Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
When you quote someone, it attributes their words to them. What you're doing is attributing their words to you.There any problem with how I'm doing it? I feel the other way wastes a lot of board space requoting the same stuff over and over again.
Now all see you're a idiot.And it starts out false and goes from there, as I pointed out.
I wasn't aware you said anything but untrue..... Thats called nay-saying and any fool can pull that off.... Watch.... NO you didn't!
See how that works?
Your opening statement is untrue. Nothing's been "hijacked." In order to believe that, one must first believe the environmental movement had good intentions originally. It did not.
It's never been about the environment. It's always been about control, anti-capitalism and redistribution of wealth on a global scale. Because it's just not "fair" that Americans have such a cushy and luxurious life compared to most other countries, and something must be done. Social Justice.
So they started with the fake emotional hooks, indian chief actors crying on television and etc, and continued on from there.
There's been no "hijacking," only evolution of the same exact thing they started with.
Not at all, if one can read and comprehend above 5th grade level.Now all see you're a idiot.I wasn't aware you said anything but untrue..... Thats called nay-saying and any fool can pull that off.... Watch.... NO you didn't!
See how that works?
Your opening statement is untrue. Nothing's been "hijacked." In order to believe that, one must first believe the environmental movement had good intentions originally. It did not.
It's never been about the environment. It's always been about control, anti-capitalism and redistribution of wealth on a global scale. Because it's just not "fair" that Americans have such a cushy and luxurious life compared to most other countries, and something must be done. Social Justice.
So they started with the fake emotional hooks, indian chief actors crying on television and etc, and continued on from there.
There's been no "hijacking," only evolution of the same exact thing they started with.
UHM you kinda got a bit of weird duality goin on there don't ya....
It's always been political, stupid. That's what you don't see or don't want to see.That's the REAL lie. Just like AGW, the deniers don't have a good scientific argument, so they have to take it to the poltical realm.
DUDE!!! LOL , the topic was set by the OP, MY OP! got that?
--------------------------------
Fine, I'll just have to go with your being intellectually dishonest, then. You're trying to make a point about AGW by attacking a proponent on an other matter entirely. WTF?!?!
Not at all, if one can read and comprehend above 5th grade level.Now all see you're a idiot.
Your opening statement is untrue. Nothing's been "hijacked." In order to believe that, one must first believe the environmental movement had good intentions originally. It did not.
It's never been about the environment. It's always been about control, anti-capitalism and redistribution of wealth on a global scale. Because it's just not "fair" that Americans have such a cushy and luxurious life compared to most other countries, and something must be done. Social Justice.
So they started with the fake emotional hooks, indian chief actors crying on television and etc, and continued on from there.
There's been no "hijacking," only evolution of the same exact thing they started with.
UHM you kinda got a bit of weird duality goin on there don't ya....
I wasn't doing any such thing, stupid fuck. Please feel free to quote me where you saw that.Not at all, if one can read and comprehend above 5th grade level.UHM you kinda got a bit of weird duality goin on there don't ya....
You mind explaining why you are arguing for AGW one second particularly in this thread, and then arguing against it at the same time? Its just retarded....
Fossil fuels can be replaced as an energy source in a decade, should we decide to do so. And the coal fired plants can be phased out during that decade, dirtiest first.
That same judge also ruled that the film was essentially correct. The errors were minor, and did not change the truth of the film.
Yes, money will be made off of cap and trade, as money was made off of cap and trade when it was used to vastly reduce sulphate emmissions. Personally I would prefer tax and shut down, but that would be impossible to pass.
If you wish to address the fact of AGW, perhaps you should start with argueing with the policy statements of the Scientific Societies in the world concerning that subject. Or the statements of the National Academies of Science of 32 countries. Or even the policy statements on that subject of the major Universities of the world.
The subject is the rapid warming of this planet due to the emission of GHGs from man's activities. It is not Al Gore, it is not any of the other red herring you people are so fond of. Now address that subject in a scientific manner. If you are capable of that.
More excuses and misdirection on the zinc mining on Al's property huh.... Why not address the point instead?
The decision against the film told the reality of it. The extra "essentially correct" crap was a save azz gesture on his part and only came after the fact. He also said the 9 errors did not reflect on accepted scientific consensus on the data. How is something "essentially correct" when it is inaccurate in its bread and butter? The hockey stick graph was altered and presented incorrectly, the claim of sea level rise was way off, and the time in which portrayed it would happen was completely inaccurate.
Quick answer: It can't be both "essentially correct" and dead wrong on the major points. Thats the kind of crap an elected official claims when he is going to lose votes....
Yes money will be made off it. Money made by the same people who push the legislation through.... You will defend THIS but complain about Bush, cheney and haliburton? Hypocrite...
Oh I saw the crap you posted earlier, and it didn't come from a scientific body of any kind. It was a load of bunk start to finish, so spare me the "its about science" BS now.
And this was my choice for an OP, if you want to debate the science that is another thread. This one is about the scum who are twisting the truth and trying to make money off it.
LOL, love it when you guys try the "its not about al gore" excuse.... You use his movie as a rallying cry for years, he gets a nobel prize for it, and then when you find its all nonsense we are told its not about al gore..... Okay, pal.... lets make it about his business partner and UN environmental Guru Maurice Strong.... What's the next excuse?
Pot meets kettle again!OK. So you wish to prove your idiocy, and political partisanship. Go ahead. But don't expect anyone with the least intelligiance to listen to your crap.
DUDE!!! LOL , the topic was set by the OP, MY OP! got that?
--------------------------------
Fine, I'll just have to go with your being intellectually dishonest, then. You're trying to make a point about AGW by attacking a proponent on an other matter entirely. WTF?!?!
What in the heck is wrong with you?
You can see that the OP as in the original post or topic in this thread was written by me? If so than you can read it... If you read it you can see the topic is the hijacking of "the green movement" by certain people namely Gore and strong, in an attempt to make money.
So in essence al gore IS the topic.... Got that? oldrocks tried to change the topic.... Now if you don't like the topic fine, but it is this topic.....
The only dishonesty here intellectual or otherwise, is the attempts by oldrocks and now you to divert the subject and derail the topic....
Pot meets kettle again!OK. So you wish to prove your idiocy, and political partisanship. Go ahead. But don't expect anyone with the least intelligiance to listen to your crap.
Algore has a long history of 'for thee and not for me.'
And the jury is still out on a large number of the schemes that supposedly are carbon sinks. Many trees emit more carbon than they absorb. It is not much of a surprise that you would find this guy involved in this kind of scam.
Constantly. Hacks such as yourself simply ignore it, then pretend it never happened!Pot meets kettle again!OK. So you wish to prove your idiocy, and political partisanship. Go ahead. But don't expect anyone with the least intelligiance to listen to your crap.
Ah Midnight, when have you ever supported any of your opinions with anything other than poltical rhetoric?
Algore has a long history of 'for thee and not for me.'
And the jury is still out on a large number of the schemes that supposedly are carbon sinks. Many trees emit more carbon than they absorb. It is not much of a surprise that you would find this guy involved in this kind of scam.
Yeah he always was a lowlife. I loved it when he would talk about when he was growing up on his daddy's farm... LOL, his daddy was a career politician like himself, and the family came from old money. So when he spoke of "working on daddy's farm" He must mean watching others work...
It's always been political, stupid. That's what you don't see or don't want to see.That's the REAL lie. Just like AGW, the deniers don't have a good scientific argument, so they have to take it to the poltical realm.
Again, you seem to be talking to and describing yourself.It's always been political, stupid. That's what you don't see or don't want to see.That's the REAL lie. Just like AGW, the deniers don't have a good scientific argument, so they have to take it to the poltical realm.
No, you have always just been stupid.
I wasn't doing any such thing, stupid fuck. Please feel free to quote me where you saw that.Not at all, if one can read and comprehend above 5th grade level.
You mind explaining why you are arguing for AGW one second particularly in this thread, and then arguing against it at the same time? Its just retarded....
I'll wait.
