Why do liberals have to make up climate change?

[Crick]

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

Discussion of motivations are less than worthless. But since you're here...

If you had read even a small portion of the voluminous postings here, you would have seen that the conservatives charge liberals with pushing the AGW "hoax" in order to gain more political power, to exercise their inherent intense statism.

I do not fully agree with your characterization of the liberal position re conservative motivations. I think conservatives due to the history of the environmental movement and the involvement of Al Gore (on whose head conservatives attach all the embarrassment they suffered at the hands of George W Bush), saw AGW as a liberal cause they were obliged to oppose before it was even properly a cause of any stripe. This was rapidly followed with the sophisticated and well-funded disinformation campaign of the fossil fuel industry which had no problem at all inducting conservative recruits into the army of opposition. Conservatives have no expectation of getting money from fossil fuel businesses. They do it because they hate liberals. They believe the well being of this nation is best served by addressing the well being of the moneyed mercantile class and that class, it believes, has seen no threat greater than this one in the history of this nation.

 

[Crick]

I don't deny science. The research is overwhelmingly prove humans are causing climate change. This isn't a debate, it's real

The research is overwhelmingly prove humans are causing climate change

You're gullible if you believe that crap.

Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science claims leading meteorologist Daily Mail Online

And by 'leading meteorologist', you mean a guy with no training in meteorology......instead sporting a degree in JOURNALISM?

Sigh, some conservatives are dumber than a box of rocks. They are so desperate to believe what they want to be true that they'll ignore thousands of studies and legions of climatologists in favor of a lone man with no more qualifications than David Letterman.

Sigh, liberals are such gullible idiots. They bought into the lies, misinformation, and fraudulent science of AGW/CC that they actually believe and accept it to be real, man-made, and a threat to the planet, that they will go and try to convince others of their brainwashed bullshit.

HAHAHAHAAAAaaaa...MAN, you're funny!

 

[Wyld Kard]

I don't deny science. The research is overwhelmingly prove humans are causing climate change. This isn't a debate, it's real

The research is overwhelmingly prove humans are causing climate change

You're gullible if you believe that crap.

Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science claims leading meteorologist Daily Mail Online

And by 'leading meteorologist', you mean a guy with no training in meteorology......instead sporting a degree in JOURNALISM?

Sigh, some conservatives are dumber than a box of rocks. They are so desperate to believe what they want to be true that they'll ignore thousands of studies and legions of climatologists in favor of a lone man with no more qualifications than David Letterman.

Sigh, liberals are such gullible idiots. They bought into the lies, misinformation, and fraudulent science of AGW/CC that they actually believe and accept it to be real, man-made, and a threat to the planet, that they will go and try to convince others of their brainwashed bullshit.

HAHAHAHAAAAaaaa...MAN, you're funny!

And you're still gullible...HAHAHAHAAAAaaaa!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

Obviously your oblivious to the billions being wasted on the green agenda

 

[Wry Catcher]

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

Obviously your oblivious to the billions being wasted on the green agenda

If billions are being wasted you would have posted several sources to prove your statement. I'm sure some conservative sit posted such in a headline, read only by the few and the brainwashed. But, please, prove me wrong - post the facts and figures.

 

[jc456]

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

If climate change isn't happening, then doing things to prevent it wont have any consequences.

If climate change is happening, and we do nothing, we're dead.

we are? when?

 

[jc456]

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

Obviously your oblivious to the billions being wasted on the green agenda

If billions are being wasted you would have posted several sources to prove your statement. I'm sure some conservative sit posted such in a headline, read only by the few and the brainwashed. But, please, prove me wrong - post the facts and figures.

what is a conservative please?

 

[chikenwing]

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

Carbon credit,give Gore a call see what he has to say.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, doesn't look we will need a carbon tax or carbon credits. Wind and solar are winning on economic merit, and will continue to do so even when the subsidies expire. And if the utilities do not get with the program of working with customers that are both consumers and producers of power, then they will be replaced by those that do as they go bankrupt.

 

[bripat9643]

It's not a "try," asshole. I understand what words mean, and apparently you don't.

How does that make "revenue" the same as "funding?" Revenue is obtained by selling a product or service. "Funding" is obtained from charity or from the government.

LOL, temper, temper little guy. "The amount of money that a company actually receives during a specific period" is clear, concise and over your head.

Try this one: REVENUE
]Definition income generated from sale of goods or services, or any other use of capital or assets, associated with the main operations of an organization before any costs or expenses are deducted. Revenue is shown usually as the top item in an income (profit and loss) statement from which all charges, costs, and expenses are subtracted to arrive at net income. Also called sales, or (in the UK) turnover.


FUNDING:
1.Providing financial resources to finance a need, program, or project. In general, this term is used when a firm fills the need for cash from its own internal reserves, and the term 'financing' is used when the need is filled from external or borrowed money.
2.Grant of authority to an agency, department, or unit to incur monetary obligations and to pay for them.
3.Transferring ownership of assets to a trust to avoid probate.


Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/funding.html#ixzz3b14vY

You're only proving my point, numskull. You used the term "funding," not "revenue."

Your really must be brain dead, or a very poor liar - both is a very real likelihood. I suggest you read post 116 very slowly and carefully. Assuming you have before posting above, it's likely both brain dead and mendacious are describe you to a "T".

You're still lying. You claimed FOX news received "funding" from the Koch brothers. You can't seem to decide which side of that issue you're on. Do they receive "funding" or not?

What the fuck is your pretend issue now, Finger-boy? That was my post - what about it?

I thought you had me on ignore, Po Po. As I pointed out, the Koch brothers don't provide any "funding" to FOX News.

 

[Pogo]

LOL, temper, temper little guy. "The amount of money that a company actually receives during a specific period" is clear, concise and over your head.

Try this one: REVENUE
]Definition income generated from sale of goods or services, or any other use of capital or assets, associated with the main operations of an organization before any costs or expenses are deducted. Revenue is shown usually as the top item in an income (profit and loss) statement from which all charges, costs, and expenses are subtracted to arrive at net income. Also called sales, or (in the UK) turnover.


FUNDING:
1.Providing financial resources to finance a need, program, or project. In general, this term is used when a firm fills the need for cash from its own internal reserves, and the term 'financing' is used when the need is filled from external or borrowed money.
2.Grant of authority to an agency, department, or unit to incur monetary obligations and to pay for them.
3.Transferring ownership of assets to a trust to avoid probate.


Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/funding.html#ixzz3b14vY

You're only proving my point, numskull. You used the term "funding," not "revenue."

Your really must be brain dead, or a very poor liar - both is a very real likelihood. I suggest you read post 116 very slowly and carefully. Assuming you have before posting above, it's likely both brain dead and mendacious are describe you to a "T".

You're still lying. You claimed FOX news received "funding" from the Koch brothers. You can't seem to decide which side of that issue you're on. Do they receive "funding" or not?

What the fuck is your pretend issue now, Finger-boy? That was my post - what about it?

I thought you had me on ignore, Po Po. As I pointed out, the Koch brothers don't provide any "funding" to FOX News.

You do have that esteemed status, Finger Boy, but inasmuch as you went whining to somebody else about my post I was compelled to investigate.

As a commercial broadcaster Fox Noise's funding comes from its advertisers -- whoever it can sell time to. Now tell me if any of these commercials ever include any of these...

Then there's the infamous direct marketing approach....

​

It also includes your more limited definition of "funding":

More than a dozen Fox News personalities have made appearances at events for groups funded by the Koch brothers, even as many of them were also defending the controversial billionaires on the network's airwaves, according to a new study from Media Matters.

Charles and David Koch, founders of Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF), have called on at least 15 Fox News hosts and contributors to publicly promote upcoming AFP and AFPF events, Media Matters said. These hosts include Tucker Carlson, Mike Huckabee, Laura Ingraham, Guy Benson, Dana Perino and Andrew Napolitano.

A recent Politico report showed that AFP "intends to spend more than $125 million this year on an aggressive ground, air and data operation benefiting conservatives." Since 2012, a growing number of hosts have become the faces of these Koch-funded events in an effort to increase the attendance.

Moreover, many of these hosts have also loudly backed the Koch brothers on Fox News shows, Media Matters noted. Just weeks before Tucker Carlson was set to be the lead speaker at an AFPF in May, for instance, he criticized opponents of the Koch brothers during an edition of "Special Report." Hosts of "Fox & Friends" and "The Five" have also come to the brothers' aid and used their shows to promote AFP and AFPF material.
​

Hey btw Finger Boy -- Koch is responsible for 25% of Canadian tar sands imports. Considering the bedfellows noted just above, ya think that might have, oh I dunno, a teensy-weensy bit of influence on how Fox Noise plants talking heads "report" on the Keystone pipeline?

 

[flacaltenn]

AngelSoft and Brawny.. Good products.. Would you rather they got made in China? Would you rather get your oil from tar sands in Canada or Iraq? You leftists are silly conspiracy nuts. Even I don't go that far to hate GranPa Soros..

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're only proving my point, numskull. You used the term "funding," not "revenue."

Your really must be brain dead, or a very poor liar - both is a very real likelihood. I suggest you read post 116 very slowly and carefully. Assuming you have before posting above, it's likely both brain dead and mendacious are describe you to a "T".

You're still lying. You claimed FOX news received "funding" from the Koch brothers. You can't seem to decide which side of that issue you're on. Do they receive "funding" or not?

What the fuck is your pretend issue now, Finger-boy? That was my post - what about it?

I thought you had me on ignore, Po Po. As I pointed out, the Koch brothers don't provide any "funding" to FOX News.

You do have that esteemed status, Finger Boy, but inasmuch as you went whining to somebody else about my post I was compelled to investigate.

As a commercial broadcaster Fox Noise's funding comes from its advertisers -- whoever it can sell time to. Now tell me if any of these commercials ever include any of these...

Then there's the infamous direct marketing approach....

​

It also includes your more limited definition of "funding":

More than a dozen Fox News personalities have made appearances at events for groups funded by the Koch brothers, even as many of them were also defending the controversial billionaires on the network's airwaves, according to a new study from Media Matters.

Charles and David Koch, founders of Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF), have called on at least 15 Fox News hosts and contributors to publicly promote upcoming AFP and AFPF events, Media Matters said. These hosts include Tucker Carlson, Mike Huckabee, Laura Ingraham, Guy Benson, Dana Perino and Andrew Napolitano.

A recent Politico report showed that AFP "intends to spend more than $125 million this year on an aggressive ground, air and data operation benefiting conservatives." Since 2012, a growing number of hosts have become the faces of these Koch-funded events in an effort to increase the attendance.

Moreover, many of these hosts have also loudly backed the Koch brothers on Fox News shows, Media Matters noted. Just weeks before Tucker Carlson was set to be the lead speaker at an AFPF in May, for instance, he criticized opponents of the Koch brothers during an edition of "Special Report." Hosts of "Fox & Friends" and "The Five" have also come to the brothers' aid and used their shows to promote AFP and AFPF material.
​

Hey btw Finger Boy -- Koch is responsible for 25% of Canadian tar sands imports. Considering the bedfellows noted just above, ya think that might have, oh I dunno, a teensy-weensy bit of influence on how Fox Noise plants talking heads "report" on the Keystone pipeline?

Since this ^^^ is an important post, and others will post Idiot-Grams to move the line, I need to agree and offer my "Thanks", "Agreement" and appreciation for a well thought out "Informative" post.

 

[jc456]

AngelSoft and Brawny.. Good products.. Would you rather they got made in China? Would you rather get your oil from tar sands in Canada or Iraq? You leftists are silly conspiracy nuts. Even I don't go that far to hate GranPa Soros..

Every other network advertises these products. What the F? that dude is a punk and useless.

 

[flacaltenn]

AngelSoft and Brawny.. Good products.. Would you rather they got made in China? Would you rather get your oil from tar sands in Canada or Iraq? You leftists are silly conspiracy nuts. Even I don't go that far to hate GranPa Soros..

Every other network advertises these products. What the F? that dude is a punk and useless.

It's a conspiracy quality case against the Kochs. All dressed-up in anti-corporate, anti-capitalistic rhetoric. LITERALLY, without Koch products, those leftists would be cleaning their asses with leaves. Some of our Koch-haters are simply swept up in the narrative and are being useful tools. No real thought or reason applied. OF COURSE, Koch Ind is a target for environmentalists -- because they make vital products out of trees... Just like in the energy debate tho -- they have NO VALID alternatives.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

Obviously your oblivious to the billions being wasted on the green agenda

If billions are being wasted you would have posted several sources to prove your statement. I'm sure some conservative sit posted such in a headline, read only by the few and the brainwashed. But, please, prove me wrong - post the facts and figures.

I guess the green agenda and the 87 billion dollars wasted on companies like Solyndra are just a figment of our imagination..

"



It is no secret that President Obama’s and green energy supporters’ (from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure, single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.

The truth is that the problem is widespread. The government’s picking winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies that would’ve found the financial support in the private market.

So far, 34 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers are faltering — either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy and other agencies. The amount of money indicated does not reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these companies have received from taxpayers even higher.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
17. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
18. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
19. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
20. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
21. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
22. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
23. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
24. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
25. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
26. GreenVolts ($500,000)
27. Vestas ($50 million)
28. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
29. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
30. Navistar ($39 million)
31. Satcon ($3 million)*
32. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
33. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy. "

Source

 

[rdean]

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

Because most scientists are liberal and most Republicans are ignorant.

 

[jc456]

Whether you believe in climate change or not, there is still one question I would like to ask you.
According to liberals, conservatives deny climate change for one purpose only: to fawn corporations and get a portion of their money.
But what about liberals? What is their motivation according to conservatives? To my mind liberals have no motivation to make up climate change if it really doesn't exist simply because liberal politicians are not getting anything from enterprise 'Climate change'.

Because most scientists are liberal and most Republicans are ignorant.

What is Judith curry?

 

[Crick]

What is Judith curry?

A human female

 

[jc456]

What is Judith curry?

A human female

Wow way to avoid the thread