Climate Scam
-
so, whoreta, woody and ole shep have been science deniers. I told them that for so many years.
-
-
-
Pete Buttigieg spent $59K on taxpayer-funded private jets, audit
Story by Jake Beardslee. ā¢ 2mo ā¢ 2 min read. An audit by the Department of Transportationās inspector general revealed that SecretaryĀ Pete ButtigiegĀ and his staff spent close to $59,000...
-
-
Looking at nearly 50 years of temperature data from the South Pole.
-
HEY WOODY ! DON'T RUN AND PECK FROM THAT LAST POST !
-
Buttigieg shows that speaking out of his ass is a nonexclusive skill he shares with hubby ....
-
-
"the woodpecker's illegals have suffered the most from the climate change emergency, so they will be allowed to vote before Americans do"
-
Thereās a term in media reporting where if a topic has ālegsā it means that itās a topic that can absorb gobs and gobs of stories that continue to capture the publicsā attention. Iām astounded that the topic of global warming has such magnificent legs.Ā
I dunno guys. I suppose my official stance on the matter is āmaybe itās a thing, maybe not, time will tellā, and lām totally content with that position. We now have hour plus long documentaries that itās NOT a thing, and presumably hour plus documentaries that it IS a thing. I think weāre teetering on the edge of absurdity here. Al Gore man, however did you stumble upon this?
I honestly think anymore itās less about science and more about politics. Just a sticking point to get people arguing with one another.
Case in point, weāre a good 16 posts in here with the āitās not a thingā crowd, but zero posts from the āit is a thingā crowd. Youāre arguing with echoes here guys.Ā
My theory is the average voter who likes some aspect of nature, whether it be hiking or hunting or bird watching or sticking your dick in mole hills, l would wager many of them donāt have the time or patience to hang with the wealth of information out there on this topic. Or they may be like me and they simply table their opinion for a future time.
All they know is global warming has something to do with preserving nature, and if thatās something they keep in mind when voting, itās a +1 for democrats.Ā
Republicans, aka the āconservativesā, SHOULD be the ones in the +1 for nature category, but theyāre not. Because democrats have them chasing their tails over global warming and theyāre pretty good at floating ideas that might be good for the environment. Republicans are constantly playing defense and their offense sucks in that area.Ā
Iām confident that this is a contributing factor to the public perception that the democrats are the pro-environment party.Ā
-
pointing out the ridiculous science in the minds of the left is not arguing echoes...
and protecting our wallets against world players that want control isnt wasted time,Ā Ā
the posts here contrarilyĀ may be the red pill for some of the low info voters the left covets .Ā
-
Thereās a term in media reporting where if a topic has ālegsā it means that itās a topic that can absorb gobs and gobs of stories that continue to capture the publicsā attention. Iām astounded that the topic of global warming has such magnificent legs.Ā
I dunno guys. I suppose my official stance on the matter is āmaybe itās a thing, maybe not, time will tellā, and lām totally content with that position. We now have hour plus long documentaries that itās NOT a thing, and presumably hour plus documentaries that it IS a thing. I think weāre teetering on the edge of absurdity here. Al Gore man, however did you stumble upon this?
I honestly think anymore itās less about science and more about politics. Just a sticking point to get people arguing with one another.
Case in point, weāre a good 16 posts in here with the āitās not a thingā crowd, but zero posts from the āit is a thingā crowd. Youāre arguing with echoes here guys.Ā
My theory is the average voter who likes some aspect of nature, whether it be hiking or hunting or bird watching or sticking your dick in mole hills, l would wager many of them donāt have the time or patience to hang with the wealth of information out there on this topic. Or they may be like me and they simply table their opinion for a future time.
All they know is global warming has something to do with preserving nature, and if thatās something they keep in mind when voting, itās a +1 for democrats.Ā
Republicans, aka the āconservativesā, SHOULD be the ones in the +1 for nature category, but theyāre not. Because democrats have them chasing their tails over global warming and theyāre pretty good at floating ideas that might be good for the environment. Republicans are constantly playing defense and their offense sucks in that area.Ā
Iām confident that this is a contributing factor to the public perception that the democrats are the pro-environment party.Ā
Thereās a term in media reporting where if a topic has ālegsā it means that itās a topic that can absorb gobs and gobs of stories that continue to capture the publicsā attention. Iām astounded that the topic of global warming has such magnificent legs.Ā
I dunno guys. I suppose my official stance on the matter is āmaybe itās a thing, maybe not, time will tellā, and lām totally content with that position. We now have hour plus long documentaries that itās NOT a thing, and presumably hour plus documentaries that it IS a thing. I think weāre teetering on the edge of absurdity here. Al Gore man, however did you stumble upon this?
I honestly think anymore itās less about science and more about politics. Just a sticking point to get people arguing with one another.
Case in point, weāre a good 16 posts in here with the āitās not a thingā crowd, but zero posts from the āit is a thingā crowd. Youāre arguing with echoes here guys.Ā
My theory is the average voter who likes some aspect of nature, whether it be hiking or hunting or bird watching or sticking your dick in mole hills, l would wager many of them donāt have the time or patience to hang with the wealth of information out there on this topic. Or they may be like me and they simply table their opinion for a future time.
All they know is global warming has something to do with preserving nature, and if thatās something they keep in mind when voting, itās a +1 for democrats.Ā
Republicans, aka the āconservativesā, SHOULD be the ones in the +1 for nature category, but theyāre not. Because democrats have them chasing their tails over global warming and theyāre pretty good at floating ideas that might be good for the environment. Republicans are constantly playing defense and their offense sucks in that area.Ā
Iām confident that this is a contributing factor to the public perception that the democrats are the pro-environment party.Ā
The problem here is that man made climate change is a money/power grab. The problem is that politicians will use for excuses to tax more and make more regulations that don't affect what they will lie about.
Any normal person cares about protecting the environment, but it's not the same as pretending man made climate change exists they way politicians portray it.
How are conservatives not for nature? Not talking about politicians.
-
I would say far more conservatives are hunteres, fishermen, campers and hikers and care very much about nature.
It seems that the "man made global warming" hucksters changed to "global warming" to "climate change" because they
kept making fools of themselves with dire predictions and UN-sponsored, leftwing political encouraged "crises".
Then as a last resort, they go with conservation, pollution and water quality, etc.
Even if we went with draconian, outrageous measures, with china, russia, north korea and India - it would make no difference.
The UN wants our money so they can hand it out. They don't give a crap that china and india etc violate their
"mmgw" demands.
It's redistribution of wealth, and power and control over those countries with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.Ā
-
Thereās a term in media reporting where if a topic has ālegsā it means that itās a topic that can absorb gobs and gobs of stories that continue to capture the publicsā attention. Iām astounded that the topic of global warming has such magnificent legs.Ā
I dunno guys. I suppose my official stance on the matter is āmaybe itās a thing, maybe not, time will tellā, and lām totally content with that position. We now have hour plus long documentaries that itās NOT a thing, and presumably hour plus documentaries that it IS a thing. I think weāre teetering on the edge of absurdity here. Al Gore man, however did you stumble upon this?
I honestly think anymore itās less about science and more about politics. Just a sticking point to get people arguing with one another.
Case in point, weāre a good 16 posts in here with the āitās not a thingā crowd, but zero posts from the āit is a thingā crowd. Youāre arguing with echoes here guys.Ā
My theory is the average voter who likes some aspect of nature, whether it be hiking or hunting or bird watching or sticking your dick in mole hills, l would wager many of them donāt have the time or patience to hang with the wealth of information out there on this topic. Or they may be like me and they simply table their opinion for a future time.
All they know is global warming has something to do with preserving nature, and if thatās something they keep in mind when voting, itās a +1 for democrats.Ā
Republicans, aka the āconservativesā, SHOULD be the ones in the +1 for nature category, but theyāre not. Because democrats have them chasing their tails over global warming and theyāre pretty good at floating ideas that might be good for the environment. Republicans are constantly playing defense and their offense sucks in that area.Ā
Iām confident that this is a contributing factor to the public perception that the democrats are the pro-environment party.Ā
The problem here is that man made climate change is a money/power grab. The problem is that politicians will use for excuses to tax more and make more regulations that don't affect what they will lie about.
Any normal person cares about protecting the environment, but it's not the same as pretending man made climate change exists they way politicians portray it.
How are conservatives not for nature? Not talking about politicians.
The problem here is that man made climate change is a money/power grab. The problem is that politicians will use for excuses to tax more and make more regulations that don't affect what they will lie about.
Any normal person cares about protecting the environment, but it's not the same as pretending man made climate change exists they way politicians portray it.
How are conservatives not for nature? Not talking about politicians.
Yessir, a voting capital power grab. And itās been working like a charm for something like 20 plus years.Ā
You really gotta tip your cap to the democrats over this shit. Wasnāt there some kerfluffle about Biden trying to pass some sort of ridiculous EV mandate recently? Thatās how they do it man. Keep the republicans on defense.
And yes, lām pretty sure itās one of those things weāre squarely united on. Clean air, clean water, all good stuff. But this manufactured sticking point has effectively eroded the republican partyās opportunity to show that because they and their constituents are chasing their tails over the validity of global warming.Ā
-
I don't quite frame it the way you do.
I see it as a major lefty, hippie viewpoint, not so much democrat. The thing with democrats(politicians) today though is they fall in line with anything that gets them votes, money or power. Dems don't even give a crap about man made climate change.
I don't see republicans doing much of anything about it. Why would they? The same power the dems grab is the same power they will have.
I think what got this ball rolling were a bunch of 'experts' that needed their funding extended convinced some dipshit named Gore and he fell for it hook line and sinker. If you watched his presentation it definitely was convincing. Except, not a single thing he said or fear mongered came true.
Why would the repubs be on the defensive over something they don't care about either? They're just the same as the dems; votes, money and power.
It's like somebody already said, Kennedy says a lot of good things and is entertaining, but his votes don't back up his words. Not many if any are looking out for us or what's best for the environment. Look how the FDA and our gov't handled the opioid epidemic. The teflon case, heck East Palestine. A major toxic chemical spill and the only people showing up were politicians grabbing a photo op. What did any of them do with the national guard and fema and everything at their disposal to help? They don't care and they're inept.
I don't think this crap is smoke and mirrors. Just look at toilets, they reduce the amount of water they flush, and it keeps going down. It's not progress or helping the environment. Now they want to restrict washers. I don't know, I'm not seeing your point exactly though I'm trying.
Let's say you're right if I'm understanding you correctly, why lie or play games with repubs? Why do we allow this from people that need to be honest and open? Why isn't running on your merit or the facts enough?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better š
Register Login