Englebert

Ask Vatican City if a wall works.

I would say yes, most people have...indirectly. We have allowed the EPA to enforce stringent (sometimes strangling) environmental laws without a fight. We've allowed the government to direct billions and billions of our tax-payer dollars to the "green" agenda without so much as a peep of protest. We are allowing billions and billions of our tax-payer dollars to be given away to other countries in the name of a "green planet" and no one bats an eye. That is the goal of man-made global warming theorists, and so far it is working like a charm. The ends justify the means. This has been done, and is being done, without one iota of a tiny shred of evidence that man's activities have any detrimental effect on the global weather patterns.

So your answer is no, you can't provide any proof of man's harmful contributions to catastrophic global warming. Somehow I knew my question was rhetorical.

So if close to a billion scientists agree that man is the cause of catastrophic global warming, I'm sure there is plenty of evidence floating around. Can you produce just one article, paper, journal or any sort of irrefutable evidence showing man's harmful contributions to this so-called catastrophic warming?

After cancelling a concert in Mississippi, Bryan Adams issued a statement saying the Mississippi law was incomprehensible and he cannot “in good conscience perform in a state where certain people are being denied their civil rights due to their sexual orientation.” This statement came just weeks after he performed a concert in Pakistan, where homosexuality is illegal under the law. He also performed in Dubai and other countries that do not allow homosexuality. His hypocrisy shows no bounds.

If you believe this, then what should be the consequences for bad actors profiting from misleading people the other way...like the man-made global warming profit Mr. Al Gore. Shouldn't he be in jail by now. Obama has said many times that the debate was over. Shouldn't he share a cell with Gore. I also find it astonishing that you are accusing others on here of "towing the line" of deniers when everything you've stated so far is right down the line of the man-made global warming gloom and doom prognosticators. (Who have been wildly wrong in every one of their predictions). And like you said in an earlier post, it is evident how much research YOU have done on the subject. Please enlightened us with proof of the detrimental effects of man on the global climate patterns. Since I'm fairly certain you haven't done the research, I can save you some time. It doesn't exist. While you're doing research on this, please enlightened us on the effect of volcanos on Earth's climate. Add in sea fissures, earthquakes, glacial solar glare, glacial movements, solar hot spots, solar flares, solar mass thermal ejections, sun hibernation, the moon's gravitational pull, the variations of Earth's axis tilt, the variations of Earth's orbit, the variations of the moon's orbit, cow flatulence (thanks Nash for reminding me of that one) and so on and so on. When you can answer all of these things, you may be a 1,000,000th of the way of answering man's effect on global warming. Again, I can save you some time. You won't find anything.

If you want to talk about flawed arguments, let's look at the whole man-made global warming theory. The government says the Earth is warming at a catastrophic rate. The data we used to calculate this has been altered, manipulated and even pulled out of thin air, so no one actually knows if the Earth is really warming. We say the warming is catastrophic but in reality we really don't have a clue as to what the effect will be. Now that we have told you that we all agree on our doomed future, let's figure out the cause. Well...since we have no clue, let's just blame humans. Wait, what. What role does Mother Nature play in this settled science (gotta keep reminding the folks that the debate is over). What effect do volcanos play, thermal sea fissures, glacial sun glare, glacial movements, ever changing (and not understood) weather patterns. Hell, we don't even have a clue as to why lightning appears before and after earthquakes. What about solar flares and mass thermal ejections, sun spots, sun hibernation, changes in Earth's axis tilt, the moon's gravitational pull, and the other countless effects that might contribute to Earth's weather patterns. Forget about all of those things, the debate is settled. Now let's propose plans on how to reverse man's ruinous activities. Any suggestions. No. Let's just throw out some proposals, don't worry about testing them, and throw a lot of money at them. Before anyone starts throwing money at a problem, there are a few things that need to be addressed. Step 1. Identify the problem. Step 2. Propose solutions to the problems. Step 3. Empirically test these proposals to find best solution. Step 4. Implement solution. The government thinks we are at Step 4, but anyone that has spent one hour or less of research can quickly ascertain that we are at Step 1. And even if we somehow get to the point that we all agree that Step 1 is reality, then we should move to Step 2, not Step 4. Hence, the crisis. Since this so-called warming is so catastrophic, we need to start implementing solutions that we have no idea what effect (good or bad) they will have on the Earth. Before we uncover the effects of man-made global warming, how about we study why man-made global warming theories are at the forefront of this administrations' list of problems. One theory is that making it into a catastrophic scenario then Americans will be more willing to dish out a lot of money to help clean the environment. Americans will be more agreeable to stricter and stricter EPA regulations. These things will be beneficial to the longevity of man and earth, but to get them implemented we have to create a doomsday scenario. The ends justify the means. Another theory, and one that runs congruent with the first, is that we need to spend tons of money on third world countries to bring them up to par with us. The American people will not agree to just give our wealth to these countries, so we have to create a doomsday scenario. Trick the people into thinking that the only way to save mankind is to redistribute our wealth to the poorer nations under the guise of saving the planet. The ends justify the means. I don't have a problem with America investing money in keeping our environment clean. But I do have a problem with our government spending trillions of our hard earned tax payer dollars on a solution to a problem that has never been defined.

How about we just enforce our laws. Heavily fine any company employing illegals. Heavily fine any company/person renting/providing housing to illegals. Heavily fine any hospital that doesn't report illegals after treatment. Heavily fine any school district that doesn't report illegals. Now how could an illegal stay in a country where he can't work, can't get housing, can't go to the hospital and can't enroll his kids in school. Problem solved. And the government can claim they created millions of jobs.

Like I said, the stuff is out there, just harder to find. There are plenty of links in the article that can point you to much more, if you are so inclined. Or you can just do a Bing (I don't use Google) search. I could spend hours posting link after link but I have no interest in repeating that.

No specific source. But here's a start: [Hidden Content] It's hard to find specific stories I've read because most of them get scrubbed shortly after being published. And I no longer try to find anything on the subject. If you are compelled to study the subject the articles refuting man-made global warming are out there, just buried and not as easily found.

Yes he did. His proclamations varied wildly on the year and amount of sea rise, but he definitely said that most coastal cities would be underwater by now. And the debate is over. LOL. And to think that piece of excrement was a hanging chad away from occupying the White House.

Al Gore proclaimed that the debate is over, man-made global is real, the ice caps would be completely gone and the sea levels would rise 8 to 30 feet (amount varied daily) by the year 2015. This study is just copied and pasted from early studies that predicted the same thing. All they did was move up the year. After all, if there is no cataclysmic future on the horizon, how can they justify the billions of dollars of funding. I think this story would fit better in the National Enquirer along side Cruz's five mistresses than on a self-proclaimed "news" organization. There is plenty of evidence showing glacial growth in other parts of the world. This growth is also progressing at a faster rate than the spots that are showing decline. But somehow these nutjobs proclaim to be scientists. The one study we need right now is one that shows how much money these nutjobs stand to gain if they can convince the public of their gloom and doom theories. Just follow the money.

It's hard to tell. All four leading candidates are polarizing. I clearly see why three of them are, not sure why on the fourth. Many people will come out to vote for their candidate, and many against the "other" candidate. And many people will be so turned off that they won't show up. For some reason I have a strange feeling it will average out to about roughly the same turnout as other elections, even though emotions are higher on both sides. And I think we are buying the same stocks.

I completely forgot to follow up on this topic. I'm conflicted. Geraldo Rivera stated on national TV that the National Enquirer has a reputation for being correct on political stories. Bamatex stated "it's worth noting that the Enquirer is rarely wrong when it breaks the news on political figures' affairs". Westend1 stated "there have been enough baseless allegations against those two [Hillary and Obama] to choke a horse" when referring to the Enquirer. So based on these statements, am I to believe that since the Enquirer is rarely wrong on political matters, that all of the baseless allegations are actually true about Hillary and Obama? Or is the truth really that the Enquirer engages in yellow journalism and gets lucky every once in a while? Someone please enlighten me because I know zero about the National Enquirer.

The only reason I put in that last part was because I don't recall Smitty ever even suggesting the links he posts are facts. He just puts a link, sometimes with a one sentence comment...eerily similar. I'm totally just joking around (which I'm sure you know), but I'm a little surprised you did post a link that has no factual basis and giving some semblance of credibility to it. I just couldn't let that go uncommented.

No need, I believe you. I don't think I've ever seen anything in the National Enquirer except the covers while I'm checking out of the grocery store. I was jokingly responding like someone would if this was posted by Smitty.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be skeptical about. The story itself stated there is no evidence of anything. I might have missed something, but can someone point out anything in the article except accusations with no proof or even probable cause for me to believe it's accuracy? I am also curious as to what the reaction might be if these same allegations would have been directed at Hillary, or even Obama. I'm guessing outrage against the publisher for printing unsubstantiated gossip. The editor would have probably already been fired.

Thanks for the post and links. I was a little skeptical because the incidents you brought up were definitely newsworthy, national newsworthy, and I haven't heard a thing about them. Not that I try to keep up with everything that happens, but I sure thought I would have heard something on this.

I do have a question for you Bamatex. You stated in previous posts that you saw or know about cross-burning, racial slurs spray painted on walls, death threats containing racial slurs, and some other stuff. My question is: Did you or anyone else report these things to the police, and better yet, to the media? All three of these things would have probably made the national news. And I'm sure you could have persuaded Al Sharpton to come down and investigate...uh, I mean give a speech. A guy I know that lives in Beaumont had his driveway spray painted with a racial slur about 10 years ago, and it made the national news. I'm sure cross burning and death threats should garner the media's attention. Did any of these things have a story printed/aired? Just curious.

In fairness to Bamatex, I didn't keep it on an intellectual level either. And for that, I will apologize to Bamatex and the board. ...but he cracked first.

I don't know about beaten. Just not childish enough to continue. It's like fighting with Trump.

Went back and read it. And you're right. You are a condescending douche bag. That's about the only thing you got right in that whole childish post. And by the way, you do know the data in the graph you posted is manipulated data. Anyone that has looked into anything NASA has posted in around the last 8-10 years knows they use manipulated data. Hell, they even admit it. And I would love to build a time machine to go back to the late 1800s/early 1900s to get a look at the temperature scales they used. You know, the ones that can measure temperature all over the world to a hundredth of a degree.

I didn't read it. Too childish.

The whole conversation devolved into the fact that you stated, not that you believe, but the fact that I misunderstood Obama before you ever knew anything about me. For all you knew I could have been Michelle, but somehow you knew that I misunderstood the man. That is the definition of condescension, but you still won't admit it. You can believe I severely misunderstood Obama all you want. In fact, if you would have stated it that way in the first place, I would have probably not even continued with this. And yes, I never said or strongly implied that I've done any research on the man. I said that "you have no idea what I've read, heard, or researched on the man." And you still don't. And what's laughable is you trying to say I reneged on an statement that I made when it was you that in fact made the statement. I'm guessing that you threw out the trial balloon about your experiences of race to divert the conversation to a racial one, at which time you would try to throw out the old race card. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. It's an old tried and true tactic practiced daily. I get called a racist on a daily basis for just saying I disagree with Obama's policies. Hell I get called a racist for saying that I don't care for rap music. I wonder why I don't get called a racist for saying I don't care for Gregorian chants? And no, your personal experiences have no bearing on the discussion. Your personal experiences provide not context and are irrelevant when attempting to ascertain Obama's view's. So you think you can go to Alabama for a few years (I'm guessing four) and then deduce the plight of the black man all across this nation. Are the black lives in Alabama the same or different than say Connecticut? Or North Dakota? Or Alaska? I'm just gonna leave that at WOW. You're not towing the liberal line on man-made global warming. (I prefer the more accurate term, after all, even my dogs know the climate changes. It's called weather.) Obama has stated many, many times that the debate is over. He has also repeatedly stated that 97% of all scientist agree that man is the cause of the warming (when in fact the temperature has remained unchanged for at least the past 16 years). If you attempt to transform the entire national economy based on an ongoing debate, not knowing if your subsequent actions will actually hurt, help, or be inconsequential then you should be fired/impeached. If you attempt to transform the economy based on a lie, then you should go to prison. And I have very little doubt that he knows it is a lie.

No. And thanks for not thinking I was the one sitting in the Defendant's chair.