Any doubts about Climate Change?

**bsnub** · 04-07-2016, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

See, nobody can be that utterly dim-witted with out actually trying. Surely??

Well actually I don't think he is trying. That's the tragic thing.

He is not faking it sadly. The man is just seriously dimwitted.

**Takeovers** · 04-07-2016, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Maybe you can enlighten me on the stupidity of my post.

For a lasting learning experience you really need to figure that one out yourself. Come on, you can. Or maybe you can't. In that case it's not worth it spelling it out to you.

Edit: fixed quote

**bsnub** · 05-07-2016, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by Takeovers

In that case it's not worth it spelling it out to you.

Exactly.

**pulvarien** · 05-07-2016, 11:14 PM

Goebbels and the Nazis perfected the art of the big lie and using it to brainwash the low information masses. The Warmunists, n Koreans etc are big fans. In this thread you see how they endlessly repeat their propaganda, pounding their message into the minds of those who never check or don't have the time to check it, while they scream don't read anything else that might make you think.

Climatedepot has an interesting article on corn farmers who were polled in the US and how only 8 per of them believe in man made global warming, 92 percent are omg deniers. Those morons only live outside in the climate all day long 6 or 7 days a week and are truly attuned to long term weather trends. Now the average green lives in a box and only leaves to enter smaller mobile boxes which take them to larger boxes repeated endlessly where they spend their lives. Climate is something they go to extreme lengths to distance themselves from. And all their information comes from boxes within larger boxes not from reality which they do their best to distance themselves from while they point fingers at it and scream incessantly. And whats more they try to hide the fact that the insides of their boxes are red not green.

Climate depot has also a section of topics listed on the right hand side of lesser interest tho to me often more interesting.

**AntRobertson** · 06-07-2016, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Goebbels and the Nazis perfected the art of the big lie and using it to brainwash the low information masses. [...] In this thread you see how they endlessly repeat their propaganda

Quite:

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Climatedepot

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Climate depot

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Climatedepot.com

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Climatedepot.com

Originally Posted by pulvarien

climatedepot.com

Originally Posted by pulvarien

climate depot.com

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Climatedepot.com

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Climatedepot.com

Originally Posted by pulvarien

...

I'm on to you, Fritz!

**pulvarien** · 07-07-2016, 07:45 AM

Today was an interesting day looking at climatedepot.com, first there were 2 articles one about there were 770 scientific articles written since 2014 that are clearly against the global warming created bye man green campaign. The 2nd is that there have been 240 scientific articles so far this year about the same topic. The point here is how the Khmer greens try to make it look like its a wall of science supporting global warming. There was an interesting article a few months ago about US govt spending to universities or institutes that support global warming and how its increased from approx. 200 million a year to 2.3 billion a year under the current administration, but of course this only goes to those who agree with global warming not those against, oh the fairness in science under the democrats, just adding this so those not in the know understand how the dem/green allaiance has tried to buy science.

Then theres a very interesting article today about how certain democratic attorney generals are trying to rewrite transparency laws in their states to hide their actions and those of their lackeys in formulating a Rico campaign against the deniers.

The point of these articles and me bringing their attention to you is to show how the dems and greens are trying to silence opposing views, and scientific dissent. If the science is overwhelming on their side why are they doing any of this? That point alone should have the alarms going off in your head. Nowhere in all science is this stance taken except on the question of global warming. This clearly demonstrates the politics involved. Its a question of money/future huge energy based taxes on the common man which will impoverish the poor. The pollution laws they want to install will drive thousands of companies and millions of jobs overseas to countries which laugh at the idea of co2 pollution. But this is part of the plan for the socialist internationalist welfare system they want to create. This will also impoverish even more the western countries as millions more jobs are exported. But the poor are easier to control aren't they now?

Climatedepot.com a website that over a decade totally changed my view of the world, whats going on and my personal fight against it. The point is the greens are watermelon greens, green on the outside, cut it in half and its RED, not all of them of course, not the multitudes of lower level greens who are true believers, but the top echelon who guide their actions for sure. Just like the millions of german soldiers fighting for Nazi germans who didn't really know what they were fighting for. Saddddddd

**AntRobertson** · 07-07-2016, 07:49 AM

You're either a troll or a shill for this Climatedepot.com aren't you.

Either way you're looking kinda dumb for constantly trying to propagate a discredited source.

Facts matter, even if you're personally not that bothered with them.

**Jesus Jones** · 07-07-2016, 08:47 AM

There's climate change, alright! Damn humans and their consumption. Lower birth rate, that's what I say.

Which bright spark politician decided it was the right thing to do and ship in thousands of immigrants kicking out 3/4 sprogs!

**S Landreth** · 07-07-2016, 09:20 AM

The Antarctic ozone hole has finally started to ‘heal,’ scientists report

In a major new paper in the influential journal Science, a team of researchers report strikingly good news about a thirty year old environmental problem. The Antarctic ozone “hole” — which, when it was first identified in the mid-1980s, focused public attention like few other pieces of environmental news — has begun, in their words, to finally “heal.”

“If you use the medical analogy, first the patient was getting worse and worse, and then the patient is stabilized, and now, the really encouraging thing, is that the patient is really starting to get better,” said MIT atmospheric scientist Susan Solomon, lead author of the study, and former co-chair of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

And moreover, that patient — the Earth’s vital ozone layer — is getting better directly because of our choices and policies.

The initial, Nobel Prize winning discovery that ozone depleting chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) — carried in refrigerants, spray cans, foams and other substances — could damage the stratospheric layer that protects us from ultraviolet solar radiation (and thus, skin cancer) came in 1974. But it wasn’t until the sudden discovery of a vast seasonal ozone “hole” over Antarctica in 1985 that the world was shocked into action.

The so-called “hole” refers to a region of the stratosphere over Antarctica, between about 10 and 25 kilometers in altitude, where “the ozone gets destroyed completely,” explains Solomon, who conducted the new research with scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Leeds in the UK. However, some ozone remains above and below this region, amounting to a 40 or 50 percent loss of atmospheric ozone overall in a very large area of air.

Ozone has been depleted in the stratosphere all across the globe, to be sure. But Antarctica in the spring (which is autumn in the northern hemisphere) presents uniquely conducive conditions for it to happen, as extremely cold polar stratospheric clouds provide a surface that enables the chemical reactions in which destructive forms of chlorine are created.

Discovery of the “hole” galvanized action and in 1987, the Montreal Protocol, which is still today hailed as the epitome of a successful environmental agreement, led to a phase out of the use of ozone depleting chemicals. It’s a case that now appears so very different from the story of climate change, because everything basically functioned like it was supposed to — scientists identified a problem, the public grew concerned, and politicians acted to solve it.

Snip

The precise lesson to draw here, though, is less than clear. On the pessimistic side, you could say that the contrast basically proves that a modest-sized global environmental problem can be solved by the world, while a mega-sized one is another matter entirely.

“On the scale of things this was a different type of problem,” said Solomon. “It was an industry measured in the billions, not the trillions.”

Yet Solomon says the evidence that the Antarctic ozone hole is finally getting better makes her optimistic about our capacity to ultimately come to grips with climate change as well.

“Technology and innovation can do miraculous things,” she said. “We still have air conditioners, we still have refrigerators, we still have hair spray, for crying out loud. We didn’t have to give up much, and yet we got to a state in which the atmosphere is much better off, and we’re better off.”

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

There's climate change, alright! Damn humans and their consumption. Lower birth rate, that's what I say.

Which bright spark politician decided it was the right thing to do and ship in thousands of immigrants kicking out 3/4 sprogs!

Tell us again, how many children have you fathered and do you give them names or numbers?

**Umbuku** · 07-07-2016, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by pulvarien

770 scientific articles written since 2014 that are clearly against the global warming created bye man green campaign

None of which are published in accredited scientific journals. Since 2014 there has been one article suggesting an alternate hypothesis for the current warming, and it was written by a Russian who works for the oil industry, and it was crap.

**Jesus Jones** · 07-07-2016, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by S Landreth

The Antarctic ozone hole has finally started to ‘heal,’ scientists report

In a major new paper in the influential journal Science, a team of researchers report strikingly good news about a thirty year old environmental problem. The Antarctic ozone “hole” — which, when it was first identified in the mid-1980s, focused public attention like few other pieces of environmental news — has begun, in their words, to finally “heal.”

“If you use the medical analogy, first the patient was getting worse and worse, and then the patient is stabilized, and now, the really encouraging thing, is that the patient is really starting to get better,” said MIT atmospheric scientist Susan Solomon, lead author of the study, and former co-chair of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

And moreover, that patient — the Earth’s vital ozone layer — is getting better directly because of our choices and policies.

The initial, Nobel Prize winning discovery that ozone depleting chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) — carried in refrigerants, spray cans, foams and other substances — could damage the stratospheric layer that protects us from ultraviolet solar radiation (and thus, skin cancer) came in 1974. But it wasn’t until the sudden discovery of a vast seasonal ozone “hole” over Antarctica in 1985 that the world was shocked into action.

The so-called “hole” refers to a region of the stratosphere over Antarctica, between about 10 and 25 kilometers in altitude, where “the ozone gets destroyed completely,” explains Solomon, who conducted the new research with scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Leeds in the UK. However, some ozone remains above and below this region, amounting to a 40 or 50 percent loss of atmospheric ozone overall in a very large area of air.

Ozone has been depleted in the stratosphere all across the globe, to be sure. But Antarctica in the spring (which is autumn in the northern hemisphere) presents uniquely conducive conditions for it to happen, as extremely cold polar stratospheric clouds provide a surface that enables the chemical reactions in which destructive forms of chlorine are created.

Discovery of the “hole” galvanized action and in 1987, the Montreal Protocol, which is still today hailed as the epitome of a successful environmental agreement, led to a phase out of the use of ozone depleting chemicals. It’s a case that now appears so very different from the story of climate change, because everything basically functioned like it was supposed to — scientists identified a problem, the public grew concerned, and politicians acted to solve it.

Snip

The precise lesson to draw here, though, is less than clear. On the pessimistic side, you could say that the contrast basically proves that a modest-sized global environmental problem can be solved by the world, while a mega-sized one is another matter entirely.

“On the scale of things this was a different type of problem,” said Solomon. “It was an industry measured in the billions, not the trillions.”

Yet Solomon says the evidence that the Antarctic ozone hole is finally getting better makes her optimistic about our capacity to ultimately come to grips with climate change as well.

“Technology and innovation can do miraculous things,” she said. “We still have air conditioners, we still have refrigerators, we still have hair spray, for crying out loud. We didn’t have to give up much, and yet we got to a state in which the atmosphere is much better off, and we’re better off.”

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

There's climate change, alright! Damn humans and their consumption. Lower birth rate, that's what I say.

Which bright spark politician decided it was the right thing to do and ship in thousands of immigrants kicking out 3/4 sprogs!

Tell us again, how many children have you fathered and do you give them names or numbers?

I have no guilt, but the ones preaching and doing eff all are comical! How about you, what's your contribution other than hot air?

Told you before, I have done my part and I have no doubt more than most preachers on this subject which is hyper hypocritical!

Solar power on my properties with the exception of one to be done by year's end.

My place in Khao Yai 80% self-sufficient including water generation. Shit, it sounds like I am boasting but despite my feeling on the subject I put my money where my mouth is.

I understand it must be hard to accept by forum superior intellects such as Ant and Co, and the keyboard boy who will who has already labelled me as a prepper.

Go on, keep using your reusable shopping bags!

**pulvarien** · 08-07-2016, 06:13 AM

There is a brilliant article bye professor Tim Ball entitled Are environmentalism and global warming effectively religious socialism. And the follow up response comments have been huge in discussion on the article. Massive give and take, discection, cross section, vivisection. Well worth reading except bye the religion mentioned members. Socialism, communism, Nazi socialism no holds barred. Originally posted on whatsupwiththat wuwt.com but I read it on oh no not that site again climatedepot.com. For some reason it has disappeared on climatedepot but is still available on wuwt.com use search for the title , are environmentalism and global warming effectively religious socialism.
Once again I shall be roasted bye those who brook no opposition to their master plan for the socialist elite to rule the lower masses who prefer football to paying attention to reality.https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/...ous-socialism/

**MrG** · 08-07-2016, 07:16 AM

Perhaps this "brilliance" has a link...?

**pulvarien** · 08-07-2016, 07:25 AM

The first link I had has poofed but its available at wuwt.com , use search and the title I posted above its dated feb 21st 2016. The website that is not supposed to be named here because it originated in the Necronomicon according to the the Khmer green.https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/...ous-socialism/

**AntRobertson** · 08-07-2016, 07:50 AM

Obvious troll is being obvious.

**bsnub** · 08-07-2016, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Tim Ball

Is not a climate scientist but a retired geologist. He should stick to studying rocks because he knows fuck all about climate science oh and by the way he is also affiliated with the Heritage foundation. Yes that Koch funded foundation that all of the so called denialist "scientists" seem to be affiliated with. The same foundations that claims that cigarettes don't cause cancer. More bogus crap from the long debunked site "climatedepot".

You are one well balanced person when it comes to gathering information to make a conclusion.

**S Landreth** · 14-07-2016, 05:04 PM

JMA June 2016

The monthly anomaly of the global average surface temperature in June 2016 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.41°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.76°C above the 20th century average), and was the warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.70°C per century.

Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)

1st. 2016, 2015 (+0.41°C), 3rd. 2014 (+0.33°C), 4th. 2010, 1998 (+0.26°C)

______________

Arctic sea ice crashes to record low for June

From mid-June onwards, ice cover disappeared at an average rate of 29,000 miles a day, about 70% faster than the typical rate of ice loss, experts say

The summer sea ice cover over the Arctic raced towards oblivion in June, crashing through previous records to reach a new all-time low.

The Arctic sea ice extent was a staggering 260,000 sq km (100,000 sq miles) below the previous record for June, set in 2010. And it was 1.36m sq km (525,000 sq miles) below the 1981-2010 long-term average, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

That means a vast expanse of ice – an area about twice the size of Texas – has vanished over the past 30 years, and the rate of that retreat has accelerated.

Aside from March, each month in 2016 has set a grim new low for sea ice cover, after a record warm winter.

______________

A new study in Nature Climate Change led by Mark Richardson in collaboration with Kevin Cowtan, Ed Hawkins, and Martin Stolpe accounts for these differences to make an apples-to-apples comparison. They find that the use of sea surface temperatures biases the Otto result low by about 9%, and the lack of Arctic observations by another 15%. When observations are adjusted to estimate surface air temperatures, or when models are adjusted to estimate land-ocean surface temperatures, the estimated transient climate response from climate models and the Otto approach are in close agreement.

snip

Bad news for the “skeptic” case

In a recent court case, the world’s largest private sector coal company made its best case against the need to take action on climate change. Their witness testimony relied upon two primary claims – that climate models are wrong and Earth’s climate sensitivity is low, which led them to conclude that carbon pollution is lovely.

This new research shows that their arguments are on even weaker footing than previously thought. When comparing apples to apples, climate models accurately simulate global surface temperature changes, and the evidence for lower climate sensitivity failed to withstand scientific scrutiny and the test of time. The coal company lost its case, and we’re now at the point where we have no excuse to continue delaying action on climate change.

We’re also left with the question, when evaluating dangerous global warming, should we consider measured land-ocean temperatures, or faster-warming air temperatures? As Ed Hawkins notes, if we decide climate targets refer to the latter, it puts us about 24% closer to dangerous thresholds. Thus the climate situation may be even more, not less urgent than previously believed.

_______________

Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Table of Events

________________

We just broke the record for hottest year, nine straight times

Earth’s record hottest 12 consecutive months were set in each month ending in September 2015 through May 2016

2014 and 2015 each set the record for hottest calendar year since we began measuring surface temperatures over 150 years ago, and 2016 is almost certain to break the record once again. It will be without precedent: the first time that we’ve seen three consecutive record-breaking hot years.

But it’s just happenstance that the calendar year begins in January, and so it’s also informative to compare all yearlong periods. In doing so, it becomes clear that we’re living in astonishingly hot times.

June 2015 through May 2016 was the hottest 12-month period on record. That was also true of May 2015 through April 2016, and the 12 months ending in March 2016. In fact, it’s true for every 12 months going all the way back to the period ending in September 2015, according to global surface temperature data compiled by Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way. We just set the record for hottest year in each of the past 9 months.

Now that climate denial’s bread and butter arguments are toast, November’s US elections will be critical in determining whether the country continues along the path of climate leadership established by President Obama, or allows the oil industry’s puppet party to continue peddling long-debunked myths in order to delay climate action and put future generations at risk.

With global warming constantly breaking temperature records, and dozens of scientific organizations warning policymakers that “To reduce the risk of the most severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must be substantially reduced,” we can no longer use ignorance as an excuse.

_____________

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

There's climate change, alright! Damn humans and their consumption. Lower birth rate, that's what I say.

Which bright spark politician decided it was the right thing to do and ship in thousands of immigrants kicking out 3/4 sprogs!

Tell us again, how many children have you fathered and do you give them names or numbers?

I have no guilt, but the ones preaching and doing eff all are comical! How about you, what's your contribution other than hot air?

Told you before, I have done my part and I have no doubt more than most preachers on this subject which is hyper hypocritical!

Solar power on my properties with the exception of one to be done by year's end.

My place in Khao Yai 80% self-sufficient including water generation. Shit, it sounds like I am boasting but despite my feeling on the subject I put my money where my mouth is.

You would like that but it isn’t going to happen. I remember you started a weak thread a couple years ago that quickly died off asking everyone the same question, but this awareness campaign (thread) remains and will continue to be a constant reminder to the science deniers/conspiracy theorists that are constantly be shot down with science/facts about the harmful effects of Anthropogenic Global Warming of which you don’t believe.

Must irritate you to know when a post is made on this thread and you and your type are reminded how wrong you are and have been over the years.

By the way,….80% is a nice start. Let us know (on your thread) when the power company starts sending you a check back at the end of the year (for more electricity you generate than use). Maybe when part of your covey leaves the nest?

**pulvarien** · 15-07-2016, 03:26 AM

Today England deleted their dept of global warming called decc. How could the greenest country in Europe go to the least overnight? What am I missing? Nothing.

In the news today china announced spending another 150 billion on coal power, story in the daily caller. Brazil suffering from such cold weather they lost up to 70 percent of their banana crop. Of course news like this wont be allowed to be printed in left wing papers so those readers will never hear of this.

**Neo** · 15-07-2016, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by pulvarien

What am I missing?

**RPETER65** · 15-07-2016, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Tim Ball

Is not a climate scientist but a retired geologist. He should stick to studying rocks because he knows fuck all about climate science oh and by the way he is also affiliated with the Heritage foundation. Yes that Koch funded foundation that all of the so called denialist "scientists" seem to be affiliated with. The same foundations that claims that cigarettes don't cause cancer. More bogus crap from the long debunked site "climatedepot".

You are one well balanced person when it comes to gathering information to make a conclusion.

It seems as though your post begs the question, are you a published climate scientist?

**pulvarien** · 16-07-2016, 12:03 AM

Some of the more interesting articles on climatedepot.com today are on Cold kills 61,000 cattle in peru, 37 people froze to death in peru reported the day before. People in S Austrailia pay up to $14,000 per mwh for rewable electricity, whereas normal fossil fuel costs there are 100 per mwh. The New York Times has had scare articles about how large an area are covered bye forest fires in the states this year, they had articles in 1937 which had twice the area covered bye forest fires, the new York times climate fraud called out bye the New York times, furthermore that very point on the extent of the forest fires being proof of global warming was pushed bye those here as definitive proof. Yet it is the NYT itself putting the lie to their proof. Just as the repeated scare tactics on global reef bleaching happening over and over demonstrated that that was just a repeating world pattern not the end of the world being driven bye people. These articles prove the lie that climatedepot.com has been debunked because they use the very sources pushing global warming to prove their false creed, the NYT story from 1937 here.

Lots of other articles too, those are all listed on the right hand side under 411. Notice how left wing media never covers extreme cold weather news they just ignore it and most of you never hear of it not realizing its happening too. All there stories are scare, scare, scare based, trust us, surrender to us, we will solve it all when absolutely nothing is happening except constant warnings from those I trust that we may just be slipping into a mini ice age not global warming. Time will tell.

**S Landreth** · 20-07-2016, 05:20 AM

NOAA’s number for June 2016

June Was The 14th Straight Hottest Month On Record

This past June, once again, was the hottest June on record, according to data released Tuesday from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). June 2016 was 1.62°F hotter than the average global land and ocean temperatures.

_______________

Some carbon dioxide info

CO2 Growth Rate

**pulvarien** · 20-07-2016, 06:36 AM

You must remember that 3 govt depts were given to the greens in the democratic party to get their votes, noaa is one of the 3. All data coming from noaa is suspect because it must past their green leaders whims first. For ex there are 2 independent satellite temperature reporting organizations that totally disagree with noaa.

The epa is what I know best and once again I will demonstrate how corrupt it has become under obummers demorat govt. Under obummer their have been 3 green heads of the epa. The first 2 were forced to resign, the first for setting up an illegal secret communication network within the us govt linking greens inside and outside the us govt. That individual returned to the sierra club I believe. The 2nd was forced to resign over the embarrassment of massive corruption. Solyndra is the biggest example they donated small amounts to the obummer relection campaign and then got massive govt guaranteed loans, solyndra got 1 billion and after cashing in they immedietly went bankrupt. An amazing return on your money a few million for obummer and a cool billion in profit, why work for your money when the demrats give you a return on your investment this fast and just a few months.
Now the 3rd is in power and once again a hard core green. The best info I saw on her on climate depot were 2 utube videos of her testifying before congress. In both similar lines of questioning got similar answers. If we did all your asking and put millions out of work, and pushed 10s of millions into energy/job poverty all that we would accomplish would be push the temperature of the world down bye .1 of a degree bye the year 2100, so why should we do what the epa asks, and she answered saying it would be justified as a symbolic act.

The greens have declared war on the people.

**pulvarien** · 20-07-2016, 07:54 AM

What one must realize first is that this is not a monolithic group with one unified set of goals. They have made an allaiance with very diverse goals.

First lets look at the extreme democrat/socialist left, these are largely the group that are sent to the global warming meetings all over the world. [Couldn't these meetings be done pollution free on skype]? That alone puts the lie to these organizations. One of the points they try to keep out of the press is the negotiations to tax the west bye the figure of approx. 100 billion a year that will be sent to the 3rd world to save them from global warming. In fact this is just cover for world wide international socialism. Then there is the simple fact that the debt in the US is sooooo high they are desperate for massive new sources of taxation to keep themselves afloat. And what better a form of taxation then we must save the world. Of course this must all be justified bye endless end of the world scare stories. Plus theres nothing that far left govts like more then a powerless populace and making them much poorer will certainly make them more submissive.
Now to put 100 billion a year in some corrupt organizations hands ie the UN passing it out to corrupt 3rd world govts would certainly guarantee massive kickbacks to those doleing it out, if no kick backee then no money to youu. Imagine a 100 billion dollar slush fund in the hands of the left elite [scumbag elite].

Now lets talk about the average green. They are True Believers, they are out to save the world. Just they never tell the ordinary joe that what they want to save the world from is THEM. And that those who are the chosen few who will survive will be the greens. Once you take a look at green literature you realize just how ruthless they intend to be if they get into power and they will make hitler mao and stalin look like chumps. An average figure they put the worlds population at that they like is 1 billion and that means 6 out of 7 people must be ummm deleted to put it nicely. That explains why the current head of the epa is happy that all epa regs put into effect will only reduce world temps bye .1 degree in the next 80 years, its not about pollution reduction its about human reduction. And that will just be the start. Lets not get into their positions on GMO and pesticides which if made illegal world wide would cause probably a billion to starve in the first year alone. And on and on it goes but like the left wing media lets not talk about what they really want to do and who is going to win and whos going to lose. /lets do like the left wing media and go out of our way to hide just what the greens want.

Theres a few points to start the ball rolling. The denials and insults will come fast and furious but just look up the big time greens and their writings and contrast that with their jet set, high pollution, anti green life styles. Man its just endless.

**AntRobertson** · 20-07-2016, 08:01 AM

Obvious and tedious troll is being obvious and tedious again.

Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Thread Tools

Display

Are environmentalism and global warming effectively religious socialism.

What are the demo/greens real goals.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions