Lol, Liberals Want Laws Against Global Warming Deniers.

[ClosedCaption]

My opposition is when there is over-reach, like calling CO2 a pollutant. I work in the Environmental Engineering Field, the real one, not the bugs, bunnies, and bureaucrat Environmentalism you support.

Maybe the problem goes back to you believing things that simply arent there. The EPA hasnt said CO2 is a pollutant.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB124001537515830975

The EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant -- it is, after all, a gas that humans exhale and plants inhale. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that concern the agency.

 

[martybegan]

My opposition is when there is over-reach, like calling CO2 a pollutant. I work in the Environmental Engineering Field, the real one, not the bugs, bunnies, and bureaucrat Environmentalism you support.

Maybe the problem goes back to you believing things that simply arent there. The EPA hasnt said CO2 is a pollutant.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB124001537515830975

The EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant -- it is, after all, a gas that humans exhale and plants inhale. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that concern the agency.

Same shit, different day. They want to regulate it, and in doing so bring our economy to a grinding halt.

A quick question for you: If you are so so worried about AGW do you support the immediate increase in Nuclear Power Plants?

 

[ClosedCaption]

My opposition is when there is over-reach, like calling CO2 a pollutant. I work in the Environmental Engineering Field, the real one, not the bugs, bunnies, and bureaucrat Environmentalism you support.

Maybe the problem goes back to you believing things that simply arent there. The EPA hasnt said CO2 is a pollutant.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB124001537515830975

The EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant -- it is, after all, a gas that humans exhale and plants inhale. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that concern the agency.

Same shit, different day. They want to regulate it, and in doing so bring our economy to a grinding halt.

A quick question for you: If you are so so worried about AGW do you support the immediate increase in Nuclear Power Plants?

So once again, this is the second time you've said something wrong, admitted it then dismissed it in favor for your own imagination.

Thats why you oppose it, you oppose what you imagination tells you it is and not what it really is at all.

If you worked in the Environmental Engineering field you wouldnt change facts to make them fit your narrative

 

[martybegan]

My opposition is when there is over-reach, like calling CO2 a pollutant. I work in the Environmental Engineering Field, the real one, not the bugs, bunnies, and bureaucrat Environmentalism you support.

Maybe the problem goes back to you believing things that simply arent there. The EPA hasnt said CO2 is a pollutant.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB124001537515830975

The EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant -- it is, after all, a gas that humans exhale and plants inhale. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that concern the agency.

Same shit, different day. They want to regulate it, and in doing so bring our economy to a grinding halt.

A quick question for you: If you are so so worried about AGW do you support the immediate increase in Nuclear Power Plants?

So once again, this is the second time you've said something wrong, admitted it then dismissed it in favor for your own imagination.

Thats why you oppose it, you oppose what you imagination tells you it is and not what it really is at all.

If you worked in the Environmental Engineering field you wouldnt change facts to make them fit your narrative

its not wrong at all. You are simply ignoring EPA's intent in your pathetic attempt at "winning" a message board argument.

Keep it up though, With me bitch-slapping your ass all over the place, my post count goes up, and my "thank" count goes up.

 

[paulitician]

This isn't surprising. The Global Warming zealots are made up of mostly Communist Globalist assholes. If you don't go along, they'll use Government to intimidate and force you to. Nothing new there though. It's what Communists and Fascists do.

 

[Yarddog]

RFK jr is an idiot.

I haven't heard a rational statement yet from him.

His carbon-footprint must be like Bigfoot compared to mine.

Exactly right, but people like that feel excused to do anything because they think they are making the world a better place.

 

[paulitician]

They start calling 'Deniers' Terrorists yet? I guess anyone who disagrees with Communist Globalist nutters, is a Terrorist now. Does anyone really believe Communist Globalists stand for Freedom & Liberty?

 

[Yarddog]

One has to wonder, if its true that World progressives have sqewed statistics to fake Man made Global warming... why / what would be the motivatuion?
I know that long before GW was ever a thought they had plans to get people out of cars, change our living habits, stem our population, and stiffle heavy industry in the US. This part has remained the same but now its for a slightly different cause.

 

[ClosedCaption]

My opposition is when there is over-reach, like calling CO2 a pollutant. I work in the Environmental Engineering Field, the real one, not the bugs, bunnies, and bureaucrat Environmentalism you support.

Maybe the problem goes back to you believing things that simply arent there. The EPA hasnt said CO2 is a pollutant.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB124001537515830975

The EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant -- it is, after all, a gas that humans exhale and plants inhale. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that concern the agency.

Same shit, different day. They want to regulate it, and in doing so bring our economy to a grinding halt.

A quick question for you: If you are so so worried about AGW do you support the immediate increase in Nuclear Power Plants?

So once again, this is the second time you've said something wrong, admitted it then dismissed it in favor for your own imagination.

Thats why you oppose it, you oppose what you imagination tells you it is and not what it really is at all.

If you worked in the Environmental Engineering field you wouldnt change facts to make them fit your narrative

its not wrong at all. You are simply ignoring EPA's intent in your pathetic attempt at "winning" a message board argument.

I posted a link with a description....You posted nothing but your own imagination. You and I dont know anyones "intent" so once again you are dismissing real stuff for made up stories

Keep it up though, With me bitch-slapping your ass all over the place, my post count goes up, and my "thank" count goes up.

You think thats important

 

[ClosedCaption]

One has to wonder, if its true that World progressives have sqewed statistics to fake Man made Global warming... why / what would be the motivatuion?
I know that long before GW was ever a thought they had plans to get people out of cars, change our living habits, stem our population, and stiffle heavy industry in the US. This part has remained the same but now its for a slightly different cause.

The theory of Global Warming has been around since the 1800's I dont think the goal had anything to do with cars or heavy industry

 

[martybegan]

My opposition is when there is over-reach, like calling CO2 a pollutant. I work in the Environmental Engineering Field, the real one, not the bugs, bunnies, and bureaucrat Environmentalism you support.

Maybe the problem goes back to you believing things that simply arent there. The EPA hasnt said CO2 is a pollutant.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB124001537515830975

The EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant -- it is, after all, a gas that humans exhale and plants inhale. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that concern the agency.

Same shit, different day. They want to regulate it, and in doing so bring our economy to a grinding halt.

A quick question for you: If you are so so worried about AGW do you support the immediate increase in Nuclear Power Plants?

So once again, this is the second time you've said something wrong, admitted it then dismissed it in favor for your own imagination.

Thats why you oppose it, you oppose what you imagination tells you it is and not what it really is at all.

If you worked in the Environmental Engineering field you wouldnt change facts to make them fit your narrative

its not wrong at all. You are simply ignoring EPA's intent in your pathetic attempt at "winning" a message board argument.

I posted a link with a description....You posted nothing but your own imagination. You and I dont know anyones "intent" so once again you are dismissing real stuff for made up stories

Keep it up though, With me bitch-slapping your ass all over the place, my post count goes up, and my "thank" count goes up.

You think thats important

It's my opinion, and you can't refute it, except with the bullshit the EPA is spewing.

And in real life, no, thanks don't count, on this board? yep.

 

[paulitician]

The People are speaking. They don't want more Government in their lives. They want less. They're choosing freedom instead. And that's obviously very upsetting to the Communist Globalists.

The People aren't going along as planned. So now they'll try and force them to. No one should ever believe Communist Globalists stand for Freedom & Liberty.

 

[JFK_USA]

I do wish their was a law that when a politician speaks he would be held to account for lying in an official capacity. I know its a long shot but some of these ads and comments are flat out lying on both sides and then the paper, websites, blogs etc quote them then it becomes its own animal.

A lie gets half way around the world before the truth gets his pants on

“Those guys are doing the Koch Brothers bidding and are against all the evidence of the rational mind, saying global warming does not exist,” Mr. Kennedy said, Climate Depot reported. “They are contemptible human beings.”

...and there's been no sign of "Global Warming" for 2 decades now, so who's the liar?

Yeah there has been significant weather changes affected by Climate Change. This is established science. Have you even read a science textbook? It's quite obvious and observable what damage we have done to our environment through deforestation, emissions of greenhouse gases and other toxic events

 

[ClosedCaption]

Maybe the problem goes back to you believing things that simply arent there. The EPA hasnt said CO2 is a pollutant.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB124001537515830975

Same shit, different day. They want to regulate it, and in doing so bring our economy to a grinding halt.

A quick question for you: If you are so so worried about AGW do you support the immediate increase in Nuclear Power Plants?

So once again, this is the second time you've said something wrong, admitted it then dismissed it in favor for your own imagination.

Thats why you oppose it, you oppose what you imagination tells you it is and not what it really is at all.

If you worked in the Environmental Engineering field you wouldnt change facts to make them fit your narrative

its not wrong at all. You are simply ignoring EPA's intent in your pathetic attempt at "winning" a message board argument.

I posted a link with a description....You posted nothing but your own imagination. You and I dont know anyones "intent" so once again you are dismissing real stuff for made up stories

Keep it up though, With me bitch-slapping your ass all over the place, my post count goes up, and my "thank" count goes up.

You think thats important

It's my opinion, and you can't refute it, except with the bullshit the EPA is spewing.

And in real life, no, thanks don't count, on this board? yep.

No opinions cant be refuted but I did refute your assertion that any called CO2 a pollutant. Once you are proven wrong you just say "Tomato Tomahto"

 

[martybegan]

Same shit, different day. They want to regulate it, and in doing so bring our economy to a grinding halt.

A quick question for you: If you are so so worried about AGW do you support the immediate increase in Nuclear Power Plants?

So once again, this is the second time you've said something wrong, admitted it then dismissed it in favor for your own imagination.

Thats why you oppose it, you oppose what you imagination tells you it is and not what it really is at all.

If you worked in the Environmental Engineering field you wouldnt change facts to make them fit your narrative

its not wrong at all. You are simply ignoring EPA's intent in your pathetic attempt at "winning" a message board argument.

I posted a link with a description....You posted nothing but your own imagination. You and I dont know anyones "intent" so once again you are dismissing real stuff for made up stories

Keep it up though, With me bitch-slapping your ass all over the place, my post count goes up, and my "thank" count goes up.

You think thats important

It's my opinion, and you can't refute it, except with the bullshit the EPA is spewing.

And in real life, no, thanks don't count, on this board? yep.

No opinions cant be refuted but I did refute your assertion that any called CO2 a pollutant. Once you are proven wrong you just say "Tomato Tomahto"

It was called "not a pollutant by itself" which is weasel words. They DO want to regulate it like a pollutant. Can you refute that one?

 

[ClosedCaption]

So once again, this is the second time you've said something wrong, admitted it then dismissed it in favor for your own imagination.

Thats why you oppose it, you oppose what you imagination tells you it is and not what it really is at all.

If you worked in the Environmental Engineering field you wouldnt change facts to make them fit your narrative

its not wrong at all. You are simply ignoring EPA's intent in your pathetic attempt at "winning" a message board argument.

I posted a link with a description....You posted nothing but your own imagination. You and I dont know anyones "intent" so once again you are dismissing real stuff for made up stories

Keep it up though, With me bitch-slapping your ass all over the place, my post count goes up, and my "thank" count goes up.

You think thats important

It's my opinion, and you can't refute it, except with the bullshit the EPA is spewing.

And in real life, no, thanks don't count, on this board? yep.

No opinions cant be refuted but I did refute your assertion that any called CO2 a pollutant. Once you are proven wrong you just say "Tomato Tomahto"

It was called "not a pollutant by itself" which is weasel words. They DO want to regulate it like a pollutant. Can you refute that one?

It said nothing about not a pollutant by itself. Again you are making up something to be mad about.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB124001537515830975

The EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant -- it is, after all, a gas that humans exhale and plants inhale. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that concern the agency.

Its pretty clear no one is saying CO2 is a pollutant.

 

[martybegan]

its not wrong at all. You are simply ignoring EPA's intent in your pathetic attempt at "winning" a message board argument.

I posted a link with a description....You posted nothing but your own imagination. You and I dont know anyones "intent" so once again you are dismissing real stuff for made up stories

Keep it up though, With me bitch-slapping your ass all over the place, my post count goes up, and my "thank" count goes up.

You think thats important

It's my opinion, and you can't refute it, except with the bullshit the EPA is spewing.

And in real life, no, thanks don't count, on this board? yep.

No opinions cant be refuted but I did refute your assertion that any called CO2 a pollutant. Once you are proven wrong you just say "Tomato Tomahto"

It was called "not a pollutant by itself" which is weasel words. They DO want to regulate it like a pollutant. Can you refute that one?

It said nothing about not a pollutant by itself. Again you are making up something to be mad about.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB124001537515830975

The EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant -- it is, after all, a gas that humans exhale and plants inhale. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that concern the agency.

Its pretty clear no one is saying CO2 is a pollutant.

But they want to be able to regulate it as if it is one.

Try to keep up tiny.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Just when you thought there was no way for liberals to possibly get more insidiously moronic, they have to claim this.
=========================================================

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of climate change’s loudest activists, said there should be a law that lets authorities punish skeptics and deniers - those who engage in “selling out the public trust,” he said, in an interview with Climate Depot during New York City’s recent People’s Climate March.

“I wish there were a law you could punish them with,” he said, in the videotaped interview. “I don’t think there is a law that you can punish these politicians under … [and skeptical politicians are] selling out the public trust.”

He accused politicians who failed to act on climate change policy as serving special interests.

“Those guys are doing the Koch Brothers bidding and are against all the evidence of the rational mind, saying global warming does not exist,” Mr. Kennedy said, Climate Depot reported. “They are contemptible human beings.”

He then turned his attacks directly at the Koch Brothers, accusing them of “polluting our atmosphere,” he said, the blog reported.

“I think it’s treason. Do I think the Koch Brothers are treasonous — yes, I do,” Mr. Kennedy said, Climate Depot reported.



Read more: Robert Kennedy Jr. We need laws to punish global warming skeptics - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

^^^^Look at his stupid face taking a picture with his slut Curb Your Enthusiasm wife.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

He is a pure Stalinist tyrant who has no respect for freedom of speech. If you don't believe in his global warmist ideology, government should squash you.

The immediate past president of the Czech Republic, Dr. Vaclav Klaus, hit the nail on the head when he observed that the global warmists were ''a budding totalitarian ideology that is the greatest threat to freedom, democracy, and prosperity in the world today''.

I see you have a heavy case of stupid on board ....

Quoting Kennedy is stupid? In what context are we supposed to take his quotes? Kennedy says he wishes their was a law for human caused climate deniers.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I posted a link with a description....You posted nothing but your own imagination. You and I dont know anyones "intent" so once again you are dismissing real stuff for made up stories

You think thats important

It's my opinion, and you can't refute it, except with the bullshit the EPA is spewing.

And in real life, no, thanks don't count, on this board? yep.

No opinions cant be refuted but I did refute your assertion that any called CO2 a pollutant. Once you are proven wrong you just say "Tomato Tomahto"

It was called "not a pollutant by itself" which is weasel words. They DO want to regulate it like a pollutant. Can you refute that one?

It said nothing about not a pollutant by itself. Again you are making up something to be mad about.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB124001537515830975

The EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant -- it is, after all, a gas that humans exhale and plants inhale. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that concern the agency.

Its pretty clear no one is saying CO2 is a pollutant.

But they want to be able to regulate it as if it is one.

Try to keep up tiny.

So again, you're dropping your assertion that anyone has classified CO2 as a pollutant. Good, now we're getting somewhere.

And since I said before neither one of us knows someone elses "wants" either post evidence that shows it or we can move past your imagination

 

[bendog]

Well, earlier I put up an op saying that gopers found liberals to be intolerant of opposing views. There's not a lot of compromise in the gop over immigration, but they don't want laws making it illegal to debate the issue.