Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No, your question to me seemed to be aimed at all environmental laws, not just climate change related legislation. The problem with enacting climate change laws is the obstructionism of the right. No doubt that higher café standards helped as well as regs that the Obama Administration enacted and that Trump is trying to undo.Are you serious? Look at pictures of US cities in the 60s and 70s and as they are now. Are you telling me the clean air act did not work? Remember the burning rivers and acid rain? We haven't had a Love Canal recently have we? There is a very long list of very successful environmental laws.Well that is the purpose of the debate. To get to a solution that will work.Action and adaptation? Show me where the multi billions, some estimate over a trillion, has resulted in any meaningful action or adaption.I applaud the need to change the debate to action and adaption. The science is settled. There are people still debating whether the earth is round. Time to move on or we will get nowhere.
You guys have been doing that for decades now. Asking for a tally of results is completely reasonable.
Why are you hesitating to brag about all that you greenies have done?
Your dishonest dodge is noted. The topic is global warming.
You dodged because you know that there has been no results from all your efforts.
I note the deflection there.Are you serious? Look at pictures of US cities in the 60s and 70s and as they are now. Are you telling me the clean air act did not work? Remember the burning rivers and acid rain? We haven't had a Love Canal recently have we? There is a very long list of very successful environmental laws.Well that is the purpose of the debate. To get to a solution that will work.Action and adaptation? Show me where the multi billions, some estimate over a trillion, has resulted in any meaningful action or adaption.I applaud the need to change the debate to action and adaption. The science is settled. There are people still debating whether the earth is round. Time to move on or we will get nowhere.
You guys have been doing that for decades now. Asking for a tally of results is completely reasonable.
Why are you hesitating to brag about all that you greenies have done?
you can't stop itYou're an idiot. Get out of the way.who cares?
we can't stop any climate change
No, your question to me seemed to be aimed at all environmental laws, not just climate change related legislation. The problem with enacting climate change laws is the obstructionism of the right. No doubt that higher café standards helped as well as regs that the Obama Administration enacted and that Trump is trying to undo.Are you serious? Look at pictures of US cities in the 60s and 70s and as they are now. Are you telling me the clean air act did not work? Remember the burning rivers and acid rain? We haven't had a Love Canal recently have we? There is a very long list of very successful environmental laws.Well that is the purpose of the debate. To get to a solution that will work.Action and adaptation? Show me where the multi billions, some estimate over a trillion, has resulted in any meaningful action or adaption.
You guys have been doing that for decades now. Asking for a tally of results is completely reasonable.
Why are you hesitating to brag about all that you greenies have done?
Your dishonest dodge is noted. The topic is global warming.
You dodged because you know that there has been no results from all your efforts.
Read, understand, then post.How can you have a real debate when the other side said "Global Warming science is settled, end of debate". That right there nullified any bullshit from the liberalleftards.So you applaud bias and non diversity. Got it.
One side debating facts, and another farting or making otherwise vulgar, ignorant noises, is not diversity, and excluding the farters isn't "bias". It's just common sense, and a necessary precondition for a real debate.
The Dangers Of 'Settled Science' | PSI Intl
such as?Read, understand, then post.How can you have a real debate when the other side said "Global Warming science is settled, end of debate". That right there nullified any bullshit from the liberalleftards.So you applaud bias and non diversity. Got it.
One side debating facts, and another farting or making otherwise vulgar, ignorant noises, is not diversity, and excluding the farters isn't "bias". It's just common sense, and a necessary precondition for a real debate.
The Dangers Of 'Settled Science' | PSI Intl
They are not debating the reality of AGW, that is long since settled. They are debating possible solutions to the problem.
No, your question to me seemed to be aimed at all environmental laws, not just climate change related legislation. The problem with enacting climate change laws is the obstructionism of the right. No doubt that higher café standards helped as well as regs that the Obama Administration enacted and that Trump is trying to undo.Are you serious? Look at pictures of US cities in the 60s and 70s and as they are now. Are you telling me the clean air act did not work? Remember the burning rivers and acid rain? We haven't had a Love Canal recently have we? There is a very long list of very successful environmental laws.Well that is the purpose of the debate. To get to a solution that will work.
You guys have been doing that for decades now. Asking for a tally of results is completely reasonable.
Why are you hesitating to brag about all that you greenies have done?
Your dishonest dodge is noted. The topic is global warming.
You dodged because you know that there has been no results from all your efforts.
Nope. The context was obvious. Your pretense of confusion is a lie.
You lefties have had your way in Europe, and in the UN, and in many large states, and during the Obama administration, ect.
So, give us a tally of some of the results, or admit is was all bullshit.
No, your question to me seemed to be aimed at all environmental laws, not just climate change related legislation. The problem with enacting climate change laws is the obstructionism of the right. No doubt that higher café standards helped as well as regs that the Obama Administration enacted and that Trump is trying to undo.Are you serious? Look at pictures of US cities in the 60s and 70s and as they are now. Are you telling me the clean air act did not work? Remember the burning rivers and acid rain? We haven't had a Love Canal recently have we? There is a very long list of very successful environmental laws.You guys have been doing that for decades now. Asking for a tally of results is completely reasonable.
Why are you hesitating to brag about all that you greenies have done?
Your dishonest dodge is noted. The topic is global warming.
You dodged because you know that there has been no results from all your efforts.
Nope. The context was obvious. Your pretense of confusion is a lie.
You lefties have had your way in Europe, and in the UN, and in many large states, and during the Obama administration, ect.
So, give us a tally of some of the results, or admit is was all bullshit.
Your context was not obvious, but your post is now deflection. The purpose of the thread is to discuss future action. Past action has been stymied by Republican obstructionism whether you choose to admit it or not. For instance tax credits for solar energy were on the rise when the Koch brothers supported a tax on solar panels. Give me solutions and not your typical obstructionism.
I gave you examples. You are deflecting give me solutions.No, your question to me seemed to be aimed at all environmental laws, not just climate change related legislation. The problem with enacting climate change laws is the obstructionism of the right. No doubt that higher café standards helped as well as regs that the Obama Administration enacted and that Trump is trying to undo.Are you serious? Look at pictures of US cities in the 60s and 70s and as they are now. Are you telling me the clean air act did not work? Remember the burning rivers and acid rain? We haven't had a Love Canal recently have we? There is a very long list of very successful environmental laws.
Your dishonest dodge is noted. The topic is global warming.
You dodged because you know that there has been no results from all your efforts.
Nope. The context was obvious. Your pretense of confusion is a lie.
You lefties have had your way in Europe, and in the UN, and in many large states, and during the Obama administration, ect.
So, give us a tally of some of the results, or admit is was all bullshit.
Your context was not obvious, but your post is now deflection. The purpose of the thread is to discuss future action. Past action has been stymied by Republican obstructionism whether you choose to admit it or not. For instance tax credits for solar energy were on the rise when the Koch brothers supported a tax on solar panels. Give me solutions and not your typical obstructionism.
1. The context was obvious.
2. You greenies have been addressing Global Warming now for decades. YOu have been asked for a summary of results.
3. You cannot give any.
I don't have all the answers, but fuel economy standards such as the ones tRump is trying to fuck up are definitely part of it.such as?Read, understand, then post.How can you have a real debate when the other side said "Global Warming science is settled, end of debate". That right there nullified any bullshit from the liberalleftards.So you applaud bias and non diversity. Got it.
One side debating facts, and another farting or making otherwise vulgar, ignorant noises, is not diversity, and excluding the farters isn't "bias". It's just common sense, and a necessary precondition for a real debate.
The Dangers Of 'Settled Science' | PSI Intl
They are not debating the reality of AGW, that is long since settled. They are debating possible solutions to the problem.
stop driving cars?
You are deflecting give me solutions.No, your question to me seemed to be aimed at all environmental laws, not just climate change related legislation. The problem with enacting climate change laws is the obstructionism of the right. No doubt that higher café standards helped as well as regs that the Obama Administration enacted and that Trump is trying to undo.Your dishonest dodge is noted. The topic is global warming.
You dodged because you know that there has been no results from all your efforts.
Nope. The context was obvious. Your pretense of confusion is a lie.
You lefties have had your way in Europe, and in the UN, and in many large states, and during the Obama administration, ect.
So, give us a tally of some of the results, or admit is was all bullshit.
Your context was not obvious, but your post is now deflection. The purpose of the thread is to discuss future action. Past action has been stymied by Republican obstructionism whether you choose to admit it or not. For instance tax credits for solar energy were on the rise when the Koch brothers supported a tax on solar panels. Give me solutions and not your typical obstructionism.
1. The context was obvious.
2. You greenies have been addressing Global Warming now for decades. YOu have been asked for a summary of results.
3. You cannot give any.
you still have Millions of cars all over the worldI don't have all the answers, but fuel economy standards such as the ones tRump is trying to fuck up are definitely part of it.such as?Read, understand, then post.How can you have a real debate when the other side said "Global Warming science is settled, end of debate". That right there nullified any bullshit from the liberalleftards.So you applaud bias and non diversity. Got it.
One side debating facts, and another farting or making otherwise vulgar, ignorant noises, is not diversity, and excluding the farters isn't "bias". It's just common sense, and a necessary precondition for a real debate.
The Dangers Of 'Settled Science' | PSI Intl
They are not debating the reality of AGW, that is long since settled. They are debating possible solutions to the problem.
stop driving cars?
You are deflecting give me solutions.No, your question to me seemed to be aimed at all environmental laws, not just climate change related legislation. The problem with enacting climate change laws is the obstructionism of the right. No doubt that higher café standards helped as well as regs that the Obama Administration enacted and that Trump is trying to undo.
Nope. The context was obvious. Your pretense of confusion is a lie.
You lefties have had your way in Europe, and in the UN, and in many large states, and during the Obama administration, ect.
So, give us a tally of some of the results, or admit is was all bullshit.
Your context was not obvious, but your post is now deflection. The purpose of the thread is to discuss future action. Past action has been stymied by Republican obstructionism whether you choose to admit it or not. For instance tax credits for solar energy were on the rise when the Koch brothers supported a tax on solar panels. Give me solutions and not your typical obstructionism.
1. The context was obvious.
2. You greenies have been addressing Global Warming now for decades. YOu have been asked for a summary of results.
3. You cannot give any.
Give me the results your solutions have accomplished so far.
A comprehensive conversation requires a wide range of viewpoints, including contrarians.
You never know what might pop up.
We just no longer care about that, because we're no longer listening.
.
You are deflecting give me solutions.Nope. The context was obvious. Your pretense of confusion is a lie.
You lefties have had your way in Europe, and in the UN, and in many large states, and during the Obama administration, ect.
So, give us a tally of some of the results, or admit is was all bullshit.
Your context was not obvious, but your post is now deflection. The purpose of the thread is to discuss future action. Past action has been stymied by Republican obstructionism whether you choose to admit it or not. For instance tax credits for solar energy were on the rise when the Koch brothers supported a tax on solar panels. Give me solutions and not your typical obstructionism.
1. The context was obvious.
2. You greenies have been addressing Global Warming now for decades. YOu have been asked for a summary of results.
3. You cannot give any.
Give me the results your solutions have accomplished so far.
I have all ready answered your question. The issue is how many tens of billions of dollars will it cost us to do nothing about climate change. I am focused on the future and you the past. You can either keep your head buried in the sand or move to action. The consequences are upon us. So what are your solutions?
Watching Meet the Press. They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change. They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled. Now it is time to discuss solutions.
A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
I applaud Meet the Press. Time to push deniers and their pseudo science to the curb or back into closet. Choose your metaphor. They are just standing in the way and are no more than obstructionists.
We need to discuss only solutions and adaptations.
See?Because, what we really, really need for a comprehensive conversation is stooges lying through their teeth on behalf of Exxon's bottom line for decades, because we know exactly what will "pop up". SMH.A comprehensive conversation requires a wide range of viewpoints, including contrarians. You never know what might pop up. We just no longer care about that, because we're no longer listening.
you can't change the climate ''quick enough''You are deflecting give me solutions.Nope. The context was obvious. Your pretense of confusion is a lie.
You lefties have had your way in Europe, and in the UN, and in many large states, and during the Obama administration, ect.
So, give us a tally of some of the results, or admit is was all bullshit.
Your context was not obvious, but your post is now deflection. The purpose of the thread is to discuss future action. Past action has been stymied by Republican obstructionism whether you choose to admit it or not. For instance tax credits for solar energy were on the rise when the Koch brothers supported a tax on solar panels. Give me solutions and not your typical obstructionism.
1. The context was obvious.
2. You greenies have been addressing Global Warming now for decades. YOu have been asked for a summary of results.
3. You cannot give any.
Give me the results your solutions have accomplished so far.
I have all ready answered your question. The issue is how many tens of billions of dollars will it cost us to do nothing about climate change. I am focused on the future and you the past. You can either keep your head buried in the sand or move to action. The consequences are upon us. So what are your solutions?
Your deflection noted.You are deflecting give me solutions.Your context was not obvious, but your post is now deflection. The purpose of the thread is to discuss future action. Past action has been stymied by Republican obstructionism whether you choose to admit it or not. For instance tax credits for solar energy were on the rise when the Koch brothers supported a tax on solar panels. Give me solutions and not your typical obstructionism.
1. The context was obvious.
2. You greenies have been addressing Global Warming now for decades. YOu have been asked for a summary of results.
3. You cannot give any.
Give me the results your solutions have accomplished so far.
I have all ready answered your question. The issue is how many tens of billions of dollars will it cost us to do nothing about climate change. I am focused on the future and you the past. You can either keep your head buried in the sand or move to action. The consequences are upon us. So what are your solutions?
Your admission that your work so far has accomplished nothing is accepted.
