Search results

Until he finally boiled over, James T. Hodgkinson (link) was relatively unnoticed. Then, in a rage, he went on a suicide mission against american government as left-leaning Twitter-account users cheered on. But how do you tell him from about half the posters on a public forum like this one...

This is a great forum for a Trump-Russian conspiracy. I'm glad to see liberals finally admit it's nuts. bwahahhahaa

Huh? I didn't blame Sanders. I'm just looking for a difference between yourself and the two nut jobs, and not having much luck at it. Your grade school comments fit right in with Mr. Christian's monologue in the OP, by the way. Yes, you do a good job of reminding.

Is the source is even too anti-Trump for Kittamaru? Now that's saying a lot. LOL.

June 8, 2017 (link) Is that recent enough? Here's the cover on the upcoming July 2017 issue, and it looks like your kind of a tabloid:

bwahhahaaa

The New Paranoia (link) is an article from the left-leaning New Republic (link) website. You can't slip one by that gal that drinks her beer with a straw, I tell ya.

Q: What did the the Portland muslim-shooter Jeremy Christian (link) and GOP ball practice Shooter James T. Hodgkinson (link) both have in common? A: They were Bernie followers. First from Mr. Christian, I wonder if he was once active on this forum: Mr. Hodgkinson too. They're definitely...

Even Chris Matthews (link) concedes. It's over. The New Paranoia (link)

The cost of either ignoring or preparing can not be be assessed without a reliable forecast, and that is just the start of it. On the other hand, nuclear power has no green-house gasses. Is it time to rethink that option?

It wasn't the intent of the OP to show the world how badly a climatologist missed a prediction forty years ago, or the hysteria that went along with it, but don't let me stop you.

Global warming is really more of a control issue than a denial issue. A computer model that can't reliably predict the climate is going to require trillions of remedial capital expenditures. It better be worth it.

S/G. Thank you. I'm not trying to be critical. I'm trying to understand the ideology and I'm hearing a hopeless and dispairing defeatism. There is hope, and you've hinted around about it. As humans, most of us are not very well adapted to our current environment. We were once the happiest...

Would your emotions cool off with a cooler planet? Maybe we can find an aerosol that would do just that. Where would you go from there? If you expect a pristine environment then that applies to everything, not just the air. You need to stop designing buildings too.

Would you prefer no farmland? I ask these questions to see how you reconcile ideology with reality. Apparently you want the earth in full control and humans with no control. Where we all go back to planet nomads of some sort.

Personally I'm lukewarm on global warming -- it's warming but not like you think, but you get emotional about it. Did you actually take any collegiate level courses in science?

The prevalence of farmland is a disaster for who? Can you show me a country that wants less of it?

When Newsweek writes about global warming I should just ignore them. okeee I didn't cite a Newsweek article as a reason to ignore global warming. I cite your lack of reading comprehension. Read the OP again.

I didn't ask anyone to take me seriously. I asked them to comment on the OP. If you don't have a brain to do that, then maybe you should just be quiet instead of looking the fool.

The right global temperature for our planet is not a good question.... okeee. I read it. A warmer planet has more farm land. A cooler planet has less. Do you disagree?