Head of the EPA tosses Tantrum..

[Crick]

Your side has circumvented the Constitution to push your agenda.

Where?

You do it by citing old laws to do any damned thing you want.

I hate to break it to you, but old laws are still laws. Like the laws against murder and rape and stealing? Hundreds of years old. Thousands, really. But, you know what? They still work.

You post the same graph time and time again and still can't quantify the amount of warming by man.

The problem isn't anything lacking from that graph. It's what's lacking from that head of yours.

You take natural phenomenon and equate it to man.

You seem to think man is operating in a different universe than the rest of reality

You refuse to look at how much heat is dissipated by natural events like Typhoons [sic] and Hurricanes [sic]. Natures AC units.

Dissipated to where?

You go la la la when your computer models don't match reality.

Show us.

You refuse to admit that the IPCC lied it's asses off.

That's because I don't lie.

You refuse that the science was so fucked up in the 70's that they predicted another Ice age.

I have never denied that some few scientists have been concerned about an ice age.

You change the title over and over again as people ditch your beliefs aka Global Cooling [sic] to.

I have never changed any titles.

You destroy industry with your bs, and praise the new, while using the old to build it.

When an industry does more harm than good, I will seek to change it or end it. If you think I shouldn't, you're just getting too stupid for words.

and so on.

Yes, and so on.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Both warmer and skeptic alike are gonna love this video clip.. Represents the frustration and anger that the CAGWarming leadership are feeling right now.. One side is gonna cheer. THe other is gonna jeer. Something here for everyone.

Before you chastize me for the SOURCE of the clip (although I don't know how a video clip can be biased by what site it's on) ---- I knew no one would watch it if it is was posted in long form.. So here it is as the "sound bite" everyone wants to hear...

I WOULD like to know if that was the normal end to speech and she never had dignity and integrity on the topic.
Or whether this rant was triggered maybe by a question from the room.. Would be delicious if someone taunted her into this meltdown..

Watch the video at the link please before commenting..


EPA Chief McCarthy Climate Deniers Are Not Normal Human Beings - Breitbart

Tuesday at a White House Public Health and Climate Change Summit, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said “normal people,” not “climate deniers” will win the fight on global warming.

McCarthy said, “When I put a report out on acting on climate like we did yesterday that shows how dramatically our world will change if we don’t act, and just the benefits we can deliver if we do. I am doing that not to push back on climate deniers. You can have fun doing that if you want, but I’ve batted my head against the wall too many times and if the science already hasn’t changed their mind it never will.”

“But in any democracy, it’s not them that carries the day. It is normal human beings that haven’t put their stake into politics above science. It’s normal human beings that want us to do the right thing, and we will if you help us.”

Oh -- THAT kind of rant will win hearts and minds.. Good thing I am a "normal person"..

That accent makes me want to stuff a dirty gym sock down her throat.

 

[flacaltenn]

You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".

I have to tell you, Billy Boy; if anyone around here throws tantrums, it's you.

You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".
The head of the EPA speaking her mind about deniers is not an abuse of power. You think FAR too highly of yourself. You buffoons are a noisy minority of uneducated flat-earthers. Hey, how's that doctorate coming along?

You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".When are you people going to learn how rare "proof" is in the natural sciences? You've all been lectured on this dozens of times, yet you still all demand "proof". And what is this entire thread but an ad hominem attack on the head of the EPA? Separating deniers from normal human beings has nothing to do with the validity of the science. Besides, I'm afraid her days of doing science are over. She's an administrator. If you want to blame her for the results the world's climate scientists are getting, you might as well blame her for the bad weather: she's got just as much to do with that.

Your proof is the same bs you post all the time.

I have given you no "proof" of anything. I have presented a wide assortment of very well-sourced evidence to back my position. You have presented none to back yours.

and you can't quantify the amount of heat by man.

How much do you weigh this very instant? How much of the volume of the Earth is liquid? What is the total mass of the Solar System? What is the mass of the nearest oak tree? Of what proportion of the universe's total knowledge are you unaware?

Can you read the scale on a graph? I realize your math skills are not exceptional, but can't you at least imagine what can be calculated from those numbers?

I was amazed on another thread when you finally admitted there was a period of cooling and not warming then you retracted when the cult tried to find a way to say it wasn't so

Your sentence construction makes it unclear whether your initial use of "you" is singular or plural. I have no idea to what admission you refer, but there have been thousands - millions - of cooling periods; from millennia to milliseconds. If you'd like to have a meaningful discussion on these points, you'll need to identify your topic a bit more clearly.

The Global Warming cult got caught with their hands in the cookie jar fudging data - fudging sounds kinda gay doesn't it - and bitch and moan when you get called out on it.

No one has been caught fudging data. If you disagree, identify the person and show us your evidence that whatever adjustments you're "bitching and moaning" about were unjustified. And leave your pathetic homophobia in the closet where it belongs, beaky-boy.

This lady is pissed that the coal companies won their case in the Supreme Court.

The case involved the power companies, not the coal companies. And concluding that the EPA needs to take cost into consideration isn't much of a win:

Con-Ed: "So, EPA, you need to take into account how much its going to cost to remove the toxic, accumulative heavy metal poisons out of our stack gas."
EPA: "Okay. It's gonna cost you a butt-ton-load of money. Get hot."

The EPA has been producing legislative measure by proxy for some time, using the courts to justify new regulations that are killing industry WITHOUT CONSENT OF CONGRESS using JUDICIAL ACTIVISM TO DO SO, claiming OLD LAWS give them the right to CREATE ANY NEW REGULATION THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE.

You failed American Government in high school, didn't you? Where to start. Regulatory agencies have the power to make regulations within the framework of legislation. They do not require the consent of Congress once Congress and the president have passed legislation that provides a regulatory framework, as they clearly have done. Any charge of judicial activism is irrelevant conservative meme-slinging. What judicial authority acted proactively here? And what the fuck are you talking about "OLD LAWS"??? Do you think they wear out? Do you think laws expire? Do you think laws spoil and go bad?

It is an ABUSE OF POWER

You're a fucking idiot.

and challenges the Fundamental principles of the Constitution of the United States

Taking industry costs into account when regulating the emission of mercury is a "Fundamental (sic) principle of the Constitution of the United States"??? Yes, you most definitely are a fucking idiot.

Finally, someone stopped a part of it and she's WHINING LIKE A LITTLE BITCH

Umm... maybe you ought to go reread the OP. The EPA chief separating climate change deniers (like you) from normal human beings, has NOTHING to do with the Supreme Court decision involving the EPA and the power industry. It was repartee in response to comments garnered by the EPA's release of a statement of the costs of not acting on climate change issues.

Deal with it

Shove it up your ass.

We need Amendments to put orgs like the EPA ON A LEASH, specifically that NO NEW REGULATION CAN BE PLACED ON THE BOOKS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, SPECIFICALLY VOTED ON BY THE REGULATION BEING SUBMITTED

God are you stupid. But, hey, you get to work on that and c'mon back now and then and let us know how that's coming along.

It is not these Executive Depts right to create laws on their own via Judicial Activism and it's long past due that they no longer are allowed to create laws without the consent of Congress.

While you're getting wound up on that stuff, you might take a peek into the wisdom of governing from a basis of ignorant paranoia.

You just keep posting that graph.. Because it's Exihibit A in how the IPCC attempted to bury natural causes like Solar Irradiance.. It's been explained to you -- you don't understand the arguments -- and YET you keep pushing it..

That's NOT the topic of this thread.. You;'ve had your chance to support your flubbering heroes. And you've failed along with them..

 

[flacaltenn]

Both warmer and skeptic alike are gonna love this video clip.. Represents the frustration and anger that the CAGWarming leadership are feeling right now.. One side is gonna cheer. THe other is gonna jeer. Something here for everyone.

Before you chastize me for the SOURCE of the clip (although I don't know how a video clip can be biased by what site it's on) ---- I knew no one would watch it if it is was posted in long form.. So here it is as the "sound bite" everyone wants to hear...

I WOULD like to know if that was the normal end to speech and she never had dignity and integrity on the topic.
Or whether this rant was triggered maybe by a question from the room.. Would be delicious if someone taunted her into this meltdown..

Watch the video at the link please before commenting..


EPA Chief McCarthy Climate Deniers Are Not Normal Human Beings - Breitbart

Tuesday at a White House Public Health and Climate Change Summit, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said “normal people,” not “climate deniers” will win the fight on global warming.

McCarthy said, “When I put a report out on acting on climate like we did yesterday that shows how dramatically our world will change if we don’t act, and just the benefits we can deliver if we do. I am doing that not to push back on climate deniers. You can have fun doing that if you want, but I’ve batted my head against the wall too many times and if the science already hasn’t changed their mind it never will.”

“But in any democracy, it’s not them that carries the day. It is normal human beings that haven’t put their stake into politics above science. It’s normal human beings that want us to do the right thing, and we will if you help us.”

Oh -- THAT kind of rant will win hearts and minds.. Good thing I am a "normal person"..

That accent makes me want to stuff a dirty gym sock down her throat.

She's the whole package of an Obama appointee -- isn't she?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Both warmer and skeptic alike are gonna love this video clip.. Represents the frustration and anger that the CAGWarming leadership are feeling right now.. One side is gonna cheer. THe other is gonna jeer. Something here for everyone.

Before you chastize me for the SOURCE of the clip (although I don't know how a video clip can be biased by what site it's on) ---- I knew no one would watch it if it is was posted in long form.. So here it is as the "sound bite" everyone wants to hear...

I WOULD like to know if that was the normal end to speech and she never had dignity and integrity on the topic.
Or whether this rant was triggered maybe by a question from the room.. Would be delicious if someone taunted her into this meltdown..

Watch the video at the link please before commenting..


EPA Chief McCarthy Climate Deniers Are Not Normal Human Beings - Breitbart

Tuesday at a White House Public Health and Climate Change Summit, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said “normal people,” not “climate deniers” will win the fight on global warming.

McCarthy said, “When I put a report out on acting on climate like we did yesterday that shows how dramatically our world will change if we don’t act, and just the benefits we can deliver if we do. I am doing that not to push back on climate deniers. You can have fun doing that if you want, but I’ve batted my head against the wall too many times and if the science already hasn’t changed their mind it never will.”

“But in any democracy, it’s not them that carries the day. It is normal human beings that haven’t put their stake into politics above science. It’s normal human beings that want us to do the right thing, and we will if you help us.”

Oh -- THAT kind of rant will win hearts and minds.. Good thing I am a "normal person"..

That accent makes me want to stuff a dirty gym sock down her throat.

She's the whole package of an Obama appointee -- isn't she?

Her and the hildabeast would make a perfect couple.
Wouldnt want to be around for the inevitable lesbian fight though.
The screeching would be unbearable.

 

[Crick]

You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".

I have to tell you, Billy Boy; if anyone around here throws tantrums, it's you.

You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".
The head of the EPA speaking her mind about deniers is not an abuse of power. You think FAR too highly of yourself. You buffoons are a noisy minority of uneducated flat-earthers. Hey, how's that doctorate coming along?

You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".When are you people going to learn how rare "proof" is in the natural sciences? You've all been lectured on this dozens of times, yet you still all demand "proof". And what is this entire thread but an ad hominem attack on the head of the EPA? Separating deniers from normal human beings has nothing to do with the validity of the science. Besides, I'm afraid her days of doing science are over. She's an administrator. If you want to blame her for the results the world's climate scientists are getting, you might as well blame her for the bad weather: she's got just as much to do with that.

Your proof is the same bs you post all the time.

I have given you no "proof" of anything. I have presented a wide assortment of very well-sourced evidence to back my position. You have presented none to back yours.

and you can't quantify the amount of heat by man.

How much do you weigh this very instant? How much of the volume of the Earth is liquid? What is the total mass of the Solar System? What is the mass of the nearest oak tree? Of what proportion of the universe's total knowledge are you unaware?

Can you read the scale on a graph? I realize your math skills are not exceptional, but can't you at least imagine what can be calculated from those numbers?

I was amazed on another thread when you finally admitted there was a period of cooling and not warming then you retracted when the cult tried to find a way to say it wasn't so

Your sentence construction makes it unclear whether your initial use of "you" is singular or plural. I have no idea to what admission you refer, but there have been thousands - millions - of cooling periods; from millennia to milliseconds. If you'd like to have a meaningful discussion on these points, you'll need to identify your topic a bit more clearly.

The Global Warming cult got caught with their hands in the cookie jar fudging data - fudging sounds kinda gay doesn't it - and bitch and moan when you get called out on it.

No one has been caught fudging data. If you disagree, identify the person and show us your evidence that whatever adjustments you're "bitching and moaning" about were unjustified. And leave your pathetic homophobia in the closet where it belongs, beaky-boy.

This lady is pissed that the coal companies won their case in the Supreme Court.

The case involved the power companies, not the coal companies. And concluding that the EPA needs to take cost into consideration isn't much of a win:

Con-Ed: "So, EPA, you need to take into account how much its going to cost to remove the toxic, accumulative heavy metal poisons out of our stack gas."
EPA: "Okay. It's gonna cost you a butt-ton-load of money. Get hot."

The EPA has been producing legislative measure by proxy for some time, using the courts to justify new regulations that are killing industry WITHOUT CONSENT OF CONGRESS using JUDICIAL ACTIVISM TO DO SO, claiming OLD LAWS give them the right to CREATE ANY NEW REGULATION THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE.

You failed American Government in high school, didn't you? Where to start. Regulatory agencies have the power to make regulations within the framework of legislation. They do not require the consent of Congress once Congress and the president have passed legislation that provides a regulatory framework, as they clearly have done. Any charge of judicial activism is irrelevant conservative meme-slinging. What judicial authority acted proactively here? And what the fuck are you talking about "OLD LAWS"??? Do you think they wear out? Do you think laws expire? Do you think laws spoil and go bad?

It is an ABUSE OF POWER

You're a fucking idiot.

and challenges the Fundamental principles of the Constitution of the United States

Taking industry costs into account when regulating the emission of mercury is a "Fundamental (sic) principle of the Constitution of the United States"??? Yes, you most definitely are a fucking idiot.

Finally, someone stopped a part of it and she's WHINING LIKE A LITTLE BITCH

Umm... maybe you ought to go reread the OP. The EPA chief separating climate change deniers (like you) from normal human beings, has NOTHING to do with the Supreme Court decision involving the EPA and the power industry. It was repartee in response to comments garnered by the EPA's release of a statement of the costs of not acting on climate change issues.

Deal with it

Shove it up your ass.

We need Amendments to put orgs like the EPA ON A LEASH, specifically that NO NEW REGULATION CAN BE PLACED ON THE BOOKS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, SPECIFICALLY VOTED ON BY THE REGULATION BEING SUBMITTED

God are you stupid. But, hey, you get to work on that and c'mon back now and then and let us know how that's coming along.

It is not these Executive Depts right to create laws on their own via Judicial Activism and it's long past due that they no longer are allowed to create laws without the consent of Congress.

While you're getting wound up on that stuff, you might take a peek into the wisdom of governing from a basis of ignorant paranoia.

You just keep posting that graph.. Because it's Exihibit A in how the IPCC attempted to bury natural causes like Solar Irradiance.. It's been explained to you -- you don't understand the arguments -- and YET you keep pushing it..

That's NOT the topic of this thread.. You;'ve had your chance to support your flubbering heroes. And you've failed along with them..

If you want to educate someone around here, why don't you try poster Eagle1462010.

And speaking of the topic of this thread: can you explain what it has to do with the environment?

 

[flacaltenn]

You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".

I have to tell you, Billy Boy; if anyone around here throws tantrums, it's you.

You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".
The head of the EPA speaking her mind about deniers is not an abuse of power. You think FAR too highly of yourself. You buffoons are a noisy minority of uneducated flat-earthers. Hey, how's that doctorate coming along?

You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".When are you people going to learn how rare "proof" is in the natural sciences? You've all been lectured on this dozens of times, yet you still all demand "proof". And what is this entire thread but an ad hominem attack on the head of the EPA? Separating deniers from normal human beings has nothing to do with the validity of the science. Besides, I'm afraid her days of doing science are over. She's an administrator. If you want to blame her for the results the world's climate scientists are getting, you might as well blame her for the bad weather: she's got just as much to do with that.

Your proof is the same bs you post all the time.

I have given you no "proof" of anything. I have presented a wide assortment of very well-sourced evidence to back my position. You have presented none to back yours.

and you can't quantify the amount of heat by man.

How much do you weigh this very instant? How much of the volume of the Earth is liquid? What is the total mass of the Solar System? What is the mass of the nearest oak tree? Of what proportion of the universe's total knowledge are you unaware?

Can you read the scale on a graph? I realize your math skills are not exceptional, but can't you at least imagine what can be calculated from those numbers?

I was amazed on another thread when you finally admitted there was a period of cooling and not warming then you retracted when the cult tried to find a way to say it wasn't so

Your sentence construction makes it unclear whether your initial use of "you" is singular or plural. I have no idea to what admission you refer, but there have been thousands - millions - of cooling periods; from millennia to milliseconds. If you'd like to have a meaningful discussion on these points, you'll need to identify your topic a bit more clearly.

The Global Warming cult got caught with their hands in the cookie jar fudging data - fudging sounds kinda gay doesn't it - and bitch and moan when you get called out on it.

No one has been caught fudging data. If you disagree, identify the person and show us your evidence that whatever adjustments you're "bitching and moaning" about were unjustified. And leave your pathetic homophobia in the closet where it belongs, beaky-boy.

This lady is pissed that the coal companies won their case in the Supreme Court.

The case involved the power companies, not the coal companies. And concluding that the EPA needs to take cost into consideration isn't much of a win:

Con-Ed: "So, EPA, you need to take into account how much its going to cost to remove the toxic, accumulative heavy metal poisons out of our stack gas."
EPA: "Okay. It's gonna cost you a butt-ton-load of money. Get hot."

The EPA has been producing legislative measure by proxy for some time, using the courts to justify new regulations that are killing industry WITHOUT CONSENT OF CONGRESS using JUDICIAL ACTIVISM TO DO SO, claiming OLD LAWS give them the right to CREATE ANY NEW REGULATION THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE.

You failed American Government in high school, didn't you? Where to start. Regulatory agencies have the power to make regulations within the framework of legislation. They do not require the consent of Congress once Congress and the president have passed legislation that provides a regulatory framework, as they clearly have done. Any charge of judicial activism is irrelevant conservative meme-slinging. What judicial authority acted proactively here? And what the fuck are you talking about "OLD LAWS"??? Do you think they wear out? Do you think laws expire? Do you think laws spoil and go bad?

It is an ABUSE OF POWER

You're a fucking idiot.

and challenges the Fundamental principles of the Constitution of the United States

Taking industry costs into account when regulating the emission of mercury is a "Fundamental (sic) principle of the Constitution of the United States"??? Yes, you most definitely are a fucking idiot.

Finally, someone stopped a part of it and she's WHINING LIKE A LITTLE BITCH

Umm... maybe you ought to go reread the OP. The EPA chief separating climate change deniers (like you) from normal human beings, has NOTHING to do with the Supreme Court decision involving the EPA and the power industry. It was repartee in response to comments garnered by the EPA's release of a statement of the costs of not acting on climate change issues.

Deal with it

Shove it up your ass.

We need Amendments to put orgs like the EPA ON A LEASH, specifically that NO NEW REGULATION CAN BE PLACED ON THE BOOKS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, SPECIFICALLY VOTED ON BY THE REGULATION BEING SUBMITTED

God are you stupid. But, hey, you get to work on that and c'mon back now and then and let us know how that's coming along.

It is not these Executive Depts right to create laws on their own via Judicial Activism and it's long past due that they no longer are allowed to create laws without the consent of Congress.

While you're getting wound up on that stuff, you might take a peek into the wisdom of governing from a basis of ignorant paranoia.

You just keep posting that graph.. Because it's Exihibit A in how the IPCC attempted to bury natural causes like Solar Irradiance.. It's been explained to you -- you don't understand the arguments -- and YET you keep pushing it..

That's NOT the topic of this thread.. You;'ve had your chance to support your flubbering heroes. And you've failed along with them..

If you want to educate someone around here, why don't you try poster Eagle1462010.

And speaking of the topic of this thread: can you explain what it has to do with the environment?

Surely you're joking right??? PLEASE tell me you're kidding...

Did you READ the TITLE ??????

 

[Crick]

And speaking of the topic of this thread: can you explain what it has to do with the environment?

Surely you're joking right??? PLEASE tell me you're kidding...

Did you READ the TITLE ??????

What do her comments about deniers have to do with the environment?

 

[flacaltenn]

And speaking of the topic of this thread: can you explain what it has to do with the environment?

Surely you're joking right??? PLEASE tell me you're kidding...

Did you READ the TITLE ??????

What do her comments about deniers have to do with the environment?

So sad you don't understand that comments from the EPA Chief "have to do with the environment"...
Get someone else to explain that to you -- You've knock the last ounce of optimism about America right out of me..
Gonna go pout...

 

[HenryBHough]

So he took a few minutes off from slinging the bull to pitch a fit.

Does that qualify as "changeup"?

 

[Crick]

And speaking of the topic of this thread: can you explain what it has to do with the environment?

Surely you're joking right??? PLEASE tell me you're kidding...

Did you READ the TITLE ??????

What do her comments about deniers have to do with the environment?

So sad you don't understand that comments from the EPA Chief "have to do with the environment"...
Get someone else to explain that to you -- You've knock the last ounce of optimism about America right out of me..
Gonna go pout...

So you can't explain what it has to do with the environment?

 

[flacaltenn]

And speaking of the topic of this thread: can you explain what it has to do with the environment?

Surely you're joking right??? PLEASE tell me you're kidding...

Did you READ the TITLE ??????

What do her comments about deniers have to do with the environment?

So sad you don't understand that comments from the EPA Chief "have to do with the environment"...
Get someone else to explain that to you -- You've knock the last ounce of optimism about America right out of me..
Gonna go pout...

So you can't explain what it has to do with the environment?

Not to you apparently.. Let's try it this way.. Tell me why statements made by the head of the US EPA are NOT relevant to the Environment? Do you consider the massive powers of the EPA irrelevant to the environment?

Do you not consider that position one of trust, dignity and scientific integrity? Are you not interested in how the head of that agency conducts themselves in the midst of scientific debate? Tell me why your shorts are in bunch bunky.. I actually care about your feelings..

 

[Hossfly]

Still haven't heard or seen an explanation of the cost of lowering the Earth's climate by one degree temperature and the estimated cost. I thought some of these climate change geeks had a brain.
Again: One degree temperature reduction = how much $$$$$$$$$?

 

[flacaltenn]

Still haven't heard or seen an explanation of the cost of lowering the Earth's climate by one degree temperature and the estimated cost. I thought some of these climate change geeks had a brain.
Again: One degree temperature reduction = how much $$$$$$$$$?

Guess you got a point since the Supreme Ct just told EPA that Cost matters. Apparently -- money was no object with those guys until someone pointed out you can't blow wads and bring down industry in this country to get just ANY small thing you want..

 

[Crick]

Last time I checked, good accounting had two sides to a balance sheet. If it's right to take the potential implementation costs into account, it must also be right to take into account the potential costs of ignoring the problem. Yes?

 

[Crick]

Last time I checked, good accounting had two sides to a balance sheet. If it's right to take the potential implementation costs into account, it must also be right to take into account the potential costs of ignoring the problem. Yes?

 

[skookerasbil]

These meatheads are pissed because their green agenda isn't going nearly as well as planned. In fact, a huge majority of people are unimpressed. Couple that with a recent poll showing that 69% of the folks think the scientists are fucking with the data and sure...............these people are universally miserable.

These people.......they know the EPA is corrupt......know it exists to grow government authority and up the tax rate on small business........know its design is to smash capitalism via a poison drip...........


Doesn't and wont matter to these frauds.........they hate their country and want the destruction of everything that is traditional. Mofu's hate their country.............always have.

............and what sucks most about these fools is their support of this shitty agency helps ruin lives. These fucks are just fine with making poverty stricken people pay more for electricity. ALOT more if they get their way. More disgraceful is..........these climate crusaders largely sit on their asses and have little or no real responsibilities in life and are just fine shitting on the extremely hard working small business guy working 60-70 hours/week. The motto of the AGW climate crusaders towards these hard working Americans? "FUCK YOU!!!!!"



The EPA is their sledgehammer........the fuckers even admit it >>>

 

[jc456]

What's the problem? All of us warmers here know you (and SSDD and Westwall and Kosh and Crusader Frank and jc456 and the rest of the deniers here) aren't normal. YOU know you're not normal. You choose to reject arguments no reasonable person would reject. What's the beef?

dude, just post the experiment that proves your position. It is a simple task right?

 

[jc456]

You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".

I have to tell you, Billy Boy; if anyone around here throws tantrums, it's you.

You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".
The head of the EPA speaking her mind about deniers is not an abuse of power. You think FAR too highly of yourself. You buffoons are a noisy minority of uneducated flat-earthers. Hey, how's that doctorate coming along?

You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".When are you people going to learn how rare "proof" is in the natural sciences? You've all been lectured on this dozens of times, yet you still all demand "proof". And what is this entire thread but an ad hominem attack on the head of the EPA? Separating deniers from normal human beings has nothing to do with the validity of the science. Besides, I'm afraid her days of doing science are over. She's an administrator. If you want to blame her for the results the world's climate scientists are getting, you might as well blame her for the bad weather: she's got just as much to do with that.

Your proof is the same bs you post all the time.

I have given you no "proof" of anything. I have presented a wide assortment of very well-sourced evidence to back my position. You have presented none to back yours.

and you can't quantify the amount of heat by man.

How much do you weigh this very instant? How much of the volume of the Earth is liquid? What is the total mass of the Solar System? What is the mass of the nearest oak tree? Of what proportion of the universe's total knowledge are you unaware?

Can you read the scale on a graph? I realize your math skills are not exceptional, but can't you at least imagine what can be calculated from those numbers?

I was amazed on another thread when you finally admitted there was a period of cooling and not warming then you retracted when the cult tried to find a way to say it wasn't so

Your sentence construction makes it unclear whether your initial use of "you" is singular or plural. I have no idea to what admission you refer, but there have been thousands - millions - of cooling periods; from millennia to milliseconds. If you'd like to have a meaningful discussion on these points, you'll need to identify your topic a bit more clearly.

The Global Warming cult got caught with their hands in the cookie jar fudging data - fudging sounds kinda gay doesn't it - and bitch and moan when you get called out on it.

No one has been caught fudging data. If you disagree, identify the person and show us your evidence that whatever adjustments you're "bitching and moaning" about were unjustified. And leave your pathetic homophobia in the closet where it belongs, beaky-boy.

This lady is pissed that the coal companies won their case in the Supreme Court.

The case involved the power companies, not the coal companies. And concluding that the EPA needs to take cost into consideration isn't much of a win:

Con-Ed: "So, EPA, you need to take into account how much its going to cost to remove the toxic, accumulative heavy metal poisons out of our stack gas."
EPA: "Okay. It's gonna cost you a butt-ton-load of money. Get hot."

The EPA has been producing legislative measure by proxy for some time, using the courts to justify new regulations that are killing industry WITHOUT CONSENT OF CONGRESS using JUDICIAL ACTIVISM TO DO SO, claiming OLD LAWS give them the right to CREATE ANY NEW REGULATION THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE.

You failed American Government in high school, didn't you? Where to start. Regulatory agencies have the power to make regulations within the framework of legislation. They do not require the consent of Congress once Congress and the president have passed legislation that provides a regulatory framework, as they clearly have done. Any charge of judicial activism is irrelevant conservative meme-slinging. What judicial authority acted proactively here? And what the fuck are you talking about "OLD LAWS"??? Do you think they wear out? Do you think laws expire? Do you think laws spoil and go bad?

It is an ABUSE OF POWER

You're a fucking idiot.

and challenges the Fundamental principles of the Constitution of the United States

Taking industry costs into account when regulating the emission of mercury is a "Fundamental (sic) principle of the Constitution of the United States"??? Yes, you most definitely are a fucking idiot.

Finally, someone stopped a part of it and she's WHINING LIKE A LITTLE BITCH

Umm... maybe you ought to go reread the OP. The EPA chief separating climate change deniers (like you) from normal human beings, has NOTHING to do with the Supreme Court decision involving the EPA and the power industry. It was repartee in response to comments garnered by the EPA's release of a statement of the costs of not acting on climate change issues.

Deal with it

Shove it up your ass.

We need Amendments to put orgs like the EPA ON A LEASH, specifically that NO NEW REGULATION CAN BE PLACED ON THE BOOKS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, SPECIFICALLY VOTED ON BY THE REGULATION BEING SUBMITTED

God are you stupid. But, hey, you get to work on that and c'mon back now and then and let us know how that's coming along.

It is not these Executive Depts right to create laws on their own via Judicial Activism and it's long past due that they no longer are allowed to create laws without the consent of Congress.

While you're getting wound up on that stuff, you might take a peek into the wisdom of governing from a basis of ignorant paranoia.

so simple question, how warm is the earth supposed to be?

 

[jc456]

Your side has circumvented the Constitution to push your agenda.

Where?

You do it by citing old laws to do any damned thing you want.

I hate to break it to you, but old laws are still laws. Like the laws against murder and rape and stealing? Hundreds of years old. Thousands, really. But, you know what? They still work.

You post the same graph time and time again and still can't quantify the amount of warming by man.

The problem isn't anything lacking from that graph. It's what's lacking from that head of yours.

You take natural phenomenon and equate it to man.

You seem to think man is operating in a different universe than the rest of reality

You refuse to look at how much heat is dissipated by natural events like Typhoons [sic] and Hurricanes [sic]. Natures AC units.

Dissipated to where?

You go la la la when your computer models don't match reality.

Show us.

You refuse to admit that the IPCC lied it's asses off.

That's because I don't lie.

You refuse that the science was so fucked up in the 70's that they predicted another Ice age.

I have never denied that some few scientists have been concerned about an ice age.

You change the title over and over again as people ditch your beliefs aka Global Cooling [sic] to.

I have never changed any titles.

You destroy industry with your bs, and praise the new, while using the old to build it.

When an industry does more harm than good, I will seek to change it or end it. If you think I shouldn't, you're just getting too stupid for words.

and so on.

Yes, and so on.

how warm is the earth supposed to be?