OK you convinced me, now what?

He knows he has been outed and is lashing out in rage and frustration. When all else fails the left turns to slander.

 

Pathetic,dude. according to Pew polls, 39% of Republicans feel that human activity negatively impacts the environment. There are a number of Republican Congressmen who believe it as well. Just vote for them. Ain't rocket science.

 

How many republican congress critters voted for a carbon tax again or cap and trade or ....? What was that number? LOL

 

He just admitted his intention was to troll. It's not a smear if the poster admits that is his intention.

 

You used the word troll not me. Apparently you're not a chess player. I thought four moves ahead and let the opponent walk willingly into my trap and then WAM! Checkmate.
Now you get up from the table and scatter the chess pieces across the room in a rage. LOL

 

Chess? Dude, you're pulling gobs of **** from your ass and calling them knights. There was no debate - no game. It was simply you dodging questions and claiming victory. It's pathetic.

 

When you resort to predicting the future, at least have a huge amount of evidence.

Let's actually quote him. He said!!!!

 

OK, your intent is to smear him. We all understand your need for smear. But we do not appreciate your smear.

 

n

Anyway back to the subject matter as everyone can plainly see the real agenda of converting you is to convert you into a democrat

 

"When debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser"

 

I've asked this question for years now and I have NEVER gotten an answer. People just want to complain about the problem and argue whether it truly exists or not, but has either no ideas how to fix it or no desire to fix it.

I actually heard a debate on this where the person that believes humans are responsible and they actually had a solution.....less humans. My jaw was slack for a bit.

 

And I pointed out that a number of Republicans believe in human impacts on climate change. Why do you feel the need to be untruthful about this?

 

When I "resort" to predicting the future? Yeah, sorry about that!

I actually busted out laughing when I read that

 

Do you understand that is akin to saying humans control lightning?

 

Many posters grew up believing in AGW. They truly accept it as factual.

If the same context was used when describing Trump as AGW, we would all believe in Trump to the dying breath.

 

That may be the most ignorant remark I’ve read in years. Congratulations.

 

At least you admit your goal in converting people into believers is political. That's a step in the right direction and a good start.

 

Very true. Our education system has become more about leftist indoctrination than education.

 

Many of them don't know they answer so they can't give you one. They are pawns on a political chess board being moved around by the left and doing as they are told without really knowing why.

 

Anyone who truly understands what has and is happening also understand the dynamics involved and probably enough scientific data to know there IS NO SOLUTION.

Firstly, the population of Earth are incapable of working together as one body to accomplish ANYTHING.
Secondly, the chemicals in our atmosphere already will take 50 years to truly be felt.
Third, frozen methane has only just begun to be released and is far more damaging than CO2.
Forth, we are already noting incremental changes toward inevitable warming.

The debate is over for those who inform themselves and acceptance is the reality.

 

Which is why I am saying this is a political power play. It's about control and new taxes and not about saving the planet for mankind. Nobody actually believes we can get the entire planet to suddenly and drastically reduce it's C02 output and as you point out if C02 is as bad as the cult claims the damage is done and only going to get worse.

 

We don't have to reduce our emissions suddenly. It's not a problem with a binary choice. There's a spectrum of possibilities and future paths to consider.

 

You're probably not posing the question to scientists and engineers then. There are certainly solutions proposed. They fall into 3 main categories. 1) reduce emissions, 2) sequester emissions, and 3) counteract emissions. Each one itself has many proposals for accomplishing that task.

That would be a solution that falls under the reduce emission category.

I'm curious...why does your jaw drop when you hear this? What does "less humans" mean to you?

 

Regardless of your and anyone elses spin on this, yours bordering on conspiracy theory....the reality is very simple. Likely people and political players simply want to be seen as doing something, anything to address a very bad situation and other politicians want to bury their heads in a pile of money so they don't even need to see it. Shortsightedness has led to this impending disaster and will continue while it happens. Fortunately for all of them they will not live to see what they have wrought and neither will either of us. Anyone under 50 will be holding the bag when this gets bad and all our kids will curse us as a result....until they die of natural causes.

Unfortunately those "Natural" causes will be assisted in doing so.

 

No conspiracy theory just SAP for the DNC. When Clinton was running for president logging was the Boogeyman. In the Reagan era Republicans would start a nuclear war. With Carter it was peak oil. Before that it was Republicans would get us into a war in Europe. The democrats need to have a monster under the bed to scare people into voting for them and against Republicans who are always the monsters friend and this latest incarnation with AGW is just same ole same ole.