TH3

Why should we have to tell you again ? read some of the links and educate yourself. and quit projecting your own (automatic) opposition to anything a conservative proposes. The links you provide rarely point to anything the GOP has to say that is not a rebuttal to Obama. Here is what the GOP has succeeded in in the last 14 years: The Bush tax cuts - which proved too much. Winning a lot of State houses in 2010 which lead to the great gerrymandering. Starting two wars which were unwarranted - and not paid for The prescription drug plan for seniors Repealing voting laws and introducing voting rules Getting the SC to repeal campaign finance laws which were almost unanimously passed by both houses. Fill me in on what I missed. Tell me how any of the above has improved your day to day life. Because of this complete lack of a pragmatic agenda to make the US federal government perform netter the GOP has got its ass kicked in the last two presidential elections and actually lost the popular vote in 2004. There is nothing that the GOP is showing that says it can win a POTUS election in 2016 against Hillary. So keep complaining and get ready for 8 years of Hillary. Going farther to the right is only going to further guarantee HC....the US people don't want 8 more years of DEM mush - but they appear to want it more than 8 years of the current GOP.

No one cares - except you - who has started a thread with your forum friends who seem to care quite a bit - by virtue of your time and energy putting the OP together - what he says. Tell me again what the GOP is proposing that is not simply a rebuttal to the DEMs.....

Maybe we should too....

What are you master of? Clearly not the obvious. Why are Pats in playoffs because they are the luckiest freaking team in the world drafting maybe the greatest QB ever in the sixth round....

The people I know who are disability - on maybe 4-6 - extended family members - are not disabled. Small sample - total scammers - best part is - they consider themselves "conservatives".....

"0What the hell are you talking about - capital flowing freely. JHC! You're an idiot.™" In what era was capital more accessible? I love it....if Obama has an impact on your life its your own fault....but nevertheless you talk about him all the time scouring websites to link to and complain.....BHO OWNS YOU CLOWNS!!

Worse snub.........liberals must hate Lego People too.....

After 6 years I find it sad that "thinkers" about today's society still seem mesmerized by Obama's every move - thinking that he has some great hand that holds them back - all day every day. Like you get up in the morning and set out to be economic and every day there is a new hurdle from Obama (that he has schemed all night to invent) - thrown in your way. Today's economy has never been more open, capital has never flowed more freely, the principles of Friedman never been more in place, and yet you guys obsess over Obama. That is a tough way to go through your day. BTW - I didn't vote for him - and don't think he is a very good president, and I am hardly what one would call a liberal - so save your one liners.

speechless....

Sheesh - I haven't wasted my time to read all this thread - but people are actually dissecting whether the pope is a communist or just a socialist? Maybe - maybe he is the leader of one of the largest religions on earth and is preaching for the less lucky. I am an atheist (there goes a label!) and I can't help but truly be impressed with him. I notice in his quotes he is not especially espousing the exact means to which the impoverished get to a better life - but that society should endeavor for it. Should any society - whether it is libertarian or capitalistic or the current mess that we seem to have - have a metric of its success to raise the bottom - eliminate as much poverty and sickness as possible? He is also the first pope in recent time to preach inclusion....not exclusion....

ttyt - Who is your role model? What Libertarian society has existed and flourished? You seem obsessed with labels...

If society does not create the above - what are we all doing here?

There you go. All settled. Its a hoax. We can move along!!

If I was the new owner not only would the name be gone but I would remove his name from all Bills records. Guy decapiated 2 people including the mother of his kids.

And on top of that those damn GW hoaxer's constantly cherry pick data points!!!

Defense of DDT is laughable. What you see as correlation most see proven as cause and effect. If increased CO2 from 220 to 400 ppm in a controlled environment causes raised temperatures in a controlled environment under UV (proven) - one really would almost have to disprove that the same isn't happening in atmosphere...

All pollutants identified as not cool that were vigorously defended by business interests, segments of the public, and experts who collectively paid off the government and contributed to dissuade the science that showed the problems with their use. They were all banned or curtailed - and in spite of the warnings and wailings that society and business simply could not survive without them - both society and business turned out to better without them. @wacka - Not a liberal - worse - I am an engineer

Tobacco, lead in gas, DDT, sulpher, ozone, asbestos....

Yes! - Tried to find a link to that sketch but couldn't. Look - I am all for discussing things but three times I presented a simple equation and asked what elements were in question - as the OP called GW a HOAX (are the elevated temperatures a HOAX or are you referring to human contribution?) Someone said "All" - OK Disputing that the elevated CO2 levels is attributable to humans. I see that as a straightforward calculation. Disputing that elevated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere cause temperature raise (or lower O levels). You see this as dubious - I don't. Now that things are clarified I simply refer to comedy as an allegory to how I see the situation!

This reminds me of the Chappelle skit with the OJ and R Kelly trials...

This board kills me - very few want to address simple questions - artists of deflection. @ DC - Yes I understand. I am not skeptical of the basics that humankind has elevated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, I am not skeptical that higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will retain more radiant heat, and I am not skeptical that these two elements have resulted in higher temperatures on earth. I am not skeptical that 2014 was the warmest on earth as long as we have been keeping track. As well, most of the scientific community is not skeptical. All these elements are seem directly measurable (mankind CO2 input into atmosphere, how much fossil fuel we have burned, the resulting elevation in CO2, CO2's ability to retain radiant heat, the elevated temperatures). If people are skeptical of these - as the OP threw out the label HOAX in his thread title - I am wondering which of these 3-4 elements of global warming he is skeptical of. He said "all" - so I am not sure what to say to that as they all seem rather simple and non-political. Perhaps you could shed some light on where the skepticism comes from.

@ DC - Most of the Scientific community is not skeptical of that simple equation - one can argue what the implications are and what the future will look like and the cost benefit analysis of making changes to our energy supply structure - but most scientists I would for lack of a better word "rely on" agree on that simple equation. @ Az - Not sure what to say - most of that equation is High School Science and seems relatively easy to get ones arms around.

What part of the equation that I laid out are you skeptical of?

Or I was driving and using my phone. Listen - if you are gonna be an OP challenging a subject such as GW surely you Google "2014 Warmest" and see the 50 or so articles referencing that subject and choose which source you are either going to believe or disbelieve. That action would probably take less time and effort than responding to a post. Weak posting is firing up an opinion merely for the purpose of picking a fight with your already cemented opinion. GW: Temps have raised in correlation with CO2 rises. Take two aquariums - one with 220 PPM CO2 and one with 400 PPM - put in sun and monitor temps. Add up all the fossil fuels we have burned and see how it has raised the C02 content in the atmosphere. You say you are a skeptic - not sure what in the above equation warrants skepticism - perhaps you can separate the math from the politics and show me the cracks in the science.