Man, you must really think we are stupid.
When it comes to politics... yes, I do.
That's a rather high opinion of yourself.
That's not a high opinion of myself, it's a low opinion of Republicans… specifically when it comes to politics. And just to clarify, I am referring to Republican voters. Their leaders are very smart about taking advantage of Republican voter stupidity.
So there ya go. ;)
Where did you acquire such superior political savvy?
Is that what you're calling it? Superior? Huh. Well, I got my "superior" savvy from about 40 years of interest in politics starting off with a major in journalism.
Do you know as much about conservative political philosophy as you think you do about progressive socialist political philosophy?
Yes, I would say so.
How about postmodern philosophy, know anything about that? You should, it is reflected in your pseudo-intellectual self-righteous responses to us Untermensch.
How very Nazi of you. But to be clear, I have never suggested any of you are "inferior people" I was very clear in saying Republicans are stupid when it comes to politics. I'm stupid when it comes to why women take so long to get ready to go out. See, how that works?
Don't be such a victim.
For decades, climate alarmists have been warning that, without a United Nations-run global “climate” regime to control human activity, alleged man-made “climate change” will bring the wrath of “Mother Earth” down upon humanity.
Looks like they were right.
They did it again from November 30 to December 11, 2015 at the Paris Summit on Climate Change, and warned, yet again, that it is the “last chance” to save humanity from itself.
But climate alarmists have a long history of forecasting disaster — and of being wrong about everything.
So… that's it? No actual counter-argument to what the climate experts are saying? Just a reversion to a myth about science being wrong most of the time?
In fact, stretching back decades, virtually every alarmist prediction that was testable has been proven embarrassingly wrong. What follows is just a tiny sampling of those discredited claims.A new ice age and worldwide starvation:
Global warming — temperature predictions:
[i]Perhaps nowhere has the stunning failure of climate predictions been better illustrated than in the “climate models” used by the UN. The UN climate bureaucracy, known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), produces periodic reports on “climate science” — often dubbed the “Bible” of climatology. In its latest iteration, the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the UN featured 73 computer models and their predictions. All of them “predicted” varying degrees of increased warming as atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased.
So I'm wondering how you are calling a prediction for rising temperatures a warning about a new ice age. You seem confused.
The problem is that every single model was wrong — by a lot. Not only did temperatures not rise by as much as the models predicted, they have failed to rise at all since around 1996, according to data collected by five official temperature datasets. Based just on the laws of probability, a monkey rolling the dice would have done far better at predicting future temperatures than the UN’s models. That suggests deliberate fraud is likely at work.[/i]
Oooh, five "official" but unnamed datasets! Ha, ha… For all I know that could be five of those weather station gadgets you can get on Amazon set up in the living rooms of five Republican idiots. LOL
Here's the data according to the NOAA which uses thousands of datasets from sources that range from old records (humans started recording temps in 1880) to thousands of modern instruments scattered all over the world.
As you can clearly see, you're wrong. And just so you know it's not just a matter of which source I trust. I know that's how you conservatives operate because yours is a culture of blind faith. But I actually understand how the greenhouse effect works, so not only is the NOAA data much more exhaustive that your mysterious five "official" datasets, the resulting conclusions actually makes sense.
Well, that's one way of doing it and with the stubborn refusal of industry to compromise, it seems more and more like that's the only remaining option if we actually want to curb emissions. But Bright Fart is demonstrating that typical overreaction to appeal to your fears. Just because someone says we should use the coercive power of the state to curb emissions doesn't mean they are suggesting a communist revolution. Trump is using the coercive power of the state to make Chinese imports more expensive. The Christian-Right is trying to use the coercive power of the state to make sure women don't get abortions and that gay people can't get married. Are we calling THEM Leninists?