So, when Obama says climate change is a fact.....

[daws101]

let me get this straight... you right wing folks deny that man has had no net effect on climate or the environment in general since we learned to walk up right ?
so in the million or so years that hominids and then humans have controlled fire there is no measurable effect ?
what about the industrial revolution?
population growth
mass transit, cars and other gas or oil powered vehicles
atomic testing?
pollution?
it's your contention that none of the above listed activities or things is even partiality responsible?

You idiot, one bolt of lightning has the energy to keep new york city lit up for a while. So your saying man is more powerful?

we make lighting too... another has no point response.

 

[daws101]

That's highly moronic logic much like saying because one day your house might catch fire so you should call the fire department now. You don't live life by what might happen you deal with it as it comes.

speaking of moronic logic.....
like a house fire a prudent person would have fire extinguishers and and escape plan...climate change deniers have neither..

Who are these so called climate change deniers? I dont see any here.

the thread is packed full of them ..but since you insist on hair splitting AGW Deniers.. is that better?

btw nice dodge!

 

[Vox]

So, when Obama says climate change is a fact.....

.......... it means he listens to the best minds on the planet.

and without them he does not know a simple fact( that climate is constantly changing) from the textbook of earth science for an elementary school?

 

[Vox]

you right wing folks deny that man has had no net effect on climate or the environment in general since we learned to walk up right ?

No, you idiot, we actually AGREE with that

to have no net effect = to have ZERO effect

 

[daws101]

So, when Obama says climate change is a fact.....

.......... it means he listens to the best minds on the planet.

and without them he does not know a simple fact( that climate is constantly changing) from the textbook of earth science for an elementary school?

false! your desperation is clear.
btw define constantly on what time scale.
the earth climate has been fairly constant for millions of years with the occasional ice age..and it still supports life..

 

[HelenaHandbag]

The naysayers don't even realize that these freaky cold winters actually BOLSTER the theory of global warming, for it is the trapped greenhouse gases that cause the temperature rise that causes the glaciers to calve far too fast and in too large a mass, which in turn causes a more and more violent and unpredicactable EL NINO, which in turn gives us a hurricane season AND bitter winters.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

[MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION]

According to the scaremongers, every weather happenstance bolsters the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

There's a word for that, as it relates to provable scientific fact , though it escapes me at the moment.

Maybe [MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION] can help out here.

 

[daws101]

you right wing folks deny that man has had no net effect on climate or the environment in general since we learned to walk up right ?

No, you idiot, we actually AGREE with that

to have no net effect = to have ZERO effect

agree with what we have or we have not had a significant effect on climate..
the only idiot as always is you...

 

[Vox]

.......... it means he listens to the best minds on the planet.

and without them he does not know a simple fact( that climate is constantly changing) from the textbook of earth science for an elementary school?

false! your desperation is clear.
btw define constantly on what time scale.
the earth climate has been fairly constant for millions of years with the occasional ice age..and it still supports life..

you idiot, is English your eight language, or what?

 

[daws101]

The naysayers don't even realize that these freaky cold winters actually BOLSTER the theory of global warming, for it is the trapped greenhouse gases that cause the temperature rise that causes the glaciers to calve far too fast and in too large a mass, which in turn causes a more and more violent and unpredicactable EL NINO, which in turn gives us a hurricane season AND bitter winters.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

[MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION]

According to the scaremongers, every weather happenstance bolsters the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

There's a word for that, as it relates to provable scientific fact , though it escapes me at the moment.

Maybe [MENTION=23239]westwall[/MENTION] can help out here.

so you can't back up you bullshit and need westwall to pull your nuts out of the fire...

 

[Vox]

you right wing folks deny that man has had no net effect on climate or the environment in general since we learned to walk up right ?

No, you idiot, we actually AGREE with that

to have no net effect = to have ZERO effect

agree with what we have or we have not had a significant effect on climate..
the only idiot as always is you...

you idiot, I know you are intellectually challenged ( bronze age monk is one of the pearls), but you have just simply have to be illiterate to construct a sentence which states quite the opposite of your assumption

 

[daws101]

and without them he does not know a simple fact( that climate is constantly changing) from the textbook of earth science for an elementary school?

false! your desperation is clear.
btw define constantly on what time scale.
the earth climate has been fairly constant for millions of years with the occasional ice age..and it still supports life..

you idiot, is English your eight language, or what?

again a dodge..
define constantly...

 

[Vox]

false! your desperation is clear.
btw define constantly on what time scale.
the earth climate has been fairly constant for millions of years with the occasional ice age..and it still supports life..

you idiot, is English your eight language, or what?

again a dodge..
define constantly...

you idiot, do you know what is "no net effect"?

and what does it mean to agree with a statement "man has had no net effect on climate or the environment"?

 

[daws101]

No, you idiot, we actually AGREE with that

to have no net effect = to have ZERO effect

agree with what we have or we have not had a significant effect on climate..
the only idiot as always is you...

you idiot, I know you are intellectually challenged ( bronze age monk is one of the pearls), but you have just simply have to be illiterate to construct a sentence which states quite the opposite of your assumption

no wish I was intellectually challenged...have to rehashing a brain fart proves your desperate need to fain intellectual superiority.
the question again is "have we or have we not, had a significant effect on climate.."
it's yes or no question.

 

[Vox]

agree with what we have or we have not had a significant effect on climate..
the only idiot as always is you...

you idiot, I know you are intellectually challenged ( bronze age monk is one of the pearls), but you have just simply have to be illiterate to construct a sentence which states quite the opposite of your assumption

no wish I was intellectually challenged...have to rehashing a brain fart proves your desperate need to fain intellectual superiority.
the question again is "have we or have we not, had a significant effect on climate.."
it's yes or no question.

do you know what stating " no net effect" means?

just yes or no?

 

[daws101]

you idiot, is English your eight language, or what?

again a dodge..
define constantly...

you idiot, do you know what is "no net effect"?

and what does it mean to agree with a statement "man has had no net effect on climate or the environment"?

stiil dodging...

 

[daws101]

you idiot, I know you are intellectually challenged ( bronze age monk is one of the pearls), but you have just simply have to be illiterate to construct a sentence which states quite the opposite of your assumption

no wish I was intellectually challenged...have to rehashing a brain fart proves your desperate need to fain intellectual superiority.
the question again is "have we or have we not, had a significant effect on climate.."
it's yes or no question.

do you know what stating " no net effect" means?

just yes or no?

asked and answered.
dodge!

 

[Vox]

let me get this straight... you right wing folks deny that man has had no net effect on climate or the environment in general since we learned to walk up right ?
so in the million or so years that hominids and then humans have controlled fire there is no measurable effect ?
what about the industrial revolution?
population growth
mass transit, cars and other gas or oil powered vehicles
atomic testing?
pollution?
it's your contention that none of the above listed activities or things is even partiality responsible?

Saving for the humanity a perfect example of the leftard idiocy

post #22

 

[daws101]

i'l dumb it down
1. do you think man's activities have effected the climate?
2. you think the mans activities have had no net effect on the climate..
better ?

 

[Vox]

no wish I was intellectually challenged...have to rehashing a brain fart proves your desperate need to fain intellectual superiority.
the question again is "have we or have we not, had a significant effect on climate.."
it's yes or no question.

do you know what stating " no net effect" means?

just yes or no?

asked and answered.
dodge!

so you retard do not realize what does it mean to "deny there is no net change"?

or what does it mean to agree with the statement "that man has had no net effect on climate or the environment in general"?



tell me, English is your eight language so you do not look so .... mentally challenged

 

[daws101]

let me get this straight... you right wing folks deny that man has had no net effect on climate or the environment in general since we learned to walk up right ?
so in the million or so years that hominids and then humans have controlled fire there is no measurable effect ?
what about the industrial revolution?
population growth
mass transit, cars and other gas or oil powered vehicles
atomic testing?
pollution?
it's your contention that none of the above listed activities or things is even partiality responsible?

Saving for the humanity a perfect example of the leftard idiocy

post #22

can you deflect any harder..?