Ann Coulter Slams Trump for Proposed DACA Compromise for the Wall

[Michchamp]

Don't search for it, I made it up.

You blew a great opportunity to send him on a wild goose chase. :ashamed:

edit your post and I'll delete this one before he sees it

 

[Gulo Blue]

You blew a great opportunity to send him on a wild goose chase. :ashamed:

edit your post and I'll delete this one before he sees it

I doubt he'd look into it. He apparently has all the BS journals with obscured funding sources that he needs.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I remember the Bob Murray stuff with John Oliver. Court threw out Murray's case. Murray told the judge that it wasn't about him because he's a "dying old man", but Oliver was hurting his 6,000 employees - which is something I could maybe see someone saying to the press, but as a legal argument, I think it's a strange thing to try.



https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4420984-Unserved-Letter-by-Murray-Docketed-by-Court.html

 

[TheVictors]

I had heard the take that sea levels rising was a natural occurrence not caused by man and I had heard that it was all part of God's plan but I hadn't heard that sea levels weren't actually rising at all.

....because they are?

 

[Spartanmack]

I doubt he'd look into it. He apparently has all the BS journals with obscured funding sources that he needs.

I prefer the non chicken little types like William Happer and Ivar Giaevar and the 31,000+ scientist who signed the petition project over people who think consensus and quantity of peer reviewed articles (funded by climate alarmists who only fund projects that promote climate alarmism), are part of the scientific method.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I prefer the non chicken little types like William Happer and Ivar Giaevar and the 31,000+ scientist who signed the petition project over people who think consensus and quantity of peer reviewed articles (funded by climate alarmists who only fund projects that promote climate alarmism), are part of the scientific method.

Do William Happer or Ivan Giaevar think the sea level hasn't been rising?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Hang on, 31,000+ that don't think quantity is important?


That's actually a good joke.

 

[TheVictors]

I've never understood those who feel the need to deny what's clearly happening to the planet. As if there is some profit to be made off of killing Earth ....by those concerned with it happening.

 

[Spartanmack]

Do William Happer or Ivan Giaevar think the sea level hasn't been rising?

I don't know and I don't care because that's not really the point and I'm not about to get into another pedantic argument where you nit pick every line item of what they believe. They're skeptics of man made climate change so if they believe the seas are rising, they probably don't think it's due to human activity.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I don't know and I don't care because that's not really the point and I'm not about to get into another pedantic argument where you nit pick every line item of what they believe. They're skeptics of man made climate change so if they believe the seas are rising, they probably don't think it's due to human activity.

How is that a nik pick!? You're off your rocker on this one. I haven't seen climate change deniers claim the sea levels haven't been rising. If you point to a bunch of climate change deniers to explain why you think the sea levels haven't been rising, it's not pedantic or nit picking to point that out.

 

[Spartanmack]

Hang on, 31,000+ that don't think quantity is important?


That's actually a good joke.

poorly worded. that's not a consensus argument, it's a refutation of the 97% consensus claim - that would put the total number of scientists who believe climate change is man made at a little over 1mm. The separate and more substantial argument is that consensus doesn't mean much, if anything - it's a rather unscientific argument.

 

[Gulo Blue]

poorly worded. that's not a consensus argument, it's a refutation of the 97% consensus claim - that would put the total number of scientists who believe climate change is man made at a little over 1mm. The separate and more substantial argument is that consensus doesn't mean much, if anything - it's a rather unscientific argument.

Do you have a go-to scientific argument? A recent paper?

 

[Spartanmack]

How is that a nik pick!? You're off your rocker on this one. I haven't seen climate change deniers claim the sea levels haven't been rising. If you point to a bunch of climate change deniers to explain why you think the sea levels haven't been rising, it's not pedantic or nit picking to point that out.

you're reading something I didn't say.

 

[Gulo Blue]

you're reading something I didn't say.

You think grilling hotdogs counts as a barbecue.

 

[Gulo Blue]

But the question I'm asking, Spartanmack, is why you don't think sea levels are rising. I don't doubt that there are anthropogenic climate change deniers. That's old news.

 

[Spartanmack]

You think grilling hotdogs counts as a barbecue.

I love both and have known the difference since I was a kid and I didn't have to move to North Carolina to learn it.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I love both and have known the difference since I was a kid and I didn't have to move to North Carolina to learn it.

Nice, the old rubber/glue defense (already debunked in this case). We all know you're a Spartan and therefore, still have to use the terminology incorrectly with your friends.

 

[sggatecl]

I've never understood those who feel the need to deny what's clearly happening to the planet. As if there is some profit to be made off of killing Earth ....by those concerned with it happening.

They won't be alive to be proven wrong so it's better to toe that party line.

And even if they were, they'd clutch their bible or make up some bullshit to make themselves feel better. The party of feelings and anecdotes.

 

[Gulo Blue]

They won't be alive to be proven wrong so it's better to toe that party line.

And even if they were, they'd clutch their bible or make up some bullshit to make themselves feel better. The party of feelings and anecdotes.

copy/paste the steps, you can sub out warming for other things and I think it holds:

1. CO2 is not actually increasing.
2. Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.
3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.
4. Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.
5. Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth's climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.
6. Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it's too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.

 

[KAWDUP]

copy/paste the steps, you can sub out warming for other things and I think it holds:

1. CO2 is not actually increasing.
2. Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.
3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.
4. Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.
5. Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth's climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.
6. Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it's too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.

What percentage of the population do you think those excuses cover?