Englebert

You typify the Man-Made Global Warming theorists. You guess, then state it as fact. You refuse to give any evidence. No need to admit it, we can all easily see this. And I would be willing to bet that I've read more articles, papers, journals, etc. on Man-Made Global Warming than you can even imagine. (I will not state that as fact because that would make me no better than those "scientists".) It is clear that you have done little research. You seem to rely on others telling you what you should believe, with little to no skepticism. Sorry, but I will not "take someone's word for it" on this subject. The "evidence" you provided is shockingly bad, and nobody should fall for such nonsense. I'm curious as to how someone can draw conclusions on data that dismisses many, many, many mitigating factors. That one little tidbit of fact should lead anyone reading on the subject to be highly skeptical. Couple that with the fact that every single (not most, not the majority...every single) forecasting module has been wrong. Not a little wrong, but wildly wrong. And not wrong on both sides, but always wrong on the warmer side. Why is that? Is that cause for skepticism? I won't get into the fact that the data has been altered and manipulated, which basically shouts that everyone should be highly skeptical of any analysis based on this data. I just want to concentrate on the lack of evidence of Man's involvement. We spent trillions of dollars on research for the scientists to tell us "Hey, the Earth is changing." Why can't they produce the evidence showing Man's involvement. Is it a secret? Do they think we can't handle the truth. Or is it more of the case that they can't. I'm guessing the latter. I don't think I've ever ran across a theory that had 98% agreement with no evidence. The supporting evidence for any theory with 98% agreement should be a simple Bing/Google search away. Do you find this puzzling? Should this be cause for skepticism? Let's say you want to clean up the environment. Not just here, but the whole world. This will cost a lot of money...trillions of dollars. How would you go about this? You can ask the taxpayers to support this effort. You can run on the platform "If elected I will spend trillions of dollars cleaning up pollution, no matter how much it impacts our economy. I will also give trillions of dollars to all of the foreign countries so they might clean their environment also." Do you think you would be elected. Conversely, you could stage a crisis. You can tell all of the sheeple to donate their wealth (forced through taxation) so that we can avoid this catastrophe. If anyone dares question this eminent demise, you immediately shun them and call them cute little derogatory names. You send out the SS/Blackshirts/Liberal media to make sure this type of talk is not tolerated. In fact, you make it a crime to even question the veracity of your unsubstantiated claims. (See my earlier post.) You must resort to these tactics because you cannot convince enough people to support your endeavor simply by flowery talk. Luckily, we still have enough skeptics to prevent such tactics from succeeding.

I hope his show is not on the same time as The View. Now that is must see TV. Is that what the sharpest knives tune to?

So you refuse to point to the correct link? Why is that? I'm pretty sure I (and everyone) knows. What makes you think I didn't read them? Must be that Liberal logic to draw conclusions based on faulty data, skewed data, made-up data, or no data. I'm beginning to see how the Man-Made Global Warming theory took hold.

Which link would you say shows evidence of Man's involvement in changing climate? I've click on most of them, and all were void of such evidence. So if you would kindly point me to the correct one, I will happy to shred it's conclusions for you. What time does Rush come on? The Liberals detest him so much he must be doing something right. I know, he must back his statements with facts. Liberals hate that.

I'm just waiting on the evidence. If so many people agree, the evidence should be readily available. Hummm. The Russians must be hiding it in the hopes of influencing our elections. I'm sure all 17 intelligence agencies will agree.

I can run faster than any human that has ever walked this Earth. How dare anyone question that theory. Look ma, I'm engaging in Science.

Predictable!

Stating something as fact while producing no supporting evidence is contrary to pretty much everyone's definition of science. You're welcome!

In case anyone forgot, here is the post that is supposed to show evidence of Man's involvement in Earth's ever changing climate. Will someone please point to the place in the post that actually contains this evidence, because I sure cannot find it.

Yes, indeed. Global Warming nazis are ones that "persuade" you to believe in their cause not by providing evidence, but by intimidation and strong-arm tactics. I thought it was a very simple analogy that most would have no trouble interpreting, but I guess I was wrong. [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content] You have given absolute zero evidence of Man's involvement in Earth's ever changing weather. Simply stating that you have is a figment of illusion, readily apparent to everyone on this board...well, almost everyone. I guess that is the norm for science deniers. Al Gore must be proud. And the Left is so used to being the ones that apply cute little labels to everything and everyone, it must be a shock when coming from the other side. I can see your confusion.

From the article: "In fact, an increasing number of climate scientists (including Dr. Ball) now conclude that there is no empirical evidence of human-caused global warming; there are only computer model speculations that humans are causing it and every forecast made using these models since 1990 has been wrong." Now where have we heard this before? I have stated this on this forum in almost exactly the same words a multitude of times on this site, so any of you Man-Made Global Warming nazis that remain cannot say you haven't heard any opposition to your propaganda. It is very clear that the ones who believe the catastrophic predictions of man being the main offender of Earth's changes are the true science deniers. The quickest way to shut down a propagandist is to simply say "Show me the evidence". The MMGW nazis have developed the strategy of misdirection by showing photos of starving Polar bears, ice melting, and "before and after" pictures that basically show what would be expected in time lapse photography. But one thing they will not show you is the evidence that man is the source of the changes. Only a science denier would simply "take one's word for it" without questioning the method and/or conclusions of any theory, and this is especially concerning considering the MMGW theory involves so much money and power. It is simply astonishing and disheartening that so many people have abandoned the principles of science. Skepticism is the backbone of science, and the MMGW nazis are the ones deserving of the ridicule and monikers of morally deficient, not the ones who dare question the present indoctrination. I'm guessing the ones who believe in MMGW are the same ones that believed the (Un)Affordable Healthcare Act would reduce their health insurance premiums by $2500 a year.

Judging from this response, the poster must be an incredibly hateful, bigoted, Liberal sheeple, isn't she? That figures. -Captain Obvious

Name one time I didn't answer a question. And if you want a list of the questions you didn't answer, it would take a team of 10 guys working overtime until next year to formulate that list. Seriously, how do you not feel shame when posting this crap? Is your mind so warped that even tidbits of reality elude you? Frankly I'm surprised you have the gumption to even login to this site after the garbage you have been spewing. And this shameful rhetoric is evident to everyone but you. On second thought, please disregard this and please continue posting. If your intelligence level wasn't crystal clear to everyone already, your subsequent posts will leave no doubt. I bet you've heard the phrase "wrong again" more than anybody in history. And here's a little hint, those multitude of comments were directed squarely at you. (I'm really liking this Liberal strategy of personal insults, but I feel I'm losing a whole lot of brain cells just dealing with the likes of some board members. Oh well, it is somewhat cathartic and entertaining to everyone...well, not everyone.)

I heard Alan Dershowitz stating that he thought all of Mueller's eventual findings could be largely discredited because of the anti-Trump bias, and I got to thinking, "Could Mueller be doing this on purpose?" It's kinda far out there, but not totally implausible. And yes, what better way to expose corruption than by simply putting focus on it.

I posted this under another thread, but I'll post it hear also. I'm starting to wonder if Mueller did not in fact, create a cover for Trump. Could Mueller have purposely stacked his team with anti-Trump personnel with the sole intention of discrediting any of their findings? Also, I'm wondering if he knew that these men were blatantly anti-Trump, and put them on his team knowing they would come under intense scrutiny, thus exposing their corruptness. I have no idea...just food for thought.

I'm starting to wonder if Mueller did not in fact, create a cover for Trump. Could Mueller have purposely stacked his team with anti-Trump personnel with the sole intention of discrediting any of their findings? Also, I'm wondering if he knew that these men were blatantly anti-Trump, and put them on his team knowing they would come under intense scrutiny, thus exposing their corruptness. I have no idea...just food for thought.

Blah, blah, blah. Your post proves my analysis was spot on...and you don't even realize it. The kindergartners are laughing because even they can see my post accurately predicted you would not answer the question. How are you not embarrassed? Normal people would be. Then again, I don't know what it is like to be blinded by racial hate.

I think this link perfectly illustrates the mentality of the Man-Made Global Warming Nazis: [Hidden Content] Here's a picture of a starving bear. Conclusion: Man's fault. One example I've used (and maybe overused) when describing the thought processes of these nazis matches this fairly congruently. Global Warming nazis will see a pile of deer bones in the woods, and automatically (and positively) state: A man must have shot him. Anyone with more than two functioning brain cells should be able to realize that one picture of a starving bear does not show evidence of a shrinking habitat. There are plenty of other reasons, some very more logical than Man-Made Global Warming, for seeing a starving bear. Think Occam's razor. And even if Global Warming is the cause, how does this point to Man instead of the Sun (or plenty of other hypotheses)? I've pretty much come to the conclusion that Man-Made Global Warming Nazi logic is simply illogical.

I haven't been following the saga too closely, but I did hear yesterday that Moore was AWOL the last week. The only thing I can think of is maybe his campaign thought they had it wrapped up and didn't want a last minute gaff to spoil it. It's a puzzler to me also. I really think the Sean Hannity interview was the main reason he lost the election. I don't think he ever really recovered from that. I had to literally LOL when I heard Joe Trippi (Jones' campaign manager and a person I respect) actually say that Doug Jones won because the people of Alabama chose Jones' policies over Moore. Now that was funny. It was the PC thing to say, but I'm pretty sure everyone in America knew it was BS.

I need a safe space, replete with tissues, Play-Doh, Crayons and puppies. This safe space needs to have a sky light so I can periodically shout at the sky. I would also like to emphatically state that the Senate seat was robbed. Everyone but Roy Moore is to blame for his loss. America no longer represents the values that I espouse, and the rest of the world will hate us. War is eminent, ending the reign of Man on this planet. (Ooops, I've been acting like a Liberal for so long I almost forgot I wasn't one. Nevermind.)

Are "baiting" and "teeing up to get slapped down" synonymous terms?

The main question is not whether there is warming (or changing) weather...the main question is who is causing it, and is it detrimental to Earth's ability to sustain life. The topic of whether the Earth's climate is currently in a drastic change can be debated until the cows come home, but one thing is undeniable, we have no clue as to the magnitude or culprit or effect of this supposed change. And I somewhat agree with your last statement. I have zero doubt that the government is using the topic in an effort to control the people.

When did less than 1% of anything become evidence of normal behavior? And if I did the same thing, I bet many, many, many people would jump on me saying I can't say things like that because they are baseless. If you give me a second I can probably think of a few of the old "pc outlawed" remarks that were commonplace. Frankly, I have no desire to resurrect any of them, and don't feel that they have a place on a public forum (or anywhere). I just wish it was mutual and "pc outlawed" for everybody.

Then call them out. It is not that difficult. If you actually think it is happening as much now, you have a very, very short memory.

If true (I haven't read hardly anthing on this subject), I guess he should have waited until he was 49 to hit on 22 year olds. Would he have been given a pass then? (If your curious as to why I posted those ages, look up ol' Bill with Monica Lewinsky.) Whataboutthat!