GW is only questioned by republicans

[canceled.2021.2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...n_and_disputes


marches all over the world


governments all over the world


political parties all over the world


believe in the threat of GW


The republican party is the ONLY political group world wide that doesnt believe

Why do you care? Why do we have to agree with you?

We aren’t stopping you from drastically changing your lifestyle to save ERF

Give up your fossil fuels. I won’t stop you.

Just leave me the fuck alone. What’s wrong with that?

[cancel2 2022]

why does the ENTIRE WORLD THINK AMERICAN REPUBLICANS ARE CRAZY for not believing in science ?


because you are idiots

Stupid ignorant twat, many of the names on my list are not American, see post 38 dumb cunt!!

[reagansghost]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...n_and_disputes


marches all over the world


governments all over the world


political parties all over the world


believe in the threat of GW


The republican party is the ONLY political group world wide that doesnt believe

and of course those morons are ONLY in the US, home of the right wing kook

[cancel2 2022]

and of course those morons are ONLY in the US, home of the right wing kook

Fuck you're trying very hard to be an even bigger ignorant cunt than Deshtard.

[reagansghost]

Fuck you're trying very hard to be an even bigger ignorant cunt than Deshtard.

name another country with 40 million climate change deniers, or even 2% of 40 million

go

[cancel2 2022]

name another country with 40 million climate change deniers, or even 2% of 40 million

go

Don't know any climate deniers, but know plenty of AGW sceptics!! If you're so fucking clever then tell me which of the four Representative Concentration Pathways described in the IPCC AR5 report published in 2013 do you consider the most likely? If you don't even understand the question, then you've no business discussing climate science.

[cancel2 2022]

Don't know any climate deniers, but know plenty of AGW sceptics!! If you're so fucking clever then tell me which of the four Representative Concentration Pathways described in the IPCC AR5 report published in 2013 do you consider the most likely? If you don't even understand the question, then you've no business discussing climate science.

That question always shuts up the windbags and climate bullshitters, never fails.

[Into the Night]

Anyone can parrot what they read on a rightwing blog

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, Planck's law, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law do not come from any blog. You are just denying them.

Post your peer reviwed and published climate research., professor

Science doesn't use consensus. It isn't a 'research' or a 'study'. It is simply a set of falsifiable theories. You are denying four of them.

Absent that i have no incentive to debate the metaphorical equivalent of whether Elvis faked his death and is living incognito to this day

Irrelevance fallacy. I brought up no theories about Elvis at all.

* It is not possible to trap heat.
* It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* It is not possible to trap light (Planck's law).
* You cannot warm a rock with a blanket (1st law of thermodynamics).
* You cannot create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics). No gas or vapor is energy.
* You cannot use a colder gas to heat a warmer surface (2nd law of thermodynamics). Heat only flows from hot to cold, NEVER the reverse.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth by trapping IR light, and increase the temperature of Earth at the same time (Stefan-Boltzmann law).

[Into the Night]

lol and just the first one on the list

The MIT staff addressed specific inaccuracies in Lindzen's letter, including his assertion that "carbon dioxide is not a pollutant."

He served as a meteorology professor from 1983 to 2013. He is now a distinguished senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based conservative think tank.


https://insideclimatenews.org/news/0...t-donald-trump

and a long list of discredited kooks

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It occurs naturally in the atmosphere. It is critical to plant life and to all life on Earth. You might as well call water a pollutant.

Usually at this point, it becomes obvious that you can't even DEFINE 'pollutant'. You just chant it, like a meaningless buzzword.

[Into the Night]

The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 and based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. The Institute conducts work on issues including education reform, government spending, taxation, healthcare, tobacco policy, global warming, hydraulic fracturing, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.

And I support them in their efforts.

Sure beats the fascism you propose!

[Truth Detector]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...n_and_disputes

Again, you are living in a lie filled narrative. Everyone knows the planet has been warming for millions of years since the ice sheets retreated from North America.

We just understand that MAN had NOTHING to do with it. Leftists are too fucking dishonest and stupid to acknowledge reality.

[Truth Detector]

They do know its real and they do know human emmissions of heat-trapping ghg are a substantial cause.

CO2 cannot trap emissions anymore than your head can prevent your brains from running out of your ears.

[Truth Detector]

the same party that lied us into a war that blew up the middle east and created Isis ALL FOR OIL PROFITS

Same boorish dumb meme:

Democrat quotes on WMDs
Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
-- President Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.""Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
-- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC) Feb. 24, 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." "
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA) Sep. 27, 2002

"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
-- State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Oct. 2, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
-- Senator John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
-- Sen. Harry Reid (D. NV) Oct. 9, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
-- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King)

I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening.
-- Rep. Richard Gephardt (D, MT) Nov. 2, 2003

[Truth Detector]

why are republican voters in the USA the ONLY voters world wide who say GW is a not real?

Republicans do not say there is no Global Warming. We just have the intelligence and brains to know that the man caused claim is a lie and HOAX. You, you have no brains.

[Into the Night]

You are wasting your time.98 percent of weather scientists say global warming is real and inarguable. Rightys are believers. That trumps science. Ignore the evidence, some ambulance chaser has spoken.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are quoting a made up number.

* You can't create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics). No gas or vapor is a magickal source of energy.
* You can't trap heat. (1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics)
* You can't trap light. (Planck's law)
* You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat. (2nd law of thermodynamics, Fourier's conductivity law. Stefan-Boltzmann law.)
* You can't make heat flow from cold to hot (2nd law of thermodynamics). You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase it's temperature at the same time (Stefan-Boltzmann law).

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using IR from the Earth's surface. Absorption of surface IR by CO2 is not warming.
Science is not scientists. It is not any group of scientists. It is not people at all. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You are denying four of them. You are denying science.

Quoting random numbers is not a proof.