Guess its not that big of deal. 2yrs, more than likely "longer" before the "once again" obama whitehouse imposed regulations are implemented.
Even more big talk for something that will get thrown out once obama is gone.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/27/white-house-to-propose-rule-giving-states-free-rein-to-meet-emission-reduction/?intcmp=latestnews
What happened to OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOW?
Meanwhile... What exactly has this administration done to actually help the American people?
U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds
U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds
The same thing they ALL do. It's *** politics man.
inb4 Its Bush's fault you right wing, racist, uneducated, grammar less, tin foil hat wearer that can't spell.
Altimaomega said: »
Meanwhile... What exactly has this administration done to actually help the American people?
I'm liking my healthcare tbh. Saved me like 4k when I had to go to the emergency room.
[+]
Ahh the "It doesn't help me so it's horrible and does absolutely nothing" plea. Gotta love it.
I gotta keep this thread going somehow. This is pure gold.
I gotta keep this thread going somehow. This is pure gold.
Climate change leading into Obamacare.
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
Climate change leading into Obamacare.
Let me see if see if I can make the correlation...Obama was born in Hawaii which is near the ocean which is being warmed which could be ruined by global warming caused by SUV drivers in Texas that oppose him.
The Bush Dynasty strikes again!
[+]
Altimaomega said: »
Guess its not that big of deal. 2yrs, more than likely "longer" before the "once again" obama whitehouse imposed regulations are implemented.
Even more big talk for something that will get thrown out once obama is gone.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/27/white-house-to-propose-rule-giving-states-free-rein-to-meet-emission-reduction/?intcmp=latestnews
What happened to OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOW?
Meanwhile... What exactly has this administration done to actually help the American people?
Even more big talk for something that will get thrown out once obama is gone.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/27/white-house-to-propose-rule-giving-states-free-rein-to-meet-emission-reduction/?intcmp=latestnews
What happened to OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NOW?
Meanwhile... What exactly has this administration done to actually help the American people?
Not to mention that he's attempting to decentralize something, which is to your own mantra and yet you still *** about it. Thanks for showing your true colors yet again.
How long ago was it that you were giving me ***for pointing out that Koch Industries has a vested interest in turning public opinion against climate change?
Both sides have exploitative ***, news to nobody.
Both sides have exploitative ***, news to nobody.
Alarmist need to get paid too. You have any idea the work it takes to get everybody all worked up over something you know they're not going to do anything but argue about anyway?
So in order to understand issues related to climate change and defense, the government enlisted experts in climate change and/or defense. (Nowai!) Should we have asked a group of dentists instead?
The sad thing is that even if one doesn't subscribe to the (well-substantiated and established) theory that climate change was induced and further exacerbated by human activity there's still cause for concern that a large-scale environmental disturbance, like global warming, will cause new conflicts or strain existing ones thus creating a need for updated national defense strategies. But no, it's better just to bury the whole thing and let god sort it out later.
The sad thing is that even if one doesn't subscribe to the (well-substantiated and established) theory that climate change was induced and further exacerbated by human activity there's still cause for concern that a large-scale environmental disturbance, like global warming, will cause new conflicts or strain existing ones thus creating a need for updated national defense strategies. But no, it's better just to bury the whole thing and let god sort it out later.
I'd rather the military spend time and money cleaning up garbage island rather than the government wasting money on 'educating' people on something they don't care about anyway.
Or we could just give the military some justification toinvade help other countries with the pretense of 'fixing' climate change.
One option can be beneficial while the other has a history of being counterproductive to help drive profits and put other nations into debt.
Or we could just give the military some justification to
One option can be beneficial while the other has a history of being counterproductive to help drive profits and put other nations into debt.
Odin.Zicdeh said: »
How long ago was it that you were giving me ***for pointing out that Koch Industries has a vested interest in turning public opinion against climate change?
Both sides have exploitative ***, news to nobody.
Both sides have exploitative ***, news to nobody.
Funny you failed to mention this while using the koch brothers as an argument. Guess it didn't fit into your agenda at the time huh.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
So in order to understand issues related to climate change and defense, the government enlisted experts in climate change and/or defense. (Nowai!) Should we have asked a group of dentists instead?
The sad thing is that even if one doesn't subscribe to the (well-substantiated and established) THEORY that climate change was induced and further exacerbated by human activity there's still cause for concern that a large-scale environmental disturbance, like global warming, will cause new conflicts or strain existing ones thus creating a need for updated national defense strategies. But no, it's better just to bury the whole thing and let god sort it out later.
The sad thing is that even if one doesn't subscribe to the (well-substantiated and established) THEORY that climate change was induced and further exacerbated by human activity there's still cause for concern that a large-scale environmental disturbance, like global warming, will cause new conflicts or strain existing ones thus creating a need for updated national defense strategies. But no, it's better just to bury the whole thing and let god sort it out later.
sigh..
Sorry your link was worthless. A nice example of throwing a bunch of weak associations into the trough, sprinkling in some buzzwords like climate alarmism, and feeding it to their audience who neither understands climate related issues nor cares if they do.
I'm not advocating that government money be tossed at the problem indiscriminately but it's at the point where we're not even allowed to ask the *** question.
I'm not advocating that government money be tossed at the problem indiscriminately but it's at the point where we're not even allowed to ask the *** question.
[+]
Altimaomega said: »
Odin.Zicdeh said: »
How long ago was it that you were giving me ***for pointing out that Koch Industries has a vested interest in turning public opinion against climate change?
Both sides have exploitative ***, news to nobody.
Both sides have exploitative ***, news to nobody.
Funny you failed to mention this while using the koch brothers as an argument. Guess it didn't fit into your agenda at the time huh.
Or maybe I gave you too much credit. Only those of a hilariously infantile mind would ever assume one side of an argument is without fault.
I was going to say a few things, one was a "The Core" reference to the US and national defense, which made me giggle.
Another was a crack at a Batman and Robin joke, about Poison Ivy trying to get Bruce Wayne to make a bunch of changes, and he told her off saying that people come before plants, (some line about a lot of people would have died or whatever), then comparing it to that some people would like to make changes, but realize that it will take some time, some exist that think we need to stop everything and save the planet now, and those that think the two previous sides are one in the same, because their puppet masters tell them they are, because the puppet masters are themselves puppets of big oil.
inb4 Solyndra again.
Another was a crack at a Batman and Robin joke, about Poison Ivy trying to get Bruce Wayne to make a bunch of changes, and he told her off saying that people come before plants, (some line about a lot of people would have died or whatever), then comparing it to that some people would like to make changes, but realize that it will take some time, some exist that think we need to stop everything and save the planet now, and those that think the two previous sides are one in the same, because their puppet masters tell them they are, because the puppet masters are themselves puppets of big oil.
inb4 Solyndra again.
Altimaomega said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
So in order to understand issues related to climate change and defense, the government enlisted experts in climate change and/or defense. (Nowai!) Should we have asked a group of dentists instead?
The sad thing is that even if one doesn't subscribe to the (well-substantiated and established) THEORY that climate change was induced and further exacerbated by human activity there's still cause for concern that a large-scale environmental disturbance, like global warming, will cause new conflicts or strain existing ones thus creating a need for updated national defense strategies. But no, it's better just to bury the whole thing and let god sort it out later.
The sad thing is that even if one doesn't subscribe to the (well-substantiated and established) THEORY that climate change was induced and further exacerbated by human activity there's still cause for concern that a large-scale environmental disturbance, like global warming, will cause new conflicts or strain existing ones thus creating a need for updated national defense strategies. But no, it's better just to bury the whole thing and let god sort it out later.
sigh..
How are you still willfully refusing to learn the meaning of the word that you underlined?
You've been given links, people have explained it, and yet you're still clinging to an definition that everyone but you knows isn't accurate. You do this even if clinging to that definition proves that you lack an understanding of the basic words people are using for this discussion, and yet still want to be taken seriously.
Once again, scientific theory means PROVEN. It doesn't mean "guessed", it doesn't mean "maybe". It means it has been proven by people smarter than most of us, who have left their work behind for others to check and verify.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Sorry your link was worthless. A nice example of throwing a bunch of weak associations into the trough, sprinkling in some buzzwords like climate alarmism, and feeding it to their audience who neither understands climate related issues nor cares if they do.
I'm not advocating that government money be tossed at the problem indiscriminately but it's at the point where we're not even allowed to ask the *** question.
I'm not advocating that government money be tossed at the problem indiscriminately but it's at the point where we're not even allowed to ask the *** question.
Got your panties in a bunch about climate alarmism being used as a buzzword?
Global cooling, global warming, climate change, plus the new ones being thrown around climate disruption and climate chaos.
I am rather shocked to hear you say advocating TAXES indiscriminately isn't the solution. How do you think all this "research" gets done?
Leviathan.Tribalprophet said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
So in order to understand issues related to climate change and defense, the government enlisted experts in climate change and/or defense. (Nowai!) Should we have asked a group of dentists instead?
The sad thing is that even if one doesn't subscribe to the (well-substantiated and established) THEORY that climate change was induced and further exacerbated by human activity there's still cause for concern that a large-scale environmental disturbance, like global warming, will cause new conflicts or strain existing ones thus creating a need for updated national defense strategies. But no, it's better just to bury the whole thing and let god sort it out later.
The sad thing is that even if one doesn't subscribe to the (well-substantiated and established) THEORY that climate change was induced and further exacerbated by human activity there's still cause for concern that a large-scale environmental disturbance, like global warming, will cause new conflicts or strain existing ones thus creating a need for updated national defense strategies. But no, it's better just to bury the whole thing and let god sort it out later.
sigh..
How are you still willfully refusing to learn the meaning of the word that you underlined?
You've been given links, people have explained it, and yet you're still clinging to an definition that everyone but you knows isn't accurate. You do this even if clinging to that definition proves that you lack an understanding of the basic words people are using for this discussion, and yet still want to be taken seriously.
Once again, scientific theory means PROVEN. It doesn't mean "guessed", it doesn't mean "maybe". It means it has been proven by people smarter than most of us, who have left their work behind for others to check and verify.
So what your saying is global warming is 100% man-made and we should regulate-tax-ban everything that isn't green energy because global warming is PROVEN FACT?
Step up to the plate and say yes.
Altimaomega said: »
Leviathan.Tribalprophet said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
So in order to understand issues related to climate change and defense, the government enlisted experts in climate change and/or defense. (Nowai!) Should we have asked a group of dentists instead?
The sad thing is that even if one doesn't subscribe to the (well-substantiated and established) THEORY that climate change was induced and further exacerbated by human activity there's still cause for concern that a large-scale environmental disturbance, like global warming, will cause new conflicts or strain existing ones thus creating a need for updated national defense strategies. But no, it's better just to bury the whole thing and let god sort it out later.
The sad thing is that even if one doesn't subscribe to the (well-substantiated and established) THEORY that climate change was induced and further exacerbated by human activity there's still cause for concern that a large-scale environmental disturbance, like global warming, will cause new conflicts or strain existing ones thus creating a need for updated national defense strategies. But no, it's better just to bury the whole thing and let god sort it out later.
sigh..
How are you still willfully refusing to learn the meaning of the word that you underlined?
You've been given links, people have explained it, and yet you're still clinging to an definition that everyone but you knows isn't accurate. You do this even if clinging to that definition proves that you lack an understanding of the basic words people are using for this discussion, and yet still want to be taken seriously.
Once again, scientific theory means PROVEN. It doesn't mean "guessed", it doesn't mean "maybe". It means it has been proven by people smarter than most of us, who have left their work behind for others to check and verify.
So what your saying is global warming is 100% man-made and we should regulate-tax-ban everything that isn't green energy because global warming is PROVEN FACT?
Step up to the plate and say yes.
He's saying that you have been informed of your misuse of a scientific term repeatedly and continue to willfully misuse it. As for climate change, what credentials do you have that qualify you to challenge the findings of thousands of climate scientists? I'm going out on a limb and saying it's not your firm grasp of basic scientific method and terminology.
Odin.Jassik said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Leviathan.Tribalprophet said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
So in order to understand issues related to climate change and defense, the government enlisted experts in climate change and/or defense. (Nowai!) Should we have asked a group of dentists instead?
The sad thing is that even if one doesn't subscribe to the (well-substantiated and established) THEORY that climate change was induced and further exacerbated by human activity there's still cause for concern that a large-scale environmental disturbance, like global warming, will cause new conflicts or strain existing ones thus creating a need for updated national defense strategies. But no, it's better just to bury the whole thing and let god sort it out later.
The sad thing is that even if one doesn't subscribe to the (well-substantiated and established) THEORY that climate change was induced and further exacerbated by human activity there's still cause for concern that a large-scale environmental disturbance, like global warming, will cause new conflicts or strain existing ones thus creating a need for updated national defense strategies. But no, it's better just to bury the whole thing and let god sort it out later.
sigh..
How are you still willfully refusing to learn the meaning of the word that you underlined?
You've been given links, people have explained it, and yet you're still clinging to an definition that everyone but you knows isn't accurate. You do this even if clinging to that definition proves that you lack an understanding of the basic words people are using for this discussion, and yet still want to be taken seriously.
Once again, scientific theory means PROVEN. It doesn't mean "guessed", it doesn't mean "maybe". It means it has been proven by people smarter than most of us, who have left their work behind for others to check and verify.
So what your saying is global warming is 100% man-made and we should regulate-tax-ban everything that isn't green energy because global warming is PROVEN FACT?
Step up to the plate and say yes.
He's saying that you have been informed of your misuse of a scientific term repeatedly and continue to willfully misuse it. As for climate change, what credentials do you have that qualify you to challenge the findings of thousands of climate scientists? I'm going out on a limb and saying it's not your firm grasp of basic scientific method and terminology.
I was unaware credentials are needed to call *** on a theory that gains merit from data that is cherry picked to further the cause. My BAD.. Soo do I line up behind you to get my food now or is that spot reserved for some other sheep?
Oh ***, he called us sheep, game over, we lose.
[+]
Altimaomega said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Leviathan.Tribalprophet said: »
Altimaomega said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
So in order to understand issues related to climate change and defense, the government enlisted experts in climate change and/or defense. (Nowai!) Should we have asked a group of dentists instead?
The sad thing is that even if one doesn't subscribe to the (well-substantiated and established) THEORY that climate change was induced and further exacerbated by human activity there's still cause for concern that a large-scale environmental disturbance, like global warming, will cause new conflicts or strain existing ones thus creating a need for updated national defense strategies. But no, it's better just to bury the whole thing and let god sort it out later.
The sad thing is that even if one doesn't subscribe to the (well-substantiated and established) THEORY that climate change was induced and further exacerbated by human activity there's still cause for concern that a large-scale environmental disturbance, like global warming, will cause new conflicts or strain existing ones thus creating a need for updated national defense strategies. But no, it's better just to bury the whole thing and let god sort it out later.
sigh..
How are you still willfully refusing to learn the meaning of the word that you underlined?
You've been given links, people have explained it, and yet you're still clinging to an definition that everyone but you knows isn't accurate. You do this even if clinging to that definition proves that you lack an understanding of the basic words people are using for this discussion, and yet still want to be taken seriously.
Once again, scientific theory means PROVEN. It doesn't mean "guessed", it doesn't mean "maybe". It means it has been proven by people smarter than most of us, who have left their work behind for others to check and verify.
So what your saying is global warming is 100% man-made and we should regulate-tax-ban everything that isn't green energy because global warming is PROVEN FACT?
Step up to the plate and say yes.
He's saying that you have been informed of your misuse of a scientific term repeatedly and continue to willfully misuse it. As for climate change, what credentials do you have that qualify you to challenge the findings of thousands of climate scientists? I'm going out on a limb and saying it's not your firm grasp of basic scientific method and terminology.
I was unaware credentials are needed to call *** on a theory that gains merit from data that is cherry picked to further the cause. My BAD.. Soo do I line up behind you to get my food now or is that spot reserved for some other sheep?
You don't understand basic scientific concepts or terms, how do you get to call *** on anything? When you have some actual knowledge of the subject, you can question things. Regurgitating talking points, who's the sheep?
Ha, I didn't even notice his formatting of my post in his quote (probably because I was looking at it on my phone). That's rich.
The next episode of Cosmos promises some climate change shenanigans. Should be interesting to see if the right-wing tantrums against that can match the impotent rage of creationists over earlier content.
The next episode of Cosmos promises some climate change shenanigans. Should be interesting to see if the right-wing tantrums against that can match the impotent rage of creationists over earlier content.
[+]
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.