Idiots, Crooks, & Bedbugs

[Statistikhengst]

So, what you are stating is that all the scientists in the world are crazy as bedbugs.

Because, you see, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that state AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Seems to me more likely the you are the one with the bedbug attributes.

And that pretty much sums it up.

 

[Flanders]

Ain’t it a bitch when the biggest global warming con artist of them all swears he’s being ripped off. He’s the clown that gave us the Kyoto Protocol:

Al Gore Sues Al Jazeera for Withholding Money From Sale of Current TV
8:55 AM PDT 8/15/2014 by Eriq Gardner

Al Gore Sues Al Jazeera for Withholding Money From Sale of Current TV - Hollywood Reporter

 

[Crick]

Al Gore did NOT give us the Kyoto Protocol and since the US never ratified it, it wouldn't matter if he had.

That he is suing Al-Jazeera regarding a business deal has nothing to do with global warming or the environment. That you should think it notable only makes me think you suffer from Gore Derangement Syndrome.

 

[Old Rocks]

Whatever are you yapping about, Flanders? You can buy complete kits and do the work yourself, a 5 kw system costs $8313. If you are so incompetant that you have to have someone do the work for you, then see the Better Business Bureau in your area, and get real craftsmen to do the job. Go cheap, and you deserve what you get.

To Old Rocks: You need the help. The percentage of Americans who are physically incapable of doing the work —— age for one thing —— far outnumber the people who can do the work; so that brings us right back to your “real craftsmen” who will ripoff the homeowner as quickly as the people in this article.

Roof-Top Solar Panels — the Latest Homeowner Fraud
Friday, 14 Mar 2014 03:46 PM
By Bradley Blakeman

Latest Homeowner Fraud: Roof-Top Solar Panels

Just to set the record straight. Installing solar panels is semi-skilled labor that can be learned in a few weeks. In fact, you imply that anybody can do it. Then you turn around and say hire craftsmen. No matter how you stretch the definition installing solar panels does not qualify as craftsmanship:

craftsman (noun)
A man who practices a craft with great skill.

XXXXX​

craft (noun)

1. Skill in doing or making something, as in the arts; proficiency.

2. Skill in evasion or deception; guile.

3. a. An occupation or trade requiring manual dexterity or skilled artistry. b. The membership of such an occupation or trade; guild.

4. plural craft. A boat, ship, or aircraft.

verb, transitive
crafted, crafting, crafts

1. To make by hand.

2. Usage Problem. To make or construct (something) in a manner suggesting great care or ingenuity: "It was not the Chamber of Commerce that crafted the public policies that have resulted in a $26 billion annual subvention to the farmers" (William F. Buckley, Jr.).

I think I have you pegged right. You are obviously a parasite making money in a heavily subsidized industry that is rife with lazy bums, hustlers, and outright crooks from top to bottom.

John O'Sullivan, eh.:badgrin:

Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan | DeSmogBlog

Skolnick's evidence shows that O'Sullivan made a series of false claims, including:

that he was an attorney with more than a decade of successful litigation in New York State and Federal courts;
that he was employed by a major Victoria, B.C.(Canada) law firm that is representing Ball in the libel action;
that he is a widely published writer, with credits in Forbes and the National Review;
that he had received his law degree from the University College, Cork, Ireland and/or from the University of Surrey (O'Sullivan's actual legal accreditation, apparently obtained after the Mann-Ball action commenced, comes from an online degree mill, Hill University, which promises delivery in two weeks);
that he is a member of the American Bar Association.
One affidavit includes an online comment in which O'Sullivan says, “For your information, I am a retired academic and I have litigated personally or assisted others in pro se litigation at every level of court there is in New York State as well as Federal level, for over a decade and never lost.”

Although O'Sullivan admits in this particular comment that he is not, in fact, licensed to practice law, in the U.S. or the U.K., he adds, “I'm just some Brit with a brain who can go live with his American wife in her country and kick ass big time around a courtroom.”

So, another ass with no credentials at all, making fools of people like yourself that haven't any kind of scientfic background, and are too damned lazy to check what the facts are.

To Old Rocks: You are attacking the wrong guy. Your guy Hansen advocates a huge increase in the number of parasites diving into the public trough; subsidies, research grants, lifetime-tenured tax dollar jobs, Wall Street firms churning customers’ accounts on tax dollar funded “energy” companies, Cap & Trade, and so on. Sullivan opposes the parasites. Even if you know nothing about the positions of the two men, only fools would trust the guy who wants more parasites living on tax dollars.

Bottom line: Science is not the argument. Manmade global warming has been discredited beyond resurrection. The corpse is being preserved by parasites hoping to bring it back to life. The question is how to keep environmental parasites, hustlers, and crooks out of the public trough once and for all.

And you are one sorry fool. I am a millwright in a steel mill. And we run a very lean crew, therefore, all work hard long hours. Not only that, come September I will be back in classes at a university. And I am 70 years old. Try keeping up with my ass someday, you fat silly old man. See, I just made a series of baseless assumptions, just like you did. But I bet I am closer to being correct than you are.

 

[Flanders]

Al Gore did NOT give us the Kyoto Protocol and since the US never ratified it, it wouldn't matter if he had.

To Crick: Gore negotiated Kyoto with one objective in mind: THE PUBLIC PURSE. The fact that it is falling apart among those countries that did sign Kyoto shows that it was designed for Cap & Trade talking points.

Consider the facts: The Kyoto Protocol, which Gore personally negotiated for the United States, was a colossal mistake–a fundamentally flawed approach that has taken nearly a decade (and counting) to recover from. If ever a treaty was dead on arrival, it was Kyoto, given that the Senate had voted 95-0 against two of its essential elements before it was negotiated. (That vote rejected any treaty that would seriously harm our economy while exempting the developing world from any obligation to reduce its emissions–a sensible litmus test.) That didn’t stop Gore from agreeing to its terms, knowing full well that it would never be ratified–a remarkably cynical political move.

XXXXX​

Of course President Clinton never even tried to get the Senate to approve the treaty, and for seven years the rest of the industrialized world wrestled with ratification. A year ago, the Protocol finally came into effect–at least on paper. We have next to nothing to show for it. Canada is the latest country to admit (just this week) that it cannot meet its Kyoto targets; it wants to pursue voluntary measures when the Protocol expires in 2012. The rest of the participants aren’t doing much better: No country has actually made substantial reductions in its greenhouse gas emissions because of Kyoto, and many European countries will miss their targets by double digits. Moreover, those limits are only a small fraction of what many scientists think is needed to stabilize the climate.

May 25, 2006 5:58 AM
Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore
Remember Kyoto?
By Samuel Thernstrom

Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore | National Review Online​

NOTE: All of the subsidy ripoffs going to alternative energy companies are a drop in the bucket when compared to the amount of tax dollars Gore and his Wall Street buddies would realize from Cap & Trade.

Fail: US Has Wasted $154 Billion on 'Renewable Energy'
by Julian Morris & Victor Nava 5 Dec 2013

Fail: US Has Wasted $154 Billion on 'Renewable Energy'

Bottom line: The entire environmental movement is a fraud being perpetrated by hustlers after tax dollars, and the United Nations with a political agenda; i.e., claiming authority over the atmosphere and oceans in order to gain the authority to tax the American people. Notice the EPA, a de facto United Nations Agency, is slowly acquiring authority over private property and America’s fresh water resources which have not a damn thing to do with enforcing the Clean Air Act.

That he is suing Al-Jazeera regarding a business deal has nothing to do with global warming or the environment. That you should think it notable only makes me think you suffer from Gore Derangement Syndrome.

To Crick: The point was that a con artist is getting a taste of his own medicine. The beauty is that he will not get paid with tax dollars if he wins.

And you are one sorry fool. I am a millwright in a steel mill. And we run a very lean crew, therefore, all work hard long hours. Not only that, come September I will be back in classes at a university. And I am 70 years old. Try keeping up with my ass someday, you fat silly old man. See, I just made a series of baseless assumptions, just like you did. But I bet I am closer to being correct than you are.

To Old Rocks: You are a bigger fool than I thought if you believe any part of the environmental garbage without making a buck from the scam.

And if you are a worker in a steel mill at age 70 more than likely you belong to a labor union. That means you are a lazy bum.

As far as working long hours goes —— long hours in a unionized company is an overtime scam that never, never, involves hard work. Anybody that works hard for the first 8 hours should be too damned tired to work overtime.

When you go back to college you better take a course on how to bullshit people who are wise to your kind.

 

[elektra]

So, what you are stating is that all the scientists in the world are crazy as bedbugs.

Because, you see, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that state AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Seems to me more likely the you are the one with the bedbug attributes.

So, question, did you ever research the issue or did you just accept what they stated? Again, curious.

Why yes, I have researched the issue. Extensively. From the first recognition of the role of the atmosphere in retaining heat by Fourier, to the articles of Hansen and Mann. And many other articles in peer reviewed publications, particularly those publications involving geology.

And, from personal observations of glaciers in the Olympics, Cascades, and Rockies. Personal observations over 70 years of the increasing warmth in the same areas.

Now, as to accepting what the scientists are stating. Were it just one scientist, or scientists from one country, you might have a point. It is thousands of scientists from all the countries on earth that are making the observations that are telling us that the earth is warming rapidly. And that we are the primary cause of that warming. And it is the craven assholes paid by energy companies that are lying through their teeth to deny the reality of what is happening. And ignorant fools like you that do zero research just flap-yap and spew whatever they feed you.

Mann got caught falsifying data, Hansen is a fraud.

As Old Crock knows, but like all Old Fools, Old Crock can not see that Old Crock is a fool.

 

[Crick]

What data do you believe Mann falsified?

When was Hansen found to be a fraud?

 

[Old Rocks]

So we have the usual flapyaps claiming wrong doing on the part of the scientists. Yet they can post no valid links showing any kind of wrong doing on these mens parts.

What we really have here are people with no ethics or morals denigrating the work of good men. Work that others in the world have confirmed repeatedly.

 

[Crick]

YO, ELEKTRA, WHAT DATA DO YOU BELIEVE MANN FALSIFIED? WHEN WAS HANSEN FOUND TO BE A FRAUD?

 

[Flanders]

The entire environmental movement is a fraud being perpetrated by hustlers after tax dollars, and the United Nations with a political agenda; i.e., claiming authority over the atmosphere and oceans in order to gain the authority to tax the American people. Notice the EPA, a de facto United Nations Agency, is slowly acquiring authority over private property and America’s fresh water resources which have not a damn thing to do with enforcing the Clean Air Act.

UPDATE

Here’s where it is at:

As Congress figures out what policy riders, provisions in appropriations bills that prohibit or direct the use of funds for certain purposes, will be included in any omnibus appropriations bill, there are several that should make the list, including one to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from using funds to implement their water rule in fiscal year 2016.

The EPA’s Water Power Grab: Lawmakers Can Use the Appropriations Process to Stop It
Daren Bakst
December 04, 2015

How Lawmakers Can Stop EPA's Water Power Grab​

I would not count on Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell.

 

[Crick]

Cause, you know, the EPA has done so poorly with the nation's water supplies.

Let's be honest here. The RNC doesn't like the EPA because their regulations costs businesses some of their profits. Now certainly the vast majority of those costs are passed along to us consumers and since they stem from federal regulations, affect everyone, but businesses don't care for the hassle. And RNC congress people like to make businesses happy, whether or not it has an effect on the health and well-being of the American people. Caveat emptor, by god, caveat emptor. The RNC motto.

 

[Flanders]

Cause, you know, the EPA has done so poorly with the nation's water supplies.

To Crick: There was nothing wrong with America’s fresh water distribution, or polices, before the EPA came along.

Let's be honest here. The RNC doesn't like the EPA because their regulations costs businesses some of their profits.

To Crick: Those profits would be lower if they did not contribute to the welfare state. And it is Democrat parasites outsourcing jobs and entire industries to establish a global welfare state. All of that was done throughout the decades Democrats controlled Congress.

Do try to grasp this from my following comments: It is not the profit motive that justifies EPA’s regulations. The fault lies in United Nations control that drives the EPA.

You might start by looking at the beginning of globalization before you criticize the very profits that feed Democrat parasites in government, not only with perks, but with big jobs after they leave office.

Before WWII there were dozens of American steamship companies. Many of those companies had a few ships, but there were a number of large American steamship companies in the business.

After the end of WWII, the US was the only country that had anything; so giving away the American Merchant Marine was considered good parasite policy. A 50/50 law was the foundation. That law says that NOT MORE THAN 50 PERCENT of American cargo leaving American ports can go on American bottoms. In other words, the US said that it would give foreign bottoms fifty percent of America’s oceangoing exports.

The 50/50 law administered the coup de gras to America’s merchant fleet. This is what actually happened with 50/50. Sharpshooters immediately saw that if they put only one percent of export cargo on American ships going foreign they would not be violating the law. The race for the lowest percentage of export cargo on American ships began, and down went the American Merchant Marine along with the American shipbuilding industry.

The U.S. could have helped war-torn countries and still have maintained a substantial American maritime industry, including shipbuilding, had the law said Fifty percent of all cargo going foreign MUST go on American ships. Unfortunately for the country, the global villagers were sneaks from day one and wouldn’t hear of it.

Democrats did nothing to correct the travesty they created.

Steamship owners had no choice but to go along with globalization. During the years the American Merchant Marine was shrinking, the argument was always used to justify the reduction said that American steamship companies could not compete with cheap foreign labor. The truth is that crew salaries never bankrupted any American steamship company; whereas, political corruption destroyed quite a few. Notably, Japan, Denmark, Canada, and one or two other maritime nations paid their unionized crews higher salaries, with more fringe benefits, than American seamen were earning. Those merchant fleets did extremely well.

I firmly believe that America’s maritime policy, set in motion before the United Nations succeeded the League of Nations in 1945, is one of the first serious moves planned and executed in preparation for the coming of a global village, global financial markets, and a global economy. All paid for with the incremental loss of individual liberties in additional to a lower standard of living for productive Americans. Basically, the parasites could not raise the standard of loving in foreign countries so they lowered America’s.

As soon as the New World Order crowd was in charge of a well-founded, well-publicized, International organization, they began lobbying for more federal legislation in order to further worldwide Socialism. Capitalistic steamship owners did not initiate the policy, but went along for the money in their realm of expertise.

Shipbuilding went down the tubes with America’s merchant fleet. There are no shipyards operating in the United States that build or repair oceangoing merchant ships. The few yards that do remain in business build military vessels. One or two American yards build smaller commercial vessels like fishing boats, tow boats, barges, etc. There used to be private sector shipyards up and down the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts, as well a bunch of yards in Gulf of Mexico ports. What 50/50 contributed to the decease in American steel production is obvious as any displaced steelworker will tell you.

Aside from the obvious differences in design and purpose, merchant ships are not simply “ships.” Ships are political animals with significant political distinctions separating liquid bulk carriers (tankers), dry bulk carriers ( coal, grain, etc.), and freighters which are nearly extinct. For instance: The tanker lobby will always have more clout in Congress than does the dry bulk carrier lobby. For now, let’s hope that somebody in Washington takes a look at bringing two vital industries back to the United States irrespective of the type ship involved, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of American families those two industries will support.

WWII ended 60 years ago. The war-torn countries have been rebuilt. Now let’s rebuild the American merchant fleet with American steel, and then crew those ships with American born seamen. If members of Congress are serious about a stimulus package, a revitalized maritime industry is staring them right in the face.

NOTE: Federal government immigration policies undeniably contributed a great deal to the events of 9/11/01. Last week’s attack in San Bernardino demonstrated what living in a global village is going to be like; so it is time for another look at 50/50 and every parasite policy.

Incidentally, America is practically surrounded by water, yet America has no merchant fleet worth mentioning.

Instead of making idiotic statements about the profit motive, try to trace the political philosophy that created the EPA.

Now certainly the vast majority of those costs are passed along to us consumers and since they stem from federal regulations, affect everyone, but businesses don't care for the hassle.

To Crick: Americans care about the hassle the EPA gives them fighting to hold on to their property Rights. Spend some time researching that issue.

And RNC congress people like to make businesses happy, whether or not it has an effect on the health and well-being of the American people.

To Crick: Americans were the healthiest people in the world with the highest standard of living in mankind’s history before the parasites class grew in leaps and bounds.

Incidentally, if the EPA is concerned about health, where are they when Democrats import diseased immigrants.

Caveat emptor, by god, caveat emptor. The RNC motto.

To Crick: Get real. Does saying Let the Buyer beware in Latin tell you how long the warning has been around? Or are you saying EPA regulations will change human nature?

 

[Crick]

Cause, you know, the EPA has done so poorly with the nation's water supplies.

To Crick:

There was nothing wrong with America’s fresh water distribution, or polices, before the EPA came along.

That must explain major rivers being so polluted they caught fire

Let's be honest here. The RNC doesn't like the EPA because their regulations costs businesses some of their profits.

To Crick:

Those profits would be lower if they did not contribute to the welfare state.

Is that what you meant to say?

And it is Democrat parasites outsourcing jobs and entire industries to establish a global welfare state. All of that was done throughout the decades Democrats controlled Congress.

Businesses moved themselves offshore, not the government. If you care to examine the platforms and behaviors of the two parties with regard to business restrictions and regulation you will most certainly find that the RNC has been far more supportive of such moves.

Do try to grasp this from my following comments: It is not the profit motive that justifies EPA’s regulations.

I never said it was. I said it is a concern for business profits that drives the RNC's opposition

The fault lies in United Nations control that drives the EPA.

Paranoid nonsense. If you don't believe me, go ask your therapist.

You might start by looking at the beginning of globalization before you criticize the very profits that feed Democrat parasites in government, not only with perks, but with big jobs after they leave office.

What the fuck are you talking about? Were you drinking when you wrote this?

Before WWII there were dozens of American steamship companies. Many of those companies had a few ships, but there were a number of large American steamship companies in the business.

After the end of WWII, the US was the only country that had anything; so giving away the American Merchant Marine was considered good parasite policy. A 50/50 law was the foundation. That law says that NOT MORE THAN 50 PERCENT of American cargo leaving American ports can go on American bottoms. In other words, the US said that it would give foreign bottoms fifty percent of America’s oceangoing exports.

Do you remember where you are? This is the Environment board. Your post began talking about the EPA. It has now wandered deep into LaLa Land.

The 50/50 law administered the coup de gras to America’s merchant fleet. This is what actually happened with 50/50. Sharpshooters immediately saw that if they put only one percent of export cargo on American ships going foreign they would not be violating the law. The race for the lowest percentage of export cargo on American ships began, and down went the American Merchant Marine along with the American shipbuilding industry.

The U.S. could have helped war-torn countries and still have maintained a substantial American maritime industry, including shipbuilding, had the law said Fifty percent of all cargo going foreign MUST go on American ships. Unfortunately for the country, the global villagers were sneaks from day one and wouldn’t hear of it.

Environment Board. EPA. Environment Board. EPA

Democrats did nothing to correct the travesty they created.

Let me guess: former stevedore? Deck hand?

Steamship owners had no choice but to go along with globalization. During the years the American Merchant Marine was shrinking, the argument was always used to justify the reduction said that American steamship companies could not compete with cheap foreign labor. The truth is that crew salaries never bankrupted any American steamship company; whereas, political corruption destroyed quite a few. Notably, Japan, Denmark, Canada, and one or two other maritime nations paid their unionized crews higher salaries, with more fringe benefits, than American seamen were earning. Those merchant fleets did extremely well.

Flanders! Come home boy! Turn around and come back. Reality is missing you.

I firmly believe that America’s maritime policy, set in motion before the United Nations succeeded the League of Nations in 1945, is one of the first serious moves planned and executed in preparation for the coming of a global village, global financial markets, and a global economy. All paid for with the incremental loss of individual liberties in additional to a lower standard of living for productive Americans. Basically, the parasites could not raise the standard of loving in foreign countries so they lowered America’s.

More paranoid nonsense.

As soon as the New World Order crowd ...blah blah blah blah blah blah.....

Instead of making idiotic statements about the profit motive, try to trace the political philosophy that created the EPA.

You're utterly, totally, completely whacked.

Now certainly the vast majority of those costs are passed along to us consumers and since they stem from federal regulations, affect everyone, but businesses don't care for the hassle.

To Crick:

Americans care about the hassle the EPA gives them fighting to hold on to their property Rights. Spend some time researching that issue.

The number of Americans who benefit from EPA efforts to clean their environment and keep it clean vastly outnumbers Americans unhappy about EPA regulations affecting their property.

And RNC congress people like to make businesses happy, whether or not it has an effect on the health and well-being of the American people.

To Crick:

Americans were the healthiest people in the world with the highest standard of living in mankind’s history before the parasites class grew in leaps and bounds.

Who do you believe to be "the parasite class"?

Incidentally, if the EPA is concerned about health, where are they when Democrats import diseased immigrants.

Get fucked, you racist bigot.

Caveat emptor, by god, caveat emptor. The RNC motto.

To Crick:

Get real. Does saying Let the Buyer beware in Latin tell you how long the warning has been around?

Tell us how long the warning has been around?!? What's the matter with you?

Or are you saying EPA regulations will change human nature?

Man, you are STUPID. I'm saying that the RNC cares more about businesses and their profits than they do about the American people. Get it? Most sixth graders here did.

 

[Flanders]

Get fucked, you racist bigot.

To Crick: You filthy piece of shit. Your kind enjoy killing American children. Go live with the people in the sewers they come from if you love them so much:

Importing a Potential Epidemic
The dark truth about disease and Obama's border lawlessness.
June 23, 2015
Arnold Ahlert

Importing a Potential Epidemic​

Tell us how long the warning has been around?!?

To Crick: Since the last Ice Age you scumbag.

As for the rest of your stupidity, provide a case where one private sector American was arrested by the EPA and given a day in court as the Constitution requires. Instead, EPA bureaucrats punish, fine, and confiscate on their own authority.

 

[jc456]

So, what you are stating is that all the scientists in the world are crazy as bedbugs.

Because, you see, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that state AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Seems to me more likely the you are the one with the bedbug attributes.

So, question, did you ever research the issue or did you just accept what they stated? Again, curious.

Why yes, I have researched the issue. Extensively. From the first recognition of the role of the atmosphere in retaining heat by Fourier, to the articles of Hansen and Mann. And many other articles in peer reviewed publications, particularly those publications involving geology.

And, from personal observations of glaciers in the Olympics, Cascades, and Rockies. Personal observations over 70 years of the increasing warmth in the same areas.

Now, as to accepting what the scientists are stating. Were it just one scientist, or scientists from one country, you might have a point. It is thousands of scientists from all the countries on earth that are making the observations that are telling us that the earth is warming rapidly. And that we are the primary cause of that warming. And it is the craven assholes paid by energy companies that are lying through their teeth to deny the reality of what is happening. And ignorant fools like you that do zero research just flap-yap and spew whatever they feed you.

so if you have researched this as you say, then why is it you can't produce one experiment that proves that catastrophic climate change is real? What you're saying is the 20 PPM of CO2 is a nuclear bomb to the environment and our lives. And yet, you have zip for evidence. All these great and smart scientists, and why do they need to make unnecessary adjustment to data from temperatures stations around the globe? What is it they are afraid of to just present the raw data? Been on here for two years bubba and you haven't once posted up this material. Where is it. See without it, you'll never convince the public. And sir, that is your issue.

 

[jc456]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. Theories are discussed in the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)

This site is from the American Institute of Physics, the largest Scientific Society on earth.

dude again, in that link is the experiment that Herr Koch did in 1901, how many times will you post that and have me respond concerning Herr Koch's experiment?

If it is indeed in error as you always post up after mine, I simply ask to present the experiment that disproves his. To date, nadda.

 

[jc456]

Cause, you know, the EPA has done so poorly with the nation's water supplies.

To Crick:

There was nothing wrong with America’s fresh water distribution, or polices, before the EPA came along.

That must explain major rivers being so polluted they caught fire

Let's be honest here. The RNC doesn't like the EPA because their regulations costs businesses some of their profits.

To Crick:

Those profits would be lower if they did not contribute to the welfare state.

Is that what you meant to say?

And it is Democrat parasites outsourcing jobs and entire industries to establish a global welfare state. All of that was done throughout the decades Democrats controlled Congress.

Businesses moved themselves offshore, not the government. If you care to examine the platforms and behaviors of the two parties with regard to business restrictions and regulation you will most certainly find that the RNC has been far more supportive of such moves.

Do try to grasp this from my following comments: It is not the profit motive that justifies EPA’s regulations.

I never said it was. I said it is a concern for business profits that drives the RNC's opposition

The fault lies in United Nations control that drives the EPA.

Paranoid nonsense. If you don't believe me, go ask your therapist.

You might start by looking at the beginning of globalization before you criticize the very profits that feed Democrat parasites in government, not only with perks, but with big jobs after they leave office.

What the fuck are you talking about? Were you drinking when you wrote this?

Before WWII there were dozens of American steamship companies. Many of those companies had a few ships, but there were a number of large American steamship companies in the business.

After the end of WWII, the US was the only country that had anything; so giving away the American Merchant Marine was considered good parasite policy. A 50/50 law was the foundation. That law says that NOT MORE THAN 50 PERCENT of American cargo leaving American ports can go on American bottoms. In other words, the US said that it would give foreign bottoms fifty percent of America’s oceangoing exports.

Do you remember where you are? This is the Environment board. Your post began talking about the EPA. It has now wandered deep into LaLa Land.

The 50/50 law administered the coup de gras to America’s merchant fleet. This is what actually happened with 50/50. Sharpshooters immediately saw that if they put only one percent of export cargo on American ships going foreign they would not be violating the law. The race for the lowest percentage of export cargo on American ships began, and down went the American Merchant Marine along with the American shipbuilding industry.

The U.S. could have helped war-torn countries and still have maintained a substantial American maritime industry, including shipbuilding, had the law said Fifty percent of all cargo going foreign MUST go on American ships. Unfortunately for the country, the global villagers were sneaks from day one and wouldn’t hear of it.

Environment Board. EPA. Environment Board. EPA

Democrats did nothing to correct the travesty they created.

Let me guess: former stevedore? Deck hand?

Steamship owners had no choice but to go along with globalization. During the years the American Merchant Marine was shrinking, the argument was always used to justify the reduction said that American steamship companies could not compete with cheap foreign labor. The truth is that crew salaries never bankrupted any American steamship company; whereas, political corruption destroyed quite a few. Notably, Japan, Denmark, Canada, and one or two other maritime nations paid their unionized crews higher salaries, with more fringe benefits, than American seamen were earning. Those merchant fleets did extremely well.

Flanders! Come home boy! Turn around and come back. Reality is missing you.

I firmly believe that America’s maritime policy, set in motion before the United Nations succeeded the League of Nations in 1945, is one of the first serious moves planned and executed in preparation for the coming of a global village, global financial markets, and a global economy. All paid for with the incremental loss of individual liberties in additional to a lower standard of living for productive Americans. Basically, the parasites could not raise the standard of loving in foreign countries so they lowered America’s.

More paranoid nonsense.

As soon as the New World Order crowd ...blah blah blah blah blah blah.....

Instead of making idiotic statements about the profit motive, try to trace the political philosophy that created the EPA.

You're utterly, totally, completely whacked.

Now certainly the vast majority of those costs are passed along to us consumers and since they stem from federal regulations, affect everyone, but businesses don't care for the hassle.

To Crick:

Americans care about the hassle the EPA gives them fighting to hold on to their property Rights. Spend some time researching that issue.

The number of Americans who benefit from EPA efforts to clean their environment and keep it clean vastly outnumbers Americans unhappy about EPA regulations affecting their property.

And RNC congress people like to make businesses happy, whether or not it has an effect on the health and well-being of the American people.

To Crick:

Americans were the healthiest people in the world with the highest standard of living in mankind’s history before the parasites class grew in leaps and bounds.

Who do you believe to be "the parasite class"?

Incidentally, if the EPA is concerned about health, where are they when Democrats import diseased immigrants.

Get fucked, you racist bigot.

Caveat emptor, by god, caveat emptor. The RNC motto.

To Crick:

Get real. Does saying Let the Buyer beware in Latin tell you how long the warning has been around?

Tell us how long the warning has been around?!? What's the matter with you?

Or are you saying EPA regulations will change human nature?

Man, you are STUPID. I'm saying that the RNC cares more about businesses and their profits than they do about the American people. Get it? Most sixth graders here did.

Businesses moved themselves offshore, not the government. If you care to examine the platforms and behaviors of the two parties with regard to business restrictions and regulation you will most certainly find that the RNC has been far more supportive of such moves.

Why do you supposed the businesses moved off shore? Are you smart enough to answer that question?

Edit:
Man, you are STUPID. I'm saying that the RNC cares more about businesses and their profits than they do about the American people. Get it? Most sixth graders here did.
facts not in evidence.

 

[SSDD]

So, what you are stating is that all the scientists in the world are crazy as bedbugs.

Because, you see, every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that state AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.

Seems to me more likely the you are the one with the bedbug attributes.

Not all scientists...just all political heads of scientific organizations...even you aren't a big enough liar to claim that the political heads represent all scientists are you? Appeal to authority is the lamest of all the logical fallacies...and the one that screams "I got nothing else" the loudest..

 

[SSDD]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate essay for Other Greenhouse Gases. Theories are discussed in the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)

This site is from the American Institute of Physics, the largest Scientific Society on earth.

And which part of that dogma do you believe represents empirical proof that supports the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis....that being that additional CO2 in the atmosphere results in warming...point it out...you don't even have to cut and paste...I will happily go and look...although I have already been to that site and know that no such evidence exists there...or anywhere for that matter. If you can't support the most fundamental claim with empirical evidence, why should anyone bother to listen to you?

 

[SSDD]

Same answer as always huh rocks...nothing. Maybe dogma is enough to convince and comfort you, but I am an empirical evidence sort of guy...failed computer models demand the presence of empirical evidence if you have any brain cells firing at all...clearly...you don't.

Now I predict either a red herring, or an ad hominem from you....or maybe both since your silence tells us that even you know that the requested evidence doesn't reside in the religious tract you linked to...you know nothing is there, but you try to peddle it anyway...a demonstration of your basic dishonesty.