CDZ Two-Thirds of Americans Want U.S. to Join Climate Change Pact

[MisterBeale]

Is there a source for data on this topic that you would recommend and have confidence in?

Not really, I think the entire climate change thing is nonsense and a hodgepodge of manipulated data, false predictions and an agenda. Some people will be duped but I doubt it's 2/3 of the nation.

Surely you must have reached such a dispositive conclusion on the topic of climate change with the aid of some sort of information or explanation by someone. How did you come to see the issue as nonsense and a hodgepodge of manipulated data"?

I read a lot and keep informed. You're being duped....wake up

I'm awake -- at least I think I am. What sources have kept you informed about the hoax nature of climate change? It is hard to change my opinion without access to some sort of logical argument and factual evidence to the contrary. Why can't you provide me with some sources to support your conclusion? Is that classified or secret information that you cannot provide to the duped?

I don't archive shit, try Google. If you want to buy into this nonsense buy into it, I don't. It's a scam of epic proportions

I archive shit, because this comes up over and over, and over again.


So I will help out here.

See, the reason that Fishlore can't possibly find the droids he will be looking for, is that we know that this is a world government/agenda21 scam.

What does this mean? It means any institution, be it a research institution, University, college, etc., and official organization affiliated with the establishment will be brought into line with the official goals of the UN. You need have independent science done away from this paradigm.

Well, whose good at doing science other than the western establishment? The Chinese aren't bad. . . But I would go with the Russians.

At one time, before WWI, they produced very little oil. Now, thanks to their very concise and clear understanding of how the Earth actually creates petroleum deep down in the mantle, they are the world's foremost experts in drilling the deepest wells and finding oil. They produce more oil than anyone.

What does this have to do with climate science?

For seventy years, their science was pretty much apolitical. Their nation has a very entrenched tradition of making government and science separate.

This is not so in the West. Our science has been made to serve all sorts of business and government agendas.

The fact is, temperature variation is caused by the Earth, it's relationship to the Sun, and the solar system's relationship to the galactic core.

PLANETOPHYSICAL STATE OF

THE EARTH AND LIFE

By DR. ALEXEY N. DMITRIEV*



Published in Russian, IICA Transactions, Volume 4, 1997



*Professor of Geology and Mineralogy, and Chief Scientific Member,

United Institute of Geology, Geophysics, and Mineralogy,

Siberian Department of Russian Academy of Sciences.

Expert on Global Ecology, and Fast -Processing Earth Events.



Russian to English Translation and Editing:

by A. N. Dmitriev, Andrew Tetenov, and Earl L. Crockett



Summary Paragraph

Current PlanetoPhysical alterations of the Earth are becoming irreversible. Strong evidence exists that these transformations are being caused by highly charged material and energetic non-uniformity's in anisotropic interstellar space which have broken into the interplanetary area of our Solar System. This "donation" of energy is producing hybrid processes and excited energy states in all planets, as well as the Sun. Effects here on Earth are to be found in the acceleration of the magnetic pole shift, in the vertical and horizontal ozone content distribution, and in the increased frequency and magnitude of significant catastrophic climatic events. There is growing probability that we are moving into a rapid temperature instability period similar to the one that took place 10,000 years ago. The adaptive responses of the biosphere, and humanity, to these new conditions may lead to a total global revision of the range of species and life on Earth. It is only through a deep understanding of the fundamental changes taking place in the natural environment surrounding us that politicians, and citizens a like, will be able to achieve balance with the renewing flow of PlanetoPhysical states and processes.
PLANETOPHYSICAL STATE OF THE EARTH AND LIFE

 

[Weatherman2020]

Its the way people go about it. The people that fund all of the Climate change research. It is several things, really. That being said, I see no problem with reasonable changes.

Who funds the research doesn't matter one bit. There are certain things that are really simple:

• From time to time, Mother Nature dumps huge quantities of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
• Higher levels of carbon in the air result in a warmer overall climate/planet.
• An overall warmer climate will result in some things concerning the natural world changing from what they are now.
• Mother Nature's periodic "carbon farts" plus the huge amounts people produce is a whole lot more than either one alone.
• When MN has her next big bout of flatulence happens, the planet will incur all that much greater an impact for that much longer a period given that it's combined with our our gas emissions.
• I'm really quite satisfied with how climate-related "things" are now, and how they were 40 years ago seems better.
  
• If there is some chance that humans can get the climate back to what it was 40 or 400 years ago, I'm all for it.
• A warmer planet means higher sea levels.
• Most major cities, and all the ones I can think of that matter most, are on or very near a body of water.
• HIgher sea levels means less land.
• Humans are land animals.

The short of it is that when it comes to the planet itself, I'm much more risk averse than I am about most everything else. I don't have a fallback planet available if this one goes to "shit" environmentally. If I did, I might feel differently, but I don't. Do you?

Funding matters ALOT What happens if you don't produce the results they wanted?
The UN is one of the biggest contributors to the research. The UN are a bunch of globalists. What easier way to "bring us together"? Fear tactics, if you will. Lets not be naïve.
I said that I agree with reasonable changes/regulation.

Funding matters a lot insofar as it is made available. Who makes it available is irrelevant for any objectively structured study. I care far more about the quality of the study than I do about who provided the money for it.

That why lawsuits were required to obtain the raw data used by the Gorebal Warming studies and we then learned they doctored the data?

The key point being that we did learn the data were doctored....as I said, I don't care who funds the study. If it's not legit, it's not...we'll find out, as you so aptly noted. When we do, we can disregard the study.

You're for changing the world economy, you state you don't care if it hurts the poor, and now you admit it could be all smoke and mirrors.

Not sure if you're a loony or just plain evil. Or maybe both.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Its the way people go about it. The people that fund all of the Climate change research. It is several things, really. That being said, I see no problem with reasonable changes.

Who funds the research doesn't matter one bit. There are certain things that are really simple:

• From time to time, Mother Nature dumps huge quantities of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
• Higher levels of carbon in the air result in a warmer overall climate/planet.
• An overall warmer climate will result in some things concerning the natural world changing from what they are now.
• Mother Nature's periodic "carbon farts" plus the huge amounts people produce is a whole lot more than either one alone.
• When MN has her next big bout of flatulence happens, the planet will incur all that much greater an impact for that much longer a period given that it's combined with our our gas emissions.
• I'm really quite satisfied with how climate-related "things" are now, and how they were 40 years ago seems better.
  
• If there is some chance that humans can get the climate back to what it was 40 or 400 years ago, I'm all for it.
• A warmer planet means higher sea levels.
• Most major cities, and all the ones I can think of that matter most, are on or very near a body of water.
• HIgher sea levels means less land.
• Humans are land animals.

The short of it is that when it comes to the planet itself, I'm much more risk averse than I am about most everything else. I don't have a fallback planet available if this one goes to "shit" environmentally. If I did, I might feel differently, but I don't. Do you?

Funding matters ALOT What happens if you don't produce the results they wanted?
The UN is one of the biggest contributors to the research. The UN are a bunch of globalists. What easier way to "bring us together"? Fear tactics, if you will. Lets not be naïve.
I said that I agree with reasonable changes/regulation.

Funding matters a lot insofar as it is made available. Who makes it available is irrelevant for any objectively structured study. I care far more about the quality of the study than I do about who provided the money for it.

That why lawsuits were required to obtain the raw data used by the Gorebal Warming studies and we then learned they doctored the data?

BTW, from what I've read about An Inconvenient Truth, it seems there's general agreement that the key points are correct. The points of exception I'm aware of are:

• There are other natural causes of climate variability which the film does not address. Human activity is not the sole cause.

That exception aside, I don't really care whether humans are the primary or main cause of global warming. What I care about is the fact that the planet is warming, the warming has potentially expensive and catastrophic impacts, and that it may be possible that regardless of our role in the causes of it, we humans may have it within our power to slow, stop or reverse it. At this point, the causes are irrelevant to me.

Thank God the planet is warming.

Corn and wheat doesn't grow well under the mile thick ice that used to cover the upper Midwest just 15,000 years ago.

 

[320 Years of History]

Not really, I think the entire climate change thing is nonsense and a hodgepodge of manipulated data, false predictions and an agenda. Some people will be duped but I doubt it's 2/3 of the nation.

Surely you must have reached such a dispositive conclusion on the topic of climate change with the aid of some sort of information or explanation by someone. How did you come to see the issue as nonsense and a hodgepodge of manipulated data"?

I read a lot and keep informed. You're being duped....wake up

I'm awake -- at least I think I am. What sources have kept you informed about the hoax nature of climate change? It is hard to change my opinion without access to some sort of logical argument and factual evidence to the contrary. Why can't you provide me with some sources to support your conclusion? Is that classified or secret information that you cannot provide to the duped?

I don't archive shit, try Google. If you want to buy into this nonsense buy into it, I don't. It's a scam of epic proportions

I archive shit, because this comes up over and over, and over again.


So I will help out here.

See, the reason that Fishlore can't possibly find the droids he will be looking for, is that we know that this is a world government/agenda21 scam.

What does this mean? It means any institution, be it a research institution, University, college, etc., and official organization affiliated with the establishment will be brought into line with the official goals of the UN. You need have independent science done away from this paradigm.

Well, whose good at doing science other than the western establishment? The Chinese aren't bad. . . But I would go with the Russians.

At one time, before WWI, they produced very little oil. Now, thanks to their very concise and clear understanding of how the Earth actually creates petroleum deep down in the mantle, they are the world's foremost experts in drilling the deepest wells and finding oil. They produce more oil than anyone.

What does this have to do with climate science?

For seventy years, their science was pretty much apolitical. Their nation has a very entrenched tradition of making government and science separate.

This is not so in the West. Our science has been made to serve all sorts of business and government agendas.

The fact is, temperature variation is caused by the Earth, it's relationship to the Sun, and the solar system's relationship to the galactic core.

PLANETOPHYSICAL STATE OF

THE EARTH AND LIFE

By DR. ALEXEY N. DMITRIEV*



Published in Russian, IICA Transactions, Volume 4, 1997



*Professor of Geology and Mineralogy, and Chief Scientific Member,

United Institute of Geology, Geophysics, and Mineralogy,

Siberian Department of Russian Academy of Sciences.

Expert on Global Ecology, and Fast -Processing Earth Events.



Russian to English Translation and Editing:

by A. N. Dmitriev, Andrew Tetenov, and Earl L. Crockett



Summary Paragraph

Current PlanetoPhysical alterations of the Earth are becoming irreversible. Strong evidence exists that these transformations are being caused by highly charged material and energetic non-uniformity's in anisotropic interstellar space which have broken into the interplanetary area of our Solar System. This "donation" of energy is producing hybrid processes and excited energy states in all planets, as well as the Sun. Effects here on Earth are to be found in the acceleration of the magnetic pole shift, in the vertical and horizontal ozone content distribution, and in the increased frequency and magnitude of significant catastrophic climatic events. There is growing probability that we are moving into a rapid temperature instability period similar to the one that took place 10,000 years ago. The adaptive responses of the biosphere, and humanity, to these new conditions may lead to a total global revision of the range of species and life on Earth. It is only through a deep understanding of the fundamental changes taking place in the natural environment surrounding us that politicians, and citizens a like, will be able to achieve balance with the renewing flow of PlanetoPhysical states and processes.
PLANETOPHYSICAL STATE OF THE EARTH AND LIFE

I read that paper. I understand what Dr. Alexey was saying. I'm not sure what it has to do with this discussion. I know it seems like it does relate, but reading his conclusions, it's pretty clear that it doesn't. That you cited that paper suggests that you (others too perhaps) are willing to latch onto just about anything that might remotely suggest that there is more than just human activity causing global warming and the like. The thing is, the man writes, "It has already been observed that the growth in the concentration of CO2 has stopped...." .Why he wrote that is beyond me; the growth in CO2 concentration has not stopped. Indeed, all that's stopped about it since 1998 when the paper was published is that the concentration level stopped being below 360ppm.

 

[320 Years of History]

You're for changing the world economy, you state you don't care if it hurts the poor, and now you admit it could be all smoke and mirrors.

Not sure if you're a loony or just plain evil. Or maybe both.

Red:
That is not at all what I said. That's your incorrect paraphrasing of what I wrote. I implied then, and I maintain now, that whatever electricity costs is inconsequential in comparison to sacrificing the planet in the long run so we can have affordable electricity now.

Now, you've taken to putting words into my mouth. In fact, this is now the second time you've done so. I ignore the assertion the first time you made it. In that post you also referred ambiguously to a myth. I don't and didn't know what myth you had in mind, which is another reason I ignored that post.

You will recall:

People in poverty can eat, have a roof over their heads, and work hard to prosper.

And you are saying those are impossible achievements if we have lower levels of carbon emissions in our air?

Electricity costs are skyrocketing in California. How does that help a family with 2 kids that makes $32,000 a year and pays $1,200 a month rent?

Frankly, I'm still waiting for a direct answer to the question I asked you back at post #23: CDZ - Two-Thirds of Americans Want U.S. to Join Climate Change Pact | Page 3 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum . You replied directly to that post, but the answer you gave doesn't answer the question that was asked. It was a simple question you can answer "yes" or "no," as befits the tenor of how you view the matter, and provide your justification for whatever answer you give.

Blue:
I did not and do not here admit that AIT is "all smoke and mirrors, not do I suggest anything remotely resembling that is so.

As you will observe from my post # 48, I don't agree at all that the study was fraudulent. I accept that there may be factual errors in it. Read the content at the link I shared in post #48 (or below) and you'll know exactly what I think about the veracity and accuracy of An Inconvenient Truth. My posts #47 and #48 taken in concert make clear that while I agree there are some inaccuracies in the text, directionally, I accept its premises and conclusions. A few incorrect details do not "smoke and mirrors" make and you'll find that same assertion given multiple times at the link I shared.

Here are the referenced papers in which several scientists remark on Mr. Gore's work.

• Steig EJ (2008). Another look at An Inconvenient Truth. GeoJournal (DOI 10.1007/s10708-008-9130-3)

An Inconvenient Truth Rests on a solid scientific foundation. But its chief role is not a scientific one, as the Nobel Committee clearly recognized when they awarded the 2007 Peace Price not only to Al Gore,but also to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. How alarmed we should be that the Green-land ice sheet is likely to disappear depends on a value judgment about our responsibility to future generations. How alarmed we should be about near term changes depends in large part on our concern about the developing world, or (more selfishly) about how problems elsewhere may affect us indirectly,through a flood of environmental refugees. These are the chief messages of An Inconvenient Truth, and they are accurate ones. How alarmed we should be about global warming is no longer a scientific question so much as it is a question of values.​

• Nielsen-Gammon JW (2008). An Inconvenient Truth: the scientific argument. GeoJournal (DOI 10.1007/s10708-008-9126-z)

An Inconvenient Truth is a powerful movie. Most of the major elements of the scientific argument presented in AIT are consistent, in whole or in part, with the existing scientific consensus. Many parts very effectively address common misconceptions about climate change. Other elements leave out important facts or essential estimates of uncertainty, thereby creating new misconceptions about climate change. ...While I have contended above that the evidence of present signs of global warming is exaggerated in AIT, it does not follow that AIT necessarily exaggerates the overall threat of global warming....For each statement in AIT that goes too far, there are perhaps ten other scientifically valid statements that could have been made but were left out in the interest of time or persuasiveness for a lay audience. The IPCC reports remain the best available comprehensive summary of the scientific basis of global warming causes and effects.​

• • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2014 Report (The following remarks are taken from the summary level report. The full report can be found here: Fifth Assessment Report - Synthesis Report )
    • Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.
      
    • Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.
      
    • In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate.
      
    • Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks.
      
    • Anthropogenic GHG emissions are mainly driven by population size, economic activity, lifestyle, energy use, land use patterns, technology and climate policy.
      
    • Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development.
      
    • Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are stopped. The risks of abrupt or irreversible changes increase as the magnitude of the warming increases.
      
    • Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence). Mitigation involves some level of co-benefits and of risks due to adverse side effects, but these risks do not involve the same possibility of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits from near-term mitigation efforts.
      
    • Adaptation can reduce the risks of climate change impacts, but there are limits to its effectiveness, especially with greater magnitudes and rates of climate change. Taking a longerterm perspective, in the context of sustainable development, increases the likelihood that more immediate adaptation actions will also enhance future options and preparedness.
      
    • Many adaptation and mitigation options can help address climate change, but no single option is sufficient by itself. Effective implementation depends on policies and cooperation at all scales and can be enhanced through integrated responses that link adaptation and mitigation with other societal objectives.
      
    • Adaptation options exist in all sectors, but their context for implementation and potential to reduce climate-related risks differs across sectors and regions. Some adaptation responses involve significant co-benefits, synergies and trade-offs. Increasing climate change will increase challenges for many adaptation options.
      
    • Mitigation options are available in every major sector. Mitigation can be more cost-effective if using an integrated approach that combines measures to reduce energy use and the greenhouse gas intensity of end-use sectors, decarbonize energy supply, reduce net emissions and enhance carbon sinks in land-based sectors.
      
    • Effective adaptation and mitigation responses will depend on policies and measures across multiple scales: international, regional, national and sub-national. Policies across all scales supporting technology development, diffusion and transfer, as well as finance for responses to climate change, can complement and enhance the effectiveness of policies that directly promote adaptation and mitigation.
• Legates DR (2008). An Inconvenient Truth: a focus on its portrayal of the hydrologic cycle. GeoJournal (DOI 10.1007/s10708-008-9125-0) (This paper is not accessible free of charge on the WWW...at least not that I could find.)
• Spencer RW (2008). An Inconvenient Truth: blurring the lines between science and science fiction. GeoJournal (DOI 10.1007/s10708-008-9129-9) (This paper is not accessible free of charge on the WWW...at least not that I could find.)
• North GR (2008). An Inconvenient Truth and the scientists. GeoJournal (DOI 10.1007/s10708-9127-y)

This is one scientist's remarks regarding the four papers noted above.​

• Quiring SM (2008). Science and Hollywood: a discussion of the scientific accuracy of An Inconvenient Truth. GeoJournal (DOI 10.1007/s10708-008-9128-x) (This paper is not accessible free of charge on the WWW...at least not that I could find.)

You will find a list of additional references here: Oppdatert AGW-kritisk oversikt (Del 4): Diverse debattartikler .

Did you know posting 62 messages is the equivilant to driving a car half a mile? I can find the link if you want. Shameful you choose to destroy the planet instead of no posting here.

No. I didn't know that. By all means, please share the link that shows how that is so.

 

[320 Years of History]

You're for changing the world economy, you state you don't care if it hurts the poor, and now you admit it could be all smoke and mirrors.

Not sure if you're a loony or just plain evil. Or maybe both.

I suggest you ask me what I favor as goes the "world economy" rather than declare what I think. I am adequately literate; I can tell you what I think if you want to know. You can quote me if you like. You can use those quotes to build an inductive argument to support a hypothesis of your own. You may not put words in my mouth.

I have enough respect for you as an individual not to do that to you. You can surely show me the same courtesy.

 

[320 Years of History]

Thank God the planet is warming.

Corn and wheat doesn't grow well under the mile thick ice that used to cover the upper Midwest just 15,000 years ago.

Has anyone besides you had anything to say about agriculture 15K years ago?

 

[Mac1958]

How can you say you're for something this far-reaching without knowing what is in it?

 

[TNHarley]

Then there are the diversionary tactics.

"I don't accept your source because Reasons."
"Hey, let's talk about Hillary or Obama or Hillary and Obama or anything except the topic..."

lol right? That reminds me of the Sierra Club telling cruz "you have to listen to people sometimes instead of facts" Or something to that effect

It would be interesting to have access to the entire conversation, not just a sound bite making the rounds among Cruz supporters, but in any case it's still just a sidebar to the actual topic.

Ultimately, facts don't care about people's feelings.

It's funny, no one here would argue that, for example, gravity is "just an opinion." But the longer I post here, the more I wonder whether, if Newton were retconned into a "libtard," some here would make that exact claim.

You hit the nail on the head. The denier cult substitutes opinion for fact. The scientific community settled the science on this 15 years ago. There is no further debate, they are only filling the details with continued research.

People that deny the reality of Global Warming are either carrying the water for the fossil fuel industry or they are living in extreme cognitive dissonance. Its simply too scary to believe its real .

But it is real and time is running out.

The best thing a REAL scientist can hear is, "that was wrong. this is the new fact" Science is never settled except for hacks

 

[Weatherman2020]

Thank God the planet is warming.

Corn and wheat doesn't grow well under the mile thick ice that used to cover the upper Midwest just 15,000 years ago.

Has anyone besides you had anything to say about agriculture 15K years ago?

You're the one whining doom. Call me when palm trees and crocodiles return to Alaska.

 

[Weatherman2020]

You're for changing the world economy, you state you don't care if it hurts the poor, and now you admit it could be all smoke and mirrors.

Not sure if you're a loony or just plain evil. Or maybe both.

I suggest you ask me what I favor as goes the "world economy" rather than declare what I think. I am adequately literate; I can tell you what I think if you want to know. You can quote me if you like. You can use those quotes to build an inductive argument to support a hypothesis of your own. You may not put words in my mouth.

I have enough respect for you as an individual not to do that to you. You can surely show me the same courtesy.

You said you don't care about the cost of electricity going up. Mighty of you to want to screw the poor.

 

[Stephanie]

I'm not likely to take a NYTimes/CBS News poll as gospel

.

Me too! And just like you, I get all my news and opinion from Breibart!
Thanks to Breibart, I know that Obama isn't eligible to be president as he was a Martian's and the daughter of Fidel Castro's love child. Hillary is really a drone developed by George Soros in a bunker he shared with Adoph Hitler. And Tex Cruz is actually Jesus Christ and that's why he heard God tell him to run for President. Oh. I almost forgot that Megan Kelly is the daughter of Nancy Pelosi and Bill Clinton.
Thank you Breibart, for doing something about my intelligence.

you didn't hear that off Breibart. all that came off PmsNbc with the likes of: Chrissy (tingle for Obama) Matthews, the Rev (dumb as a box of rocks) Sharpton, the (girlyman) Maddcow.

 

[Geaux4it]

so what if 2/3 this or that..... jack ----. We also think Obamcare should be canned

-Geaux

 

[Stephanie]

I support building 500 nuclear plants and investing greatly into fusion...

We should also aim for 35% renewable energy.

But the environmentalist wacko's don't want that.

Instead, they want to destroy capitalism and increase taxation.

that's it in a nutshell. anyone who is falling for the lies of Obama and these people at the UN is being duped again

 

[320 Years of History]

You're for changing the world economy, you state you don't care if it hurts the poor, and now you admit it could be all smoke and mirrors.

Not sure if you're a loony or just plain evil. Or maybe both.

I suggest you ask me what I favor as goes the "world economy" rather than declare what I think. I am adequately literate; I can tell you what I think if you want to know. You can quote me if you like. You can use those quotes to build an inductive argument to support a hypothesis of your own. You may not put words in my mouth.

I have enough respect for you as an individual not to do that to you. You can surely show me the same courtesy.

You said you don't care about the cost of electricity going up. ...

Red:
This is now the third time you've tried to put words in my mouth. That is not what I wrote.

Blue:
??? So you have responded to remarks pertaining to my thoughts on the world economy -- something you introduced on your own absent any remarks about it by me -- with an inaccurate paraphrasing of my comments on what electricity costs. I have no idea why; I can only see that you have done.

 

[Weatherman2020]

You're for changing the world economy, you state you don't care if it hurts the poor, and now you admit it could be all smoke and mirrors.

Not sure if you're a loony or just plain evil. Or maybe both.

I suggest you ask me what I favor as goes the "world economy" rather than declare what I think. I am adequately literate; I can tell you what I think if you want to know. You can quote me if you like. You can use those quotes to build an inductive argument to support a hypothesis of your own. You may not put words in my mouth.

I have enough respect for you as an individual not to do that to you. You can surely show me the same courtesy.

You said you don't care about the cost of electricity going up. ...

Red:
This is now the third time you've tried to put words in my mouth. That is not what I wrote.

Blue:
??? So you have responded to remarks pertaining to my thoughts on the world economy -- something you introduced on your own absent any remarks about it by me -- with an inaccurate paraphrasing of my comments on what electricity costs. I have no idea why; I can only see that you have done.

Oh hum.
CDZ - Two-Thirds of Americans Want U.S. to Join Climate Change Pact | Page 4 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Muhammed]

A solid majority of Americans say the United States should join an international treaty to limit the impact of global warming, but on this and other climate-related questions, opinion divides sharply along partisan lines, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Two-thirds of Americans support the United States joining a binding international agreement to curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but a slim majority of Republicans remain opposed, the poll found. Sixty-three percent of Americans — including a bare majority of Republicans — said they would support domestic policy limiting carbon emissions from power plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/w...-change-republicans-democrats.html?ref=europe

Bullshit.

 

[320 Years of History]

You're for changing the world economy, you state you don't care if it hurts the poor, and now you admit it could be all smoke and mirrors.

Not sure if you're a loony or just plain evil. Or maybe both.

I suggest you ask me what I favor as goes the "world economy" rather than declare what I think. I am adequately literate; I can tell you what I think if you want to know. You can quote me if you like. You can use those quotes to build an inductive argument to support a hypothesis of your own. You may not put words in my mouth.

I have enough respect for you as an individual not to do that to you. You can surely show me the same courtesy.

You said you don't care about the cost of electricity going up. ...

Red:
This is now the third time you've tried to put words in my mouth. That is not what I wrote.

Blue:
??? So you have responded to remarks pertaining to my thoughts on the world economy -- something you introduced on your own absent any remarks about it by me -- with an inaccurate paraphrasing of my comments on what electricity costs. I have no idea why; I can only see that you have done.

Oh hum.
CDZ - Two-Thirds of Americans Want U.S. to Join Climate Change Pact | Page 4 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You're for changing the world economy, you state you don't care if it hurts the poor, and now you admit it could be all smoke and mirrors.

Not sure if you're a loony or just plain evil. Or maybe both.

I suggest you ask me what I favor as goes the "world economy" rather than declare what I think. I am adequately literate; I can tell you what I think if you want to know. You can quote me if you like. You can use those quotes to build an inductive argument to support a hypothesis of your own. You may not put words in my mouth.

I have enough respect for you as an individual not to do that to you. You can surely show me the same courtesy.

You said you don't care about the cost of electricity going up. ...

Red:
This is now the third time you've tried to put words in my mouth. That is not what I wrote.

Blue:
??? So you have responded to remarks pertaining to my thoughts on the world economy -- something you introduced on your own absent any remarks about it by me -- with an inaccurate paraphrasing of my comments on what electricity costs. I have no idea why; I can only see that you have done.

Oh hum.
CDZ - Two-Thirds of Americans Want U.S. to Join Climate Change Pact | Page 4 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

So now you see I made no statements pertaining to increases in the cost of electricity.

 

[Fishlore]

A solid majority of Americans say the United States should join an international treaty to limit the impact of global warming, but on this and other climate-related questions, opinion divides sharply along partisan lines, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Two-thirds of Americans support the United States joining a binding international agreement to curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but a slim majority of Republicans remain opposed, the poll found. Sixty-three percent of Americans — including a bare majority of Republicans — said they would support domestic policy limiting carbon emissions from power plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/w...-change-republicans-democrats.html?ref=europe

Bullshit.

Thank you for your thoughtful and well-documented analysis. It is the sort of discussion I had hoped we would have.

 

[gipper]

This kooky Paris meeting of crazy warmers is further proof, not that further proof was required, that the worldwide collective Left has lost it's fucking mind.

AGW is not going to harm anyone, since it is a made up hoax, but Leftism if not controlled, is going to get a lot of people killed.