Jennifer Lawrence: Nature is punishing U.S. with hurricanes for voting for Trump

[Dim Bulb]

Fury as Jennifer Lawrence says deadly Hurricane Harvey and Irma are fall out from President Trump's views on global warming

Seriously, she claims that Trumps views on climate change and because Trump dropped out of the Paris accord, that we are now having hurricanes at the revenge of Mother Nature.

PS. IQ's are optional in Hollywood

Can you do me a favor and quote where Jennifer Lawrence said that?

Jennifer Lawrence says hurricanes are 'Mother Nature's rage' for Trump's election

Duh! Pay attention to your hollyweird gods...

Yeah, quote her where she blames 'Mother Nature's rage' (a metaphor) on Trump. Quote it.

Listen to the video, at the 11:45 mark, where they are discussing the country, how do you get anything other then she is blaming Trump's election for the wrath of mother nature? You are playing word games to say anything else.

Other interesting tidbits. At 4:14 she says that there is a 21 percent pay difference between men and women in all fields. Where in the hell did she get that number? There is actually NO difference. She also says that the science of MGW is proven, proven by whom, is what I would have asked her.

I don't mean to be impolite but who cares either way?

 

[Flash]

The same Moon Bat idiots that get their political news from Comedy Central and Saturday Night Live are the same idiots that get their information about climate science from Jennifer Lawrence.

The broad is good at making money pretending to be some body else and she has a nice ass but she is a limousine Liberal that has enough money so that failed Left economics doesn't effect her too much and she is dumber than a door knob when it comes to climate science.

I watched that stuff yet I don't believe in climate science forecasts..

I enjoy her as an actress. I would not turn her down if she begged me to have sex with her. As far as looking to her for political comment or climate science information I don't think so.

There are many things for humans to be concerned about, I know where the climate science group is coming from, yet humans are not going to stop and don't want to change their condition in life.. These people that aver their belief in the science have not altered their lifestyle to make themselves a model of change...

I am an environment engineer. Not a climate expert by any means but pretty well read on the subject. I know enough to separate bullshit from reality. I taught a class in Environmental Science in college after retiring. I extensively read up on the subject to prepare for the class because I knew there would be questions and I wanted to get it right. I saw no real evidence that man is affecting the climate. We are effecting the environment but not the climate. This AGW bullshit is a scam.

Jennifer Lawrence is a moron as are all these other Moon Bat idiots that believe that crap..

 

[Bassman007]

The same Moon Bat idiots that get their political news from Comedy Central and Saturday Night Live are the same idiots that get their information about climate science from Jennifer Lawrence.

The broad is good at making money pretending to be some body else and she has a nice ass but she is a limousine Liberal that has enough money so that failed Left economics doesn't effect her too much and she is dumber than a door knob when it comes to climate science.

I watched that stuff yet I don't believe in climate science forecasts..

I enjoy her as an actress. I would not turn her down if she begged me to have sex with her. As far as looking to her for political comment or climate science information I don't think so.

There are many things for humans to be concerned about, I know where the climate science group is coming from, yet humans are not going to stop and don't want to change their condition in life.. These people that aver their belief in the science have not altered their lifestyle to make themselves a model of change...

I generally agree although I would say that marginal differences can be made that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions AND save money. For example, I work at a huge company and we have many Supply Chain initiatives that save us money and also help to reduce GHG. Many people believe that every dollar you spend on reducing GHG is a dollar you take away from your shareholders. That can be true in some cases but I think finding the "and" is a good way to meet both goals. You listen to the screeching on both sides of this issue and you have to shake your head.

CO2 has been rising steadily for the last 50 years but now we are in a climate pause, which means that THE TEMPERATURES ARE NOT RISING.

This is why Al Gore is in hiding

 

[Moonglow]

The same Moon Bat idiots that get their political news from Comedy Central and Saturday Night Live are the same idiots that get their information about climate science from Jennifer Lawrence.

The broad is good at making money pretending to be some body else and she has a nice ass but she is a limousine Liberal that has enough money so that failed Left economics doesn't effect her too much and she is dumber than a door knob when it comes to climate science.

I watched that stuff yet I don't believe in climate science forecasts..

I enjoy her as an actress. I would not turn her down if she begged me to have sex with her. As far as looking to her for political comment or climate science information I don't think so.

There are many things for humans to be concerned about, I know where the climate science group is coming from, yet humans are not going to stop and don't want to change their condition in life.. These people that aver their belief in the science have not altered their lifestyle to make themselves a model of change...

I generally agree although I would say that marginal differences can be made that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions AND save money. For example, I work at a huge company and we have many Supply Chain initiatives that save us money and also help to reduce GHG. Many people believe that every dollar you spend on reducing GHG is a dollar you take away from your shareholders. That can be true in some cases but I think finding the "and" is a good way to meet both goals. You listen to the screeching on both sides of this issue and you have to shake your head.

I totally support keeping the environment as clean as possible and understand there are compounds and chemicals humans create which are very dangerous to the planet and agree we should police them...Yet the idea that you can predict a variable that is as radical as weather with only a few years of data is not being very analytical in my book...

 

[Moonglow]

The same Moon Bat idiots that get their political news from Comedy Central and Saturday Night Live are the same idiots that get their information about climate science from Jennifer Lawrence.

The broad is good at making money pretending to be some body else and she has a nice ass but she is a limousine Liberal that has enough money so that failed Left economics doesn't effect her too much and she is dumber than a door knob when it comes to climate science.

I watched that stuff yet I don't believe in climate science forecasts..

I enjoy her as an actress. I would not turn her down if she begged me to have sex with her. As far as looking to her for political comment or climate science information I don't think so.

There are many things for humans to be concerned about, I know where the climate science group is coming from, yet humans are not going to stop and don't want to change their condition in life.. These people that aver their belief in the science have not altered their lifestyle to make themselves a model of change...

I am an environment engineer. Not a climate expert by any means but pretty well read on the subject. I know enough to separate bullshit from reality. I taught a class in Environmental Science in college after retiring. I extensively read up on the subject to prepare for the class because I knew there would be questions and I wanted to get it right. I saw no real evidence that man is affecting the climate. We are effecting the environment but not the climate. This AGW bullshit is a scam.

Jennifer Lawrence is a moron as are all these other Moon Bat idiots that believe that crap..

It would be one thing if the indiustries were ask to comply with a standard, but the idea that it should be pushed by force of law on the consumer is the scam part..

 

[Bassman007]

The same Moon Bat idiots that get their political news from Comedy Central and Saturday Night Live are the same idiots that get their information about climate science from Jennifer Lawrence.

The broad is good at making money pretending to be some body else and she has a nice ass but she is a limousine Liberal that has enough money so that failed Left economics doesn't effect her too much and she is dumber than a door knob when it comes to climate science.

I watched that stuff yet I don't believe in climate science forecasts..

I enjoy her as an actress. I would not turn her down if she begged me to have sex with her. As far as looking to her for political comment or climate science information I don't think so.

There are many things for humans to be concerned about, I know where the climate science group is coming from, yet humans are not going to stop and don't want to change their condition in life.. These people that aver their belief in the science have not altered their lifestyle to make themselves a model of change...

I am an environment engineer. Not a climate expert by any means but pretty well read on the subject. I know enough to separate bullshit from reality. I taught a class in Environmental Science in college after retiring. I extensively read up on the subject to prepare for the class because I knew there would be questions and I wanted to get it right. I saw no real evidence that man is affecting the climate. We are effecting the environment but not the climate. This AGW bullshit is a scam.

Jennifer Lawrence is a moron as are all these other Moon Bat idiots that believe that crap..

Were you in the confederate Army too?

 

[Moonglow]

The same Moon Bat idiots that get their political news from Comedy Central and Saturday Night Live are the same idiots that get their information about climate science from Jennifer Lawrence.

The broad is good at making money pretending to be some body else and she has a nice ass but she is a limousine Liberal that has enough money so that failed Left economics doesn't effect her too much and she is dumber than a door knob when it comes to climate science.

I watched that stuff yet I don't believe in climate science forecasts..

I enjoy her as an actress. I would not turn her down if she begged me to have sex with her. As far as looking to her for political comment or climate science information I don't think so.

There are many things for humans to be concerned about, I know where the climate science group is coming from, yet humans are not going to stop and don't want to change their condition in life.. These people that aver their belief in the science have not altered their lifestyle to make themselves a model of change...

I generally agree although I would say that marginal differences can be made that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions AND save money. For example, I work at a huge company and we have many Supply Chain initiatives that save us money and also help to reduce GHG. Many people believe that every dollar you spend on reducing GHG is a dollar you take away from your shareholders. That can be true in some cases but I think finding the "and" is a good way to meet both goals. You listen to the screeching on both sides of this issue and you have to shake your head.

CO2 has been rising steadily for the last 50 years but now we are in a climate pause, which means that THE TEMPERATURES ARE NOT RISING.

This is why Al Gore is in hiding

And if one looks at the data from soil and water samples of the Earth one can find a recurrence of these conditions over a space and time that is rather long yet not consistent..The planet has it's own capability to address certain issues of imbalance..

 

[Flash]

[Q

CO2 has been rising steadily for the last 50 years but now we are in a climate pause, which means that THE TEMPERATURES ARE NOT RISING.

This is why Al Gore is in hiding

Also the fact that there has been times when the CO2 was lower than today but the earth warmer. Also when CO2 was significantly cooler and the temperature cooler.

In theory CO2 should produce a greenhouse effect. All the computer models will predict it. However, it doesn't happen happen that way in reality due to many factors and that is the reason why none of the global warming predictions have come true and they have to make up data to cover up for their failures.

 

[Flash]

[QU


Were you in the confederate Army too?

I served in the US Army. My father, grandfather and son also served in the US Army. However, my great, great, great grandfather served in the Confederate Army in the 9th Florida Regiment.

Any more questions?

 

[Bassman007]

[Q

CO2 has been rising steadily for the last 50 years but now we are in a climate pause, which means that THE TEMPERATURES ARE NOT RISING.

This is why Al Gore is in hiding

Also the fact that there has been times when the CO2 was lower than today but the earth warmer. Also when CO2 was significantly cooler and the temperature cooler.

In theory CO2 should produce a greenhouse effect. All the computer models will predict it. However, it doesn't happen happen that way in reality due to many factors and that is the reason why none of the global warming predictions have come true and they have to make up data to cover up for their failures.

There are no computer models of Earth climate, because the driving forces can not be entered in the right areas. Doesn't matter if those be deep ocean currents, sunspots or even the Earths place in the galactic cloud. Not everyone knows that the Earth orbits the Sun and that the Sun also orbits the galactic core in a 225 to 250 million year orbit, which interestingly seems to coincide with global extinctions.

 

[Bassman007]

[QU


Were you in the confederate Army too?

I served in the US Army. My father, grandfather and son also served in the US Army. However, my great, great, great grandfather served in the Confederate Army in the 9th Florida Regiment.

Any more questions?

No questions, just a statement. Only complete ******* assholes like you fly the confederate flag.

Got that moron.

 

[Dim Bulb]

The same Moon Bat idiots that get their political news from Comedy Central and Saturday Night Live are the same idiots that get their information about climate science from Jennifer Lawrence.

The broad is good at making money pretending to be some body else and she has a nice ass but she is a limousine Liberal that has enough money so that failed Left economics doesn't effect her too much and she is dumber than a door knob when it comes to climate science.

I watched that stuff yet I don't believe in climate science forecasts..

I enjoy her as an actress. I would not turn her down if she begged me to have sex with her. As far as looking to her for political comment or climate science information I don't think so.

There are many things for humans to be concerned about, I know where the climate science group is coming from, yet humans are not going to stop and don't want to change their condition in life.. These people that aver their belief in the science have not altered their lifestyle to make themselves a model of change...

I generally agree although I would say that marginal differences can be made that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions AND save money. For example, I work at a huge company and we have many Supply Chain initiatives that save us money and also help to reduce GHG. Many people believe that every dollar you spend on reducing GHG is a dollar you take away from your shareholders. That can be true in some cases but I think finding the "and" is a good way to meet both goals. You listen to the screeching on both sides of this issue and you have to shake your head.

I totally support keeping the environment as clean as possible and understand there are compounds and chemicals humans create which are very dangerous to the planet and agree we should police them...Yet the idea that you can predict a viable that is as radical as weather with only a few years of data is not being very analytical in my book...

Agree again. The comparison for me was the Clean Water, RCRA and CERCLA experience. Over the years in my environmental and regulatory practice representing global companies I noticed something interesting. When these laws began there were a lot of cases concerning contamination. Don't get me wrong there still are some but I gotta tell you, the water and ground are cleaner. We've removed untold numbers of USTs and cleaned the water. When the laws first started I thought it was a drop in the bucket but the results I've seen in my practice are striking.

Don't know if modest regulatory changes on GHG can help because you are right. We're talking megatrends here. But those who take a hysterical position that all regulatory actions are bad are just that ---- hysterical. There is a way to be mindful of the environment and not hurt production costs too much. I have been attacked by both the LWMSM and RWMSM for this moderate position. Nobody wants to recognize the inconvenient truth that you can meet both goals if you want to stop all the fun of political demonization.

 

[Bassman007]

I watched that stuff yet I don't believe in climate science forecasts..

I enjoy her as an actress. I would not turn her down if she begged me to have sex with her. As far as looking to her for political comment or climate science information I don't think so.

There are many things for humans to be concerned about, I know where the climate science group is coming from, yet humans are not going to stop and don't want to change their condition in life.. These people that aver their belief in the science have not altered their lifestyle to make themselves a model of change...

I generally agree although I would say that marginal differences can be made that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions AND save money. For example, I work at a huge company and we have many Supply Chain initiatives that save us money and also help to reduce GHG. Many people believe that every dollar you spend on reducing GHG is a dollar you take away from your shareholders. That can be true in some cases but I think finding the "and" is a good way to meet both goals. You listen to the screeching on both sides of this issue and you have to shake your head.

I totally support keeping the environment as clean as possible and understand there are compounds and chemicals humans create which are very dangerous to the planet and agree we should police them...Yet the idea that you can predict a viable that is as radical as weather with only a few years of data is not being very analytical in my book...

Agree again. The comparison for me was the Clean Water, RCRA and CERCLA experience. Over the years in my environmental and regulatory practice representing global companies I noticed something interesting. When these laws began there were a lot of cases concerning contamination. Don't get me wrong there still are some but I gotta tell you, the water and ground are cleaner. We've removed untold numbers of USTs and cleaned the water. When the laws first started I thought it was a drop in the bucket but the results I've seen in my practice are striking.

Don't know if modest regulatory changes on GHG can help because you are right. We're talking megatrends here. But those who take a hysterical position that all regulatory actions are bad are just that ---- hysterical. There is a way to be mindful of the environment and not hurt production costs too much. I have been attacked by both the LWMSM and RWMSM for this moderate position. Nobody wants to recognize the inconvenient truth that you can meet both goals if you want to stop all the fun of political demonization.

Well there you go again..................! totally confusing pollution with climate change

 

[Moonglow]

I enjoy her as an actress. I would not turn her down if she begged me to have sex with her. As far as looking to her for political comment or climate science information I don't think so.

There are many things for humans to be concerned about, I know where the climate science group is coming from, yet humans are not going to stop and don't want to change their condition in life.. These people that aver their belief in the science have not altered their lifestyle to make themselves a model of change...

I generally agree although I would say that marginal differences can be made that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions AND save money. For example, I work at a huge company and we have many Supply Chain initiatives that save us money and also help to reduce GHG. Many people believe that every dollar you spend on reducing GHG is a dollar you take away from your shareholders. That can be true in some cases but I think finding the "and" is a good way to meet both goals. You listen to the screeching on both sides of this issue and you have to shake your head.

I totally support keeping the environment as clean as possible and understand there are compounds and chemicals humans create which are very dangerous to the planet and agree we should police them...Yet the idea that you can predict a viable that is as radical as weather with only a few years of data is not being very analytical in my book...

Agree again. The comparison for me was the Clean Water, RCRA and CERCLA experience. Over the years in my environmental and regulatory practice representing global companies I noticed something interesting. When these laws began there were a lot of cases concerning contamination. Don't get me wrong there still are some but I gotta tell you, the water and ground are cleaner. We've removed untold numbers of USTs and cleaned the water. When the laws first started I thought it was a drop in the bucket but the results I've seen in my practice are striking.

Don't know if modest regulatory changes on GHG can help because you are right. We're talking megatrends here. But those who take a hysterical position that all regulatory actions are bad are just that ---- hysterical. There is a way to be mindful of the environment and not hurt production costs too much. I have been attacked by both the LWMSM and RWMSM for this moderate position. Nobody wants to recognize the inconvenient truth that you can meet both goals if you want to stop all the fun of political demonization.

Well there you go again..................! totally confusing pollution with climate change

And the reason for climate change are? Man's pollutants, don't get me wrong, women helped also...

 

[Moonglow]

I watched that stuff yet I don't believe in climate science forecasts..

I enjoy her as an actress. I would not turn her down if she begged me to have sex with her. As far as looking to her for political comment or climate science information I don't think so.

There are many things for humans to be concerned about, I know where the climate science group is coming from, yet humans are not going to stop and don't want to change their condition in life.. These people that aver their belief in the science have not altered their lifestyle to make themselves a model of change...

I generally agree although I would say that marginal differences can be made that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions AND save money. For example, I work at a huge company and we have many Supply Chain initiatives that save us money and also help to reduce GHG. Many people believe that every dollar you spend on reducing GHG is a dollar you take away from your shareholders. That can be true in some cases but I think finding the "and" is a good way to meet both goals. You listen to the screeching on both sides of this issue and you have to shake your head.

I totally support keeping the environment as clean as possible and understand there are compounds and chemicals humans create which are very dangerous to the planet and agree we should police them...Yet the idea that you can predict a viable that is as radical as weather with only a few years of data is not being very analytical in my book...

Agree again. The comparison for me was the Clean Water, RCRA and CERCLA experience. Over the years in my environmental and regulatory practice representing global companies I noticed something interesting. When these laws began there were a lot of cases concerning contamination. Don't get me wrong there still are some but I gotta tell you, the water and ground are cleaner. We've removed untold numbers of USTs and cleaned the water. When the laws first started I thought it was a drop in the bucket but the results I've seen in my practice are striking.

Don't know if modest regulatory changes on GHG can help because you are right. We're talking megatrends here. But those who take a hysterical position that all regulatory actions are bad are just that ---- hysterical. There is a way to be mindful of the environment and not hurt production costs too much. I have been attacked by both the LWMSM and RWMSM for this moderate position. Nobody wants to recognize the inconvenient truth that you can meet both goals if you want to stop all the fun of political demonization.

If China can smell the roses and figure out what the US did back in the 1970's then it must have been the right thing to do in regards to pollution control and what fuels are used in production..

 

[Flash]

[Q

CO2 has been rising steadily for the last 50 years but now we are in a climate pause, which means that THE TEMPERATURES ARE NOT RISING.

This is why Al Gore is in hiding

Also the fact that there has been times when the CO2 was lower than today but the earth warmer. Also when CO2 was significantly cooler and the temperature cooler.

In theory CO2 should produce a greenhouse effect. All the computer models will predict it. However, it doesn't happen happen that way in reality due to many factors and that is the reason why none of the global warming predictions have come true and they have to make up data to cover up for their failures.

There are no computer models of Earth climate, because the driving forces can not be entered in the right areas. Doesn't matter if those be deep ocean currents, sunspots or even the Earths place in the galactic cloud. Not everyone knows that the Earth orbits the Sun and that the Sun also orbits the galactic core in a 225 to 250 million year orbit, which interestingly seems to coincide with global extinctions.

One of the ridiculous things is that most of the inputs that the wacko climate science idiots use for their models come from weather stations in the Northern hemisphere mostly in urban areas. The Southern hemisphere is embarrassingly ignored. Also, these satellite data is flaws as hell because the error of measure is greater than the calibration parameters . That is why these idiots have to fudge the data. To cover up for their mistakes.

 

[RealDave]

Climate deniers are partly responsible. Scientists have been telling you jackssses for decades. But noooooooooooo. Climate change is a hoax made up in China.

This is how ******* stupid Trump really is. This is how ******* stupid Trumpettes are.

**** you people & your ignorance.

Can't wait to get intelligent people back in change.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Fury as Jennifer Lawrence says deadly Hurricane Harvey and Irma are fall out from President Trump's views on global warming

Seriously, she claims that Trumps views on climate change and because Trump dropped out of the Paris accord, that we are now having hurricanes at the revenge of Mother Nature.

PS. IQ's are optional in Hollywood

- Bush caused Katrina
- Obama kept the Oceans from rising
- God is punishing the gays
- Mother Earth is punishing the man-made climate change / global warming deniers
- Trump caused Harvey and Irma

I've heard all or variations from the above and they all have one thing in common: they are each rooted in nut-job thinking.

 

[Moonglow]

[Q

CO2 has been rising steadily for the last 50 years but now we are in a climate pause, which means that THE TEMPERATURES ARE NOT RISING.

This is why Al Gore is in hiding

Also the fact that there has been times when the CO2 was lower than today but the earth warmer. Also when CO2 was significantly cooler and the temperature cooler.

In theory CO2 should produce a greenhouse effect. All the computer models will predict it. However, it doesn't happen happen that way in reality due to many factors and that is the reason why none of the global warming predictions have come true and they have to make up data to cover up for their failures.

There are no computer models of Earth climate, because the driving forces can not be entered in the right areas. Doesn't matter if those be deep ocean currents, sunspots or even the Earths place in the galactic cloud. Not everyone knows that the Earth orbits the Sun and that the Sun also orbits the galactic core in a 225 to 250 million year orbit, which interestingly seems to coincide with global extinctions.

One of the ridiculous things is that most of the inputs that the wacko climate science idiots use for their models come from weather stations in the Northern hemisphere mostly in urban areas. The Southern hemisphere is embarrassingly ignored. Also, these satellite data is flaws as hell because the error of measure is greater than the calibration parameters . That is why these idiots have to fudge the data. To cover up for their mistakes.

What is more ludicrous is the research don on foods and human health. How many times have we been told that something is bad for you only to be told it's okay and then later to be told it's bad in infinitum..

 

[Flash]

[QUOT


Well there you go again..................! totally confusing pollution with climate change

Seven billion humans are polluting the hell out of the environment and significantly affecting the biosphere. There are tons of data on that and it is undeniable. However, there is absolutely no verifiable data that humans are causing any significant change to the climate.