Englebert

This coming from a science denier. Classic!

Do you get the same gut-wrenching chuckles every time you read some Man-Made Global Warming nazi writing about Polar bears starving due to MMGW? What about the nutcases that attribute every weather pattern to MMGW? What about every photo of Earth's ever changing scenery attributed to MMGW? There are many more instances of these, which should keep you in stitches for the rest of your life.

The Man-Made Global Warming nazis have managed to convince people you can have your cake and eat it too. It's too hot outside - Man-Made Global Warming It's too cold outside - Man-Made Global Warming It's a very mild winter - Man-Made Global Warming It's a very harsh winter - Man-Made Global Warming The hurricane season was almost as bad as the 1930s - Man-Made Global Warming Hillary lost the election - Man-Made Global Warming Does that about sum it up?

And?

And I'm sure you will be too scared to comment on the content, but add your obligatory "LOL", then later accuse the Right of posting stuff with no comment. Oh yeah, and claim that the posters on the Right are responsible for running off posters, while claiming zero responsibility due to your well-informed, thoughtful, knowledgeable, and just downright enlightened posts. And I'm sure you will resort to one or two personal attacks, then chastise any posters from the Right for responding with personal attacks. And I'm sure you will have no comment about posters who use the race card in an attempt to shut down a debate. Yep, we know the routine. It's odd that you post condescending predictions when your own posts are so, so predictable.

Maybe it is you. A link will be posted and you will respond with "LOL" or "that is just a far left website not to be trusted" with no argument of the content. You then continually complain about people not giving commentary and just bashing other posters, while calling other posters names. And to top it off, you blame the Right for running off posters. When challenged on why, you just say "I don't know", but continually point solely to the Right. Then you have the gall to make condescending posts about the very things you are guilty of. I think we have found our answer. It is undoubtedly you that ran them off. Or do you think some might have gotten tired of the "grab'em" and "you are all just racist" posts? I will blame the whole Left, including you. After all, I am a genius. Right?

And the response from the Left is not a discussion of how the link is wrong. The only response we get is "y'all are just racist". That deserves the "ha", or better yet, your obligatory "LOL" only comments. Your continual blaming of the Right for running off posters is baffling, considering the mound of evidence of "enlightened" responses from Left.

No, it's "let's learn from history and not follow the same failed policies". And you want to blame "Pubes" for running off posters. Remind me again who needs to wake up.

Do you actually think Hippy and others were "ran off" because of posts like Baddogs? You don't think it was the continual posts like "grab'em" and "you are all just ignorant racists"? Do you think we can't have a decent conversation on here because of the ones on the Right? Who is the one that needs to wake up? Do you think the quality of posts on this forum has gone up or down since many on the Left have chosen to abstain?

I wasn't expecting anything, so anything given is a bonus. And if Hillary would have won, more of my money would be gone. So I'm enjoying the idea of a flourishing economy versus anything the Left does to stifle it. It might not look like a big difference to you, but the effects have enormous repercussions. Unfortunately, as history has shown, we will get tired of winning and eventually the sheeple will be successful in electing Liberals back into a position of power. That will be the time to worry.

I think the Republicans are "freaking out" because of the total hypocrisy shown by the Left. I recall, and I'm sure you do to, how the Left passed a bill without reading it, and with zero bipartisan support. Now the Left is loudly and publicly complaining about not being able to read the bill, a bill in which they refused to participate in the process, thus ensuring it would not be bipartisan. I for one am very glad the Left refused to participate. The only thing their participation would accomplish would be to hold things up. It's hard to work on a problem when you are constantly laughing at the proposals from the other side. And I find it extremely ironic that the Left is all-of-a-sudden worried about the national debt, or that the middle class won't see a tax cut (which looks to be a lie). The Left had full control 8 years ago and never once proposed a tax cut for the middle class, and now seem to be falsely saddened that a tax cut is not forthcoming (again, a lie). I'm sure the Left would have voted for this bill if a larger middle class tax cut was included. Now that is sarcasm! On a serious note, Nancy Pelosi actually said that this was the worst bill to ever be proposed in the House. And she said it with a straight face. I literally did the proverbial LOL. I'm giving full credit to Trump for the ridiculous comments emanating from the Left. The meltdown continues, and the American people are the benefactors.

I think that is what most of us "deniers" are saying. Let's figure this thing out before committing a whole lot of money that might or might not be useful. The problem is when we say things like this, we get labeled with all kinds of cute little words that are in no way flattering. In fact, some are trying to make us into criminals just for asking obvious questions. I have read many stories of people losing their job for having the audacity to simply question the MMGW theory. Skepticism is the driving force of science, but the MMGW nazis want to stifle any modicum of perceived dissent, and simple little questions definitely qualify in their minds.

Should we spend trillions of dollars trying to reverse or even change a natural part of life? If so, would these trillions spent make one iota of a difference? Should we study the cause and effect of such efforts before throwing money at a theorized solution to a problem that is not even defined? Oh wait, I can't ask these questions. The science is settled and I should just hand over my wallet and go live with the Amish.

Who is the Aggie? Don't you dare put that moniker on me.

What numbers about the economy were false under Obama? The fact that the United States received it's first ever credit downgrade? The fact that Obama was the first president to never achieve 3% GDP growth rate. The fact that we are now $20,000,000,000,000.00 in debt (that is a lot of zeros). Which economy numbers are you referring to as false?

What makes you think I want no part of it. Oh I forgot, just making up facts again. How logical. Or would that be analytical? And which classroom did I say you belong. Try reading my post again, slowly, and tell me which classroom I said you belong to. The evidence is about the same as your Global Warming evidence, i.e. nonexistent. And are you really accusing me of name calling when you started this whole conversation with heavy condescension? I'm guessing analytics is not a strong point for you, especially seeing how you are so easily manipulated by garbage "science". Sounds to me like you are not having as much fun as I am.

Enough to cause a shutdown of our entire way of life? Or give trillions of dollars to third world countries (including China, who owns much of our debt.)? And where is this evidence that shows exacerbation. If the scientists are so right, why have their forecasting models been so wrong. Go back and read the forecasting models section. I bet you can't without laughing.

Says the man that refuses to provide evidence for his contentions. I think I was wrong earlier, you must be soliciting in a fourth grade class.

Wow, did you come up with that conclusion all by yourself? Admit it, you must be in a 3rd grade classroom soliciting help.

Just because you can't understand or can't forsee the inevitable doesn't make your statement true. In fact, it illustrates the narrowmindedness that is typical of the a Man-Made Global Warming nazi.

I read that one a long time ago. And in typical fashion, does NOT provide any evidence that man is the cause of a changing climate. That is not even worth the proverbial "nice try". Please provide evidence that is discernible to someone outside your head. Oh, and those forecasting models included in that paper...how did those turn out? Would you like to guess? And that paper also failed to account for many, many factors that most likely contribute way more than Man. Why did it leave those factors out? And the paper also "touched on" the fact that the data has been altered/manipulated, and gave a pathetic excuse for the reasoning.

I have recently heard quite a few pundits attempting to give Obama credit for the upsurge in the economy, the low unemployment numbers, and even the fall of ISIS. It is very comical. The Liberal spin doctors are out in full force. I'm sure they will soon create enough fake news to get the Liberal sheeple back on here. That is one thing about a typical Liberal. They have plenty of tenacity. They can get slapped down with facts over and over and over again, but will return with a new set of lies. I have a feeling this peaceful time devoid of Liberal misinformation/lies is just a temporary lull.

The thing that concerns me the most about this whole subject is not that it is leading many people to distrust the government and scientists. Skepticism for both is healthy. My biggest concern is that it will turn people away from protecting our environment. I'm afraid that many people will return to polluting and unhealthy practices upon our land. Any admonishment delivered or attempts to reign this in will be met with the "there's goes those nutjob, lying environmentalists again". In my opinion, that will be the outfall of this movement. The Man-Made Global Warmest nazis do not have the evidence, and many, if not most, are slowly starting to realize this. The retribution for being duped could be quite seriously harmful to this planet. That is the real crisis.

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?