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

[Theowl32]

I didnt say it did. Hence why you are confused.

I'm glad that at least now you understand Global warming and Climate Change arent the same and thats why they have different names. Its a breakthrough. Celebrate it

So, again......

When Obama said climate change in his speech, you are saying he was not referring to global warming (man made)?

Now, tell that to your tards on the left that insist the two terms are the same.

It's the echo chamber on the right that insists on calling climate change global warming. Man does have an impact on the environment, how much is man-made is an open question. But put that aside and read my post above.

You fucking double talking piece of shit. It is not me saying they are the fucking same. That is the whole fucking point.

Climate change is a fucking fact.

Man made global warming is not a fact.

However the lying piece of shit in chief says climate change is a fact, and the fucking tards on the left sheep clap like the fucking sheep they are cause they falsely claim those two are the same.

That was the liar in chiefs intention, and that is why there is a concerted effort to change the terminology.

You are now trying to claim that conservatives are trying to say they are the fucking same? You stupid fuck!

It has been conservatives that have been saying man made global warming is NOT A FACT! Conservatives like me have been saying climate change is a fucking fact!

SO, when your fucking liar in chief changes the rhetoric, that is their way of acknowledging that man made global warming is not a fucking fact!

Try your double talk, jedi mind shit with someone else. Not with me. Face it. Man made global warming is not a fact, just like I and people that think like me have been claiming for more than 10 years.

You fucking pieces of shit are so fucking annoying.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Oh yeah? Where is your evidence that man made global warming has such a dramatic effect?

Not.....global warming. Man made global warming.

DO YOU GET THE DIFFERENCE?

I didnt say it did. Hence why you are confused.

I'm glad that at least now you understand Global warming and Climate Change arent the same and thats why they have different names. Its a breakthrough. Celebrate it

So, again......

When Obama said climate change in his speech, you are saying he was not referring to global warming (man made)?

Now, tell that to your tards on the left that insist the two terms are the same.

Pick a side man. What is your point? I've answered at least 3 questions from you and you have yet to make a point.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, again......

When Obama said climate change in his speech, you are saying he was not referring to global warming (man made)?

Now, tell that to your tards on the left that insist the two terms are the same.

It's the echo chamber on the right that insists on calling climate change global warming. Man does have an impact on the environment, how much is man-made is an open question. But put that aside and read my post above.

You fucking double talking piece of shit. It is not me saying they are the fucking same. That is the whole fucking point.

Climate change is a fucking fact.

Man made global warming is not a fact.

However the lying piece of shit in chief says climate change is a fact, and the fucking tards on the left sheep clap like the fucking sheep they are cause they falsely claim those two are the same.

That was the liar in chiefs intention, and that is why there is a concerted effort to change the terminology.

You are now trying to claim that conservatives are trying to say they are the fucking same? You stupid fuck!

It has been conservatives that have been saying man made global warming is NOT A FACT! Conservatives like me have been saying climate change is a fucking fact!

SO, when your fucking liar in chief changes the rhetoric, that is their way of acknowledging that man made global warming is not a fucking fact!

Try your double talk, jedi mind shit with someone else. Not with me. Face it. Man made global warming is not a fact, just like I and people that think like me have been claiming for more than 10 years.

You fucking pieces of shit are so fucking annoying.

LOL, if not for the word "fucking" and calling me a "double talking piece of shit" we might be able to have a reasonable discussion (something I attempted in my post above). But now I have enough evidence that you're an immature asshole and someone in desperate need of Anger Management Counseling.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In re Climate Change:

We are experiencing rising oceans and more intense weather (Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Ice Storms in the deep south, droughts and regional changes). Beach weather in Alaska and snow storms in Georgia and Alabama.

We need to prepare for these events and to do so costs money. Yet we have a dysfunctional H. of Rep. whose entire focus is on the huge debt, and they're unwilling to spent the billions of dollars to rebuild, renew and repair, the nations infrastructure. By doing so jobs will be created, private sector jobs in construction, manufacturing and transportation (roads, rivers, man-made canals, rail, etc.) and the economy will once again show robust growth, less citizens will suffer and die, and water can be collected and distributed to regions in need.

Reasonable people can disagree on the cause, but the effect is all too real for many of our nations citizens.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I guess a reasonable discussion on polluters, climate change and the environment is a difficult task for some. Funny, isn't it - in a sad way - that those on the right are adamant that we must stop spending because our children and theirs will have to pay off our debt, but are willing to let the air and water and soil suffer creating health hazards for our posterity.

 

[Theowl32]

Liberals are morons. Some how they are all of a sudden saying when Obama said climate change is a fact, he was not referring to man made global warming. Someone like wry catcher thinks his bullshit will work on me. So, we are finally in agreement. Man made global warming is not a fact, and climate change is a fact. What then does the wry catcher do? In classic liberal fashion, he attempts to then say right wingers are saying there is no such thing as pollution and right wingers do not want to do a thing about pollution. You see how the creepy, hypocritical, double talking liberals are? What is so funny is they believe their own shit. Is there a conservative anywhere that advocates pollution? Has a left winger even seen what a conservatives have actually done for the environment?

Answer: No, cause MSNBC never reports the things Republicans have done. So, therefore they either do not know, or take the credit for things Republicans have actually done.

Some how, some way, they also think spending a week in a field at some earth rally smoking, toking, shitting and pissing in a field is doing something for "mother earth."If you are not careful, I will list all of the things republicans have actually done.

Now, what we have all agreed on. Man made global warming is not a fact and climate change is.

What we do not agree with is.....

Obama attempted to equate climate change with man made global warming when he said climate change is a fact, and that is what those on the left were clapping about. Many left wing nut jobs in this thread all said that very thing.

--------------------------------

They are such pieces of double talking shit.

 

[Roudy]

They transitioned into "climate change" gradually. I started hearing it used regularly a couple years back, and they made the swithceroo because they knew how retarded the claims of warming were becoming.

Fact- Climtae Change exists

Fact- It always has

Fact- It is statistically impossible for man to have a significant effect versus the solar system and natural occurrences (erupting volcanos etc.)

You're wrong of course. But let's put aside your last 'fact' and concentrate on the first two. We are experiencing rising oceans and more intense weather (Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Ice Storms in the deep south, droughts and regional changes). On that we can agree.

We need to prepare for these events and to do so costs money. Yet we have a dysfunctional H. of Rep. whose entire focus is on the huge debt, and they're unwilling to spent the billions of dollars to rebuild, renew and repair, the nations infrastructure. By doing so jobs will be created, private sector jobs in construction, manufacturing and transportation (roads, rivers, man-made canals, rail, etc.) and the economy will once again show robust growth, less citizens will suffer and die, and water can be collected and distributed to regions in need.

Notice how the "global warming" crowd quickly changed their tune to "climate change" when they realized the facts just don't back up their claims?

Changes in the earth's tilt, and changes in the Sun's climate are the biggest contributors to climate change. While we all should respect the Earth and the environment, nothing man does or doesn't do can remotely affect the climate the way those two factors do.

And besides what good is all of this talk of environmental legislation if most of the world, especially developing countries such as China, India, Brazil, and Russia aren't going to be in board? A group of countries alone can't put a dent in anything. This is just another excuse for governments to stick their noses in people's private and professional lives.

 

[westwall]

Correct. Thanks! At least you didnt use the wishy washy "to me they mean different things" approach. Sooo here it is from NASA



Now to say that because the name changed that means its not real is fallacy. Like Sneakers and Tennis Shoes...Knickers and Pants..



Inadvertent Climate Modification wasnt catchy enough... Sooo Global Warming caught on instead.

Long story short..You're full of shit

Yes, and see where they assume that the global warming can cause ANYTHING to happen? Do you see that part there? Where is the falsifiability? To be considered scientific, your theory must be falsifiable. Do you understand that very critical aspect of science? Look it up. Then look up what pseudo science means, and then see where one of the main characteristics of a pseudo science is it's un-falsifiability.

UNFALSIFIABILITY
(also known as: untestibility)

Description: Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.

Making unfalsifiable claims are a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are usually faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.

Where is your strong evidence or good reason to confidently assert the Theory is wrong?

You dont have it. That makes You the person using this tactic.

Your desperation is duly noted! Please note the change in the official warmist dogma. The top one is from dr. Viner who's famous quote has been the butt of water cooler jokes for over a decade now...

Then look at the Nat Geo article. Notice how the warming (climate change) can make more snow? So, which is it? Does global warming make more or less snow? This is the falsifiability part here. It can do one or the other, but it can't do both. Do you now understand why? To their credit (I think even Nat Geo now understands that AGW theory is dead, they're just trying to cover their butts because they were big supporters of it) they interviewed Joe Bastardi, one of the best meteorologists out there, and an avowed sceptic.

"Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."


Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent




As snowstorm-ravaged states on the U.S. East Coast dig out, scientists say the past week's "Snowpocalypse" could be a taste of harsh winters to come—and that, strangely enough, global warming may be to blame. Others aren't so sure.

More Mega-Snowstorms Coming -- Global Warming to Blame?

 

[westwall]

They transitioned into "climate change" gradually. I started hearing it used regularly a couple years back, and they made the swithceroo because they knew how retarded the claims of warming were becoming.

Fact- Climtae Change exists

Fact- It always has

Fact- It is statistically impossible for man to have a significant effect versus the solar system and natural occurrences (erupting volcanos etc.)

You're wrong of course. But let's put aside your last 'fact' and concentrate on the first two. We are experiencing rising oceans and more intense weather (Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Ice Storms in the deep south, droughts and regional changes). On that we can agree.

We need to prepare for these events and to do so costs money. Yet we have a dysfunctional H. of Rep. whose entire focus is on the huge debt, and they're unwilling to spent the billions of dollars to rebuild, renew and repair, the nations infrastructure. By doing so jobs will be created, private sector jobs in construction, manufacturing and transportation (roads, rivers, man-made canals, rail, etc.) and the economy will once again show robust growth, less citizens will suffer and die, and water can be collected and distributed to regions in need.

Are you on this planet? When has the climate never changed? Where are the increased hurricanes you speak of? They don't exist, these last few years have been the quietest in 50 years. No increase in tornado's, the rate of rise in sea level has likewise slowed to the point where it is reversing in some areas.

You need to get current with your info, you're a decade out of synch.

 

[Theowl32]

Yes, and see where they assume that the global warming can cause ANYTHING to happen? Do you see that part there? Where is the falsifiability? To be considered scientific, your theory must be falsifiable. Do you understand that very critical aspect of science? Look it up. Then look up what pseudo science means, and then see where one of the main characteristics of a pseudo science is it's un-falsifiability.

UNFALSIFIABILITY
(also known as: untestibility)

Description: Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.

Making unfalsifiable claims are a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are usually faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.

Where is your strong evidence or good reason to confidently assert the Theory is wrong?

You dont have it. That makes You the person using this tactic.

Your desperation is duly noted! Please note the change in the official warmist dogma. The top one is from dr. Viner who's famous quote has been the butt of water cooler jokes for over a decade now...

Then look at the Nat Geo article. Notice how the warming (climate change) can make more snow? So, which is it? Does global warming make more or less snow? This is the falsifiability part here. It can do one or the other, but it can't do both. Do you now understand why? To their credit (I think even Nat Geo now understands that AGW theory is dead, they're just trying to cover their butts because they were big supporters of it) they interviewed Joe Bastardi, one of the best meteorologists out there, and an avowed sceptic.

"Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."


Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent




As snowstorm-ravaged states on the U.S. East Coast dig out, scientists say the past week's "Snowpocalypse" could be a taste of harsh winters to come—and that, strangely enough, global warming may be to blame. Others aren't so sure.

More Mega-Snowstorms Coming -- Global Warming to Blame?

Any information that you show that even hints that man made global warming is wrong is discredited. In other words, anyone that contradicts the man made global warmers are knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, KKK, earth flat rubes.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Yes, and see where they assume that the global warming can cause ANYTHING to happen? Do you see that part there? Where is the falsifiability? To be considered scientific, your theory must be falsifiable. Do you understand that very critical aspect of science? Look it up. Then look up what pseudo science means, and then see where one of the main characteristics of a pseudo science is it's un-falsifiability.

UNFALSIFIABILITY
(also known as: untestibility)

Description: Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons.

Making unfalsifiable claims are a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are usually faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.

Where is your strong evidence or good reason to confidently assert the Theory is wrong?

You dont have it. That makes You the person using this tactic.

Your desperation is duly noted! Please note the change in the official warmist dogma. The top one is from dr. Viner who's famous quote has been the butt of water cooler jokes for over a decade now...

Then look at the Nat Geo article. Notice how the warming (climate change) can make more snow? So, which is it? Does global warming make more or less snow? This is the falsifiability part here. It can do one or the other, but it can't do both. Do you now understand why? To their credit (I think even Nat Geo now understands that AGW theory is dead, they're just trying to cover their butts because they were big supporters of it) they interviewed Joe Bastardi, one of the best meteorologists out there, and an avowed sceptic.

"Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."


Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent




As snowstorm-ravaged states on the U.S. East Coast dig out, scientists say the past week's "Snowpocalypse" could be a taste of harsh winters to come—and that, strangely enough, global warming may be to blame. Others aren't so sure.

More Mega-Snowstorms Coming -- Global Warming to Blame?

Thats why they have peer reviewed science so you can find out what they agree on instead of taking a quote from this guy and that individual.

I notice you never touch the peer reviewed stuff just random quotes and following with "Aha!" Dont look at a Nat Geo article. Or what Time mag said in the 70's. Tell me why the peer reviewed data is wrong.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Liberals are morons. Some how they are all of a sudden saying when Obama said climate change is a fact, he was not referring to man made global warming. Someone like wry catcher thinks his bullshit will work on me. So, we are finally in agreement. Man made global warming is not a fact, and climate change is a fact. What then does the wry catcher do? In classic liberal fashion, he attempts to then say right wingers are saying there is no such thing as pollution and right wingers do not want to do a thing about pollution. You see how the creepy, hypocritical, double talking liberals are? What is so funny is they believe their own shit. Is there a conservative anywhere that advocates pollution? Has a left winger even seen what a conservatives have actually done for the environment?

Answer: No, cause MSNBC never reports the things Republicans have done. So, therefore they either do not know, or take the credit for things Republicans have actually done.

Some how, some way, they also think spending a week in a field at some earth rally smoking, toking, shitting and pissing in a field is doing something for "mother earth."If you are not careful, I will list all of the things republicans have actually done.

Now, what we have all agreed on. Man made global warming is not a fact and climate change is.

What we do not agree with is.....

Obama attempted to equate climate change with man made global warming when he said climate change is a fact, and that is what those on the left were clapping about. Many left wing nut jobs in this thread all said that very thing.

--------------------------------

They are such pieces of double talking shit.

As I pointed out earlier you're an immature asshole, but others may be persuaded you have something honest to offer. I will disabuse those who do.

Pollution is pollution and impacts the climate and our environment - only morons believe it has no impact on climate. The ignorant Republican's and Callous Conservatives are opposed to regulation, they believe magically the earth will repair itself and commerce, industry and profit all are more important than ecology.

We cannot and should not separate climate change and the warming of our oceans from Smog, Acid Rain, and rivers that burn (all once part of our nations landscape) as suggested by the immature asshole.

We reduced Smog, Acid Rain and our rivers no longer catch fire and actually have fish living in them. It's really that simple, we need to be good stewards of the earth.

 

[daws101]

It's more legit than skeptical science. These are actual peer reviewed papers that have not been "pal" reviewed.

written by who and peer reviewed by who?
without that info it's trash..
you'll understand that your word on it's veracity carries no weight.

I don't expect it too. However, if you would dare to open the link you would see they are legit peer reviewed studies. It doesn't get any plainer than that. If you CHOOSE to not look that is on you. The source is fine. It's your motivations and prejudices that determine what you allow yourself to look at.

A person interested in science would look. I look at everything you AGW supporters post. I want to know what is being said or researched. Why do you not want to have every possible scrap of information available to you?

Afraid of what you will discover?

love it when you falsely assume I did open the link and found no authors no accreditation nothing to corroborate the sites credibility it's a conspiracy site...that's what i DISCOVERED: http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/ THIS IS A SOURCE YOUR SOURCE USED...if you thinks it's credible then your standards are scraping bottom..

 

[Theowl32]

Liberals are morons. Some how they are all of a sudden saying when Obama said climate change is a fact, he was not referring to man made global warming. Someone like wry catcher thinks his bullshit will work on me. So, we are finally in agreement. Man made global warming is not a fact, and climate change is a fact. What then does the wry catcher do? In classic liberal fashion, he attempts to then say right wingers are saying there is no such thing as pollution and right wingers do not want to do a thing about pollution. You see how the creepy, hypocritical, double talking liberals are? What is so funny is they believe their own shit. Is there a conservative anywhere that advocates pollution? Has a left winger even seen what a conservatives have actually done for the environment?

Answer: No, cause MSNBC never reports the things Republicans have done. So, therefore they either do not know, or take the credit for things Republicans have actually done.

Some how, some way, they also think spending a week in a field at some earth rally smoking, toking, shitting and pissing in a field is doing something for "mother earth."If you are not careful, I will list all of the things republicans have actually done.

Now, what we have all agreed on. Man made global warming is not a fact and climate change is.

What we do not agree with is.....

Obama attempted to equate climate change with man made global warming when he said climate change is a fact, and that is what those on the left were clapping about. Many left wing nut jobs in this thread all said that very thing.

--------------------------------

They are such pieces of double talking shit.

As I pointed out earlier you're an immature asshole, but others may be persuaded you have something honest to offer. I will disabuse those who do.

Pollution is pollution and impacts the climate and our environment - only morons believe it has no impact on climate. The ignorant Republican's and Callous Conservatives are opposed to regulation, they believe magically the earth will repair itself and commerce, industry and profit all are more important than ecology.

We cannot and should not separate climate change and the warming of our oceans from Smog, Acid Rain, and rivers that burn (all once part of our nations landscape) as suggested by the immature asshole.

We reduced Smog, Acid Rain and our rivers no longer catch fire and actually have fish living in them. It's really that simple, we need to be good stewards of the earth.

Who the fuck here is saying pollution does not have an effect on the environment?

The degree of the effect mans activity has had on GLOBAL WARMING is the topic. There are all sorts of ways pollution is destructive to the environment.

Thanks to many actions done by Republicans, there have been vast improvements.

National Parks
National Forests
The Antiquities Act
National Environmental Policy Act
Wilderness Act of 1964
The Alaska Lands Act
The Gerald Ford CAFE
The Montreal Protocol
Bush's Blue Water Legacy

Those, to name a few things that have had dramatic effects on the environment. Not to mention the the Clean Water act and Clean Air Act.

All passed and signed by Republicans.

That is not what this is about. It is about the concerted effort to turn so called man made global warming into wind fall profits.

Reference how Al Gore's net worth grew since he left politics and as he pressed his utter shit about carbon footprints and carbon credits. All while his very footprint was the size of king kong. Anyone that would bring that up were attacked, and or course the liberal media would never call him on his hypocrisy.

Most of the "green movements" have been nothing but scams. Creating coffers for the thieves. Solyndra etc etc etc etc.

Do not make me list the scams, and since so many of these scientists rely on government grants, we can see where the motivations to be unified in their views on something that has not been proven.

What has not been proven is the degree of the actual effect man has had in the warming of the planet. That, has not been established. However, the mass propaganda has led us to believe that man is virtually the sole reason for it.

Now, that more and more scientists are jumping ship on it, and the more the scales contradict the claims that man has had such an effect, the more imperative it is for the politicians to change the rhetoric. Hence the change in terminology.

Tell me, what do you specifically do for the environment? You use a computer, which means you rely on energy and plastics. DO you buy carbon credits? What exactly does that do?

 

[mamooth]

They're _still_ ranting about Al Gore? The funny thing is how they think that accomplishes something. Sure, it plays well with the denialist cult, but that's only about 8% of the USA, and insignificant on the global scale.

Same with their odd conspiracy theories about how the warming has stopped, or strange fables about how the models were wrong. All contradicted by the facts, but the point of it isn't facts, the point is to preach to the choir, which it succeeds at. After all, it's not like the cult is going to look at actual data, since the good cultists have been programmed to declare all data which contradicts the cult's teachings is part of the great global socialist conspiracy against their cult.

 

[Theowl32]

They're _still_ ranting about Al Gore? The funny thing is how they think that accomplishes something. Sure, it plays well with the denialist cult, but that's only about 8% of the USA, and insignificant on the global scale.

Same with their odd conspiracy theories about how the warming has stopped, or strange fables about how the models were wrong. All contradicted by the facts, but the point of it is to preach to the choir, which it succeeds at. After all, it's not like the cult is going to look at actual data, since the good cultists has been programmed to say how all data which contradcits them is part of the great socialist conspiracy against their cult.

So, tell us. Is climate change the same thing as man made global warming?

Yes or no.

 

[mamooth]

No, of course. If you need something that simple explained, you really have no place in the discussion.

You can thank the Bush administration for declaring that "climate change" should be used instead of "Global warming", since it was their policy. I myself prefer the very direct term "global warming", being it so unambiguously describes what's happening.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Liberals are morons. Some how they are all of a sudden saying when Obama said climate change is a fact, he was not referring to man made global warming. Someone like wry catcher thinks his bullshit will work on me. So, we are finally in agreement. Man made global warming is not a fact, and climate change is a fact. What then does the wry catcher do? In classic liberal fashion, he attempts to then say right wingers are saying there is no such thing as pollution and right wingers do not want to do a thing about pollution. You see how the creepy, hypocritical, double talking liberals are? What is so funny is they believe their own shit. Is there a conservative anywhere that advocates pollution? Has a left winger even seen what a conservatives have actually done for the environment?

Answer: No, cause MSNBC never reports the things Republicans have done. So, therefore they either do not know, or take the credit for things Republicans have actually done.

Some how, some way, they also think spending a week in a field at some earth rally smoking, toking, shitting and pissing in a field is doing something for "mother earth."If you are not careful, I will list all of the things republicans have actually done.

Now, what we have all agreed on. Man made global warming is not a fact and climate change is.

What we do not agree with is.....

Obama attempted to equate climate change with man made global warming when he said climate change is a fact, and that is what those on the left were clapping about. Many left wing nut jobs in this thread all said that very thing.

--------------------------------

They are such pieces of double talking shit.

As I pointed out earlier you're an immature asshole, but others may be persuaded you have something honest to offer. I will disabuse those who do.

Pollution is pollution and impacts the climate and our environment - only morons believe it has no impact on climate. The ignorant Republican's and Callous Conservatives are opposed to regulation, they believe magically the earth will repair itself and commerce, industry and profit all are more important than ecology.

We cannot and should not separate climate change and the warming of our oceans from Smog, Acid Rain, and rivers that burn (all once part of our nations landscape) as suggested by the immature asshole.

We reduced Smog, Acid Rain and our rivers no longer catch fire and actually have fish living in them. It's really that simple, we need to be good stewards of the earth.

Who the fuck here is saying pollution does not have an effect on the environment?

The degree of the effect mans activity has had on GLOBAL WARMING is the topic. There are all sorts of ways pollution is destructive to the environment.

Thanks to many actions done by Republicans, there have been vast improvements.

National Parks
National Forests
The Antiquities Act
National Environmental Policy Act
Wilderness Act of 1964
The Alaska Lands Act
The Gerald Ford CAFE
The Montreal Protocol
Bush's Blue Water Legacy

Those, to name a few things that have had dramatic effects on the environment. Not to mention the the Clean Water act and Clean Air Act.

All passed and signed by Republicans.

That is not what this is about. It is about the concerted effort to turn so called man made global warming into wind fall profits.

Reference how Al Gore's net worth grew since he left politics and as he pressed his utter shit about carbon footprints and carbon credits. All while his very footprint was the size of king kong. Anyone that would bring that up were attacked, and or course the liberal media would never call him on his hypocrisy.

Most of the "green movements" have been nothing but scams. Creating coffers for the thieves. Solyndra etc etc etc etc.

Do not make me list the scams, and since so many of these scientists rely on government grants, we can see where the motivations to be unified in their views on something that has not been proven.

What has not been proven is the degree of the actual effect man has had in the warming of the planet. That, has not been established. However, the mass propaganda has led us to believe that man is virtually the sole reason for it.

Now, that more and more scientists are jumping ship on it, and the more the scales contradict the claims that man has had such an effect, the more imperative it is for the politicians to change the rhetoric. Hence the change in terminology.

Tell me, what do you specifically do for the environment? You use a computer, which means you rely on energy and plastics. DO you buy carbon credits? What exactly does that do?

You lie by omission. Anyone who follows politics knows the Republican Party of today has no resemblance to the Republican Party before Ronald Reagan.

You said, not to mention the Clean Air and Water Act, this is why:

Red, Green, and Blue | Patriotism that loves our country, our land, and our planet

You may, if you're not willfully ignorant, review this data too:

Direct Observations of Recent Climate Change - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

BTW, check your 'facts', a quick look at the Wilderness act of 1964 was not signed by a Republican President; LBJ signed that law. And the Clean Air & Water Act was signed by Nixon (who today would be a RINO ).

 

[Theowl32]

No, of course. If you need something that simple explained, you really have no place in the discussion.

You can thank the Bush administration for declaring that "climate change" should be used instead of "Global warming", since it was their policy. I myself prefer the very direct term "global warming", being it so unambiguously describes what's happening.

You have taken the place of the stupidest piece of shit on these boards. You think have any ability to debate me?

You prefer the term GLOBAL WARMING instead of CLIMATE CHANGE in the very fucking post that you said they are NOT THE SAME.

LOL at your fucking stupidity. Oh, and I will make it even more fucking clear for a piece of brainwashed shit like you. It is not CLIMATE CHANGE you "prefer," it is not GLOBAL WARMING either, it is MAN MADE global warming you dumb ignorant fuck.

When your fucking commie liar in chief mentioned CLIMATE CHANGE is a fact and morons like you applauded, they all equated CLIMATE CHANGE with MAN MADE global warming. You are too fucking stupid to keep up though.

You make stupid posts loaded with contradictions. Hey, go buy a carbon credit. Oh right.....that is not the "in thing" to do anymore with the left wing pieces of steaming shit like you.

So, what the fuck do you do that contributes to the environment? Don't you think it is funny how in the same post that you said climate change and global warming are not the same, that you went ahead and equated the two?

BTW, what has your piece of shit in chief done for the environment? Be specific. I will bet anything GW Bush did far more for the earth than Obama. Then again, hypocrisy, double talk and blatant fucking ignorance is all you and your pathetic types are all about.

I will be waiting for to tell me what you do for the environment, and I will be waiting for the list of things this piece of commie shit in chief has done for the environment as compared to GW Bush.

I will also bet you are fucking stupid enough to think Bush lied about WMDs to get us into a war. I will bet too that you are fucking truther who things Bush and Cheney carried out the attacks and rigged WTC 7 in order for us to get oil. I will bet you are that fucking dumb.

You are, aren't you?

 

[Theowl32]

As I pointed out earlier you're an immature asshole, but others may be persuaded you have something honest to offer. I will disabuse those who do.

Pollution is pollution and impacts the climate and our environment - only morons believe it has no impact on climate. The ignorant Republican's and Callous Conservatives are opposed to regulation, they believe magically the earth will repair itself and commerce, industry and profit all are more important than ecology.

We cannot and should not separate climate change and the warming of our oceans from Smog, Acid Rain, and rivers that burn (all once part of our nations landscape) as suggested by the immature asshole.

We reduced Smog, Acid Rain and our rivers no longer catch fire and actually have fish living in them. It's really that simple, we need to be good stewards of the earth.

Who the fuck here is saying pollution does not have an effect on the environment?

The degree of the effect mans activity has had on GLOBAL WARMING is the topic. There are all sorts of ways pollution is destructive to the environment.

Thanks to many actions done by Republicans, there have been vast improvements.

National Parks
National Forests
The Antiquities Act
National Environmental Policy Act
Wilderness Act of 1964
The Alaska Lands Act
The Gerald Ford CAFE
The Montreal Protocol
Bush's Blue Water Legacy

Those, to name a few things that have had dramatic effects on the environment. Not to mention the the Clean Water act and Clean Air Act.

All passed and signed by Republicans.

That is not what this is about. It is about the concerted effort to turn so called man made global warming into wind fall profits.

Reference how Al Gore's net worth grew since he left politics and as he pressed his utter shit about carbon footprints and carbon credits. All while his very footprint was the size of king kong. Anyone that would bring that up were attacked, and or course the liberal media would never call him on his hypocrisy.

Most of the "green movements" have been nothing but scams. Creating coffers for the thieves. Solyndra etc etc etc etc.

Do not make me list the scams, and since so many of these scientists rely on government grants, we can see where the motivations to be unified in their views on something that has not been proven.

What has not been proven is the degree of the actual effect man has had in the warming of the planet. That, has not been established. However, the mass propaganda has led us to believe that man is virtually the sole reason for it.

Now, that more and more scientists are jumping ship on it, and the more the scales contradict the claims that man has had such an effect, the more imperative it is for the politicians to change the rhetoric. Hence the change in terminology.

Tell me, what do you specifically do for the environment? You use a computer, which means you rely on energy and plastics. DO you buy carbon credits? What exactly does that do?

You lie by omission. Anyone who follows politics knows the Republican Party of today has no resemblance to the Republican Party before Ronald Reagan.

You said, not to mention the Clean Air and Water Act, this is why:

Red, Green, and Blue | Patriotism that loves our country, our land, and our planet

You may, if you're not willfully ignorant, review this data too:

Direct Observations of Recent Climate Change - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

BTW, check your 'facts', a quick look at the Wilderness act of 1964 was not signed by a Republican President; LBJ signed that law. And the Clean Air & Water Act was signed by Nixon (who today would be a RINO ).

Sooo Nixon was a liberal. You take credit for everything republicans did for the environment. I know you love to just ignore what Teddy did with the military, and yet you love to call him a bleeding heart liberal.

You have no clue about the Blue Water Legacy. Bush took Theodore Roosevelt’s Antiquities Act precedent much further than any of his predecessors by establishing marine preserves that cover nearly 215 million acres, big enough to swallow Bush’s home state of Texas, plus Oklahoma.

Every republican prior to Reagan were liberals? LOL at these fucking pieces of shit.

Oh, and btw John Saylor republican congressman crusaded for protecting wild rivers and expanding national parks. And, he was the Republican co-sponsor of the Wilderness Act of 1964.

Oh, but he was before Reagan, and so therefore was a liberal.

Such fucking annoying morons. Still waiting for you to tell me all the things you do for the environment. I guess you not telling me, is your way of telling me that you do not do shit.

I have been making donations, 50 per month, to this organization for close to 20 years.

You can make a difference - become a monthly donor // Monthly Giving // Be a Champion for our planet! // The Nature Conservancy