Anti-Trump actor fights global warming, but won’t give up 14 homes and private jet

[P@triot]

These people are unfuckingbelievable. While advocating for "green" policies and criticizing anyone who doesn't strictly adhere to the "green" doctrine - Johnny Depp is living a life of luxury without the slightest consideration towards planet earth.

According a cross-complaint filed against the actor by his former business managers, the actor owns 14 residences, including a château in France and a chain of four islands in the Bahamas.

14 homes? Why does one man need 14 homes? Hell, why does one man need 2 homes? A person can only live in one house at a time. But it doesn't stop there...

Depp also owned a steam-powered 156-foot yacht with a “multi-national crew of eight” employees.

156-foot yacht? And "steam-powered"? By what....coal? The "evil" fossil fuel, coal? For the sake of Johnny Depp and all on the left, I wish I could say it stops there. But it actually gets worse. Much worse.

The management group produced as evidence that Depp was aware of his financial problems in an email where he said he would sell his possessions, but absolutely not give up flying a private jet.

This guys "carbon footprint" has to rival that of Cuba. And he has the audacity to lecturer to others about being "green" and to criticize anyone who doesn't surrender all comforts to live their lives as the Unabomber?

Anti-Trump actor fights global warming, but won’t give up 14 homes and private jet

 

[mamooth]

Obviously, you care very much about Johnny Depp, but why should we care? We look at the science, not at Hollywood celebrities.

Can you tell us what the Kardashians say about the issue? Just how outraged are you about their opinions? If you're going to spill Hollywood gossip, don't stop now.

 

[P@triot]

Obviously, you care very much about Johnny Depp, but why should we care? We look at the science, not at Hollywood celebrities.

Well for starters, if you actually looked at science, you wouldn't care at all about the "Global Warming" scam. However, since you don't look at science, you should be outraged that he has a carbon footprint the size of China. But since he votes left-wing totalitarianism, you're willing to cheer him on for engaging in the very thing you claim to oppose. Oops.

 

[P@triot]

Obviously, you care very much about Johnny Depp, but why should we care? We look at the science, not at Hollywood celebrities.

That's not true at all. 100% of the science/data proves that "Global Warming" is a hoax. And here is the latest. A new peer review study (I repeat: a peer review study) found that the biggest cause of "Global Warming" is scientists. Yes, scientists - who fake data to "prove" something which does not exist. Oops.

‘Bombshell’ climate-change study could totally dismantle the claim humans are causing global warming

 

[mamooth]

And here is the latest.

Good! You went to a blog and got the latest crazy talking point, just as I had hoped for.

new peer review study

Um, no.

It's being published through crank blogs by a trio of cranks. "Peer-review" does not mean "endorsed by a couple people just as crazy as the authors".

As for the "study", it was a rambling Gish Gallop. It was tossing everything at the wall, in the hopes something would stick. It didn't.

 

[P@triot]

You went to a blog and got the latest crazy talking point, just as I had hoped for.

The indisputable evidence that "Global Warming" is a scam literally piles up to the heavens now. Each one is a bigger bombshell than the previous one. The truth always comes out in the end...

A new peer-reviewed study by scientists and a statistician claims to reveal that “nearly all” of the warming shown in current temperature datasets from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Met Office in the United Kingdom are the result of adjustments made to the datasets after temperatures were recorded, calling into question just how much warming is real and how much is pure fantasy.

That's right...a peer-reviewed study shows that the only "cause" of "Global Warming" are scientists. Scientists who falsify their data to make it appear as though "Global Warming" actually exists. Denying reality doesn't alter reality!

‘Bombshell’ climate-change study could totally dismantle the claim humans are causing global warming

 

[mamooth]

A new peer-reviewed study by scientists and a statistician

Well golly! The conspiracy blog said it was peer-reviewed, so it has to be true! Never mind that it's getting published on crank blogs. That's totally normal for peer-reviewed science.

But then, if you didn't have a broken BS detector, you'd be a liberal.

Here's a thought. Instead of doing your "I linked to a crazy source, so that proves I'm right, no discussion allowed!" thing, how about you select one specific topic from the paper's avalanche o' crap, explain it in your own words here, and then we can discuss it in depth.

 

[P@triot]

The conspiracy blog said it was peer-reviewed

The left continues to deny science and reality.

 

[P@triot]

Here's a thought. Instead of doing your "I linked to a crazy source, so that proves I'm right, no discussion allowed!" thing, how about you select one specific topic from the paper's avalanche o' crap, explain it in your own words here, and then we can discuss it in depth.

Sounds good! I mean, I have already done that 3x's only to hear you put on your tinfoil hat and cry "conspiracy theory! conspiracy theory!" but I'm happy to do it again if you'd like. Here you go...(please discuss the facts highlighted in blue below):

The indisputable evidence that "Global Warming" is a scam literally piles up to the heavens now. Each one is a bigger bombshell than the previous one. The truth always comes out in the end...

A new peer-reviewed study by scientists and a statistician claims to reveal that “nearly all” of the warming shown in current temperature datasets from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Met Office in the United Kingdom are the result of adjustments made to the datasets after temperatures were recorded, calling into question just how much warming is real and how much is pure fantasy.

That's right...a peer-reviewed study shows that the only "cause" of "Global Warming" are scientists. Scientists who falsify their data to make it appear as though "Global Warming" actually exists. Denying reality doesn't alter reality!

‘Bombshell’ climate-change study could totally dismantle the claim humans are causing global warming

 

[mamooth]

The left continues to deny science and reality.

This is hilarious. You actually think that if a conspiracy blog claims a "study" is "peer-reviewed", that has to make it true.

I note your unwillingness to discuss any of the actual content of the paper. I think everyone does. You're running from your own post again.

You have no idea of what the paper says. You didn't even read it. That's very obvious. You read something on a crank blog, pasted a link, parroted some crazy claims, and now you're demanding everyone accept your crazy claims, no further discussion permitted.

Needless to say, that's not the scientific method.

 

[P@triot]

The left continues to deny science and reality.

This is hilarious. You actually think that if a conspiracy blog claims a "study" is "peer-reviewed", that has to make it true.

I note your unwillingness to discuss any of the actual content of the paper. I think everyone does. You're running from your own post again.

You have no idea of what the paper says. You didn't even read it. That's very obvious. You read something on a crank blog, pasted a link, parroted some crazy claims, and now you're demanding everyone accept your crazy claims, no further discussion permitted.

Needless to say, that's not the scientific method.

You asked to discuss the paper. I clearly highlighted in blue what I wanted to discuss. You ran from it. Duly noted.

 

[P@triot]

I can understand why the left is so upset about this. The realization that they were so easily and so thoroughly duped.


Cause of Global Warming Discovered: Scientists

 

[skookerasbil]

nobody cares.........guy is a prolific loser and documented k00k......spends 30K a month on wine!! All these voiciferous assholes who rant about global warming are k00ks.

 

[P@triot]

.........guy is a prolific loser and documented k00k......spends 30K a month on wine!!

You forgot to add "...while whining about wealth inequality and poverty". So it should read like this:

spends 30K a month on wine...while whining about wealth inequality and poverty

 

[P@triot]

Priceless. Absolutely priceless...

Study: Climate scientists 'adjusted' temperatures, accounting for 'nearly all' temperature changes

 

[beagle9]

These Hollywood snowflakes are simply amazing. You just can't make this bullcrap up.

 

[beagle9]

A new peer-reviewed study by scientists and a statistician

Well golly! The conspiracy blog said it was peer-reviewed, so it has to be true! Never mind that it's getting published on crank blogs. That's totally normal for peer-reviewed science.

But then, if you didn't have a broken BS detector, you'd be a liberal.

Here's a thought. Instead of doing your "I linked to a crazy source, so that proves I'm right, no discussion allowed!" thing, how about you select one specific topic from the paper's avalanche o' crap, explain it in your own words here, and then we can discuss it in depth.

. Ok, so where is your proof ???

 

[mamooth]

You asked to discuss the paper. I clearly highlighted in blue what I wanted to discuss.

And It's all wrong

Look, I highlighted that in blue, thus I've refuted you. By your cowardly standards, that is. Just admit it. You didn't even read the paper. You have no idea what it says. The propaganda was what you wanted to hear, so you instantly BELIEVED, and you're now exploding in snowflake rage at those who doubt your religion.

"Mentioning" a topic is not "discussing" it. I want you to _discuss_ the topic.

That is, state the specific argument in your own words

Show what the specific evidence for that argument is. Note that "this guy said it" is not showing the specific evidence.

Then back up that evidence.

All you're doing is screaming "I'M RIGHT!" again and again. Okay, we get it. You're a propaganda parrot, mindlessly squawking the same things over and over.

 

[P@triot]

"Mentioning" a topic is not "discussing" it. I want you to _discuss_ the topic.

Well go ahead. We are waiting. I gave you the topic. Now it's up to you to start the "discussion". You must read the peer-reviewed study and explain to everyone what exactly was flawed and inaccurate about it. And you must do it by backing it up with indisputable data.

You talk a big game, but every time I've agreed to play, you've picked up your ball and ran home. I gave you the topic, I highlighted it in blue, now tell everyone what was inaccurate about it (psst....we already know you didn't read the study, snowflake )

 

[mamooth]

Well go ahead. We are waiting. I gave you the topic

You gave a topic, but you haven't addressed the topic, discussed it in any detail, or backed up your crazy claim in any way. By your standards, I can say "The topic is how Trump is treasonous", and then declare it's proven unless you disprove it. Needless to say, that's not how the rules of evidence work. You've making the positive claim, so it's up to you to back it up. If you won't, then your claim is garbage.

You must read the peer-reviewed study

Obviously, I did I read the kook propaganda piece. That's how I know it's not a peer-reviewed scientific study. It's a gish gallop of conspiracy babbling.

and explain to everyone what exactly was flawed and inaccurate about it. And you must do it by backing it up with indisputable data.

So, we've proven Trump is a traitor, by your standards. After all, you haven't disproved it with indisputable data. I'm glad we settled that.

Should you ever manage to locate your balls, I'm still ready to discuss the topic. You just need to be brave enough to discuss a specific point in detail and in your own words, and to back up your claims in detail. So far, you just keep running, so the board keeps laughing.