gw freakout has not been thoroughly peer reviewed has implications beyond GW. I'm seeing too much of this recently.

Take for instance the psychiatric community changing transgender disorder to dysphoria. For the life of me I cannot find anyone that can say why, other than political pressure. No new research, no new theories just political pressure.

Did you know that the AMA has recently advised that the medical community should no longer say that breastfeeding is natural? Why? It may make those that don't breastfeed feel bad. This is scientifically based?

I recently read where some in the AMA are pushing to issue guidance to doctors to no longer tell obese people to lose weight. Why? It makes them feel bad. This is science? When I heard the change in the transgender issue I joked that "what's next obesity will no longer be a problem because of body positivity"? Well, here we are. The only jokes I can think of now is, what's next don't tell people to quit smoking, it makes them feel bad. Don't tell people to stop doing meth, it hurts their self image.

The more I look around there seems to be an assault on science, at the least the politically incorrect sort. I'm starting to believe that I'm seeing a concerted assault on objective reality to be replaced by subjective feelings.. We've seen this on the left in politics, I would never have believed it could infect science, yet I feel I'm watching it.

Seriously, boys are no longer boys, girls are no longer girls, unless they feel they are. Objective reality is slipping away.

 

[bripat9643]

.
It is Republican Party’s duty to serve the needs of Big Business of every sort, and has been for decades. Big Oil companies are major political contributors, and therefore must be given the very best service available from the GOP.

To this end, Republican politicians must, MUST, deny all evidence of human causes related to global warming, and MUST instill this denial in their conservative voter base.

FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the corporate puppets tasked with brainwashing the simple-minded conservatives have done their job well, which might not be such good news for Limbaugh’s audience in Florida in the coming days.

On his Monday radio show Limbaugh implied hurricane warnings were overblown as part of the liberal conspiracy to convince the public climate change is real. Limbaugh stated he wanted to, “remind everybody that there are people throughout levels of government that believe in climate change, it’s an emotional issue,and they look at for any evidence they can to prove it.”

Limbaugh has always been one of the GOP’s head cheerleaders in their campaign to promote climate change denial.

The Big Orange Idiot knew jumping on the Republicans‘ “climate change denial bandwagon”, as part of his presidential campaign to woo the mindless conservatives would be successful. Big Orange, like everyone else, knows it is a long tradition among conservatives to deny all facts they find contrary to their needs and beliefs. Climate change is high on their list of issues that must be denied.

Due to their consistent denial and blind faith in conservative and Republican snake oil, Limbaugh’s listeners in Florida will be betting their lives on Limbaugh’s lies if they refuse to evacuate from Hurricane Irma’s path.

Unfortunately, there will be no data collected that shows how many conservatives, who chose to take Limbaugh seriously and ride out Irma’s winds and storm surge, died due to this foolish decision.

Of course, if data were collected and proved these people died needlessly, conservatives would immediately follow Limbaugh’s orders to deny it.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/hurricane-scientists-have-never-seen-an-image-like-this-before/ar-AArtxSw?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

http://www.newsweek.com/irma-hurricane-limbaugh-climate-change-liberal-conspiracy-trump-deep-state-659890

https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2017/09/06/rush-limbaugh-thinks-irma-warnings-are-exaggerated-for-climate-change-agenda


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________


View attachment 148107 View attachment 148108

Conservatives have become easier and easier to fool as each year passes. The Big Orange Idiot's presidency is proof.



.

Tell ya what snowflake, if you have all this science behind you then you should be able to tell us exactly what percent of climate change can be attributed to man.

Excuses to begin in 5-------------------4-----------------------3------------------2-----------------

Or you can admit the have no fucking clue.


.

Sweet heart....when we have the resources to have clean air and clean energy why can't let go of the pollution? not far ago having asthma was very rare, now every other kid has asthma, eczema and tons for respiratory problems.

We're getting less than 13.5% of our energy from renewables and that's only if you count the hydroelectric sources that have been in operation for decades. Wind and solar aren't practical for the majority of the country. The most practical solution is nuclear, but the environazis won't have that.


.

Well to be fair, Fusion would solve everything, but it has been "50 years away" for the last 50 years or so....

They still keep trying though.

Lately they have been making a lot of progress on it. They could have a working model in 20 years.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

CO2 is the foundation of all life. Without CO2 the algae in the oceans would die then all life in the oceans would die as well. Climate change is a hoax. That's why AlGore's new book is a failure but the book "An Inconvenient Deception" is selling much better.

Al Gore Outsold On Kindle By An E-Book Debunking ‘An Inconvenient Sequel’

 

[Clementine]

I don't deny a human contribution. I just don't know how much it is. Since you are expert could you enlighten us Bert?

WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF HUMAN CONTRIBUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE?

You need only respond with a number. Please spare us your riveting dialogue.

Well, Al Gore contributes more than 20 average households and that is for each of his big homes. He claims he uses renewable energy but it only accounts for maybe 5% of his total usage.

Point is that if he was truly concerned, he'd be living in a smaller home and not jetting around in private planes and riding in limos.

Don't listen to what he says, watch what he does. His actions show zero concern for manmade global warming.

Too many scientists have come forth to say the science is seriously flawed and rigged to support the theory. Just last week, one of the biggest pushers of global warming 'solutions' admitted that it's about changing the economic structure and redistributing wealth. In other words, no more capitalism. It's about central planning and concentrated power with a one world government.

Even if you completely embrace the theory of manmade global warning, there is no defense of the solutions they've proposed because they have absolutely nothing to do with it. Even if every one of their plans came to fruition, there would no measurable difference. Some scientists are also saying that there is no warming and possible cooling. Nothing has changed in a long time.

Why are we going to redistribute trillions of dollars? To help toward the goal of one world socialist government that would end up being communist.

Virtually everything the left has done has been toward that goal. Like dictators of the past, it's all introduced as a means of helping people. It's all bullshit. The global warming scare was the ultimate plan to enable a transfer of power from the people to government. Back in the 70s it was global cooling. Decades ago, people like Alinsky taught that in order to take down capitalist America, it would be necessary to create the illusion of a global crisis. Gore and his ilk have everything invested in this so there is no turning back for them. Trump winning the presidency really messed up their plan. That is why Soros and others have spent so much to keep these riots going. They want chaos in the streets and people divided and angry.

So many idiots being played.

It's one thing to prove whether or not global warming exists. It's a total scam on the part of Gore and others who have their eyes on our money and total control over energy. For the one world government, there must be central control over food, medical, news and other communications, education, energy, and businesses.