Have you ever met a climate change denier?

observer of nutjobs wrote:

"The national debt under Obama increased more than it did under ALL 43 previous presidents. End of Story!"

What a wonderfully stupid way to analyze this.

1. The national debt under Reagan increased more than it did under ALL 39 previous presidents. End of Story!

2. The national debt under GWB increased more than it did under ALL 42 previous presidents. End of Story!

It doesn't take a genius to figure out why this is the case ... but apparently it takes more smarts than you have. Both Reagan and GWB oversaw larger increases of debt percentage-wise than Obama.

In fact the federal deficit has steadily decreased during Obama's term from the massive first year deficit inherited from the GWB budgets.

But of course you knew that, you were just being intellectually dishonest.

Like I said, he's a moron with zero integrity - terrific combination.

observer of nutjobs wrote:

Both Reagan and GWB oversaw larger increases of debt percentage-wise than Obama.

You really care about debt to previous debt ratio? Because that would mean going from $1 to $3 debt is somehow worse than going from $10 trillion to $20 trillion.

US Taxpayer wrote:

I wish the Democrats were as concerned about the unsustainability of the US budget deficit as they are about the threat of climate change. Perhaps that's a way to negotiate for addressing both problems.

I am an Independent, 100 percent concerned about out of control fossil fuel use and it's affects on the environment and climate change, and the resulting out of control budget. Were the government not so invested in the antiquated fossil fuel industry and with giving our money to their already very rich buddies, the economy would be in a more reasonable state.

Due to the lack of good choices, I'm a voter without a viable candidate to vote for.

u hve been lied to entire life wrote:

https://holocaustdeprogrammingcourse.com/

I was prepared to take a quick test, but it's a cumbersome web site and I'm not going to waste time reading through all that.

Chin up and Pull up champ wrote:

Schweik wrote:

"Children will not know what snow is..."

"Snow will be a rare and exciting event..."

Actually, Egypt had snow for the first time in over 100 years.

This proves climate change is real, and is caused by human activity.

Chin up and Pull up champ wrote:

Schweik wrote:

"Children will not know what snow is..."

"Snow will be a rare and exciting event..."

Actually, Egypt had snow for the first time in over 100 years.

Pretty sure about 8-10 years ago Tasmania had snow on Christmas day (in the middle of summer)

It's a conspiracy between the oil companies and scientists to not sell fossil fuels and not make any money from it.

Wait, what?

The ability to control deficits is a phenomenon of the real interest rate on us government bonds, Democrats favor loose monetary policy (lower interest rates and higher money supply growth) thus they pay the bills through a secret taxation on money (and bracket creep into higher frozen tax rate thresholds). Paul Samuelson had to admit that Reagan's deficits were a phenomena of the real interest rate. Had the real interest rate been the same for him as other Presidents there would have been no deficits. Many libertarians cite Eisenhower as an increaser of spending as a % of gdp, but when he can into office debt was above 100% of gdp and trend inflation was 5% but long term bonds were being suppressed at 2.5%, adjusting this to a more sustainable 2% inflation and 4% on long term bonds naturally required more spending as a % of gdp to service debt.

I watched one of those ancient alien documentaries today on Hulu and then I watched a 9/11 truth documentary. Unfortunately I was tired so I dozed off for a nap. Anyway, supposedly the ice on Mars is melting so that fact points out that there is a solar-system wide climate change issue due to sun cycles and other forms of ET radiation.

Republicans suck at getting deficits under control.

Democrats suck at getting deficits under control.

Anyone who disagrees with exactly one of these facts is a party hack - blinded by faith.

Anyone who disagrees with both of these facts has a sub-human IQ.

Why does it bother you if I tell you I'm not that concerend about it? Now some idiots are saying that I'm a climate change denier. Here is how I responded to them.

Climate change is all BS. What about glaciel periods that come and go, as recently as 10000 years ago. Did those glaciers melt because of man made climate change? The great Lakes were formed by glaciers that melted twenty thousand years ago.

The political idea of this is BS and mainly about money and power. People are easily misled and manipulated. Same people who have to upgrade to the latest iPhone each year. They are easily influenced by marketing and what is trendy. Climate change is trendy.

I don't believe in climate change for the same reason I don't believe in God, because there is no evidence of it. The closest thing environmentalists have to an argument is an appeal to authority--claiming I must believe it because the "experts" say it's true and I should be conforming with the "consensus." Other than that they pretty much just name call. Anyone with a little intellectual independence and the most basic thinking skills should be able to see through them.

Um, who gets the money and the power from all this?

FEELS GOOD MAN wrote:

Anyone with a little intellectual independence and the most basic thinking skills should be able to see through them.

That is the problem with Duped Dunces. They have no intellectual independence or thinking skills. They go by whatever these Climate "scientists" (a/k/a political slaves) and it is very embarrassing to observe.

rojo wrote:

Cornell grad_ wrote:

Have you ever met a climate change denier?

Did I ever coach you at Cornell? Please email if so. I've never taken a course on the subject and would like to hear someone smart give me the facts. So please email me.

Until I get the facts from you, I guess my main thought on climate change is this. I'm worried about us all dying in a heat wave - a nuclear heat wave. The people who think we'll all die due to global warming clearly don't understand statistics. The odds of a nuclear holocaust wiping us all out in the next 200 years are way greater than climate change killing us in 1000.

And I doubt I'll be alive to see either occur.

We've already seen the first deaths due to climate change!

In 200 years the world WILL be affected by climate change. We won't all die -- we'll move to higher ground, we'll build dykes and levees, and for some of us that will be easier than others (screw poor people amirite).

In 200 years the world MIGHT be affected by nuclear weapons. It's far less of a certainty than climate change.

gadsdafgda wrote:

We've already seen the first deaths due to climate change!

The number of climate-related deaths has plummeted in the last half century as the use of fossil fuels has increased. Greater energy abundance gives mankind greater resources with which to combat the dangers posed by the natural environment.

In 200 years the world WILL be affected by climate change. We won't all die -- we'll move to higher ground, we'll build dykes and levees, and for some of us that will be easier than others (screw poor people amirite).

speculation, not fact

Small Oil wrote:

Um, who gets the money and the power from all this?

Mainly Democrats. They are the party of climate change fear to scare up votes and donations.

FEELS GOOD MAN wrote:

I don't believe in climate change for the same reason I don't believe in God, because there is no evidence of it. The closest thing environmentalists have to an argument is an appeal to authority--claiming I must believe it because the "experts" say it's true and I should be conforming with the "consensus." Other than that they pretty much just name call. Anyone with a little intellectual independence and the most basic thinking skills should be able to see through them.

Wait, let me see if I've got this straight.

You don't believe in climate change because only those who really know what they're talking about (i.e., thousands of scientists who study this) have any real evidence. But laymen who don't spend their professional efforts studying this can only point to the experts (i.e., "appeal to authority").

So you are waiting for the non-experts to provide you with the evidence rather than the actual experts?

Do I have that right?