EPA chief admits climate change is real — but ‘the real issue is how much we contribu

Illiterate asswipe. Review my posts and find anything where I make any claims about AGW.

Stick to cut-and-paste, Jethro. You're better at it.

Why do snowflakes always get so angry, do they think that trumps logic and rational debate?

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Last edited:
I was leaving a grocery store and some greenpeace types were out front getting sigs or memberships or something. One of the millennial types tried to solicit some old dude leaving the store in front of me. I heard her start to say something about saving the environment to him and before she could finish the first sentence in her pitch he growled "I hate the environment" as be bullied his way past with a smile most unpleasant.

That's the mentality we are dealing with on the right, folks. Just let them be the society burdening curmudgeons. No convincing them. We will have to handle the world's major problems without them. Just pray every day for their hasty death.
Really, how uninteresting!

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Why do snowflakes always get so angry, do they think that trumps logic and rational debate?

Sent from my iPhone 10S

So far, moron, you've missed the mark on all of my posts. Nothing to debate other than your poor reading comprehension. And there's no actual debate there. You continue to demonstrate it.
 
Holy shit! You are the master of irony today!

A story from 100 years ago and you're talking "red herring"? Priceless!
You are like so many snowflakes that are incapable of thinking about anything outside their own brief existence on the planet. One hundred years is nothing in climatic terms, you dismiss the evidence because it's inconvenient.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
You are like so many snowflakes that are incapable of thinking about anything outside their own brief existence on the planet. One hundred years is nothing in climatic terms, you dismiss the evidence because it's inconvenient.

Sent from my iPhone 10S

Of course 100 years ago is nothing in geologic time, fucking imbecile. Nobody claimed otherwise. It is eons ago in technological terms. That event you refer to was LOCAL in nature.

Once again, illiterate one. Find my posts where I address AGW. You can't, but you seem to want to return to that with ridiculous and irrelevant cut-and-paste horseshit. Take an Advil. It helps reduce the muscle aches from such stretches.
 
Of course 100 years ago is nothing in geologic time, fucking imbecile. Nobody claimed otherwise. It is eons ago in technological terms. That event you refer to was LOCAL in nature.

Once again, illiterate one. Find my posts where I address AGW. You can't, but you seem to want to return to that with ridiculous and irrelevant cut-and-paste horseshit. Take an Advil. It helps reduce the muscle aches from such stretches.

The warming period went from 1910-1940, yet you call that a local event!! This thread is about AGW so if you are not talking about it, why are you even posting?

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com...-2005-warming-identical-to-1910-1940-warming/

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Anyone who can look back over the past hundred years and take into consideration the constant stream of man-made automobile and factory emissions and various other forms of pollution that have been being pumped NON-STOP AND WORLDWIDE the entire time into the earth's atmosphere, yet still lacks the mental ability to even consider that all of that garbage just might very well be having a negative effect on it, is either a willing dupe of the pro-industry Repugnant Party, or just plain lacks the common sense God gave a turnip.
Gerber Globalists Go Googoo


Quit slurping up the baby food fed to you by your Zero-Growth Academic Gurus. "Pollution" (byproducts of progress and prosperity) is no more harmful than spitting in the ocean--but you high and mighty high-chair dictators will probably pass a law against that, too.
 
"Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.

Addressing climate change, providing economic opportunity and lifting billions out of poverty are complex and interrelated issues requiring complex solutions. There is a consensus that comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to these risks. "

Exxon

When your masters stop denying it, you last in line online nobody slaves can stop too. :palm:

Trustfundie Treehuggers. Green Is the Color of Their Daddies' Money

Using Greenie pretexts, Big Oil wants to raise profit margins and call them sin taxes. And shutting down development of potential oilfields creates artificial scarcities that lead to price-gouging by the petrocratic dynasties.
 
Hey idiot.. the Earth's atmosphere was designed to function with a certain natural CO² level. When you artificially increase that level, it doesn't take a genius to understand the high likelihood of a negative side effect.

But then again, you climate change deniers are as far from geniuses as it gets.
The Eco-Eunuch Elite Are B Students Jealous of A Students

The Warmalarmists' preachers are second-rate scientists not smart enough to get a job in productive industries. The fact that they are Bell Curve deniers explains why they desperately need to be respected for their warm and fuzzy preaching rather than for their IQs.
 
Of course 100 years ago is nothing in geologic time, fucking imbecile. Nobody claimed otherwise. It is eons ago in technological terms. That event you refer to was LOCAL in nature.

Once again, illiterate one. Find my posts where I address AGW. You can't, but you seem to want to return to that with ridiculous and irrelevant cut-and-paste horseshit. Take an Advil. It helps reduce the muscle aches from such stretches.
What's geology got to do with it, I'm talking about climate not the rocks in your head.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Consensus? An opinion is not science.

Human-Hating Vindictive Misfits Who Failed in the Real World

Just like a consensus of Baptist ministers would unanimously agree that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, it proves nothing, even though they have devoted their lives to studying the Bible. The Gaians are a religious cult and won't allow heresy to be spoken at their captive universities.
 
The warming period went from 1910-1940, yet you call that a local event!! This thread is about AGW so if you are not talking about it, why are you even posting?

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com...-2005-warming-identical-to-1910-1940-warming/

Sent from my iPhone 10S

I was referring to the article and citations YOU cited, idiot.

"As interesting as this nearly century-old article might be from a modern perspective, however, it isn’t substantive evidence either for or against the concept of anthropogenic global warming. As documented elsewhere, the warming phenomena observed in 1922 proved to be indicative only of a local event in Spitzbergen"

Don't even read your own bullshit, do you?
 
I can't help feeling that Dumber is pickled a fair amount of the time, certainly would explain his temper tantrums.

Sent from my iPhone 10S

I've kicked your ass on every account and you've misread or misconstrued most of them. You never did identify where the excess C came from in your cut-and-paste C/Co.

Poor little cut-and-paste clown.
 
What's geology got to do with it, I'm talking about climate not the rocks in your head.

Sent from my iPhone 10S

lol

You're going to try to split hairs between the notion of climatic time versus geologic time? Really? Even after posting that silly and irrelevant 100 year old article? Not even a shitty try at diversion. Is this the best you have to offer? Sad.

I must say, you may have poor reading skills and post a lot of horseshit, but you apparently gave big balls.
 
Last edited:
I was referring to the article and citations YOU cited, idiot.

"As interesting as this nearly century-old article might be from a modern perspective, however, it isn’t substantive evidence either for or against the concept of anthropogenic global warming. As documented elsewhere, the warming phenomena observed in 1922 proved to be indicative only of a local event in Spitzbergen"

Don't even read your own bullshit, do you?
Yes I read that and I knew that you'd hone in on it as well. So did this 'local event' last for thirty years just in Spitsbergen? It seems that the local event also affected places like Alaska as well, just how local is local in your opinion?

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/repeat-photography-of-alaskan-glaciers/

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
lol

You're going to try to split hairs between the notion of climactic time versus geologic time? Really? Even after posting that silly and irrelevant 100 year old article? Not even a shitty try at diversion. Is this the best you have to offer? Sad.

I must say, you may have poor reading skills and post a lot of horseshit, but you apparently gave big balls.
Do you understand the word braggadocio? That's​ you that is!

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Back
Top