Thread: Which is a more urgent problem?, Building the border wall, Or addressing climate change.

pops42 - 9/7/2019 at 03:21 AM

Sound off.


adhill58 - 9/7/2019 at 03:07 PM

Climate change is going to force a lot more desperate migration than any walls are going to prevent. I hope Canada hasn't built a wall by the time it is too hot to grow food in Minnesota.


Bhawk - 9/7/2019 at 03:21 PM

Is it getting hotter?
Is it caused by man?
Can we do anything about it anyway?
Can people set aside political hatred to do anything about it?
With the sharp rise in military heat injuries and deaths, is it a national security issue?

Are we getting invaded by illegals on the Southern Border?
Are they consuming resources we can’t spare?
Are they taking jobs away from Americans?
Are they committing crimes at a disproportionate rate to the number of crimes citizens commit?
Is the Democratic Party looking to replace the white majority?

Hmmmmmm. Complicated topic!


MartinD28 - 9/7/2019 at 03:31 PM

If you ask the apprentice in the White House who is taking 3.6 billion away in military project spending to prove a political point, he'd say the wall. Yet - who's going to pay for the wall...MEXICO. That played out just as he promised. Our military could have no better friend than Trump.

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/04/757463817/these-are-the-11-border-projects-g etting-funds-intended-for-military-constructio


pops42 - 9/7/2019 at 08:15 PM

With severe weather events happening as regularly as mass shootings, a lot of people are accepting this as " the norm". And that is troubling to me.


bluesboy57 - 9/16/2019 at 07:41 PM

quote:
If you ask the apprentice in the White House who is taking 3.6 billion away in military project spending to prove a political point, he'd say the wall. Yet - who's going to pay for the wall...MEXICO. That played out just as he promised. Our military could have no better friend than Trump.

The military budget is enormous. Setting aside a relatively small amount to protect the southern border is a good idea.


MartinD28 - 9/17/2019 at 05:48 PM

quote:
quote:
If you ask the apprentice in the White House who is taking 3.6 billion away in military project spending to prove a political point, he'd say the wall. Yet - who's going to pay for the wall...MEXICO. That played out just as he promised. Our military could have no better friend than Trump.

The military budget is enormous. Setting aside a relatively small amount to protect the southern border is a good idea.


Having Trump follow through with his repeated campaign go to line of having Mexico pay for the wall would be an even better idea. Shutting down the government over ego driven politics of funding a wall - another bad idea. Raiding the military funds when all else has failed = despearation to appeal to a base of voters for political points.

The military projects raided for funds also adversly impacts the economies locally across many states where projects are now no longer being pursued. Several deliapidated and overpopulated schools for kids on bases have lost their funding including in Mitch McConnell's state of Kentucky.


Fujirich - 9/19/2019 at 02:07 AM

Climate change is a hoax, so the answer is easy: build the wall.

If you believe the climate change myth, you have to also accept that no matter what degree of radical change we apply in this country, it will be meaningless in the global scope. China and India continue to build and will open 100's of coal-fired power plants that will drive CO2 way beyond any reduction we're able to achieve. Climate change is about political and economic power - nothing more.

If we were really serious about climate change we wouldn't have our collective heads buried in the sand over nuclear power. Even what we can build today with fission reactors is the only technology possible that can provide sufficient power, reduce CO2, and do both at economically feasible levels. If the political clowns pledging insane schemes to eliminate fossil fuels had a clue, they would championing a huge investment in fusion. Whomever eventually cracks that nut (and we're getting closer) will own the future and provide humanity with endless clean energy.

At least be open to critical views on climate change, because its filled with hype. This guy does a good job of cutting through it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tCKTkwtQyk


pops42 - 9/19/2019 at 02:44 AM

quote:
Climate change is a hoax, so the answer is easy: build the wall.

If you believe the climate change myth, you have to also accept that no matter what degree of radical change we apply in this country, it will be meaningless in the global scope. China and India continue to build and will open 100's of coal-fired power plants that will drive CO2 way beyond any reduction we're able to achieve. Climate change is about political and economic power - nothing more.

If we were really serious about climate change we wouldn't have our collective heads buried in the sand over nuclear power. Even what we can build today with fission reactors is the only technology possible that can provide sufficient power, reduce CO2, and do both at economically feasible levels. If the political clowns pledging insane schemes to eliminate fossil fuels had a clue, they would championing a huge investment in fusion. Whomever eventually cracks that nut (and we're getting closer) will own the future and provide humanity with endless clean energy.

At least be open to critical views on climate change, because its filled with hype. This guy does a good job of cutting through it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tCKTkwtQyk
Only a moron would cite this hack, for climate facts/ science come on!.


Fujirich - 9/19/2019 at 03:13 AM

quote:
quote:
Climate change is a hoax, so the answer is easy: build the wall.

If you believe the climate change myth, you have to also accept that no matter what degree of radical change we apply in this country, it will be meaningless in the global scope. China and India continue to build and will open 100's of coal-fired power plants that will drive CO2 way beyond any reduction we're able to achieve. Climate change is about political and economic power - nothing more.

If we were really serious about climate change we wouldn't have our collective heads buried in the sand over nuclear power. Even what we can build today with fission reactors is the only technology possible that can provide sufficient power, reduce CO2, and do both at economically feasible levels. If the political clowns pledging insane schemes to eliminate fossil fuels had a clue, they would championing a huge investment in fusion. Whomever eventually cracks that nut (and we're getting closer) will own the future and provide humanity with endless clean energy.

At least be open to critical views on climate change, because its filled with hype. This guy does a good job of cutting through it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tCKTkwtQyk
Only a moron would cite this hack, for climate facts/ science come on!.
Enjoy praying at the altar of Al Gore, who hasn't had a single thing he's predicted come true in decades, while ignoring simple facts like actual temperature trends. But religions do that to people......


BrerRabbit - 9/19/2019 at 03:36 AM

Climate changes. Everything changes. All the time. Change is the only constant.

Other than that, Fuji is dead on, we have an entire planet just firing up energy use to the levels of Europe and America. Without a clean energy solution capable of making big stuff go, China and India are going to smoke the Earth. Done deal.


pops42 - 9/19/2019 at 03:54 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Climate change is a hoax, so the answer is easy: build the wall.

If you believe the climate change myth, you have to also accept that no matter what degree of radical change we apply in this country, it will be meaningless in the global scope. China and India continue to build and will open 100's of coal-fired power plants that will drive CO2 way beyond any reduction we're able to achieve. Climate change is about political and economic power - nothing more.

If we were really serious about climate change we wouldn't have our collective heads buried in the sand over nuclear power. Even what we can build today with fission reactors is the only technology possible that can provide sufficient power, reduce CO2, and do both at economically feasible levels. If the political clowns pledging insane schemes to eliminate fossil fuels had a clue, they would championing a huge investment in fusion. Whomever eventually cracks that nut (and we're getting closer) will own the future and provide humanity with endless clean energy.

At least be open to critical views on climate change, because its filled with hype. This guy does a good job of cutting through it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tCKTkwtQyk
Only a moron would cite this hack, for climate facts/ science come on!.
Enjoy praying at the altar of Al Gore, who hasn't had a single thing he's predicted come true in decades, while ignoring simple facts like actual temperature trends. But religions do that to people......
Al Gore has nothing to do with it. You are a science denier, have fun with your head in the sand, maybe join the jehovahs witnesses, they agree with you.


Sang - 9/19/2019 at 04:01 AM

Nice to see Fuji posting here again, even though he is usually wrong......


BIGV - 9/19/2019 at 04:40 AM

quote:
Climate changes. Everything changes. All the time. Change is the only constant.

Other than that, Fuji is dead on, we have an entire planet just firing up energy use to the levels of Europe and America. Without a clean energy solution capable of making big stuff go, China and India are going to smoke the Earth. Done deal.


Yep, according to Congresswoman "Box of rocks" we have 12 years. Enjoy!


pops42 - 9/19/2019 at 04:55 AM

quote:
quote:
Climate changes. Everything changes. All the time. Change is the only constant.

Other than that, Fuji is dead on, we have an entire planet just firing up energy use to the levels of Europe and America. Without a clean energy solution capable of making big stuff go, China and India are going to smoke the Earth. Done deal.


Yep, according to Congresswoman "Box of rocks" we have 12 years. Enjoy!
Another science denier!. Keep denigrating someone with more education and intellect than yourself.


BIGV - 9/19/2019 at 06:09 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Climate changes. Everything changes. All the time. Change is the only constant.

Other than that, Fuji is dead on, we have an entire planet just firing up energy use to the levels of Europe and America. Without a clean energy solution capable of making big stuff go, China and India are going to smoke the Earth. Done deal.


Yep, according to Congresswoman "Box of rocks" we have 12 years. Enjoy!
Another science denier!. Keep denigrating someone with more education and intellect than yourself.


Since when is Education the sole definer of intellect? Did not the President Trump receive a Bachelor's Degree from an Ivy League school?


BrerRabbit - 9/19/2019 at 06:59 AM

quote:
. . .we have 12 years. Enjoy!


Close to what I had left anyway, give or take - and enjoy them I will, thank you!


Jerry - 9/19/2019 at 06:01 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Climate changes. Everything changes. All the time. Change is the only constant.

Other than that, Fuji is dead on, we have an entire planet just firing up energy use to the levels of Europe and America. Without a clean energy solution capable of making big stuff go, China and India are going to smoke the Earth. Done deal.


Yep, according to Congresswoman "Box of rocks" we have 12 years. Enjoy!
Another science denier!. Keep denigrating someone with more education and intellect than yourself.


I guess you COULD call me a science denier also, except you would be wrong.
I deny the hype and forced "you will believe in this" that the global warming alarmists try to force down everyone's' throats.
I have the mind of a liberal, the conscious of a conservative, and the belief of being responsible for what I do.
I also have the ability to read charts, like the ones used by the IPCC to start the "GW" craze. I also know how to research a matter. Which led me to realize, using the same information used to get people "concerned" over the "Global Warming Crisis", that the Earth warms and cools over a 10,000 year cycle, and that we are now 2.5 degrees cooler than we were at the same stage in the last cycle.
I have also found data that was not used, or elaborated upon, to make the claims seem more valid.
Has the "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" honchos explained why the jakobshavn glacier in
Greenland has been "thickening, flowing more slowly, and growing toward the ocean"?
Did they explain that the reason it had been retreating was due to the shift in to the currents flowing around Greenland? Have they told you that some of the water temps around Greenland have gone down (got colder in other words) that they were 10 years ago?

https://www.sciencealert.com/one-greenland-glacier-is-growing-but-that-is-n ot-a-cause-for-celebration

All of this is science, which you will probably deny, but it is happening.
You continue to call people deniers, but it is YOU who is denying the simple fact that the Earth warms and cools in cycles, just as Greenland glaciers recede and extend due to cycles in currents that go in cycles of from
5 to 20 years.
That the globe warms is not a hoax, it's done it many times over millions of years. What is deceitful is the notion of "Carbon Credits" to slow down or stop it. The globe will warm and cool at it's own schedule and there is nothing mankind can do to stop it.


Fujirich - 9/19/2019 at 09:55 PM

quote:
Nice to see Fuji posting here again, even though he is usually wrong......
Hey Sang! Hope all's well with you!

Here's how I know I'm not wrong on this issue...

Elite climate change advocate and all-round supreme progressive being Barack Obama just paid $14 million for a beach front home in Martha's Vineyard, a few hundred feet from the ocean's edge. Anyone who has and continues to hammer the global warming/climate change message as much as he has WOULD NEVER invest millions in property that would be WORTHLESS if the climate change prophecies had a remote chance of coming true. Talk about mixed messages and poor optics!

Climate change - at least the kind discussed in the media and predicted by politicians and researchers - is not settled science. Temperature trends do not support it, and resulting predictions have been wrong for 100+ years. Its a guessing game, a dart toss, a fudge-factor filled computer model, and a fear-based way to get the rubes to agree to something that will give gov't and elites more power over them. The only true scientific observation that can be made is that the climate of the planet has been changing and will continue to for billions of years. Beyond that, we don't have a clue.


BrerRabbit - 9/19/2019 at 10:54 PM

quote:
Elite climate change advocate and all-round supreme progressive being Barack Obama just paid $14 million for a beach front home in Martha's Vineyard, a few hundred feet from the ocean's edge


Compelling case - exactly the kind of thing I notice as well. Then again, he could be surfing the recent great wave of American stupidity, looking at trendy ignorance, banking on flipping it for twice what he bought it for to Rush Limbaugh, or some other rich dumb conservative idiot who will buy it to prove a point.

You must live a controlled climate city indoor existence. I live and work rural and outdoors, and summer has obviously become longer and hotter since the 1980s. Monsoons are way less out west - not saying man caused or not, but to be unaware of the change just shows you are an indoor type. I noticed the changes before "Global Warming" became a buzzword. Never heard of Al Gore other than he was the @sswipe husband of that sanctimonious Tipper of music censorship infamy. Never bought Al's rap on climate either. He is an idiot.

I "don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."


[Edited on 9/19/2019 by BrerRabbit]


gina - 9/19/2019 at 11:14 PM

Climate change. If we keep having bad storms they will drown before they get to the border. Texas is getting 40 inches of rain over the last couple of storms. Though I read that Guatemala has an enterprising cocaine trade. Guns, gangs etc.


Jerry - 9/20/2019 at 01:34 AM

quote:

You must live a controlled climate city indoor existence. I live and work rural and outdoors, and summer has obviously become longer and hotter since the 1980s. Monsoons are way less out west - not saying man caused or not, but to be unaware of the change just shows you are an indoor type. I noticed the changes before "Global Warming" became a buzzword. Never heard of Al Gore other than he was the @sswipe husband of that sanctimonious Tipper of music censorship infamy. Never bought Al's rap on climate either. He is an idiot.
[Edited on 9/19/2019 by BrerRabbit]


Brer i don't know who that was directed at, but I've never denied the globe was warming (I own and work a vineyard by myself). I've seen it warm up over the last 50 years. I've also never seen Fuji say the Earth isn't warming either.
We just don't believe the hype and hoopla from those that try to shove their "buy this to help cool the planet" to us.
I think of it like this, if you look at the same graphs, the same data, and the same reports that the IPCC has used, you see the smoking gun right in front of your face, much like somebody trying to give you change from a $50 bill using $5 bills with Lincolns' face on them. It just don't look right.


alanwoods - 9/20/2019 at 12:35 PM

We had a stretch of hot weather the last couple weeks and without exception, the record highs that were in danger of being broken were from the 20's and 30's. Where were the Al Gores, AOCs, and Obamas to tell the people then how they needed to stop flying and eating beef to save the planet in 1927?

Climate changes. It is getting warmer as far as I (personally) can tell. We certainly do put more into the atmosphere than we did 100 years ago. I agree with Fuji - it's still not settled science.

The hype that the liberal talking heads and the media has the gullible masses lapping up is nothing but a grand wealth redistribution scheme. I don't appreciate a moron telling me what a moron I am.


Fujirich - 9/21/2019 at 12:31 PM

I expect the source to be blasted, but the complete lack of accuracy on the climate predictions is one of the core reasons I accuse the climate alarmists of promoting a hoax...

quote:
Nolte: Climate ‘Experts’ Are 0-41 with Their Doomsday Predictions

For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong. In other words, on at least 41 occasions, these so-called experts have predicted some terrible environmental catastrophe was imminent … and it never happened.

And not once — not even once! — have these alarmists had one of their predictions come true.

Think about that… the so-called experts are 0-41 with their predictions, but those of us who are skeptical of “expert” prediction number 42, the one that says that if we don’t immediately convert to socialism and allow Alexandria Ocasio-Crazy to control and organize our lives, the planet will become uninhabitable.

Why would any sane person listen to someone with a 0-41 record?

Why would we completely restructure our economy and sacrifice our personal freedom for “experts” who are 0-41, who have never once gotten it right?

If you had an investment counselor who steered you wrong 41 times, would you hang in there for number 42?

Of course not. You’d fire him after failed prediction two or three.

And if that’s not crazy enough, the latest ploy is to trot out a 16-year-old girt to spread prediction number 42, because it is so much more credible that way.

Sometimes you just have to sit back and laugh.

Anyway, I want you to have the data, so go ahead and print this out in advance of Thanksgiving dinner with your obnoxious Millennial nephew.

LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT RIGHT

NONE.

ZIP.

ZERO.

NADA.

BLANK

DONUT HOLE

NIL.

NOTHING.

VOID.

ZILCH.

LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS THE CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT WRONG

Here is the source for numbers 1-27. As you will see, the individual sources are not crackpots, but scientific studies and media reports on “expert” predictions. The sources for numbers 28-41 are linked individually.

1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
1970: Ice Age By 2000
1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
1972: New Ice Age By 2070
1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
1974: Another Ice Age?
1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes
1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s
1980: Peak Oil In 2000
1996: Peak Oil in 2020
2002: Peak Oil in 2010
2006: Super Hurricanes!
2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
1970s: Killer Bees!

Sorry, Experts… Sorry, Scientific Consensus… Only a fool comes running for the 42nd cry of wolf.

Don’t litter, be kind to animals, recycling’s for suckers (it’s all going to end up in the ground eventually), so stop feeling guilty… Go out there and embrace all the bounty that comes with being a 21st century American — you know, like Obama, who says he believes in Global Warming with his mouth but proves he doesn’t with the $15 million he just spent on oceanfront that we’re told is doomed to flooding.

https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2019/09/20/nolte-climate-experts-are- 0-41-with-their-doomsday-predictions/


BIGV - 9/21/2019 at 01:29 PM

https://youtu.be/7W33HRc1A6c

George Carlin on "Saving the Planet"


Bhawk - 9/21/2019 at 02:17 PM

Apparently the border wall is the bigger issue, since climate change is a belief held by morons. Let's not forget that in our society, the morons only reside within a certain set of beliefs.

Moving on, that border wall project as promised by Trump is so far a failure. It's nowhere near built and, of course, as everyone knows, Mexico isn't paying for it.

I think we need a combination of realistic and smart border protections and real, honest conversations about why people come here illegally and who pays them for what and why when they get here.

I'm deeply proud to be American and grateful for the opportunities provided to me as such. I think that we should always welcome those that are willing to abide by the correct process and, most importantly, pay to live here and follow the rules just like the rest of us do. There needs to be serious, enforceable consequences for not following the process, and more real, honest conversation about what to do about the millions already here. However, for me, my patriotism does not trump my core humanity, and I believe that treatment of other human beings based solely through primary belief in nationalism is very, very, wrong.

What say you?


Skydog32103 - 9/21/2019 at 02:36 PM

quote:
Yep, according to Congresswoman "Box of rocks" we have 12 years. Enjoy!


The guy who doesn't want anyone calling him names......what a joke you are.


Skydog32103 - 9/21/2019 at 02:40 PM

How arrogant and asinine do people have to be to deny and ridicule scientists....while posting on the internet from the palm of their hands.


Bhawk - 9/21/2019 at 02:43 PM

quote:
How arrogant and asinine do people have to be to deny and ridicule scientists....while posting on the internet from the palm of their hands.


Their science is better than your science.


Fujirich - 9/21/2019 at 08:07 PM

quote:
How arrogant and asinine do people have to be to deny and ridicule scientists....while posting on the internet from the palm of their hands.
Since when did being a "scientist" bestow halos on these people and grant them the status of being removed from critique?

If said scientists were employed by some corporation, their findings would be criticized immediately. Since they are just people too, with all the baggage and life needs that anyone else has, how are their motivations any different? After all, they've got mortgages, car payments, and kids tuition just like everyone else. And in fulfilling that, where is there any balance on this subject? Is it possible for someone who studied climate science to find a job doing anything other than being a champion for every assertion of this is "settled science"? You're labeled a heretic if you try, and tossed into the wilderness.

Which is another reason why I believe the climate nuts are promoting a hoax - whether they realize it or not. No discussion is allowed or possible. Just like the radical left, they'd rather make all discussion that doesn't conform with their beliefs downright illegal than permit an opposing view to be uttered.

No real scientist would ever associate themselves with those who would call such a hugely complicated topic "settled", because the very definition of science involves constant re-examination.
Challenging previously held conclusions in order to find a new level of understanding is the very essence of science.


pops42 - 9/22/2019 at 03:13 AM

quote:
quote:
How arrogant and asinine do people have to be to deny and ridicule scientists....while posting on the internet from the palm of their hands.
Since when did being a "scientist" bestow halos on these people and grant them the status of being removed from critique?

If said scientists were employed by some corporation, their findings would be criticized immediately. Since they are just people too, with all the baggage and life needs that anyone else has, how are their motivations any different? After all, they've got mortgages, car payments, and kids tuition just like everyone else. And in fulfilling that, where is there any balance on this subject? Is it possible for someone who studied climate science to find a job doing anything other than being a champion for every assertion of this is "settled science"? You're labeled a heretic if you try, and tossed into the wilderness.

Which is another reason why I believe the climate nuts are promoting a hoax - whether they realize it or not. No discussion is allowed or possible. Just like the radical left, they'd rather make all discussion that doesn't conform with their beliefs downright illegal than permit an opposing view to be uttered.

No real scientist would ever associate themselves with those who would call such a hugely complicated topic "settled", because the very definition of science involves constant re-examination.
Challenging previously held conclusions in order to find a new level of understanding is the very essence of science.
Yeah we have a few " Flat earthers" here your denial of empirical scientific evidence of climate change caused by humans. Your joke of a party, led by a racist, criminal, conman , scumbag, idiot, tells you how to think, and what to believe. The fossil fuel industry appreciates your blind loyalty. dont expect them to help you rebuild, after the floods, fires, that are a "hoax" destroy everything you worked or all your life. You are a sad lot.


BIGV - 9/22/2019 at 04:16 AM

quote:
Which is another reason why I believe the climate nuts are promoting a hoax - whether they realize it or not. No discussion is allowed or possible. Just like the radical left, they'd rather make all discussion that doesn't conform with their beliefs downright illegal than permit an opposing view to be uttered.


Bingo

And I could not agree more.


BIGV - 9/22/2019 at 04:24 AM

quote:
However, for me, my patriotism does not trump my core humanity, and I believe that treatment of other human beings based solely through primary belief in nationalism is very, very, wrong.

What say you?


You pay their bills and for their ills, I am not interested.


pops42 - 9/22/2019 at 04:40 AM

quote:
quote:
Which is another reason why I believe the climate nuts are promoting a hoax - whether they realize it or not. No discussion is allowed or possible. Just like the radical left, they'd rather make all discussion that doesn't conform with their beliefs downright illegal than permit an opposing view to be uttered.


Bingo

And I could not agree more.
Not smart enough to realize that, the fossil fuel industry funds the Republican party, and will lie about climate change to protect their interests. Morons believe the lies.


BIGV - 9/22/2019 at 05:26 AM

quote:
Morons believe the lies.


Imbeciles misrepresent & distort the available information to fit their narrative.


Bhawk - 9/22/2019 at 12:55 PM

quote:
quote:
However, for me, my patriotism does not trump my core humanity, and I believe that treatment of other human beings based solely through primary belief in nationalism is very, very, wrong.

What say you?


You pay their bills and for their ills, I am not interested.


That’s what you take out of that statement? Wow. Well, that does explain quite a bit.


MartinD28 - 9/22/2019 at 01:20 PM

quote:
quote:
How arrogant and asinine do people have to be to deny and ridicule scientists....while posting on the internet from the palm of their hands.


Their science is better than your science.


Alternative science?


BrerRabbit - 9/22/2019 at 02:48 PM

quote:
"settled science"


Oxymoron


pops42 - 9/22/2019 at 03:37 PM

quote:
quote:
Morons believe the lies.


Imbeciles misrepresent & distort the available information to fit their narrative.
Welcome to trumptown and the modern day Republican party check your brain at the door.


Skydog32103 - 9/22/2019 at 04:18 PM

quote:
Since when did being a "scientist" bestow halos on these people and grant them the status of being removed from critique?


We are not talking about criticism of a few. We are talking about labeling it a hoax, despite a large consensus among many scientists. You are suggesting that the scientific community is in cahoots with the Democratic party to manifest a fake campaign to the world about how pollution is affecting our planet, which is a completely unhinged nutty suggestion.

quote:
If said scientists were employed by some corporation, their findings would be criticized immediately. Since they are just people too, with all the baggage and life needs that anyone else has, how are their motivations any different? After all, they've got mortgages, car payments, and kids tuition just like everyone else. And in fulfilling that, where is there any balance on this subject? Is it possible for someone who studied climate science to find a job doing anything other than being a champion for every assertion of this is "settled science"? You're labeled a heretic if you try, and tossed into the wilderness.


I'd ask you why you doubt their findings on the climate, but accept and benefit from everything else they discover and present to you.

quote:
Which is another reason why I believe the climate nuts are promoting a hoax - whether they realize it or not. No discussion is allowed or possible. Just like the radical left, they'd rather make all discussion that doesn't conform with their beliefs downright illegal than permit an opposing view to be uttered.


If an opposing side feels like legal persecution to you, then I guess I won't pick on you too hard.

quote:
No real scientist would ever associate themselves with those who would call such a hugely complicated topic "settled", because the very definition of science involves constant re-examination.
Challenging previously held conclusions in order to find a new level of understanding is the very essence of science.


Are you and the right "challenging previously held conclusions in order to find a new level of understanding", or calling it a hoax? Your points are littered with holes.


Skydog32103 - 9/22/2019 at 04:24 PM

quote:
Imbeciles misrepresent & distort the available information to fit their narrative.


Just like Trump and his vanity wall, and a million other things, which you buy into hook, like, and sinker.


Jerry - 9/22/2019 at 10:34 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
How arrogant and asinine do people have to be to deny and ridicule scientists....while posting on the internet from the palm of their hands.
Since when did being a "scientist" bestow halos on these people and grant them the status of being removed from critique?

If said scientists were employed by some corporation, their findings would be criticized immediately. Since they are just people too, with all the baggage and life needs that anyone else has, how are their motivations any different? After all, they've got mortgages, car payments, and kids tuition just like everyone else. And in fulfilling that, where is there any balance on this subject? Is it possible for someone who studied climate science to find a job doing anything other than being a champion for every assertion of this is "settled science"? You're labeled a heretic if you try, and tossed into the wilderness.

Which is another reason why I believe the climate nuts are promoting a hoax - whether they realize it or not. No discussion is allowed or possible. Just like the radical left, they'd rather make all discussion that doesn't conform with their beliefs downright illegal than permit an opposing view to be uttered.

No real scientist would ever associate themselves with those who would call such a hugely complicated topic "settled", because the very definition of science involves constant re-examination.
Challenging previously held conclusions in order to find a new level of understanding is the very essence of science.
Yeah we have a few " Flat earthers" here your denial of empirical scientific evidence of climate change caused by humans. Your joke of a party, led by a racist, criminal, conman , scumbag, idiot, tells you how to think, and what to believe. The fossil fuel industry appreciates your blind loyalty. dont expect them to help you rebuild, after the floods, fires, that are a "hoax" destroy everything you worked or all your life. You are a sad lot.


Actually Pops, you are the denier, not us. You deny that the Earth warms and cools on a cyclic basis, even though the information is in the data and graphs provided by the IPCC. You deny that the Earth had an atmospheric CO2 level as much as 5,600 ppm in the distant past. You deny that the Earth once had temperatures in the mid 80's in Greenland and Antarctica. You deny that the Earth was once just a big snowball covered in ice, or just one big molten gumball.
Seems like you deny everything, except what Al Gore wants you to believe.


pops42 - 9/22/2019 at 10:43 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
How arrogant and asinine do people have to be to deny and ridicule scientists....while posting on the internet from the palm of their hands.
Since when did being a "scientist" bestow halos on these people and grant them the status of being removed from critique?

If said scientists were employed by some corporation, their findings would be criticized immediately. Since they are just people too, with all the baggage and life needs that anyone else has, how are their motivations any different? After all, they've got mortgages, car payments, and kids tuition just like everyone else. And in fulfilling that, where is there any balance on this subject? Is it possible for someone who studied climate science to find a job doing anything other than being a champion for every assertion of this is "settled science"? You're labeled a heretic if you try, and tossed into the wilderness.

Which is another reason why I believe the climate nuts are promoting a hoax - whether they realize it or not. No discussion is allowed or possible. Just like the radical left, they'd rather make all discussion that doesn't conform with their beliefs downright illegal than permit an opposing view to be uttered.

No real scientist would ever associate themselves with those who would call such a hugely complicated topic "settled", because the very definition of science involves constant re-examination.
Challenging previously held conclusions in order to find a new level of understanding is the very essence of science.
Yeah we have a few " Flat earthers" here your denial of empirical scientific evidence of climate change caused by humans. Your joke of a party, led by a racist, criminal, conman , scumbag, idiot, tells you how to think, and what to believe. The fossil fuel industry appreciates your blind loyalty. dont expect them to help you rebuild, after the floods, fires, that are a "hoax" destroy everything you worked or all your life. You are a sad lot.


Actually Pops, you are the denier, not us. You deny that the Earth warms and cools on a cyclic basis, even though the information is in the data and graphs provided by the IPCC. You deny that the Earth had an atmospheric CO2 level as much as 5,600 ppm in the distant past. You deny that the Earth once had temperatures in the mid 80's in Greenland and Antarctica. You deny that the Earth was once just a big snowball covered in ice, or just one big molten gumball.
Seems like you deny everything, except what Al Gore wants you to believe.
Ok flat earther, you can tell yourself this when "Flat earther vinyards" is under water, as you drown in your own ignorance.

[Edited on 9/22/2019 by pops42]


Jerry - 9/22/2019 at 11:10 PM


Ok flat earther.


Whateveh.

Except that I know the Earth is actually slightly pear shaped, instead of a cube like you.


OriginalGoober - 9/25/2019 at 12:16 AM


fUN FACT:

Over 80 percent of Greenland is covered in ice, but its grass was probably greener back in the summer of A.D. 982, when Erik the Red first landed in the southwest of the island.Erik the Red was the first permanent European settler.


Skydog32103 - 9/25/2019 at 01:27 AM

Serious question - why does the right single out climate change, as the one scientific observation to deny? What is it about this particular issue?


Bhawk - 9/25/2019 at 02:35 AM

quote:
Serious question - why does the right single out climate change, as the one scientific observation to deny? What is it about this particular issue?


Al Gore became the liberal face of it. Partisan it ever shall be.

The Right would literally rather burn to a cinder than agree with any liberal. The divide is just too deep.


Fujirich - 9/25/2019 at 11:33 AM

quote:
quote:
Serious question - why does the right single out climate change, as the one scientific observation to deny? What is it about this particular issue?
Al Gore became the liberal face of it. Partisan it ever shall be.

The Right would literally rather burn to a cinder than agree with any liberal. The divide is just too deep.
Ridiculous characterization.

Its a simple reply to SkyDog's question. Why would anyone blindly agree to the insane prescriptions for change advocated by the climate alarmists when none of their predictions have come true? They want to spend trillions, turn our economic system upside down, control more of how we live (from controlling the thermostats in our homes to what we eat), tax us more to pay for all this nonsense - and we should just say ok? Now on top of that they are shamelessly using children to promote this scheme of control. To not question the aim, given the balance of evidence, is more blind faith than proven or provable science.

Secondly, they are not advocating the kind of change that would actually make a difference. Wind and solar are simply not capable of replacing global power needs. The almost complete avoidance of proposing nuclear as the only viable way to lower CO2 is a telltale sign this isn't serious.

Third, the climate agreements drawn up to-date impose the majority of penalty against developed countries - primarily the US - with few restrictions on India and China or the third world. I understand the limited ability to do much with third world countries, but letting India and China off the hook from major reform should be a deal-breaker for any sane person. The Paris accords were a joke in this regard.

Fourth, opposition is not permitted. How can sane people not be suspicious when a group of politicians advocate for gigantic change that gives up control to gov'ts and international agencies, but does not permit debate? How many of you heard about the letter to the UN this past week from 500 scientists stating "There is no climate emergency." (https://clintel.nl/brief-clintel-aan-vn-baas-guterres/) Of course you didn't hear about it, because the major media buried the story since it doesn't conform to the narrative. How does this not make people suspicious of the goals?

I don't question that the human population is impacting our environment (environment and climate being two different things). I agree with calls to clean up the oceans, rivers, air, and overall environment. As a conservative, I believe in the root meaning of that word - to conserve. What I don't agree with in this climate debate is the tactics and lack of honesty. Renewables are not going to replace fossil fuels in the near term without a major reduction in population, and the alarmists are simply not being honest about that, nor many other things.


Skydog32103 - 9/25/2019 at 03:01 PM

quote:
Its a simple reply to SkyDog's question. Why would anyone blindly agree to the insane prescriptions for change advocated by the climate alarmists when none of their predictions have come true?


This doesn't answer my question at all. Nobody is talking about predictions - i'm asking why this is the only scientific finding that is denied outright and labeled a hoax. Sounds like you have no idea how to answer this.

quote:
They want to spend trillions, turn our economic system upside down, control more of how we live (from controlling the thermostats in our homes to what we eat), tax us more to pay for all this nonsense - and we should just say ok? Now on top of that they are shamelessly using children to promote this scheme of control. To not question the aim, given the balance of evidence, is more blind faith than proven or provable science.


This is extreme paranoia....if someone cannot contorl their own thermostat and what they eat, then that's a serious personal issue and nothing more."

quote:
Fourth, opposition is not permitted. How can sane people not be suspicious when a group of politicians advocate for gigantic change that gives up control to gov'ts and international agencies, but does not permit debate?


"not permitted", holy drama. If all you and the right were doing was "be suspicious" and want debate, I wouldn't be asking these questions. I'm directly asking you about why this is the only scientific finding that is outright denied....I won't hold my breath.

quote:
How many of you heard about the letter to the UN this past week from 500 scientists stating "There is no climate emergency." (https://clintel.nl/brief-clintel-aan-vn-baas-guterres/) Of course you didn't hear about it, because the major media buried the story since it doesn't conform to the narrative. How does this not make people suspicious of the goals?


You can't use sources like Breitbart, and some random German website, and expect to be taken seriously.

quote:
I don't question that the human population is impacting our environment (environment and climate being two different things). I agree with calls to clean up the oceans, rivers, air, and overall environment. As a conservative, I believe in the root meaning of that word - to conserve. What I don't agree with in this climate debate is the tactics and lack of honesty. Renewables are not going to replace fossil fuels in the near term without a major reduction in population, and the alarmists are simply not being honest about that, nor many other things.


You and the right have denied scientific findings - who are you to say the scientists are being dishonest?


BIGV - 9/25/2019 at 04:05 PM

quote:
quote:
Serious question - why does the right single out climate change, as the one scientific observation to deny? What is it about this particular issue?


Al Gore became the liberal face of it. Partisan it ever shall be.

The Right would literally rather burn to a cinder than agree with any liberal. The divide is just too deep.


Did not Al Gore in about 2008 predict the Polar Ice caps would be GONE by 2014?


Sang - 9/25/2019 at 04:43 PM

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/


BrerRabbit - 9/25/2019 at 07:40 PM

quote:
I don't question that the human population is impacting our environment (environment and climate being two different things). I agree with calls to clean up the oceans, rivers, air, and overall environment.


"Cleaning up the oceans, rivers, air, and overall environment" is a lot easier said than done. A monumental task. Global warming argument aside, this "cleanup" you agree with would require exactly the kind of global cooperation you say is impossible and also it would entail the same drastic spending and conservation measures that you are so concerned climate change action will bring about. That "conservative" means "conservation" is about as idealstic and pointless as saying "liberal" means "liberty". Nice sentiments on paper, but not applicable in the real world.

I was agreeing on some, but you lost me at "recycling's for suckers". Not gonna release any more C02 into the atmosphere in response to your methane.

[Edited on 9/25/2019 by BrerRabbit]


Bhawk - 9/25/2019 at 09:51 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Serious question - why does the right single out climate change, as the one scientific observation to deny? What is it about this particular issue?


Al Gore became the liberal face of it. Partisan it ever shall be.

The Right would literally rather burn to a cinder than agree with any liberal. The divide is just too deep.


Did not Al Gore in about 2008 predict the Polar Ice caps would be GONE by 2014?


Don’t know, don’t care.


BIGV - 9/26/2019 at 04:45 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Serious question - why does the right single out climate change, as the one scientific observation to deny? What is it about this particular issue?


Al Gore became the liberal face of it. Partisan it ever shall be.

The Right would literally rather burn to a cinder than agree with any liberal. The divide is just too deep.


Did not Al Gore in about 2008 predict the Polar Ice caps would be GONE by 2014?


Don’t know, don’t care.


Well, here's the catch, all of these guys are echoing what the scientists/"experts" say....So ask again why we don't believe them....


Skydog32103 - 9/26/2019 at 01:50 PM

quote:
Well, here's the catch, all of these guys are echoing what the scientists/"experts" say....So ask again why we don't believe them....


This makes no sense. Because Al Gore said something about the polar ice caps 11 years ago that didn't happen, it means the scientific community is lying?

We are presented with 2 options: scientists are telling us that pollution is creating climate change that can potentially harm the human race if we don't implement changes. Or, Al Gore convinced our scientists to create a conspiracy hoax and lie to the world about a fake climate problem. And you're going with the second one?


Sang - 9/26/2019 at 05:32 PM

Article from the Chicago Trib today. AP report of UN climate change findings...

UN climate panel sees a dire future

Scientists offer some hope, but say effects will be on land, sea

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said ice melt from Greenland, above, has accelerated from 2006 to 2015. (Felipe Dana/AP )
By Seth Borenstein Associated Press

NEW YORK — Earth is in more hot water than ever before, and so are we, an expert United Nations climate panel warned in a grim report Wednesday.
Sea levels are rising at an ever-faster rate as ice and snow shrink, and oceans are getting more acidic and losing oxygen, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a report issued as world leaders met at the United Nations.
It warned that if steps aren’t taken to reduce emissions and slow global warming, seas will rise 3 feet by the end of the century, with many fewer fish, less snow and ice, stronger and wetter hurricanes and other, nastier weather systems.
“The oceans and the icy parts of the world are in big trouble, and that means we’re all in big trouble, too,” said one of the report’s lead authors, Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University. “The changes are accelerating.”

The dire effects will be felt on both land and sea, harming people, plants, animals, food, societies, infrastructure and the global economy. The international team of scientists projected for the first time that some island nations will probably become uninhabitable.

The oceans absorb more than 90% of the excess heat from carbon pollution in the air, as well as much of the carbon dioxide itself. Earth’s snow and ice, called the cryosphere, are also being eroded.
“The world’s oceans and cryosphere have been taking the heat for climate change for decades. The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” said Ko Barrett, vice chair of the IPCC and a deputy assistant administrator for research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The report found:
Seas are now rising at one-seventh of an inch a year, which is 2.5 times faster than the rate from 1900 to 1990.
The world’s oceans have already lost 1% to 3% of the oxygen in their upper levels since 1970 and will lose more as warming continues.
From 2006 to 2015, the ice melting from Greenland, Antarctica and the world’s mountain glaciers has accelerated. They are now losing 720 billion tons of ice a year.

Arctic June snow cover has shrunk more than half since 1967, down nearly 1 million square miles.
Arctic sea ice in September, the annual low point, is down almost 13% per decade since 1979. This year’s low, reported Monday, tied for the second-lowest on record.

Marine animals are likely to decrease 15%, and catches by fisheries in general are expected to decline 21% to 24%, by the end of century because of climate change.

“Climate change is already irreversible,” French climate scientist Valerie Masson-Delmotte, a report lead author, said at a news conference in Monaco, where the document was released. “Due to the heat uptake in the ocean, we can’t go back.”

But many of the worst-case projections in the report can still be avoided, depending on how the world handles the emissions of heat-trapping gases, the report’s authors said.

The IPCC increased its projected end-of-century sea level rise in the worst-case scenario by nearly 4 inches from its 2013 projections because of the increased recent melting of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.
The new report projects that, under the business-as-usual scenario for carbon emissions, seas by the end of the century will rise from 2 feet to 43 inches, with a most likely rise of 33 inches. This is slightly less than the traditional 1 meter, or 39 inches, that scientists often use.

Sea levels will rise two to three times as much over the centuries to come if warming continues, so the world is looking at a “future that certainly looks completely different than what we currently have,” said report co-author Hans-Otto Portner, a German scientist.

The Nobel Prize-winning IPCC requires that its reports be unanimously approved. Because of that, its reports tend to show less sea level rise and smaller harm than other scientific studies, outside experts said.
“Like many of the past reports, this one is conservative in the projections, especially in how much ice can be lost in Greenland and Antarctica,” said NASA oceanographer Josh Willis, who studies Greenland ice melt and wasn’t part of the report.

Willis said people should be prepared for a rise in sea levels to be twice these IPCC projections.
The world’s warm water coral reefs will go extinct in some places and be dramatically different in others, the report said.
“We are already seeing the demise of the warm water coral reefs,” Portner said. “That is one of the strongest warning signals that we have available.”

Outside scientists praised the work but were disturbed by it.
“It is alarming to read such a thorough cataloging of all of the serious changes in the planet that we’re driving,” said Texas A&M University climate scientist Andrew Dessler. “What’s particularly disturbing as a scientist is that virtually all of these changes were predicted years or decades ago.”

The report’s authors emphasized that it doesn’t doom Earth to this gloomy future.
“We indicate we have a choice. Whether we go into a grim future depends on the decisions that are being made,” Portner said.


BIGV - 9/26/2019 at 07:15 PM

quote:
Because Al Gore said something about the polar ice caps 11 years ago that didn't happen, it means the scientific community is lying?


"Lying"?..No. But it is an example of the scientific community being quoted by someone who thinks it fits his narrative and then when it does not happen as "predicted" we are expected to believe the next "prediction" and the next and the next. Congresswoman BOR stated we have 12 years left.....

Oh boy


pops42 - 9/26/2019 at 07:21 PM

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/12/11/indication-whats-coming-meltin g-north-and-south-poles-worse-previously-thought


pops42 - 9/27/2019 at 08:31 PM

quote:
quote:
Because Al Gore said something about the polar ice caps 11 years ago that didn't happen, it means the scientific community is lying?


"Lying"?..No. But it is an example of the scientific community being quoted by someone who thinks it fits his narrative and then when it does not happen as "predicted" we are expected to believe the next "prediction" and the next and the next. Congresswoman BOR stated we have 12 years left.....

Oh boy
Tornado's coming you way big veeder! I see a bad moon rising. I see trouble on the way. 80 miles south of you. https://www.azfamily.com/ whilst you are sipping your fine wine, and listening to your imaginary copy of " Gregg Allman plays the B 3 organ favorites of Jimmy Smith" a storm made more deadly by man made global warming may well be paying you a visit soon.

:


Fujirich - 10/2/2019 at 02:29 AM

Its a foregone conclusion that the source will be dismissed. Religious dogma tends to limit critical examination.

But its a little harder to argue with the endless headlines predicting doom, none of which has come true. True believers will continue to make excuses though...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfslWw5PFMc

On the scale of denial, the climate alarmists' refusal to deal with their total lack historic accuracy takes the top prize, not that such a discussion can be had.

In the meantime, will someone go after poor Greta's parents and stop them from abusing whatever is left of a happy childhood?

[Edited on 10/2/2019 by Fujirich]


BIGV - 10/2/2019 at 02:46 AM

quote:
In the meantime, will someone go after poor Greta's parents and stop them from abusing whatever is left of a happy childhood?


Agreed. I still do not know who to feel more sorry for, the people who continue to believe that "product" or the ones (same) who truly believe a 12 year has the life experience to fully grasp the depth of what she was attempting to communicate.


Skydog32103 - 10/2/2019 at 02:50 AM

quote:
Its a foregone conclusion that the source will be dismissed.


If you feel this way about your own source, then why on Earth would any of us want to view it?

quote:
In the meantime, will someone go after poor Greta's parents and stop them from abusing whatever is left of a happy childhood?


Why do you want to "go after" anyone? It's just a news story.


Fujirich - 10/2/2019 at 04:40 AM

quote:
quote:
Its a foregone conclusion that the source will be dismissed.


If you feel this way about your own source, then why on Earth would any of us want to view it?

quote:
In the meantime, will someone go after poor Greta's parents and stop them from abusing whatever is left of a happy childhood?


Why do you want to "go after" anyone? It's just a news story.
There's a long history here of trashing the source when the message doesn't fit the preferred narrative. Pops already did it once earlier in this thread. Since you're fairly new here, perhaps you didn't get the reference.

Were little Greta espousing some 2nd Amendment admiration, love of what capitalism has done, or support for Brexit, then some wag on the left would be questioning the brainwashing and abuse her parents must be enforcing in her development. So I'm being that wag on the right, pointing out the obvious - she's a product of some rather radical and impassioned points of view. It seems like her childhood is suffering because of it, given her performance at the UN, though I'm sure no one supporting the climate alarmists would be concerned.


Skydog32103 - 10/2/2019 at 11:15 AM

quote:
Agreed. I still do not know who to feel more sorry for, the people who continue to believe that "product" or the ones (same) who truly believe a 12 year has the life experience to fully grasp the depth of what she was attempting to communicate.


To recap, you feel sorry for scientists for believing their findings, you feel sorry for liberals for believing the scientists, and Greta is 12. And if I suggest you are being dramatic, then I'm out of line?



[Edited on 10/2/2019 by Skydog32103]


Skydog32103 - 10/2/2019 at 11:27 AM

quote:
There's a long history here of trashing the source when the message doesn't fit the preferred narrative.


I hear you. Now imagine how scary it is that our President resorts to this everyday on Twitter. Can’t blame Pops for following our “leader”.

quote:
Were little Greta espousing some 2nd Amendment admiration, love of what capitalism has done, or support for Brexit, then some wag on the left would be questioning the brainwashing and abuse her parents must be enforcing in her development. So I'm being that wag on the right


Ok, but then how are you any better than they are?

quote:
pointing out the obvious - she's a product of some rather radical and impassioned points of view. It seems like her childhood is suffering because of it, given her performance at the UN, though I'm sure no one supporting the climate alarmists would be concerned.


I agree it may be risky for a 16 year old, but it’s laughable to suggest you or the Fox News crowd is concerned about her.


BIGV - 10/2/2019 at 02:19 PM

quote:
Were little Greta espousing some 2nd Amendment admiration, love of what capitalism has done, or support for Brexit, then some wag on the left would be questioning the brainwashing and abuse her parents must be enforcing in her development.


Agreed.

Had this taken place^....it would have never made the "news".....We know about this 12 year olds "speech" simply because it fit the narrative the left is shoving in our faces. See, we must absolutely be sold this bag of moldy feathers, at all costs and if you resist.........


Skydog32103 - 10/2/2019 at 02:28 PM

quote:
We know about this 12 year olds


Why are you stating that she's 12? She's 16. Do you have a source that states she's 12?

quote:
and if you resist.........


Then nothing at all happens to you and you can go about your life. The media and a small fraction of online personalities will fight about it, and you can turn it off. It'll be ok if you "resist", if you can stomach a little bit of online criticism.


BIGV - 10/2/2019 at 02:43 PM

quote:
quote:
We know about this 12 year olds


Why are you stating that she's 12? She's 16. Do you have a source that states she's 12?


I stand corrected, 16 year old.


BrerRabbit - 10/2/2019 at 04:51 PM

You have zero respect for the thoughts of a bright and alert 16 year old, yet you take every word as gospel from a 73 year old @ssclown with the mind of an 8 year old.


BIGV - 10/2/2019 at 07:04 PM

quote:
You have zero respect for the thoughts of a bright and alert 16 year old, yet you take every word as gospel from a 73 year old @ssclown with the mind of an 8 year old.


"Respect"? No. "Bravery" Sure.....

"bright and alert 16 year old"...Mmmmm. "Do all bright and alert 16 year olds"...deserve center stage at an U.N. summit?...or just the ones pushing an agenda that fits the Liberal narrative?


Bhawk - 10/2/2019 at 08:07 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Its a foregone conclusion that the source will be dismissed.


If you feel this way about your own source, then why on Earth would any of us want to view it?

quote:
In the meantime, will someone go after poor Greta's parents and stop them from abusing whatever is left of a happy childhood?


Why do you want to "go after" anyone? It's just a news story.
There's a long history here of trashing the source when the message doesn't fit the preferred narrative. Pops already did it once earlier in this thread. Since you're fairly new here, perhaps you didn't get the reference.

Were little Greta espousing some 2nd Amendment admiration, love of what capitalism has done, or support for Brexit, then some wag on the left would be questioning the brainwashing and abuse her parents must be enforcing in her development. So I'm being that wag on the right, pointing out the obvious - she's a product of some rather radical and impassioned points of view. It seems like her childhood is suffering because of it, given her performance at the UN, though I'm sure no one supporting the climate alarmists would be concerned.


And, conversely, of course, if she were to speak on matters you support, you’d be the first to praise her and tell everyone how the next generation is in good hands.

The pretending to care about her childhood is a nice touch, though. Good job.


BIGV - 10/2/2019 at 08:21 PM

quote:
And, conversely, of course, if she were to speak on matters you support, you’d be the first to praise her and tell everyone how the next generation is in good hands.


Absolutely not, she is 16


Bhawk - 10/2/2019 at 08:26 PM

quote:
quote:
And, conversely, of course, if she were to speak on matters you support, you’d be the first to praise her and tell everyone how the next generation is in good hands.


Absolutely not, she is 16


There you go again because someone dare disagrees.


BrerRabbit - 10/2/2019 at 08:55 PM

quote:
quote:
You have zero respect for the thoughts of a bright and alert 16 year old, yet you take every word as gospel from a 73 year old @ssclown with the mind of an 8 year old.

quote:
"Respect"? No. "Bravery" Sure.....



So you have bravery for her, but no respect?


BIGV - 10/2/2019 at 09:12 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
And, conversely, of course, if she were to speak on matters you support, you’d be the first to praise her and tell everyone how the next generation is in good hands.


Absolutely not, she is 16


There you go again because someone dare disagrees.


"There I go again"?...Who here have I directly insulted ?


BIGV - 10/2/2019 at 09:13 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
You have zero respect for the thoughts of a bright and alert 16 year old, yet you take every word as gospel from a 73 year old @ssclown with the mind of an 8 year old.


quote:
"Respect"? No. "Bravery" Sure.....



So you have bravery for her, but no respect?


Did I not write that above?


BrerRabbit - 10/2/2019 at 09:27 PM

How can you have bravery for someone? Your reply doesn't make any sense.


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
https://allmanbrothersband.com/

Url of this website:
https://allmanbrothersband.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=148578