an anonymous name caller on the [H]ard forums.
climate change deniers
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
an anonymous name caller on the [H]ard forums.
climate change deniers
^ orly?
The entire warmer movement is based on fabricated studies and peddled by politicians and idiots.
The fact is, there isn't a consensus that man made climate change poses any immediate danger.
Is it any wonder that the world's leading economies (china, Germany) skipped on obama's UN climate change summit?
most people do not give a rat's behind about this absurd climate change religion that you guys keep trying to shove down our throats
LOL you consider that name calling? Using the term climate change deniers? What term would you like me to use?
The good thing here is we have extremely low levels. Isn't it a few parts per million?
LOL you consider that name calling?
some random fucks fabrication on the internet.
Nobody is saying not to ask more questions. It's the deniers who are done asking questions. They have already concluded it is a money/power grab.I love this argument. If you don't 100% agree with the alarmist or ask more questions you are an idiot.
Yeah, because my neighbor throws his garbage on the front lawn I will too!That and excuse me for not wanting to wreck our economy because India and China aren't going to change shit.
Both derisive and inaccurate, but because it's mainstream it's okay, right?
Mainstream bigotry pre-2009: Boooooo.
Mainstream bigotry post-2009: LOLOLOLOL
Gotta love those independent thinkers. So glad they preach to us.
Both derisive and inaccurate, but because it's mainstream it's okay, right?
Mainstream bigotry pre-2009: Boooooo.
Mainstream bigotry post-2009: LOLOLOLOL
Gotta love those independent thinkers. So glad they preach to us.
Nobody is saying not to ask more questions. It's the deniers who are done asking questions. They have already concluded it is a money/power grab.
Yeah, because my neighbor throws his garbage on the front lawn I will too!
Man made pollution causes global warming.Yeah...
See this what I mean by intellectually dishonest. I'm saying you're deliberately ignoring the point and instead of addressing that, you're challenging me to disprove a different point I'm not disputing in the first place. That's like me saying you can't drink nothing but ocean water or else you'll die and you telling me that I can't disprove that salt isn't a vital nutrient.
This does not mean no more studies on climate will be performed. He simply means as a matter of making current policy changes related to what we know on the subject, i.e. investing in renewables.The retard and chief said himself "the science is settled". GIVE ME MORE MONEYZ.
I dont see what this has to do with anything. They arent building a battery plant in Florida either.California is already running off business. Hell they had to offer concessions to their savoir tesla to even consider them for the battery plant and they still lost it.
It will be eventually, hence the investment in it now. Thats why they call it an investment, because it will pay off later.It is a money/power grab. It needs to be an economically viable alternate to get people to buy in.
Al gore does not have a learjet, and the president takes just as many vacations as any other president, and of course he's going to require the protection of air force one to go anywhere since he's the fucking president.Again, keep worshiping Al Gore's Learjet, just do as he says not as he does. That or the huge carbon footprint it takes for the President to go on one of his upteen vacations.
No there wasn't. Our volume of pollution today is greater than our volume of pollution in the 19th century. Are you seriously contesting this?Man made pollution causes global warming.
There was extensive man made pollution in the 19th century
I like how those who feel superior enough to call others out as being random fucks on the internet have such stunning lack of self-awareness.
Karmic balance
All smokers get cancer is a false statement. Some smokers get cancer is a true statement. If you know John smokes than you can conclude John "might" get cancer but you cannot conclude that John "will" get cancer.You are correct thejoker,
Cigarettes do not cause cancer. The smoke however inhaled does promote abnormal cell growth, which by definition is cancer.
In the United States and the UK: yes. Are our coal plants cleaner today than 50 years ago? yes. Are our cars cleaner today than 50 years ago? yes.No there wasn't. Our volume of pollution today is greater than our volume of pollution in the 19th century. Are you seriously contesting this?
I've thought we went over this before
Wow ... what are you talking about? Again what term would you like me to use? I was addressing people who deny climate change... so using the phrase "climate change deniers" is accurate.
I think rational skeptic is more appropriate unless you think Climate Change Alarmist is also appropriate. The science is not settled nor do all scientist agree.[dictionary]
I think 'denialist' is appropriate, since it's the correct word.
[/dictionary]
All smokers get cancer is a false statement. Some smokers get cancer is a true statement. If you know John smokes than you can conclude John "might" get cancer but you cannot conclude that John "will" get cancer.
I am implying no more or less.
I don't remember. I don't keep a database of rules listed off to me by random fucks on the internet.
Start[...]. Seriously.
Ohhhh okay. You think you're special or something. LOL.
No, I just think you're not.
Deniers, liars, people who should be locked up. They're not even human. Let's just call them "inferior" and ship them off to the camps.
Oh, come on. You can do better than that. You just told me to kill my mother a page ago!
"Deniers" believe that climate change is a normal and natural process that would occur with or without the participation of man. Man certainly is a variable that effects that change but a far less significant variable than what some would have us believe. Computer models that predict dire consequences have not proven to be accurate (at all!) indicating flaws in those models and the theories upon which they are based.
There is extremism on both sides of this issue. I suggest that a rational skepticism is the middle ground.
In the United States and the UK: yes. Are our coal plants cleaner today than 50 years ago? yes. Are our cars cleaner today than 50 years ago? yes.
There has been this thing called the environmental movement which has made enormous strides cleaning the environment in the last 50 years.
Not logical:Smoking makes John "60% more likely" to get lung cancer than a nonsmoker over a long enough period of time. There for smoking is a leading cause of cancer and death from cancer.
"A gun is used to shoot people, being shot can kill you, however not all people that get shot, die. There for guns don't contribute to people dying from a gun shots." - thejokker (logic)
Where you alive 100 years ago? Than any conclusion you draw upon is not first hand and your source may be flawed. Where you alive 50 years ago? I was... Urban areas on both coasts are cleaner than they were 50 years ago.Not cleaning the environment, but rather slowing the decay. The environment is dirtier than it was 100 years ago. Nothing has been cleaned. We need to do more as a species.