Englebert

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?

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

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

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

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

Predictable!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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