He's going to act as a spoiler and get dotard donald back in the White House? Is that how he is a "White Knight"? Or are YOU going to vote for him. That's the ONLY way he could be a "White Knight". By pulling votes away from dotard and HELPING Joe Biden get re-elected.
If he is going to run, it should be as a republican. The Democratic party is pro-vaccine and anti-Putin. He has zero chance of becoming the Democratic POTUS nominee. Given this, he obviously wants dotard donald back in the White House. That, or he has completely lost his marbles.
He's actually VERY appealing, except for his environmentalism. My only concern is that he may be a trojan horse candidate. A "stalking horse" for the US IC.
A "conservationist" like tRump? aka your "conservation" is in regards to profits for polluters? More pollution (rendering Mother Nature less pure) conserves profits.
Qtard: Like Demonrats pollute less. You are part of that same civilization -- that produces a lot of shit and disperse it in the air and water.
i.v. comment. "You are part of that same civilization"... Yes, Democrats and republicans coexist. So What? Democrats are FOR protecting the environment and reducing pollution. republicans are not. Proven by the fact that they always want to roll back laws to allow more pollution. As tRump did.
Qtard: And... planning even to ENLARGE it. Under brand New Green.
Bullshit. Democrats aren't planning on polluting more and calling it "new green". Democrats support renewable clean green energy.
Of course "Demonrats" pollute less. "Demonrats" don't exist, so the amount they pollute is zero. As for Democrats, the research says Democrats have a lower carbon footprint and pollute less.
"...left leaning states tended to have lower CO2 emissions per capita than right leaning states" (Source: US City vs State: The relationship between political leaning on carbon emissions per capita...).
"The researchers, economists Dora Costa and Matthew Kahn, controlled for household demographics, climate conditions, electricity prices, and the age and size of homes... And the effect is even more pronounced when we divide liberals into registered Democrats and Green Party members. Relative to registered Republicans, Democrats consume 5.1 percent less electricity, and Green Party members 15.5 percent less. That gap grows wider in the summer, with Democrats consuming 6.6 percent less energy than Republicans, and Green Party members 19.1 percent". (Source: How Your Politics Influence Your Household's Carbon Footprint).
\\Yes, Democrats and republicans coexist. So What? Democrats are FOR protecting the environment and reducing pollution. republicans are not. Proven by the fact that they always want to roll back laws to allow more pollution. As tRump did.
That is... just a propaganda.
In reality, Demn-aligned industry is same way (or even more, cuase -- hypocrites) dirty and polluting. ;-P
\\Bullshit. Democrats aren't planning on polluting more and calling it "new green". Democrats support renewable clean green energy.
Yap. Yap. Yap.
Like you KNOW. And can explain. What that shine green words: "renewable", "clean", "green" even mean.
Naah. That's just Propaganda. ;-P
Reality -- debt ceiling breakthrough. For the sake of Economy Growth.
Piece of trivia to you -- that is EXACTLY that Economy Growth -- that created and keep piling up that pollution.
Now with anti-COVID masks and mRNA vaccines. ;-P
THAT IS all and only result. Of that "renewable clean green energy."
Cause -- Hypocrisy.
\\ As for Democrats, the research says Democrats have a lower carbon footprint and pollute less.
And who did that researches?
Oh, yes, demn-aligned "scientists" and "experts". ;-P
Well... go explain that "carbon footprint". With owm words.
But you CAN't. Cause you are i.v. Mere puppet who like that gramophone repeats Demn-Propaganda. ;-P
Qtard: That is... just a propaganda. In reality, Demn-aligned industry is same way (or even more...) dirty and polluting.
There is no "Demn-aligned" industry. There is also no Democrat-aligned industry. Industry is profit-aligned. Calling data, research and analysis by experts propaganda does not refute it. Except in the mind of an i.v. like Qtard.
Qtard: Like you KNOW. And can explain. What that shine green words: "renewable", "clean", "green" even mean. Naah. That's just Propaganda.
What is your evidence that these words are "just propaganda"? What facts can Qtard present that proves "that's just propaganda"? None? I thought so. Qtard thinks saying "that's just propaganda" IS proof. Because he is an i.v.
Qtard: And who did that researches? Oh, yes, demn-aligned "scientists" and "experts".
Zero facts presented by Qtard. Again. Just ad hominem. With placement of quotes around "scientists" and "experts" Qtard thinks he has refuted my evidence. Because he is an i.v.
Qtard: you are i.v. Mere puppet who like that gramophone repeats Demn-Propaganda.
You are a FM (fucking moron) who believes labeling evidence "Demn-propaganda" refutes it. No need to present facts that might prove any counter argument. No counter argument presented. Qtard thinks none is needed. Just say "Demn-propaganda" and all facts thusly labeled are immediately proven wrong.
Whenever Qtard sees evidence he does not like but can NOT refute, the primal scream "Demn-propaganda" escapes his lips. He is unable to present a counter argument. He believes he does not need to present a counter argument. Because he is a FM.
\\There is no "Demn-aligned" industry. There is also no Democrat-aligned industry. Industry is profit-aligned.
Yeah? And how do we call it -- when some big industry making donation into Democratic Party election funds? ;-P
\\Calling data, research and analysis by experts propaganda does not refute it.
Like you EVER presented here any DATA. Or analysis, for at least.
There always was only refs to some "listen to that people, they are experts" and "you cannot doubt their words, cause they are experts", and "you cannot ask for actual data they based there 'researchs' on, cause... just because", and "you cannot ask about methods and logical structures they used for that analysis (if there was one, and just inventing questions for already known answers -- like, that Demns have 'lower carbon furprint')". ;-P
\\Qtard: Like you KNOW. And can explain. What that shine green words: "renewable", "clean", "green" even mean. Naah. That's just Propaganda.
\\What is your evidence that these words are "just propaganda"?
EXACTLY that what I already said -- CAN YOU reveal meaning of that words?
No. You can't.
And nobody can.
Because that is meaningless slogans.
And who like to use minigless slogans? Propaganda. Captain Obvious as ever ready to explain such an Obviousness. To you. ;-P
\\Zero facts presented by Qtard. Again. Just ad hominem. With placement of quotes around "scientists" and "experts" Qtard thinks he has refuted my evidence. Because he is an i.v.
I am glad that you learned to use MY methods of argumentation. :-)))) With this you admitted my superiority. But well, as I using strictly logical and rational methods, and want nothing else from my opponents -- that is good thing.
But yeah... you stil too early to USE em successfully.
Cause you still just a mindless i.v. :-))))))))))))
\\No counter argument presented.
YOU just can't see it.
Cause you are i.v.
Who do not know Logic. And cannot grasp even what FACTs is.
Even AFTER I repeated many-many simple and easy to understand DEFINITION: open, obvious, self-evidant ref to Reality.
That mean.
All your cawing like "You are a FM (fucking moron)" proves only one thing -- that you are still and always and nothing else but uneducated and non-teachavle i.v. ;-P
But no prob. That is what makes it so much fun. :-))))))))))))
Qtard: And how do we call it -- when some big industry making donation into Democratic Party election funds?
While ALSO making donation into Republican Party election fund? It is called buying influence.
There are companies that release pollution into the environment and donate exclusively to Democrats? Because they believe they have a better chance of convincing Democrats to ease off regulations and allow them to pollute more? Name some.
Qtard: Like you EVER presented here any DATA. Or analysis, for at least.
I am not a researcher with the expertise to analyze data. Neither is Qtard. Yet the dummy asks for raw data. As if it would mean anything to him. I *did* present analysis. Link to studies conducted by experts is analysis.
Qtard: "No counter argument presented"...YOU just can't see it.
You linked to a study by experts that refutes the study I linked to? NO, I did NOT see your link. Because you never even TRIED (or "tryed") to refute my argument. Only insult me. Insults are not refutation.
Qtard: And nobody can. Because that is meaningless slogans.
False. Qtard thinks "nobody can" because he is a FM.
Green energy is that which comes from natural sources, such as the sun. Clean energy are those types which do not release pollutants into the air, and renewable energy comes from sources that are constantly being replenished, such as hydropower, wind power or solar energy.
Qtard: ...you are still and always and nothing else but uneducated and non-teachavle i.v.
That's you. By your own admission. Qtard proudly proclaims he is unteachable with comments such as, "not my problem", "Whose zat" and (any variation of) "Why *I*??? Foreigner!!! Should care...".
\\While ALSO making donation into Republican Party election fund? It is called buying influence.
Yap.
But do all of em doing it equally? Split their donations equally? Have no favorites?
And... why you trying to oppose absolutely open obvious self-evidant and known almost by everyone Truth??? Are you idiot? To oppose facts.
Well... yeah. :-))))))))))))
\\There are companies that release pollution into the environment and donate exclusively to Democrats?
You think thsat your "clean" "green" enrgy DO NOT pollutes envirionment??? In its own way, maybe. Like for example "clean" and "green" datacenter DO NOT pollute Earth with own exhoust???
Well, probably... cause you are i.v. Who do not know even Logic and even what facts is. So knowing very basic Physics -- that energy do not emerge and do not disappear -- also BEYOND your miserly comprehension. TOO. ;-P
\\I am not a researcher with the expertise to analyze data. Neither is Qtard. Yet the dummy asks for raw data.
Not raw. You are uneducated and non-teachable i.v. And think that everybody else are the same. And cannot understand what and how researchers do. But that is not exactly true... ;-P
\\I *did* present analysis.
No, you are not. Because you are uneducated and non-teachable i.v. you just DO NOT know how that "analysis" (could/would/should) look like (hint: not like by any link given by you this far -- that was retranslate by equally idiotic journalists ONLY).
\\Link to studies conducted by experts is analysis.
WAT??? Have this sentense even some meaning??? Naah. That is just an abracadabra from a mouth of uneducated and non-teachable i.v. who trying hypocritically to pretend that it know some science. Cause it knows some "smart" words. Meaning of which it do not know. But trying to insert into its verbal spewing. In tryes to "sound smart".
\\You linked to a study by experts that refutes the study I linked to? NO, I did NOT see your link.
No need. Cause you provided only links to propaganda this far. If you'd be able to provide REAL ACADEMIC research point... I'll try to reconsider my observation.
But I'm sure, that is far beyond you miserly capabilities. ;-P
\\Because you never even TRIED (or "tryed") to refute my argument. Only insult me. Insults are not refutation.
Only correctly presented arguments ARE (or can be) refutable.
But what you provided so far. Just your wit-less insults. So, I just answer in the same tone to you. ;-P Says Captain Obvious.
\\Green energy is that which comes from natural sources, such as the sun.
And how coal, oil and natural gas IS NOT natural???
Coal -- that is trunks of prehistoric trees... that was collecting energy of a Sun. ;-P
\\Clean energy are those types which do not release pollutants into the air,
Elaborate it, please. Is electricity in your home power grid -- clean? Or not?
\\and renewable energy comes from sources that are constantly being replenished, such as hydropower, wind power or solar energy.
Minus doesn't believe in numbers or math. Why he is a trumper. As per his logic, the presidential candidate who received fewer votes should have been declared the winner. Numbers are not his friend.
So, you are confirming that the House witch hunt re Hunter Biden's laptop will confirm that Joe Biden (aka "the Big Guy") did not abuse his position as VP and do anything that could get him into any legal trouble? Instead the House is going to clear Joe Biden of any wrongdoing? My impression was that you believed otherwise. Will Hunter Biden also be exhonorated?
Why wouldn't that be good news in terms of Joe Biden being reelected? Meanwhile tRump faces multiple likely convictions re the multiple criminal trials he is going to be facing soon.
Qtard: But do all of em doing it equally? Split their donations equally? Have no favorites?
No. Obviously polluters who want to pollute more will donate more to republicans. Because republicans promise to "cut regulations" and allow more pollution. While Democrats promise to reduce pollution via increased regulation.
Qtard: You think thsat your "clean" "green" enrgy DO NOT pollutes envirionment???
No. It pollutes less. A lot less.
Qtard: Only correctly presented arguments ARE (or can be) refutable.
Your stupidest dodge yet. Using your logic NONE of your arguments can be refuted. Because NONE of your arguments are correctly presented. You just scream "propaganda".
Qtard: And how coal, oil and natural gas IS NOT natural???
How is it clean? It needs to be both clean and from natural sources to be classified as green.
Qtard: Elaborate it, please. Is electricity in your home power grid -- clean? Or not?
The statement is self-explanatory. Wind energy (for example) does not release pollutants into the air. What does your question regarding my "home power grid" have to do with the conversation? Is it a "gotcha"? If not that green Qtard will call me a hypocrite?
\\No. Obviously polluters who want to pollute more will donate more to republicans. Because republicans promise to "cut regulations" and allow more pollution. While Democrats promise to reduce pollution via increased regulation.
Solution to everything -- more, more, MOAR regulation.
Like that carbon quotes. AKA Indulgense to pollute. ;-P
\\No. It pollutes less. A lot less.
Old type pollutors -- maybe.
But it adds lots of new one.
Like Litium from batteries.
But yeah, I know -- MOAR REGULATIONS!!!! And it'll be fixed. No Prob. :-))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Only correctly presented arguments ARE (or can be) refutable.
\\Your stupidest dodge yet.
Yap. From i.v.'s "most refined" viewpoint. :-))))))))))))))
Idea that arguments must be presented in a correct way... to be same correctly refuted -- is a "stupidiest dodge".
Yeah -- idea that Logic must be behind any argument -- is an anathema for an i.v.s. Any and every one. Religious especial.
With that, you advanced in rank. Now you are not mere i.v. You are religious bigot of an idiot. ;-P
r.b. for shirt.
\\Because NONE of your arguments are correctly presented. You just scream "propaganda".
Your poor mind conditions... cannot be helped.
Well, a hint to you.
Just ask "and why that is Propaganda? Can you give a definition of word? And why do you think it aplicable?".
See. Easy-peasy.
But such an i.v. as you are -- will not understand. Even after explanation. :-))))))))))))))
\\How is it clean? It needs to be both clean and from natural sources to be classified as green.
Well. O.K.
And what mean to be "clean"??? %-))))
And... well, what UNnatural? Or supernatural? %-))) Type of resources do you know???
\\The statement is self-explanatory. Wind energy (for example) does not release pollutants into the air.
And that infra-noise that kills birds -- not polutant?
All that materials used in windmills -- do not polute?
And who knows what more...
\\What does your question regarding my "home power grid" have to do with the conversation? Is it a "gotcha"?
Why do you seek for some hiden motives?
If my motive is clear and openly stated -- I don't know what that "clean" mean and asking you for more input.
Qtard: Solution to everything -- more, more, MOAR regulation.
Absolutely. As long as the regulation is smart, fair and works. Qtard would just trust everyone to do what is right and best for everyone -- and not just themselves and their bottom lines. Because Qtard is a FM.
Qtard: ...idea that Logic must be behind any argument...
I do not disagree with this idea, dipshit. I disagree with your ad hominem bullshit dodge that my arguments are not "properly presented". Qtard thinks ad hominem and lies are fundamental in constructing a "logical argument". Because Qtard is a FM.
Qtard: Just ask "and why that is Propaganda? Can you give a definition of word?
Re arguing with Qtard, "propaganda" can be defined as facts Qtard does not like but cannot refute using facts and logic.
Qtard: I don't know what that "clean" mean and asking you for more input.
I'd tell you to use Google except that you admitted to being a FM and unable to figure it out. That, however, is NMP.
FYI, an energy source that produces no pollution does not exist. That Qtard does not understand that all energy sources involve positives and negatives is NMP.
Regarding green energy, the negatives are far fewer than for fossil fuels. As far as climate change and air pollution are concerned. Unless you (like Minus) don't believe in climate change.
\\Absolutely. As long as the regulation is smart, fair and works.
And one can choose neither of listed. ;-P :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard would just trust everyone to do what is right and best for everyone -- and not just themselves and their bottom lines. Because Qtard is a FM.
No, dimwit.
That is called competitivness -- when NOBODY have power to force OWN delusion on other. And destined to learn Logic and try to persuade people with correct logic and sound reasons. ;-P
Oh, that damn unfair world, isn't it, Dimwit-Derpy? ;-P
\\Qtard: ...idea that Logic must be behind any argument...
\\I do not disagree with this idea, dipshit.
Hypocritically. Yes. "Hypocrisy -- that is tribute vice paying to virtue" (c)
You cannot deny that Logic is the way... but, you cannot help it -- to loathe tht fact -- that's why you trying to blurr and derail, whwnere and however you see fit. And even much beyond that. ;-P
Becaus. You are r.b.
\\ I disagree with your ad hominem bullshit dodge that my arguments are not "properly presented".
Of course you are. Because that is ONLY way possible for you. ;-P Loosy r.b.
\\Qtard thinks ad hominem and lies are fundamental in constructing a "logical argument". Because Qtard is a FM.
"ad hominem" and "lies" you never was able to demonstrate with PROPER CITATONS of my words, ever. ;-P (or... remind me, when it happend last time)
But.
That is YOU are. One who CONSTANTLY give examles of errorneous "logic" and loathing bad-mouthing personal insults.
LIKE IN THIS PRECISE EXCERPT. ;-P For examnple.
\\Re arguing with Qtard, "propaganda" can be defined as facts Qtard does not like but cannot refute using facts and logic.
Dimwit. Propaganda CAN state, use refs to a facts. That is not the problem with Propaganda.
But well... you'd not be able to understand it. As the way Propaganda mistreats facts -- IS THE SAME as your broken r.b. mind Modus Operandi. ;-P
And well... Propaganda CANNOT be refuted with logic and facts -- because it is NOT based on proper logic, an mistreats facts.
\\I'd tell you to use Google except that you admitted to being a FM and unable to figure it out. That, however, is NMP.
So. You just admitted, that you DO NOT know it. ;-P As I predicted in the first place.
Your refs to Google is totally bogus -- because that is you are one who made that claim here.
I -- do not need, and not inclined to help you with basing your claims. What for???
\\FYI, an energy source that produces no pollution does not exist.
Ha-ha-ha... now you admitted it. ;-P Congrats! That is big fit. For such a r.b. To admit some obvious FACT.
\\That Qtard does not understand that all energy sources involve positives and negatives is NMP.
And you KNOW what that "positives" and "negtives" mean?
I bet -- not.
You just blurted it out. Again. Trying to "sound smart".
But... you should know by this time -- such a loosy tricks -- DO NOT WORK on me.
Go talk with brainless kindergardners. THAT is you intellectual level. :-))))))))))))))))
\\Regarding green energy, the negatives are far fewer than for fossil fuels.
"Negatives" of fossil fuels we know... because we use em for long-long time. And effect accumulated. For "new sources"... we are just in the beginning...
\\As far as climate change and air pollution are concerned. Unless you (like Minus) don't believe in climate change.
Climate change -- that is mostly propaganda. It is just too damn hard to persuade people to not generate garbage -- because, they'll throw it into trash bin and it will be carried far away. Was devised "sneaky plan" -- to scary people with Climate Change.
Well... climate do change constantly. Did you heared about Ice Age?
Companies should complete to see who can pollute the most? Yet, that pollution is bad is a "delusion"? Sounds like beliefs that would held by a FM like Qtard.
\\Companies should complete to see who can pollute the most? Yet, that pollution is bad is a "delusion"? Sounds like beliefs that would held by a FM like Qtard.
Yep.
Perfect example of gibberish non-sense brain of perfect r.b. would generate.
Thank you.
\\fyi, Prehistoric changes in climate do not disprove current climate science.
And where I said that we the people DO NOT influence climate change???
That is while I *PRECISELY* pointed to the CORE problem -- that our consumeristic civilization DO PRODUCE a lot of garbage -- to which we the people NOT TEACHED well enough to respond.
Like "what is the problem? I throwin my garbage into trashcan. And even sorting it. That that later ends in th ocean -- not MY problem. fuck off!!!"
To that. Demn Propaganda invented idea of Climate Change. To scary people into submission. To teach em how to "fix" that problem.
But.
That propaganda was unsuccessful.
And because of media scandals. Which destroyed it's "believe us... we scientists" reasoning.
And now... it became such a common place. That NOBODY react to it anymore.
Hid no misunderstanding here.
I criticise it NOT on the base it was wrong... but on the base of it being UNSUCCESSFUL.
We STILL need to cope with THAT problem of MASS GARBAGE PRODUCING (your "pollution" is negligable in comparation -- as pollution with CO2... will be eliminated... sooner or later. But plastic in the waters -- is in centuries or even tsousands of years to come)
\\The FM Qtard will undoubtedly declare the linked-to article to be "propaganda". That is what he labels facts he doesn't like.
Yawn.
You still show that you do not know what word "fact" means. ;-P
"Demn Propaganda invented idea of Climate Change"... Scientists discovered it. You claim it was "invented" because you are a FM who does not believe in facts or science.
If you weren't suggesting anthropogenic climate change isn't a thing, why ask FM question "climate do change constantly. Did you heared about Ice Age?".
\\No. Example of a FM's reading comprehension problems.
ROFL :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\\\Companies should complete to see who can pollute the most? Yet, that pollution is bad is a "delusion"? Sounds like beliefs that would held by a FM like Qtard.
no comments ;-P
\\"Demn Propaganda invented idea of Climate Change"... Scientists discovered it. You claim it was "invented" because you are a FM who does not believe in facts or science.
It was INVENTED. As a tool of political propaganda and indoctrination.
By itself, bare fact that climate is differ... from place to place, from times to times.
As I said -- Ice Age. Which was not that long ago.
As well as "smal ice age" in medieval times.
Well... but you are absolutely uneducated and unteachable bonker-r.b. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))
Who do not KNOW facts. And even less KNOW anything of science.
That's why you have such a big need to "belive in facts AND science" (see, you even DO NOT know where logical OR can be placed... that much you are complete dumb ass) ;-P
That's why ONLY thing you can -- make incorrect citation in hypocritical tryes to make believe that it proves your point.
Cause. You are so demn narrow-minded bigot. ;-P (yes, go start repeating after me this words too. be my guest. to confir how much you are nothing but hopeless idiot)
Qtard: ...make incorrect citation in hypocritical tryes to make believe that it proves your point. Cause. You are so demn narrow-minded bigot.
Qtard continually demands citations. I give him citations, and he falsely claims the citation provided is "incorrect". Then he absurdly claims acknowledgement of Climate Change science is "bigotry". Because Qtard is a FM.
\\Qtard continually demands citations. I give him citations, and he falsely claims the citation provided is "incorrect".
You can PROVE that SUCH my claims not true -- with easy -- with Ctrl-F.
But... you cannot do that in the first place -- CORRECT, word to word, NOT cutted out of context, citations.
So, yeah, situation is hopeless. Fer ya.
That's why you trying to dismiss very need of claims BEING FACTUAL -- and CORRECT citation it is FACTUAL claim... as any scuentist, or with University degree people should know.
But you are just an uneducated and unteachable religious bigot....
\\Then he absurdly claims acknowledgement of Climate Change science is "bigotry".
Of course.
Cause there is NO such thing as "Climate Change science". :-)))))))))))))))
And you. Even with help of Google. Would not be able to cite WHAT EXACTLY are name of that sciencies which do research such things.
Cause... your are "uneducated and unteachable religious bigot...."
Qtard: But... you cannot do that in the first place -- CORRECT, word to word, NOT cutted out of context, citations.
I CAN and HAVE. MANY times. You LIE and say the citations aren't "correct". Or "out of context". Which is BS. I am finished playing your FM game. You KNOW what you wrote. F*ck your "citations".
Qtard: That's why you trying to dismiss very need of claims BEING FACTUAL -- and CORRECT citation it is FACTUAL claim.
I do not. You are strawmaning again. I almost always provide links to facts that back up my claims. It is Qtard that refuses to provide any evidence to back up claims he makes.
Qtard: Cause there is NO such thing as Climate Change science. you... Would not be able to cite WHAT EXACTLY are name of that sciencies which do research such things.
The scientists who do this research are called climatologists.
Qtard: Cause... your are "uneducated and unteachable religious bigot.
\\I CAN and HAVE. MANY times. You LIE and say the citations aren't "correct". Or "out of context". Which is BS.
Derpy said "I CAN and HAVE" go to toilet and eat some shit <--- SEE, that is an example of INCORRECT, OUT OF CONTEXT quote. ;-P
But you are free to admit that it all BS... and there is no such thing as "out of context" quotes... and you going to feed yourself, in toilets. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: That's why you trying to dismiss very need of claims BEING FACTUAL -- and CORRECT citation it is FACTUAL claim.
\\I do not. You are strawmaning again.
Hah...
I like that, actually.
How you demn like to be Contre-Factual.
JUST A COUPLE sentences ABOVE... in the same comment.
You declared.
Again, citing, word to word, you can double-check it with Ctrl-Fing ;-P
" I am finished playing your FM game. You KNOW what you wrote. F*ck your "citations". "
Of cours you don't like "F*ck your "citations"" -- because you are not able to do em properly, to make FACTUAL and CORRECT claims.
Cause... NO factual and correct citation can prove ANYTHING of what you moronicly babbling. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
And, being narcisist and religious bigit -- you... don't like it.
All in perfect accordance. Your behavioe AND definition of you being "narcisist and religious bigit". ;-P
\\I almost always provide links to facts that back up my claims.
Your non-facts???
Cause FACTS are: open, obvious, self-evidant References to Reality Itself.
While "links to facts" you provide -- is just somebody's else factless babbling. ;-P
Well... it is a FACT... that they was babbling that. But that is URBI ET ORBI is all what is factual about it. ;-P
\\It is Qtard that refuses to provide any evidence to back up claims he makes.
Like... PERFECTLY CORRECT quotes of your words? ;-P
Are you trying to dismiss your own existance? As miserly and unimportant? That YOUR WORDS are just meaningless and cannot be an evidance EVEN of your miserable existance?
While I thought that when I cite your words (even though they are meaningless and idiotic damn too often) -- I admit existance of some Derpy, bonkering and babbling, but still a definite part of existing Reality... thing.
Butt...
\\The scientists who do this research are called climatologists.
And not ClimateChangiologists??? How come? ;-P
\\We are discussing science, not religion. Idiot.
I -- am. You -- not. Cause you INCAPABLE to "discuss" anything past you miserable religious bonker's ideas... well, ideas that is not yours even, just some bogus propaganda... :-)))))))))))))))))
Qtard: Derpy said "I CAN and HAVE" go to toilet and eat some shit <--- SEE, that is an example of INCORRECT, OUT OF CONTEXT quote.
It is not a quote at all, dipshit. It is a partial quote that you added to. You manufactured a FAKE quote. I have never done that. Your implication that I have is a huge lie.
Qtard: But you are free to admit that it all BS... and there is no such thing as "out of context" quotes.
It is total BS. Your manufactured fake quote is NOT an an example of an "out of context" quote. You believe otherwise because you are a FM.
Qtard: ...because you are not able to do em properly...
I am. You lie when I give you a proper quote. It is Qtard who can't give correct quotes. That is how he can reach false conclusions like me being a "religious bigot" when I have never discussed religion with him.
Qtard: "Qtard that refuses to provide any evidence to back up claims he makes"... Like... PERFECTLY CORRECT quotes of your words?
You have never done that. You quote me but then reach BS conclusions re what I meant.
Qtard: I -- am. You -- not.
Absurd lie. YOU continually bring up religion. Which has nothing to do with climate change science.
\\Qtard: Derpy said "I CAN and HAVE" go to toilet and eat some shit <--- SEE, that is an example of INCORRECT, OUT OF CONTEXT quote.
\\It is not a quote at all, dipshit. It is a partial quote that you added to. You manufactured a FAKE quote. I have never done that. Your implication that I have is a huge lie.
O-ho-ho... SO, you CAN see when quote is INCORRECT, yap Derpy? :-))))))))))))))))))))))
But, ONLY when it quote of YOUR words.
But when YOU quoting other people -- YOU allow to mangle it however you like, and do not see any problem with it, yes Derpy?
Still, I properly stated -- that that is JUST AN EXAMPLE of incorrect quote. For you miserly brain to be possible to grasp that CONCEPT. ;-P
\\It is total BS. Your manufactured fake quote is NOT an an example of an "out of context" quote. You believe otherwise because you are a FM.
Well. O.K.
Call it "fake quote" if you like.
Then, for the very least HALF of your quotes are FAKE ones. ;-P
Yawn.
\\I am. You lie when I give you a proper quote.
And you can PROVE it? With CORRECT quote and flawlessly logical demonstration -- where is lie in it? ;-P
Naah.
That's why you are so funny... :-))))))))))))))))))
\\That is how he can reach false conclusions like me being a "religious bigot" when I have never discussed religion with him.
Religion -- it's believing in some BS.
And You proudly claimed beliving in some bullshit -- like "I believe in facts".
That doesn't matter for how long and how many people do bleive in BS... to call it religious bonkery. ;-P
That is MY claims. Go, refute em! :-))))))))))))))))))
\\You have never done that. You quote me but then reach BS conclusions re what I meant.
Which... proves that you call BS things that you do not like. ;-P
Even if that is perfectly factual and flawlessly logical conclusions.
Well... you are u.u.r.b. -- so that is not surprising AT ALL.
Religious Bigots -- as in definition -- SHOULD dislike logic and reference to facts... especially when it disturb their bseless beliefs in non-factual BS.
All is perfectly matching here. Definition. And actual behavior. Of certain someone.
\\Absurd lie. YOU continually bring up religion. Which has nothing to do with climate change science.
Of course. You obviously cannot. Given that you keep accusing me of "incorrectly" quoting you. When I never have.
Qtard: But when YOU quoting other people -- YOU allow to mangle it however you like, and do not see any problem with it, yes Derpy?
No. Because I've never mangled a quote. That is your FM dodge.
Qtard: And you can PROVE it? -- where is lie in it?
You say quote "I believe in facts" is proof of religious bonkery. I was not talking about religious belief. You have produced zero quotes were I profess religious belief.
Qtard: Religion -- it's believing in some BS.
So it is Qtard who is a "religious bonker"? Given that he believes in many things that are BS. Such as "climate change science was invented".
Qtard: Religious Bigots -- as in definition -- SHOULD dislike logic and reference to facts... especially when it disturb their bseless beliefs in non-factual BS.
Hmmm. So Qtard is a "religious bigot"? As per his redefinition he is.
Qtard: Like Climate Change too.
No.
NASA Global Climate Change: It's important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth's surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.
\\Of course. You obviously cannot. Given that you keep accusing me of "incorrectly" quoting you. When I never have.
Pinocchio Derpy, returned.
Congrats to you Pinocchio Derpy. ;-P
\\No. Because I've never mangled a quote
pinocchio-derping? ;-P
You just want ability to open doors with your nose? ASAP :-))))))))))))))))
\\You say quote "I believe in facts" is proof of religious bonkery. I was not talking about religious belief. You have produced zero quotes were I profess religious belief.
Religious beliefs -- that's when people proclaim believeing in some nonsense. (like Holy Trinity -- that Jesus same time His Father same time some bodyless spirit)
You proclaimed -- "I believe in facts". That is non-sense. ;-P
Ergo, you showed trait(s) of religious bonkerism. :-)))))))))))))))))
LOGIC!!!
But... you will continue claiming that you do not understand what logic is about.
And that is... YET ONE trait of defiite Religious Bonkerism. ;-P
\\So it is Qtard who is a "religious bonker"? Given that he believes in many things that are BS. Such as "climate change science was invented".
Yet one trait of Religious Bonkerism showed by Derpy.
Hundred years ago there was NO "climate change science" -- people still believed that Universe is eternal or... governed by gawd. :-))))))))))))
Only in 80th when scientists discovered some more facts about previous epoches and collected more data about nowaday state of the Earth as whole.
That facts leaked into public.
And some politics decided to use it in their political propaganda.
That is how "climate change science" was invented. As concocted by people political propaganda. ;-P
And that is -- FACT.
As in:
Can anyone see it openly? Yes, there is lots of sources.
Is it onvious and self-evidant? Yes, they call it exactly like that "climate change science". Just this words, without any meaning behind em. Only that one who follow one certain political aganda should support such notions and spread em further.
Is it part of Reality? Oh, yeah.
DOUBLE-CHECKING COMPLETE!
With astonishing success.
PLUS.
Confiremed that Derpy is religiously-political bonker. ;-P Who trying to protest against obvious FACTS. :-))))))))))))
\\Hmmm. So Qtard is a "religious bigot"? As per his redefinition he is.
Yet more pinocchio-derpism?
Are you wanna pierce tree trunks with your nose too? :-))))))))))))))
\\Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth's surface and its ocean basins
Unscientific claim.
Do fossil fuels DIRECTLY burn to warm "Earth's surface and its ocean basins"? Naah, it isn't.
\\This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.
That is either direct lie or manipulation.
Just handred years ago there was no weather satelites. And collection of information was much more fragmental. And not that precise to boot.
LIKE THAT.
Even this short excerpt shows it definitely -- that that is just a political propaganda. That trying to mangle true scientific discoveries (1. that climate changing all of the time 2. that humanity became that big and powerful, that our activity shows itself -- both are absolutely visible and obvious facts), to concoct some propaganda...
"Pinocchio Derpy, returned"... If you call truth-tellers like me "Pinocchio", then yes.
"Religious beliefs -- that's when people proclaim believeing in some nonsense"... Well, I have never done that. So, "religious bonkery" disproved.
"DOUBLE-CHECKING COMPLETE! With astonishing success". Qtard's double check is an astonishing fail. Also proof of religious bonkery. Given that "the current scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause, and continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects".
\\"Pinocchio Derpy, returned"... If you call truth-tellers like me "Pinocchio", then yes.
From all what I know -- truth-tellers that is people who cite facts, some factual notions, and correct logical inferences.
You... I didn't see you doing that even once.
So... you are just a hypocrite who trying hard to call oneself "truth-teller". ;-P
A liar, for short.
Like that Critian from famous "paradox of liar". ;-P
\\"Religious beliefs -- that's when people proclaim believeing in some nonsense"... Well, I have never done that. So, "religious bonkery" disproved.
And what about "I believe in facts"??? ;-P
\\"DOUBLE-CHECKING COMPLETE! With astonishing success". Qtard's double check is an astonishing fail. Also proof of religious bonkery.
And you can give logical explanation? Where? And how it is "fail" or "proof of religious bonkery"?
You -- can't.
And that is... yeah, that is TRUE "proof of religious bonkery". Yours. ;-P
You -- CANNOT give logical basew for your claims.
That is problem of religious bonker.
Because their beliefs (like "I believe in facts") in some nonsence is NOT well-grounded in Reality, and not based on some facts or logical inferences from that facts.
\\More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change.
Just a 100 years ago "scientific consessus" was that we living in a Univerese that existed eternally. ;-P
And many such things.
So that "99.9% of studies agree" hardly can be seen as definite proof of anything. (apart from human's delusions and false faith in own never-erring... humanum errare est) ;-P
As for Climate Cahnge.
There is NO theory of Climate even.
Which mean, that explanation "human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause, and continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects"."... is just bogus.
But still... if we'd continue pilinbg up that piles of garbage and continue pollute oceans with plastics remanants... there'd be "global effects" for sure.
50 comments:
He's going to act as a spoiler and get dotard donald back in the White House? Is that how he is a "White Knight"? Or are YOU going to vote for him. That's the ONLY way he could be a "White Knight". By pulling votes away from dotard and HELPING Joe Biden get re-elected.
If he is going to run, it should be as a republican. The Democratic party is pro-vaccine and anti-Putin. He has zero chance of becoming the Democratic POTUS nominee. Given this, he obviously wants dotard donald back in the White House. That, or he has completely lost his marbles.
He's actually VERY appealing, except for his environmentalism. My only concern is that he may be a trojan horse candidate. A "stalking horse" for the US IC.
RGR? ;-P
Why do you hate the environment? You live in the environment.
i.v. Just an i.v.
Weaponised with Demn-Propaganda.
Yawn.
i.v. Qtard identifies Robert Kennedy as a fellow i.v.?
FYI, Robert Kennedy has (and continues to) deploy Russian propaganda, not (your imaginary) "Demn-Propaganda".
No.
Just your i.v.'s question -- "Why do you hate the environment?"
I'm a conservationist, not a Mother Nature "purist".
A "conservationist" like tRump? aka your "conservation" is in regards to profits for polluters? More pollution (rendering Mother Nature less pure) conserves profits.
Like Demonrats pollute less. ;-P
You are part of that same civilization -- that produces a lot of shit and disperse it in the air and water.
And... planning even to ENLARGE it. Under brand New Green. :-))))
Qtard: Like Demonrats pollute less. You are part of that same civilization -- that produces a lot of shit and disperse it in the air and water.
i.v. comment. "You are part of that same civilization"... Yes, Democrats and republicans coexist. So What? Democrats are FOR protecting the environment and reducing pollution. republicans are not. Proven by the fact that they always want to roll back laws to allow more pollution. As tRump did.
Qtard: And... planning even to ENLARGE it. Under brand New Green.
Bullshit. Democrats aren't planning on polluting more and calling it "new green". Democrats support renewable clean green energy.
Why I won't be voting for Jr.
Qtard: Like Demonrats pollute less.
Of course "Demonrats" pollute less. "Demonrats" don't exist, so the amount they pollute is zero. As for Democrats, the research says Democrats have a lower carbon footprint and pollute less.
"...left leaning states tended to have lower CO2 emissions per capita than right leaning states" (Source: US City vs State: The relationship between political leaning on carbon emissions per capita...).
"The researchers, economists Dora Costa and Matthew Kahn, controlled for household demographics, climate conditions, electricity prices, and the age and size of homes... And the effect is even more pronounced when we divide liberals into registered Democrats and Green Party members. Relative to registered Republicans, Democrats consume 5.1 percent less electricity, and Green Party members 15.5 percent less. That gap grows wider in the summer, with Democrats consuming 6.6 percent less energy than Republicans, and Green Party members 19.1 percent". (Source: How Your Politics Influence Your Household's Carbon Footprint).
\\Yes, Democrats and republicans coexist. So What? Democrats are FOR protecting the environment and reducing pollution. republicans are not. Proven by the fact that they always want to roll back laws to allow more pollution. As tRump did.
That is... just a propaganda.
In reality, Demn-aligned industry is same way (or even more, cuase -- hypocrites) dirty and polluting. ;-P
\\Bullshit. Democrats aren't planning on polluting more and calling it "new green". Democrats support renewable clean green energy.
Yap. Yap. Yap.
Like you KNOW. And can explain. What that shine green words: "renewable", "clean", "green" even mean.
Naah. That's just Propaganda. ;-P
Reality -- debt ceiling breakthrough. For the sake of Economy Growth.
Piece of trivia to you -- that is EXACTLY that Economy Growth -- that created and keep piling up that pollution.
Now with anti-COVID masks and mRNA vaccines. ;-P
THAT IS all and only result. Of that "renewable clean green energy."
Cause -- Hypocrisy.
\\ As for Democrats, the research says Democrats have a lower carbon footprint and pollute less.
And who did that researches?
Oh, yes, demn-aligned "scientists" and "experts". ;-P
Well... go explain that "carbon footprint". With owm words.
But you CAN't. Cause you are i.v. Mere puppet who like that gramophone repeats Demn-Propaganda. ;-P
Qtard: That is... just a propaganda. In reality, Demn-aligned industry is same way (or even more...) dirty and polluting.
There is no "Demn-aligned" industry. There is also no Democrat-aligned industry. Industry is profit-aligned. Calling data, research and analysis by experts propaganda does not refute it. Except in the mind of an i.v. like Qtard.
Qtard: Like you KNOW. And can explain. What that shine green words: "renewable", "clean", "green" even mean. Naah. That's just Propaganda.
What is your evidence that these words are "just propaganda"? What facts can Qtard present that proves "that's just propaganda"? None? I thought so. Qtard thinks saying "that's just propaganda" IS proof. Because he is an i.v.
Qtard: And who did that researches? Oh, yes, demn-aligned "scientists" and "experts".
Zero facts presented by Qtard. Again. Just ad hominem. With placement of quotes around "scientists" and "experts" Qtard thinks he has refuted my evidence. Because he is an i.v.
Qtard: you are i.v. Mere puppet who like that gramophone repeats Demn-Propaganda.
You are a FM (fucking moron) who believes labeling evidence "Demn-propaganda" refutes it. No need to present facts that might prove any counter argument. No counter argument presented. Qtard thinks none is needed. Just say "Demn-propaganda" and all facts thusly labeled are immediately proven wrong.
Whenever Qtard sees evidence he does not like but can NOT refute, the primal scream "Demn-propaganda" escapes his lips. He is unable to present a counter argument. He believes he does not need to present a counter argument. Because he is a FM.
:P
\\There is no "Demn-aligned" industry. There is also no Democrat-aligned industry. Industry is profit-aligned.
Yeah?
And how do we call it -- when some big industry making donation into Democratic Party election funds? ;-P
\\Calling data, research and analysis by experts propaganda does not refute it.
Like you EVER presented here any DATA.
Or analysis, for at least.
There always was only refs to some "listen to that people, they are experts" and "you cannot doubt their words, cause they are experts", and "you cannot ask for actual data they based there 'researchs' on, cause... just because", and "you cannot ask about methods and logical structures they used for that analysis (if there was one, and just inventing questions for already known answers -- like, that Demns have 'lower carbon furprint')". ;-P
\\Qtard: Like you KNOW. And can explain. What that shine green words: "renewable", "clean", "green" even mean. Naah. That's just Propaganda.
\\What is your evidence that these words are "just propaganda"?
EXACTLY that what I already said -- CAN YOU reveal meaning of that words?
No. You can't.
And nobody can.
Because that is meaningless slogans.
And who like to use minigless slogans? Propaganda. Captain Obvious as ever ready to explain such an Obviousness. To you. ;-P
\\Zero facts presented by Qtard. Again. Just ad hominem. With placement of quotes around "scientists" and "experts" Qtard thinks he has refuted my evidence. Because he is an i.v.
I am glad that you learned to use MY methods of argumentation. :-))))
With this you admitted my superiority. But well, as I using strictly logical and rational methods, and want nothing else from my opponents -- that is good thing.
But yeah... you stil too early to USE em successfully.
Cause you still just a mindless i.v. :-))))))))))))
\\No counter argument presented.
YOU just can't see it.
Cause you are i.v.
Who do not know Logic. And cannot grasp even what FACTs is.
Even AFTER I repeated many-many simple and easy to understand DEFINITION: open, obvious, self-evidant ref to Reality.
That mean.
All your cawing like "You are a FM (fucking moron)" proves only one thing -- that you are still and always and nothing else but uneducated and non-teachavle i.v. ;-P
But no prob. That is what makes it so much fun. :-))))))))))))
So. Please, continue, continue.
Qtard: And how do we call it -- when some big industry making donation into Democratic Party election funds?
While ALSO making donation into Republican Party election fund? It is called buying influence.
There are companies that release pollution into the environment and donate exclusively to Democrats? Because they believe they have a better chance of convincing Democrats to ease off regulations and allow them to pollute more? Name some.
Qtard: Like you EVER presented here any DATA. Or analysis, for at least.
I am not a researcher with the expertise to analyze data. Neither is Qtard. Yet the dummy asks for raw data. As if it would mean anything to him. I *did* present analysis. Link to studies conducted by experts is analysis.
Qtard: "No counter argument presented"...YOU just can't see it.
You linked to a study by experts that refutes the study I linked to? NO, I did NOT see your link. Because you never even TRIED (or "tryed") to refute my argument. Only insult me. Insults are not refutation.
Qtard: And nobody can. Because that is meaningless slogans.
False. Qtard thinks "nobody can" because he is a FM.
Green energy is that which comes from natural sources, such as the sun. Clean energy are those types which do not release pollutants into the air, and renewable energy comes from sources that are constantly being replenished, such as hydropower, wind power or solar energy.
Qtard: ...you are still and always and nothing else but uneducated and non-teachavle i.v.
That's you. By your own admission. Qtard proudly proclaims he is unteachable with comments such as, "not my problem", "Whose zat" and (any variation of) "Why *I*??? Foreigner!!! Should care...".
\\While ALSO making donation into Republican Party election fund? It is called buying influence.
Yap.
But do all of em doing it equally? Split their donations equally? Have no favorites?
And... why you trying to oppose absolutely open obvious self-evidant and known almost by everyone Truth???
Are you idiot? To oppose facts.
Well... yeah. :-))))))))))))
\\There are companies that release pollution into the environment and donate exclusively to Democrats?
You think thsat your "clean" "green" enrgy DO NOT pollutes envirionment???
In its own way, maybe.
Like for example "clean" and "green" datacenter DO NOT pollute Earth with own exhoust???
Well, probably... cause you are i.v. Who do not know even Logic and even what facts is.
So knowing very basic Physics -- that energy do not emerge and do not disappear -- also BEYOND your miserly comprehension. TOO. ;-P
\\I am not a researcher with the expertise to analyze data. Neither is Qtard. Yet the dummy asks for raw data.
Not raw.
You are uneducated and non-teachable i.v.
And think that everybody else are the same.
And cannot understand what and how researchers do.
But that is not exactly true... ;-P
\\I *did* present analysis.
No, you are not.
Because you are uneducated and non-teachable i.v. you just DO NOT know how that "analysis" (could/would/should) look like (hint: not like by any link given by you this far -- that was retranslate by equally idiotic journalists ONLY).
\\Link to studies conducted by experts is analysis.
WAT???
Have this sentense even some meaning???
Naah.
That is just an abracadabra from a mouth of uneducated and non-teachable i.v. who trying hypocritically to pretend that it know some science.
Cause it knows some "smart" words.
Meaning of which it do not know.
But trying to insert into its verbal spewing. In tryes to "sound smart".
\\You linked to a study by experts that refutes the study I linked to? NO, I did NOT see your link.
No need.
Cause you provided only links to propaganda this far.
If you'd be able to provide REAL ACADEMIC research point... I'll try to reconsider my observation.
But I'm sure, that is far beyond you miserly capabilities. ;-P
\\Because you never even TRIED (or "tryed") to refute my argument. Only insult me. Insults are not refutation.
Only correctly presented arguments ARE (or can be) refutable.
But what you provided so far. Just your wit-less insults.
So, I just answer in the same tone to you. ;-P
Says Captain Obvious.
\\Green energy is that which comes from natural sources, such as the sun.
And how coal, oil and natural gas IS NOT natural???
Coal -- that is trunks of prehistoric trees... that was collecting energy of a Sun. ;-P
\\Clean energy are those types which do not release pollutants into the air,
Elaborate it, please.
Is electricity in your home power grid -- clean? Or not?
\\and renewable energy comes from sources that are constantly being replenished, such as hydropower, wind power or solar energy.
Replenished?
By whom? ;-P
Dervy doesn't believe in numbers or math. That's why he's a Democrat.
...for numbers are NOT his friend.
:-))))
Well. Looks like he disappeared. :-(
Minus doesn't believe in numbers or math. Why he is a trumper. As per his logic, the presidential candidate who received fewer votes should have been declared the winner. Numbers are not his friend.
Trump didn't win in 2016 despite losing the popular vote? Who knew.
tRump will lose the popular vote for a third time in 2024 if he is the republiturd potus nominee. And the electoral college for a second time :)
Then he can retire to prison :)
Since there is no republiturd party, he's a shoo-in. Biden will be retiring to his basement SuperMarioCart machine.
So, you are confirming that the House witch hunt re Hunter Biden's laptop will confirm that Joe Biden (aka "the Big Guy") did not abuse his position as VP and do anything that could get him into any legal trouble? Instead the House is going to clear Joe Biden of any wrongdoing? My impression was that you believed otherwise. Will Hunter Biden also be exhonorated?
Why wouldn't that be good news in terms of Joe Biden being reelected? Meanwhile tRump faces multiple likely convictions re the multiple criminal trials he is going to be facing soon.
Qtard: But do all of em doing it equally? Split their donations equally? Have no favorites?
No. Obviously polluters who want to pollute more will donate more to republicans. Because republicans promise to "cut regulations" and allow more pollution. While Democrats promise to reduce pollution via increased regulation.
Qtard: You think thsat your "clean" "green" enrgy DO NOT pollutes envirionment???
No. It pollutes less. A lot less.
Qtard: Only correctly presented arguments ARE (or can be) refutable.
Your stupidest dodge yet. Using your logic NONE of your arguments can be refuted. Because NONE of your arguments are correctly presented. You just scream "propaganda".
Qtard: And how coal, oil and natural gas IS NOT natural???
How is it clean? It needs to be both clean and from natural sources to be classified as green.
Qtard: Elaborate it, please. Is electricity in your home power grid -- clean? Or not?
The statement is self-explanatory. Wind energy (for example) does not release pollutants into the air. What does your question regarding my "home power grid" have to do with the conversation? Is it a "gotcha"? If not that green Qtard will call me a hypocrite?
Qtard: Replenished? By whom?
The Earth.
\\No. Obviously polluters who want to pollute more will donate more to republicans. Because republicans promise to "cut regulations" and allow more pollution. While Democrats promise to reduce pollution via increased regulation.
Solution to everything -- more, more, MOAR regulation.
Like that carbon quotes. AKA Indulgense to pollute. ;-P
\\No. It pollutes less. A lot less.
Old type pollutors -- maybe.
But it adds lots of new one.
Like Litium from batteries.
But yeah, I know -- MOAR REGULATIONS!!!! And it'll be fixed. No Prob. :-))))))))))))
\\Qtard: Only correctly presented arguments ARE (or can be) refutable.
\\Your stupidest dodge yet.
Yap.
From i.v.'s "most refined" viewpoint. :-))))))))))))))
Idea that arguments must be presented in a correct way... to be same correctly refuted -- is a "stupidiest dodge".
Yeah -- idea that Logic must be behind any argument -- is an anathema for an i.v.s. Any and every one. Religious especial.
With that, you advanced in rank. Now you are not mere i.v.
You are religious bigot of an idiot. ;-P
r.b. for shirt.
\\Because NONE of your arguments are correctly presented. You just scream "propaganda".
Your poor mind conditions... cannot be helped.
Well, a hint to you.
Just ask "and why that is Propaganda? Can you give a definition of word? And why do you think it aplicable?".
See. Easy-peasy.
But such an i.v. as you are -- will not understand. Even after explanation. :-))))))))))))))
\\How is it clean? It needs to be both clean and from natural sources to be classified as green.
Well. O.K.
And what mean to be "clean"??? %-))))
And... well, what UNnatural? Or supernatural? %-))) Type of resources do you know???
\\The statement is self-explanatory. Wind energy (for example) does not release pollutants into the air.
And that infra-noise that kills birds -- not polutant?
All that materials used in windmills -- do not polute?
And who knows what more...
\\What does your question regarding my "home power grid" have to do with the conversation? Is it a "gotcha"?
Why do you seek for some hiden motives?
If my motive is clear and openly stated -- I don't know what that "clean" mean and asking you for more input.
\\Qtard: Replenished? By whom?
\\The Earth.
Please. Elaborate it som more. How exactly?
Qtard: Solution to everything -- more, more, MOAR regulation.
Absolutely. As long as the regulation is smart, fair and works. Qtard would just trust everyone to do what is right and best for everyone -- and not just themselves and their bottom lines. Because Qtard is a FM.
Qtard: ...idea that Logic must be behind any argument...
I do not disagree with this idea, dipshit. I disagree with your ad hominem bullshit dodge that my arguments are not "properly presented". Qtard thinks ad hominem and lies are fundamental in constructing a "logical argument". Because Qtard is a FM.
Qtard: Just ask "and why that is Propaganda? Can you give a definition of word?
Re arguing with Qtard, "propaganda" can be defined as facts Qtard does not like but cannot refute using facts and logic.
Qtard: I don't know what that "clean" mean and asking you for more input.
I'd tell you to use Google except that you admitted to being a FM and unable to figure it out. That, however, is NMP.
FYI, an energy source that produces no pollution does not exist. That Qtard does not understand that all energy sources involve positives and negatives is NMP.
Regarding green energy, the negatives are far fewer than for fossil fuels. As far as climate change and air pollution are concerned. Unless you (like Minus) don't believe in climate change.
\\Absolutely. As long as the regulation is smart, fair and works.
And one can choose neither of listed. ;-P
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard would just trust everyone to do what is right and best for everyone -- and not just themselves and their bottom lines. Because Qtard is a FM.
No, dimwit.
That is called competitivness -- when NOBODY have power to force OWN delusion on other.
And destined to learn Logic and try to persuade people with correct logic and sound reasons. ;-P
Oh, that damn unfair world, isn't it, Dimwit-Derpy? ;-P
\\Qtard: ...idea that Logic must be behind any argument...
\\I do not disagree with this idea, dipshit.
Hypocritically. Yes.
"Hypocrisy -- that is tribute vice paying to virtue" (c)
You cannot deny that Logic is the way...
but, you cannot help it -- to loathe tht fact -- that's why you trying to blurr and derail, whwnere and however you see fit.
And even much beyond that. ;-P
Becaus. You are r.b.
\\ I disagree with your ad hominem bullshit dodge that my arguments are not "properly presented".
Of course you are.
Because that is ONLY way possible for you. ;-P
Loosy r.b.
\\Qtard thinks ad hominem and lies are fundamental in constructing a "logical argument". Because Qtard is a FM.
"ad hominem" and "lies" you never was able to demonstrate with PROPER CITATONS of my words, ever. ;-P (or... remind me, when it happend last time)
But.
That is YOU are. One who CONSTANTLY give examles of errorneous "logic" and loathing bad-mouthing personal insults.
LIKE IN THIS PRECISE EXCERPT. ;-P
For examnple.
\\Re arguing with Qtard, "propaganda" can be defined as facts Qtard does not like but cannot refute using facts and logic.
Dimwit.
Propaganda CAN state, use refs to a facts.
That is not the problem with Propaganda.
But well... you'd not be able to understand it. As the way Propaganda mistreats facts -- IS THE SAME as your broken r.b. mind Modus Operandi. ;-P
And well... Propaganda CANNOT be refuted with logic and facts -- because it is NOT based on proper logic, an mistreats facts.
\\I'd tell you to use Google except that you admitted to being a FM and unable to figure it out. That, however, is NMP.
So.
You just admitted, that you DO NOT know it. ;-P
As I predicted in the first place.
Your refs to Google is totally bogus -- because that is you are one who made that claim here.
I -- do not need, and not inclined to help you with basing your claims.
What for???
\\FYI, an energy source that produces no pollution does not exist.
Ha-ha-ha... now you admitted it. ;-P
Congrats!
That is big fit.
For such a r.b.
To admit some obvious FACT.
\\That Qtard does not understand that all energy sources involve positives and negatives is NMP.
And you KNOW what that "positives" and "negtives" mean?
I bet -- not.
You just blurted it out. Again. Trying to "sound smart".
But... you should know by this time -- such a loosy tricks -- DO NOT WORK on me.
Go talk with brainless kindergardners. THAT is you intellectual level. :-))))))))))))))))
\\Regarding green energy, the negatives are far fewer than for fossil fuels.
"Negatives" of fossil fuels we know... because we use em for long-long time.
And effect accumulated.
For "new sources"... we are just in the beginning...
\\As far as climate change and air pollution are concerned. Unless you (like Minus) don't believe in climate change.
Climate change -- that is mostly propaganda.
It is just too damn hard to persuade people to not generate garbage -- because, they'll throw it into trash bin and it will be carried far away.
Was devised "sneaky plan" -- to scary people with Climate Change.
Well... climate do change constantly. Did you heared about Ice Age?
Companies should complete to see who can pollute the most? Yet, that pollution is bad is a "delusion"? Sounds like beliefs that would held by a FM like Qtard.
fyi, Prehistoric changes in climate do not disprove current climate science.
The FM Qtard will undoubtedly declare the linked-to article to be "propaganda". That is what he labels facts he doesn't like.
\\Companies should complete to see who can pollute the most? Yet, that pollution is bad is a "delusion"? Sounds like beliefs that would held by a FM like Qtard.
Yep.
Perfect example of gibberish non-sense brain of perfect r.b. would generate.
Thank you.
\\fyi, Prehistoric changes in climate do not disprove current climate science.
And where I said that we the people DO NOT influence climate change???
That is while I *PRECISELY* pointed to the CORE problem -- that our consumeristic civilization DO PRODUCE a lot of garbage -- to which we the people NOT TEACHED well enough to respond.
Like "what is the problem? I throwin my garbage into trashcan. And even sorting it. That that later ends in th ocean -- not MY problem. fuck off!!!"
To that. Demn Propaganda invented idea of Climate Change. To scary people into submission. To teach em how to "fix" that problem.
But.
That propaganda was unsuccessful.
And because of media scandals. Which destroyed it's "believe us... we scientists" reasoning.
And now... it became such a common place. That NOBODY react to it anymore.
Hid no misunderstanding here.
I criticise it NOT on the base it was wrong... but on the base of it being UNSUCCESSFUL.
We STILL need to cope with THAT problem of MASS GARBAGE PRODUCING (your "pollution" is negligable in comparation -- as pollution with CO2... will be eliminated... sooner or later. But plastic in the waters -- is in centuries or even tsousands of years to come)
\\The FM Qtard will undoubtedly declare the linked-to article to be "propaganda". That is what he labels facts he doesn't like.
Yawn.
You still show that you do not know what word "fact" means. ;-P
"Demn Propaganda invented idea of Climate Change"... Scientists discovered it. You claim it was "invented" because you are a FM who does not believe in facts or science.
If you weren't suggesting anthropogenic climate change isn't a thing, why ask FM question "climate do change constantly. Did you heared about Ice Age?".
"Perfect example of gibberish non-sense brain of perfect r.b. would generate"... No. Example of a FM's reading comprehension problems.
\\No. Example of a FM's reading comprehension problems.
ROFL :-))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\\\Companies should complete to see who can pollute the most? Yet, that pollution is bad is a "delusion"? Sounds like beliefs that would held by a FM like Qtard.
no comments ;-P
\\"Demn Propaganda invented idea of Climate Change"... Scientists discovered it. You claim it was "invented" because you are a FM who does not believe in facts or science.
It was INVENTED. As a tool of political propaganda and indoctrination.
By itself, bare fact that climate is differ... from place to place, from times to times.
As I said -- Ice Age. Which was not that long ago.
As well as "smal ice age" in medieval times.
Well... but you are absolutely uneducated and unteachable bonker-r.b. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))
Who do not KNOW facts. And even less KNOW anything of science.
That's why you have such a big need to "belive in facts AND science" (see, you even DO NOT know where logical OR can be placed... that much you are complete dumb ass) ;-P
Qtard: It [climate change] was INVENTED. As a tool of political propaganda and indoctrination.
You say. Because you are an uneducated and unteachable FM.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Well. You are just a religious bonker.
That's why ONLY thing you can -- make incorrect citation in hypocritical tryes to make believe that it proves your point.
Cause. You are so demn narrow-minded bigot. ;-P (yes, go start repeating after me this words too. be my guest. to confir how much you are nothing but hopeless idiot)
Qtard: ...make incorrect citation in hypocritical tryes to make believe that it proves your point. Cause. You are so demn narrow-minded bigot.
Qtard continually demands citations. I give him citations, and he falsely claims the citation provided is "incorrect". Then he absurdly claims acknowledgement of Climate Change science is "bigotry". Because Qtard is a FM.
\\Qtard continually demands citations. I give him citations, and he falsely claims the citation provided is "incorrect".
You can PROVE that SUCH my claims not true -- with easy -- with Ctrl-F.
But... you cannot do that in the first place -- CORRECT, word to word, NOT cutted out of context, citations.
So, yeah, situation is hopeless. Fer ya.
That's why you trying to dismiss very need of claims BEING FACTUAL -- and CORRECT citation it is FACTUAL claim... as any scuentist, or with University degree people should know.
But you are just an uneducated and unteachable religious bigot....
\\Then he absurdly claims acknowledgement of Climate Change science is "bigotry".
Of course.
Cause there is NO such thing as "Climate Change science". :-)))))))))))))))
And you. Even with help of Google. Would not be able to cite WHAT EXACTLY are name of that sciencies which do research such things.
Cause... your are "uneducated and unteachable religious bigot...."
Qtard: But... you cannot do that in the first place -- CORRECT, word to word, NOT cutted out of context, citations.
I CAN and HAVE. MANY times. You LIE and say the citations aren't "correct". Or "out of context". Which is BS. I am finished playing your FM game. You KNOW what you wrote. F*ck your "citations".
Qtard: That's why you trying to dismiss very need of claims BEING FACTUAL -- and CORRECT citation it is FACTUAL claim.
I do not. You are strawmaning again. I almost always provide links to facts that back up my claims. It is Qtard that refuses to provide any evidence to back up claims he makes.
Qtard: Cause there is NO such thing as Climate Change science. you... Would not be able to cite WHAT EXACTLY are name of that sciencies which do research such things.
The scientists who do this research are called climatologists.
Qtard: Cause... your are "uneducated and unteachable religious bigot.
We are discussing science, not religion. Idiot.
\\I CAN and HAVE. MANY times. You LIE and say the citations aren't "correct". Or "out of context". Which is BS.
Derpy said "I CAN and HAVE" go to toilet and eat some shit <--- SEE, that is an example of INCORRECT, OUT OF CONTEXT quote. ;-P
But you are free to admit that it all BS... and there is no such thing as "out of context" quotes... and you going to feed yourself, in toilets. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: That's why you trying to dismiss very need of claims BEING FACTUAL -- and CORRECT citation it is FACTUAL claim.
\\I do not. You are strawmaning again.
Hah...
I like that, actually.
How you demn like to be Contre-Factual.
JUST A COUPLE sentences ABOVE... in the same comment.
You declared.
Again, citing, word to word, you can double-check it with Ctrl-Fing ;-P
"
I am finished playing your FM game. You KNOW what you wrote. F*ck your "citations".
"
Of cours you don't like "F*ck your "citations"" -- because you are not able to do em properly, to make FACTUAL and CORRECT claims.
Cause... NO factual and correct citation can prove ANYTHING of what you moronicly babbling. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
And, being narcisist and religious bigit -- you... don't like it.
All in perfect accordance. Your behavioe AND definition of you being "narcisist and religious bigit". ;-P
\\I almost always provide links to facts that back up my claims.
Your non-facts???
Cause FACTS are: open, obvious, self-evidant References to Reality Itself.
While "links to facts" you provide -- is just somebody's else factless babbling. ;-P
Well... it is a FACT... that they was babbling that. But that is URBI ET ORBI is all what is factual about it. ;-P
\\It is Qtard that refuses to provide any evidence to back up claims he makes.
Like... PERFECTLY CORRECT quotes of your words? ;-P
Are you trying to dismiss your own existance? As miserly and unimportant?
That YOUR WORDS are just meaningless and cannot be an evidance EVEN of your miserable existance?
While I thought that when I cite your words (even though they are meaningless and idiotic damn too often) -- I admit existance of some Derpy, bonkering and babbling, but still a definite part of existing Reality... thing.
Butt...
\\The scientists who do this research are called climatologists.
And not ClimateChangiologists??? How come? ;-P
\\We are discussing science, not religion. Idiot.
I -- am. You -- not.
Cause you INCAPABLE to "discuss" anything past you miserable religious bonker's ideas... well, ideas that is not yours even, just some bogus propaganda... :-)))))))))))))))))
Qtard: Derpy said "I CAN and HAVE" go to toilet and eat some shit <--- SEE, that is an example of INCORRECT, OUT OF CONTEXT quote.
It is not a quote at all, dipshit. It is a partial quote that you added to. You manufactured a FAKE quote. I have never done that. Your implication that I have is a huge lie.
Qtard: But you are free to admit that it all BS... and there is no such thing as "out of context" quotes.
It is total BS. Your manufactured fake quote is NOT an an example of an "out of context" quote. You believe otherwise because you are a FM.
Qtard: ...because you are not able to do em properly...
I am. You lie when I give you a proper quote. It is Qtard who can't give correct quotes. That is how he can reach false conclusions like me being a "religious bigot" when I have never discussed religion with him.
Qtard: "Qtard that refuses to provide any evidence to back up claims he makes"... Like... PERFECTLY CORRECT quotes of your words?
You have never done that. You quote me but then reach BS conclusions re what I meant.
Qtard: I -- am. You -- not.
Absurd lie. YOU continually bring up religion. Which has nothing to do with climate change science.
\\Qtard: Derpy said "I CAN and HAVE" go to toilet and eat some shit <--- SEE, that is an example of INCORRECT, OUT OF CONTEXT quote.
\\It is not a quote at all, dipshit. It is a partial quote that you added to. You manufactured a FAKE quote. I have never done that. Your implication that I have is a huge lie.
O-ho-ho... SO, you CAN see when quote is INCORRECT, yap Derpy? :-))))))))))))))))))))))
But, ONLY when it quote of YOUR words.
But when YOU quoting other people -- YOU allow to mangle it however you like, and do not see any problem with it, yes Derpy?
Still, I properly stated -- that that is JUST AN EXAMPLE of incorrect quote. For you miserly brain to be possible to grasp that CONCEPT. ;-P
\\It is total BS. Your manufactured fake quote is NOT an an example of an "out of context" quote. You believe otherwise because you are a FM.
Well. O.K.
Call it "fake quote" if you like.
Then, for the very least HALF of your quotes are FAKE ones. ;-P
Yawn.
\\I am. You lie when I give you a proper quote.
And you can PROVE it?
With CORRECT quote and flawlessly logical demonstration -- where is lie in it? ;-P
Naah.
That's why you are so funny... :-))))))))))))))))))
\\That is how he can reach false conclusions like me being a "religious bigot" when I have never discussed religion with him.
Religion -- it's believing in some BS.
And You proudly claimed beliving in some bullshit -- like "I believe in facts".
That doesn't matter for how long and how many people do bleive in BS... to call it religious bonkery. ;-P
That is MY claims. Go, refute em! :-))))))))))))))))))
\\You have never done that. You quote me but then reach BS conclusions re what I meant.
Which... proves that you call BS things that you do not like. ;-P
Even if that is perfectly factual and flawlessly logical conclusions.
Well... you are u.u.r.b. -- so that is not surprising AT ALL.
Religious Bigots -- as in definition -- SHOULD dislike logic and reference to facts... especially when it disturb their bseless beliefs in non-factual BS.
All is perfectly matching here. Definition. And actual behavior. Of certain someone.
\\Absurd lie. YOU continually bring up religion. Which has nothing to do with climate change science.
Religion can be based on ANY non-factual BS idea.
Like Climate Change too. ;-P
Qtard: ...you CAN see when quote is INCORRECT...
Of course. You obviously cannot. Given that you keep accusing me of "incorrectly" quoting you. When I never have.
Qtard: But when YOU quoting other people -- YOU allow to mangle it however you like, and do not see any problem with it, yes Derpy?
No. Because I've never mangled a quote. That is your FM dodge.
Qtard: And you can PROVE it? -- where is lie in it?
You say quote "I believe in facts" is proof of religious bonkery. I was not talking about religious belief. You have produced zero quotes were I profess religious belief.
Qtard: Religion -- it's believing in some BS.
So it is Qtard who is a "religious bonker"? Given that he believes in many things that are BS. Such as "climate change science was invented".
Qtard: Religious Bigots -- as in definition -- SHOULD dislike logic and reference to facts... especially when it disturb their bseless beliefs in non-factual BS.
Hmmm. So Qtard is a "religious bigot"? As per his redefinition he is.
Qtard: Like Climate Change too.
No.
NASA Global Climate Change: It's important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth's surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s climate. This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.
\\Of course. You obviously cannot. Given that you keep accusing me of "incorrectly" quoting you. When I never have.
Pinocchio Derpy, returned.
Congrats to you Pinocchio Derpy. ;-P
\\No. Because I've never mangled a quote
pinocchio-derping? ;-P
You just want ability to open doors with your nose? ASAP :-))))))))))))))))
\\You say quote "I believe in facts" is proof of religious bonkery. I was not talking about religious belief. You have produced zero quotes were I profess religious belief.
Religious beliefs -- that's when people proclaim believeing in some nonsense. (like Holy Trinity -- that Jesus same time His Father same time some bodyless spirit)
You proclaimed -- "I believe in facts". That is non-sense. ;-P
Ergo, you showed trait(s) of religious bonkerism. :-)))))))))))))))))
LOGIC!!!
But... you will continue claiming that you do not understand what logic is about.
And that is... YET ONE trait of defiite Religious Bonkerism. ;-P
\\So it is Qtard who is a "religious bonker"? Given that he believes in many things that are BS. Such as "climate change science was invented".
Yet one trait of Religious Bonkerism showed by Derpy.
Hundred years ago there was NO "climate change science" -- people still believed that Universe is eternal or... governed by gawd. :-))))))))))))
Only in 80th when scientists discovered some more facts about previous epoches and collected more data about nowaday state of the Earth as whole.
That facts leaked into public.
And some politics decided to use it in their political propaganda.
That is how "climate change science" was invented. As concocted by people political propaganda. ;-P
And that is -- FACT.
As in:
Can anyone see it openly? Yes, there is lots of sources.
Is it onvious and self-evidant? Yes, they call it exactly like that "climate change science". Just this words, without any meaning behind em. Only that one who follow one certain political aganda should support such notions and spread em further.
Is it part of Reality? Oh, yeah.
DOUBLE-CHECKING COMPLETE!
With astonishing success.
PLUS.
Confiremed that Derpy is religiously-political bonker. ;-P
Who trying to protest against obvious FACTS. :-))))))))))))
\\Hmmm. So Qtard is a "religious bigot"? As per his redefinition he is.
Yet more pinocchio-derpism?
Are you wanna pierce tree trunks with your nose too? :-))))))))))))))
\\Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth's surface and its ocean basins
Unscientific claim.
Do fossil fuels DIRECTLY burn to warm "Earth's surface and its ocean basins"? Naah, it isn't.
\\This is based on over a century of scientific evidence forming the structural backbone of today's civilization.
That is either direct lie or manipulation.
Just handred years ago there was no weather satelites. And collection of information was much more fragmental.
And not that precise to boot.
LIKE THAT.
Even this short excerpt shows it definitely -- that that is just a political propaganda. That trying to mangle true scientific discoveries (1. that climate changing all of the time 2. that humanity became that big and powerful, that our activity shows itself -- both are absolutely visible and obvious facts), to concoct some propaganda...
"Pinocchio Derpy, returned"... If you call truth-tellers like me "Pinocchio", then yes.
"Religious beliefs -- that's when people proclaim believeing in some nonsense"... Well, I have never done that. So, "religious bonkery" disproved.
"DOUBLE-CHECKING COMPLETE! With astonishing success". Qtard's double check is an astonishing fail. Also proof of religious bonkery. Given that "the current scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate has warmed significantly since the late 1800s, human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause, and continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects".
More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change.
\\"Pinocchio Derpy, returned"... If you call truth-tellers like me "Pinocchio", then yes.
From all what I know -- truth-tellers that is people who cite facts, some factual notions, and correct logical inferences.
You... I didn't see you doing that even once.
So... you are just a hypocrite who trying hard to call oneself "truth-teller". ;-P
A liar, for short.
Like that Critian from famous "paradox of liar". ;-P
\\"Religious beliefs -- that's when people proclaim believeing in some nonsense"... Well, I have never done that. So, "religious bonkery" disproved.
And what about "I believe in facts"??? ;-P
\\"DOUBLE-CHECKING COMPLETE! With astonishing success". Qtard's double check is an astonishing fail. Also proof of religious bonkery.
And you can give logical explanation?
Where? And how it is "fail" or "proof of religious bonkery"?
You -- can't.
And that is... yeah, that is TRUE "proof of religious bonkery". Yours. ;-P
You -- CANNOT give logical basew for your claims.
That is problem of religious bonker.
Because their beliefs (like "I believe in facts") in some nonsence is NOT well-grounded in Reality, and not based on some facts or logical inferences from that facts.
\\More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change.
Just a 100 years ago "scientific consessus" was that we living in a Univerese that existed eternally. ;-P
And many such things.
So that "99.9% of studies agree" hardly can be seen as definite proof of anything. (apart from human's delusions and false faith in own never-erring... humanum errare est) ;-P
As for Climate Cahnge.
There is NO theory of Climate even.
Which mean, that explanation "human activities (primarily greenhouse gas emissions) are the primary cause, and continuing emissions will increase the likelihood and severity of global effects"."... is just bogus.
But still... if we'd continue pilinbg up that piles of garbage and continue pollute oceans with plastics remanants... there'd be "global effects" for sure.
Cause... they already ARE present.
Derpy Derpy Doo Where r u???
Post a Comment