You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".
I have to tell you, Billy Boy; if anyone around here throws tantrums, it's you.
You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".
The head of the EPA speaking her mind about deniers is not an abuse of power. You think FAR too highly of yourself. You buffoons are a noisy minority of uneducated flat-earthers. Hey, how's that doctorate coming along?
You brought up deniers not being considered "normal human beings".When are you people going to learn how rare "proof" is in the natural sciences? You've all been lectured on this dozens of times, yet you still all demand "proof". And what is this entire thread but an ad hominem attack on the head of the EPA? Separating deniers from normal human beings has nothing to do with the validity of the science. Besides, I'm afraid her days of doing science are over. She's an administrator. If you want to blame her for the results the world's climate scientists are getting, you might as well blame her for the bad weather: she's got just as much to do with that.
Your proof is the same bs you post all the time.
I have given you no "proof" of anything. I have presented a wide assortment of very well-sourced evidence to back my position. You have presented none to back yours.
and you can't quantify the amount of heat by man.
How much do you weigh this very instant? How much of the volume of the Earth is liquid? What is the total mass of the Solar System? What is the mass of the nearest oak tree? Of what proportion of the universe's total knowledge are you unaware?
Can you read the scale on a graph? I realize your math skills are not exceptional, but can't you at least imagine what can be calculated from those numbers?
I was amazed on another thread when you finally admitted there was a period of cooling and not warming then you retracted when the cult tried to find a way to say it wasn't so
Your sentence construction makes it unclear whether your initial use of "you" is singular or plural. I have no idea to what
admission you refer, but there have been thousands - millions - of cooling periods; from millennia to milliseconds. If you'd like to have a meaningful discussion on these points, you'll need to identify your topic a bit more clearly.
The Global Warming cult got caught with their hands in the cookie jar fudging data - fudging sounds kinda gay doesn't it - and ***** and moan when you get called out on it.
No one has been caught fudging data. If you disagree, identify the person and show us your evidence that whatever adjustments you're "bitching and moaning" about were unjustified. And leave your pathetic homophobia in the closet where it belongs, beaky-boy.
This lady is pissed that the coal companies won their case in the Supreme Court.
The case involved the power companies, not the coal companies. And concluding that the EPA needs to take cost into consideration isn't much of a win:
Con-Ed: "So, EPA, you need to take into account how much its going to cost to remove the toxic, accumulative heavy metal poisons out of our stack gas."
EPA: "Okay. It's gonna cost you a butt-ton-load of money. Get hot."
The EPA has been producing legislative measure by proxy for some time, using the courts to justify new regulations that are killing industry WITHOUT CONSENT OF CONGRESS using JUDICIAL ACTIVISM TO DO SO, claiming OLD LAWS give them the right to CREATE ANY NEW REGULATION THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE.
You failed American Government in high school, didn't you? Where to start. Regulatory agencies have the power to make regulations within the framework of legislation. They do not require the consent of Congress once Congress and the president have passed legislation that provides a regulatory framework, as they clearly have done. Any charge of judicial activism is irrelevant conservative meme-slinging. What judicial authority acted proactively here? And what the **** are you talking about "OLD LAWS"??? Do you think they wear out? Do you think laws expire? Do you think laws spoil and go bad?
You're a ******* idiot.
and challenges the Fundamental principles of the Constitution of the United States
Taking industry costs into account when regulating the emission of mercury is a "Fundamental (sic) principle of the Constitution of the United States"??? Yes, you most definitely are a ******* idiot.
Finally, someone stopped a part of it and she's WHINING LIKE A LITTLE *****
Umm... maybe you ought to go reread the OP. The EPA chief separating climate change deniers (like you) from normal human beings, has NOTHING to do with the Supreme Court decision involving the EPA and the power industry. It was repartee in response to comments garnered by the EPA's release of a statement of the costs of not acting on climate change issues.
Shove it up your ass.
We need Amendments to put orgs like the EPA ON A LEASH, specifically that NO NEW REGULATION CAN BE PLACED ON THE BOOKS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS, SPECIFICALLY VOTED ON BY THE REGULATION BEING SUBMITTED
God are you stupid. But, hey, you get to work on that and c'mon back now and then and let us know how that's coming along.
It is not these Executive Depts right to create laws on their own via Judicial Activism and it's long past due that they no longer are allowed to create laws without the consent of Congress.
While you're getting wound up on that stuff, you might take a peek into the wisdom of governing from a basis of ignorant paranoia.
