Why should Gwb be forced to answer for that? He, like YOU is one of the more rational voices on this site. I dont think Gwb would ask YOU to answer for the stupid child rape comment. I can promise you GWB was against the birther bullshit, as ive read almost all of his comments. So why is it ok for some lunatic like exGOPer to make that comment because someone else on this site made an equally insane assertion at some point, When GWB does not agree with that assertion? This is the problem with the internet, and why it becomes incredibly frustrating. GWB made a comment that is incredibly well balanced: Don't get me wrong - I believe that Trump has been verbally/physically inappropriate with women over the past decades. However the assertions that he raped a 13 year old have been thoroughly dis-proven and it is absurd for people like exGOPer to continue to push this nonsense. But now suddenly hes supposed to answer for every comment on the site, otherwise the trash exGOPer is spewing is legit in your eyes. Its such an incredibly silly argument.
57 false claims. Donald Trump shatters his one-week record for dishonesty The news out of Washington last week was dominated by the fallout from President Donald Trump’s lies about his interactions with the families of fallen soldiers. There were other Trump whoppers that didn’t get discussed. Oh, were there other whoppers. The president uttered 57 — 57! — false claims from Monday through Sunday. His astonishing output shattered his old record for most false claims in a week in office, 40, which he had set just three weeks prior. Why was Trump so especially dishonest in this week of all weeks? It might just have been because he was talking a lot. He did a long interview with Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo (11 false claims), a press conference with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (10 false claims), interviews with five conservative talk radio hosts (20 false claims total), and several other public events. As per usual, he repeated some of his false claims over and over — saying seven times, for example, that the U.S. is the world’s highest-taxed country, though it is nowhere close. All together, he made 777 false claims over his first 276 days in office — an average of 2.8 false claims per day. Trump has proven uniquely willing to lie, exaggerate and mislead. By all expert accounts, he is more frequently inaccurate than any of his predecessors. Read more: GOP Senator Bob Corker calls Donald Trump an ‘utterly untruthful president,’ says he is ‘debasing’ the U.S. We are keeping track. Below is a list of every false claim Trump has made since his inauguration on Jan. 20. Why call them false claims, not lies? We can’t be sure that each and every one was intentional; in some cases, he may have been confused or ignorant. What we know, objectively, is that he was not telling the truth. https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/10/24/daniel-dales-donald-trump-fact-check-updates.html
"Climate Change" is a political movement rather than a scientific movement. As each year goes by the scientific evidence of AGW being an issue becomes weaker & weaker. My issue with "AGW" (or "climate change" or whatever they will call it next) is that the entire movement is undermining the integrity of science. We have seen fabricated data, altered temperature information, wild claims about "97%" based on surveys and lists of papers, and a lynch mob frenzy against "deniers" -- all without any reasonable research showing AGW is a threat to mankind. Think of the absurdity that anyone who dissents in the slightest from the claims of the political mob is hunted down & publicly condemned by activists who want to "silence" them. For example take a look at how Dr. Judith Curry, a well-respected climatologist, was hounded out of her position by an organized campaign to abuse her. Yes, "climate change" is a scam. Forty years from now it will be looked at as the largest scientific fraud in history and its leaders (Gore, etc.) will be mocked on late night TV by comedians. But the billions in misspent public dollars will never be recovered to be used for better purposes such as feeding people and building affordable housing.
When you read fake peer reviewed papers on Breitbart.com, of course you are gonna call it a scam. People like you won't know science if it bit it on your ass. Everything is a liberal conspiracy including reality but propaganda funded by oil companies? Oh that's so 'distinguished' when you can't even link to the paper on scientists' home page.
My issue with political commentary today is the large number of complete fabrications that are put forward backed by no reasonable evidence whatsoever. This is done by people on both sides of the aisle, and it only serves to detract from addressing the real issues that must be solved. The continual fabrications being pushed (e.g. Pizzagate, Birther, Trump raped a 13 year old, etc.) has risen to the point of absurdity and drowned out rational political discourse. This is all amplified by the internet which provides an easy method to propagate all the twisted stories. I fully support people having a polite discourse over important political issues they disagree about (e.g. tax reform) -- but it appears the continual flow of daily fabricated stories with biased political talking points undermines any attempt to do this. I am also supportive with people arguing over if something should be a political issue that must be addressed - e.g. is "wealth disparity" an issue (well - not until the peasants show up with a guillotine). Over the recent months ET Politics (and other many forums on the Internet) have changed from a forum where people argued politics (sometimes passionately) using facts, statistics, and data to being a places where people (exGOPer as an example) simply post many threads of fabricated talking points each day, never read the other threads, and then refuse to coherently discuss the information (simply diving into name calling, etc.) As this point I question if there is any further reason to continue to involve myself in this "swamp" -- while also questioning if the Internet, a medium that was supposed to bring us together, has any socially redeeming value.
Yet -- you have provided no evidence that I was portraying the paper as peer reviewed. I provide a link to the respected scientist's website. It listed his Bio, all of his papers (many of them published & peer reviewed) -- yet all you can do is push a false narrative of "false peer reviewed paper" in the same manner that you claimed over & over that "Trump raped a 13 year old" BTW the "paper" was not on Breitbart -- the article on Breitbart provided context and a link to the paper which is why this was one of three times I posted an article from Breitbart --- yet you claimed I post Breitbart articles "regularly" -- more fabrications on your part. Either you need to refute the scientific points in the paper -- or pipe down. You don't have a leg to stand-on at this point. [EDIT Below to add info] From the paper -- if you disagree with the information in the paper then feel free to contact the following people who agree with the paper.... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Page 2 of abridged research report PDF... The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report: Dr. Alan Carlin Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015. Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. Dr. Harold H. Doiron Retired VP - Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc. Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston Dr. Theodore R. Eck Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University M.A, Economics, University of Michigan Fulbright Professor of International Economics Former Chief Economist of Amo co Corp. and Exxon Venezuela Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group Dr. Richard A. Keen Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University Dr. Anthony R. Lupo IPCC Expert Reviewer Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T. B.S., Physics, M.I.T. Dr. George T. Wolff Former Chair EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University M.S., Meteorology, New York University B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology ---------------------------------- For reference here is the original article for your reference.. http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ent-global-warming-is-fabricated-study-finds/
Oh, so CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas. You better publish a paper proving it. You would rich and famous. Instead you are just a stubborn ignorant ideologically perverted moron
The question is if the CO2 produced by man ("AGW") fundamentally dangerous to mankind and needs to be addressed. The question is not "Is CO2 a greenhouse gas". (and yes, CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas). BTW -- anyone publishing a paper proving AGW is not dangerous would be hunted down by a mob of climate activists and silenced. Dissenting opinions are not allowed by the mob. Have you found one paper --- just one peer reviewed paper claiming the CO2 produced by man is definitely dangerous to mankind.
Why do you lie so brazenly? Just because Trump is your leader, you think you can get away with lying all the time. And Trump did rape a 13 year old, we have witnesses - more evidence than any of your Clinton rape accusations. Trump is a pedophile and is the Republican leader, says a lot about your party. Here's where you portrayed the paper as peer reviewed, quoting YOU https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...bal-warming-is-fabricated-study-finds.311099/ This is hilarious, guy who says he never said the paper was peer reviewed while I quoted him saying so is now accusing others of fabrication. Classic Trump technique. More garbage How do I know that those scientists signed on to that page if you can't find the paper anywhere else other than random blogs? Give me a link where the scientists mentioned published that paper on their own website This kind of cunning display of dishonest may work very well on your fellow dumb disingenuous Cons, it won't work with everyone else.