DJL

The Democrat politicians I have on my FB feed echo your sentiment in their statements. I really hope they're not dumb enough to go through with impeachment and are just playing to the crowd to for the purposes of the election. If they're smart they'll create some sort of campaign where they make people feel empowered by voting him out.

So....you know that there are OSHA guidelines as to acceptable CO2 levels in work spaces, right? That's not the literal comparison they're making but the similarity sure strikes a chord.

I'm with you on the shit or get off the pot approach to this and I'm saying they should get off the pot and take it into elections. Now to be fair to the D's, they didn't hold the House until recently so if they had brought up proceedings and they got voted down then that would be the end of the matter. The R's DID hold the House in Clinton's term so there was nothing stopping them, all they had to do was file and go and fill in the details later. So, since we know this is all about politics I say bring that energy into the elections. If he's impeached then D's feel like they got their job done and R's are pissed. When Clinton was impeached the R's lost many seats and that would likely happen again while at the same time now the R's can hand pick a centrist President to run in this election.

Fucking golden.

I was listening to the radio today, they were talking about Barr and whether he lied and whether that meant legal action against him. I gauran-fucking-tee you that there's a room full of people right now figuring out how to get Trump to go under oath in testimony about what Barr said.

I think I have twin turbine cancer but my doctor keeps calling it tinnitus.

To take this back to topic, I don't agree with many aspects of the GND but it's doing it's job of driving the right to the center at the same time as there are more and more examples of the economic benefits both in the short and long term of eliminating fuel sources that have a long term VERY tangible economic impact.

Nonsense, we can get still some glue and leather out of this one....

Ah yes, the guy who said that losing the Ozone layer was not an issue. Good to see him still getting air time.

I don't know that an "anonymous source" from an article in "Daily Wire" is the best place to get your material from. That's a fairly sensationalist newspaper. Click through to the source article and it spends more time explaining why that report is very illogical.

I don't use this word often but.......DUDE. Are you seriously using Michael Crichton and material from his book "State of Fear" to support your points? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!HE'S A FUCKING FICTION NOVEL WRITER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SELLING HIS FICTIONAL BOOK ABOUT ECO-TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Edited: To make these ^^^ thingies line up right.

At what degree of change do you think it's an issue and over what time period?

Bill, you just want Americans to die because ambulances are pulled by unicorns.

Beto who..... I saw the video, she has a solid future narrating children's books if the political thing doesn't pan out.

You know, I'll have to meet you in the middle on this one considering I responded thinking I was in the "Global Warming Ended..." forum. While I'm not a huge fan of the GND I understand that some of its goals are based upon the fact that measures we put into place can't marginalize those who are the least able to prioritize its overall goals. We can't have $10/gal gas, we can't have $100k electric cars but I don't think the social salvation items are necessary for us to turn the ship around and I don't think that "the Left" as a whole feels that way either. However, I don't think that even what they say about equates to government control of our lives, Trillions wasted, or even that the statements above are all that alarmist. Even R Senator Lamar Alexander says we need to treat our plan like a modern Manhattan Project.

Hey to be fair about the Bin Laden fake pictures, there's also this: https://www.businessinsider.com/1993-independent-article-about-osama-bin-laden-2013-12

Who you calling an oxy moron?!?!

Would you rather rely on street interviews with people being asked a question that isn't about the issue?

No, that's what your denier talking point fringe sources are telling you about what Democrats think so you can dismiss it as libtards being panicked and triggered little brainless bitches who can't man up and burn oil like grandpa did. You have yet to make a reasoned and valid point so you have to resort to that kind of hyperbole. Edit: So again, where is your body of research showing that there is not risk to the environment and our national and global interests based upon the man made effects of global warming? (And to be clear, we did graduate to actually understand that these are man made, right? We don't have to go back to discussing whether this is just some sort of natural cycle?)

It's making the rounds in the denier world so they're all worked up about it (Totally not parroting denier talking points). I posted a PDF copy of it from the wattsup page above.

I think a good benchmark of the dangers of climate change is that the US Navy has a strategy in place for its effects. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017/october/war-plan-orange-climate-change

No. What he's saying is that climate change makes weather events more severe. That's not conflating. Conflating would be saying that one or even a series of storms is proof for or against the effects of climate change, which is what you're doing with your snowstorms in Chicago or the UK statments. It's not negative that I'm asking you to prove because it's not something for which it's impossible to gather data. "Your side" people AND the entire global scientific community IS ACTUALLY collecting that data and it all says the same thing. What you're unable to show is data that refutes it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist because there's no way to know, it mean it doesn't exist because that's not what the data proves. Huge difference. You're accusing me of parroting talking points when you just spent the morning defending the denier world's fad story of the week. Give me a break. Let's recap again, you've been fed this article from the year 2000 that said snow is decreasing in the UK with a fairly sensational headline that "Snow will be a thing of the past". The gotcha quote from Viner doesn't even support that headline because he says snow will become "a very rare and exciting event" and that "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time." Now, if you wouldn't mind, can you provide your source that the globe has been cooling for the last three years? Edit: Let me guess, you're going to compare it to the 2015-2017 period in which we saw consecutive historically warm years. Again, to avoid conflating weather and climate those three years aren't necessarily proof of global warming. However, they are indicators that the effects of global warming added to the effects of warmer El Nino years.

Here's what he's quoting from Obama's State of the Union Address. Tell me what's wrong: "Now, we know that no single weather event is caused solely by climate change. Droughts and fires and floods, they go back to ancient times. But we also know that in a world that’s warmer than it used to be, all weather events are affected by a warming planet. The fact that sea level in New York, in New York Harbor, are now a foot higher than a century ago -- that didn’t cause Hurricane Sandy, but it certainly contributed to the destruction that left large parts of our mightiest city dark and underwater. The potential impacts go beyond rising sea levels. Here at home, 2012 was the warmest year in our history. Midwest farms were parched by the worst drought since the Dust Bowl, and then drenched by the wettest spring on record. Western wildfires scorched an area larger than the state of Maryland. Just last week, a heat wave in Alaska shot temperatures into the 90s. "

Must have missed it. What are you talking about? Edit: Also, sorry to say but you're still only posting one source, and a source that has been thoroughly exposed as a fraudster.

So to summarize this, you're accusing everyone of believing the hype BUT YOU'RE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING!!! You're on the bandwagon with this article you found that's going viral in the denier world and you can't even digest it accurately. The guy said in a partial quote that snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event" and that "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time." So what's your point? Nobody said there wouldn't be snow or snow storms, they said that they would be less frequent and they will probably cause chaos. Didn't you just post an article in which a snowstorm caused chaos? ....