LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

..and we aren't going to do what needs to be done, because the political climate is much more important.

China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by us.

I had not thought I would see dramatic effects in my lifetime, since I will likely live another 30 years max. But it appears we all will.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The authors found that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate, the atmosphere will warm up by as much as 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above preindustrial levels by 2040, inundating coastlines and intensifying droughts and poverty. Previous work had focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by a larger number, 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), because that was the threshold scientists previously considered for the most severe effects of climate change.

---

What, specifically, do you recommend?

---

"Acknowledging that the problem exists would be a great start. But we'll never do that because Republicans, the patriarchy, and pedophile priests are too busy assaulting a woman's constitutional right to make private and intensely personal health care related medical choice decisions."

---

if you mean scrapping a living baby out of the womb, tearing it to pieces,vacuuming it out and telling the mom who is much more likely to have psychological issues than other women, then just say so.

ps... is the babies health better before or after being torn apart? ( you know since your concerned about health choices)

---

Sarcasm.

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

What a 2C increase in average global temperature will do: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-report-half-degree.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

---

What, specifically, do you recommend?

---

First, let's get past the guys like Doc Holliday who think their observations of a melting ice cube in a water glass constitute authoritative scientific evidence that human activity--specifically, carbon emissions--isn't warming the planet really fast--to the point where some coastlines will be inundated and some island nations, like the Maldives, may no longer exist.

Along with the idiots who spout the 'climate has always changed" canard without also noting the fact that the planet has never before hosted the large a number of people, nor have the people living here had the technological means to heat and cool their homes and travel globally using carbon-based fuels. We are already at the point where we're going to kill the coral reefs, and we're also killing off the rain forests, which serve an important purpose in maintaining our atmosphere.

Then I'd like to hear recommendations from the guys with Ph.D.s who have concluded we're in big trouble about what we can do to stop emitting carbon at such high levels and what's not possible.

There are so many variables and so many things we don't know that scientists have already made one bad mistake--the effects are coming sooner rather than later. I will probably live at most another 30 years, and they will manifest during my lifetime. They are already in North Carolina and California.

Possibly the only positive in that is that all the conservatives who have claimed we're contending with normal variations in a planetary cycle are going to see how wrong they are before and realize how badly they've screwed their own kids and grandkids by their stubborness and selfishness. Or not. Some of these guys are hopeless.

As a small start, we COULD stop trying to resurrect the coal industry in the U.S. That's almost as dumb as building a wall.

---

Serious question: Why do you care? Is it because you want to save people? Is it people that you're worried about? Because even if your doomsday scenario occurs and water levels rise, this isn't happening overnight. You know that, right? People will just move. Over very long periods of time.

Plus, I can't imagine it's the people you're worried about because, after all, it's people that are causing this "disaster" to your sacred planet right? All of these climate changes have occurred in the past, but THIS one, well, this one is caused by people. So it's way worse. And people will be affected. If only there weren't so many people. Which brings us to another point.

If you're so worried about saving people, why are you totally cool with slaughtering millions of them before they come through the birth canal? Or is that really why you support abortion-on-demand? As population control to save the "environment?" Are you sacrificing those babies on the altar to Mother Nature? Your worship of nature borders on paganism, and your lack of regard for human life is barbaric. So tell me, why do you really care if some polar ice (that was once water), turns back into water?

---

I have children. They will eventually have children. I'd hate to see a mass die-off. Which is already happening, but hasn't really affected us. Yet.

Weren't we supposed to be the stewards of this planet?

WWJD?

Watch ice melt in a glass and claim there's no problem when hurricanes and storm surges typically don't happen in your water glass?

btw, the "why do you care about planetary extinction of the human race cuz abortion?" is sort of backwards. Too many people IS the problem--and not in the U.S.--in China, India and the developing world, where birth control hasn't been widely available because of poverty, the pope, Islam and horrific attitudes toward women. (Our abuse not only doesn't matter, it doesn't really happen--it's a political fiction.)

We have failed to control our own population while noting that uncontrolled populations of other animals create problems as an excuse for "harvesting" animals people want to shoot. That's a "well, duh" thing if you don't think God values human life over every other kind and that this somehow absolves us of our stewardship responsibility to make sure our children and their children inherit a world that still sustains life.

I'm mystified at how people who won't do anything about climate change and repeat idiotic arguments to justify their inaction can refer to themselves as pro-life.

witchmo said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Some folks need to forget about Al Gore and focus on saving the human race.

What scientists are studying is not mere 'weather' nor a natural warming cycle.

Rather...the obvious impact of 7 billion people on the planet when there were only 1 billion people as recently as 1875.

---

Not arguing the issue of environment but the claim of 10 years to doomsday that has been thrown about. The smart folks have missed 3-4 times now so reliability is suspect.

---

10 years, 20 years or 50...it doesn't matter.

Really want your children or grandchildren to perish in an accelerating nightmare we all chose to ignore ?

Canada2017 said:

---

witchmo said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Some folks need to forget about Al Gore and focus on saving the human race.

What scientists are studying is not mere 'weather' nor a natural warming cycle.

Rather...the obvious impact of 7 billion people on the planet when there were only 1 billion people as recently as 1875.

---

Not arguing the issue of environment but the claim of 10 years to doomsday that has been thrown about. The smart folks have missed 3-4 times now so reliability is suspect.

---

10 years, 20 years or 50...it doesn't matter.

Really want your children or grandchildren to perish in an accelerating nightmare we all chose to ignore ?

---

Have you watched the video yet?

I don't need to watch any video.

Been reading data from various journals for years until a few months ago........when I finally gave up.

Concluded we are simply going to destroy ourselves .

Canada2017 said:

---

I don't need to watch any video.

Been reading data from various journals for years until a few months ago........when I finally gave up.

Concluded we are simply going to destroy ourselves .

---

The professor in the video has more experience in climate science than almost anyone on earth. You should spend the 5 minutes to watch the video.

My friend...I had associates from 3 different universities sending me data from various refereed journals until I finally told them to stop.

It was making me sick.

Great video!

Libs want climate to change to say "told ya so". Loons

Jinx 2 said:

---

We have failed to control our own population while noting that uncontrolled populations of other animals create problems as an excuse for "harvesting" animals people want to shoot.

I'm mystified at how people who won't do anything about climate change and repeat idiotic arguments to justify their inaction can refer to themselves as pro-life.

---

How should we control our population?

I ask again, what do you think we should do about climate change? Be specific, please

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

What a 2C increase in average global temperature will do: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-report-half-degree.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

---

What, specifically, do you recommend?

---

First, let's get past the guys like Doc Holliday who think their observations of a melting ice cube in a water glass constitute authoritative scientific evidence that human activity--specifically, carbon emissions--isn't warming the planet really fast--to the point where some coastlines will be inundated and some island nations, like the Maldives, may no longer exist.

Along with the idiots who spout the 'climate has always changed" canard without also noting the fact that the planet has never before hosted the large a number of people, nor have the people living here had the technological means to heat and cool their homes and travel globally using carbon-based fuels. We are already at the point where we're going to kill the coral reefs, and we're also killing off the rain forests, which serve an important purpose in maintaining our atmosphere.

Then I'd like to hear recommendations from the guys with Ph.D.s who have concluded we're in big trouble about what we can do to stop emitting carbon at such high levels and what's not possible.

There are so many variables and so many things we don't know that scientists have already made one bad mistake--the effects are coming sooner rather than later. I will probably live at most another 30 years, and they will manifest during my lifetime. They are already in North Carolina and California.

Possibly the only positive in that is that all the conservatives who have claimed we're contending with normal variations in a planetary cycle are going to see how wrong they are before and realize how badly they've screwed their own kids and grandkids by their stubborness and selfishness. Or not. Some of these guys are hopeless.

As a small start, we COULD stop trying to resurrect the coal industry in the U.S. That's almost as dumb as building a wall.

---

Serious question: Why do you care? Is it because you want to save people? Is it people that you're worried about? Because even if your doomsday scenario occurs and water levels rise, this isn't happening overnight. You know that, right? People will just move. Over very long periods of time.

Plus, I can't imagine it's the people you're worried about because, after all, it's people that are causing this "disaster" to your sacred planet right? All of these climate changes have occurred in the past, but THIS one, well, this one is caused by people. So it's way worse. And people will be affected. If only there weren't so many people. Which brings us to another point.

If you're so worried about saving people, why are you totally cool with slaughtering millions of them before they come through the birth canal? Or is that really why you support abortion-on-demand? As population control to save the "environment?" Are you sacrificing those babies on the altar to Mother Nature? Your worship of nature borders on paganism, and your lack of regard for human life is barbaric. So tell me, why do you really care if some polar ice (that was once water), turns back into water?

---

I'm mystified at how people who won't do anything about climate change and repeat idiotic arguments to justify their inaction can refer to themselves as pro-life.

---

I"m mystified that someone who purports to care about saving the planet in order to save lives doesn't give a chit about mass infanticide RIGHT NOW. You aren't worshiping the planet for people's sake, your'e just worshipping the planet.

Climate changes. Man's presence on earth affects this. So would a major volcano or an asteroid. If it's getting slightly warmer, human beings will adapt. ALL the ice you're worried about melting WAS ONCE WATER. If some of it melts, it will be returning to a former state. And it will happen slowly. Taxing carbon emissions isn't going to change that.

Worry more about about the human beings that are being killed RIGHT NOW instead of the future ones you're supposedly worried about possibly being killed later.

---

I don't consider abortion "mass infanticide." I consider having control over your body over and above what the federal government wants you to do with it a basic human right for women. We're just going to have to disagree with that.

I'm one of the only women posting here, and it doesn't surprise me that many more women than men share my view on this issue, and that more men from a fundamentalist, authoritarian culture where men head the household and women "submit" think the government should make such decisions for women because, left to our silly little sinful devices, we won't make the decision you want us to make.

For some posters, that issue alone makes it impossible to have a dialog with me or anyone else who believes women should be able to make such intensely personal decisions for themselves with no government interference. Abortion is the only issue that matters to you, and if someone believes women should have the right to choose that with no government interference whatsoever, that precludes any other conversation If that's you, please put me on ignore.

For the record, I don't vote that issue. In the last several elections, climate change has been the sole issue that dictated my vote. I think it's that important.

Human beings are resourceful and we will survive whatever happens--but in fewer numbers and, likely, with harder lives. There will also be a good deal of upheaval as "climate change refugees" are forced from their homes. I fear these people will be the Palestinians of the future; no one will want to take them in. The nasty refugee battles of this day--Syrians no one wants dying at sea, people leaving failed states to seek asylum at our borders only to have their children taken from them in an act of gratuitous cruelty and stuck in warehouses or tents out in the desert or lost in a poorly organized foster care system--will pale by comparison. The refugee children matter so little to the U.S. government they were taken from their parents as infants until a federal judge stopped that inhumane practice. And lots people who are most virulently pro-life (Jeff Sessions is hardly liberal) developed and supported that criminal practice.

It takes a tremendous amount of selfishness and obtuseness to ignore a very real threat to our planet, which we can't replace, to say, "It's really too late to do anything" when your party is a big reason we didn't do anything, or to think the economy is the only thing that's really important--and what happens to that when the cost of natural disasters starts mounting? How many Katrinas and Florences and Harveys can we recover from?

Anybody on here done estate planning? You try to plan for the worst that can happen while hoping for the best, because you don't want to burden your children with the astronomical cost of nursing care for years, but are also hoping you will instead spend those years and that money traveling with your spouse and leaving a legacy for your children. We're doing the opposite as a nation.

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

What a 2C increase in average global temperature will do: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-report-half-degree.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

---

What, specifically, do you recommend?

---

First, let's get past the guys like Doc Holliday who think their observations of a melting ice cube in a water glass constitute authoritative scientific evidence that human activity--specifically, carbon emissions--isn't warming the planet really fast--to the point where some coastlines will be inundated and some island nations, like the Maldives, may no longer exist.

Along with the idiots who spout the 'climate has always changed" canard without also noting the fact that the planet has never before hosted the large a number of people, nor have the people living here had the technological means to heat and cool their homes and travel globally using carbon-based fuels. We are already at the point where we're going to kill the coral reefs, and we're also killing off the rain forests, which serve an important purpose in maintaining our atmosphere.

Then I'd like to hear recommendations from the guys with Ph.D.s who have concluded we're in big trouble about what we can do to stop emitting carbon at such high levels and what's not possible.

There are so many variables and so many things we don't know that scientists have already made one bad mistake--the effects are coming sooner rather than later. I will probably live at most another 30 years, and they will manifest during my lifetime. They are already in North Carolina and California.

Possibly the only positive in that is that all the conservatives who have claimed we're contending with normal variations in a planetary cycle are going to see how wrong they are before and realize how badly they've screwed their own kids and grandkids by their stubborness and selfishness. Or not. Some of these guys are hopeless.

As a small start, we COULD stop trying to resurrect the coal industry in the U.S. That's almost as dumb as building a wall.

---

Serious question: Why do you care? Is it because you want to save people? Is it people that you're worried about? Because even if your doomsday scenario occurs and water levels rise, this isn't happening overnight. You know that, right? People will just move. Over very long periods of time.

Plus, I can't imagine it's the people you're worried about because, after all, it's people that are causing this "disaster" to your sacred planet right? All of these climate changes have occurred in the past, but THIS one, well, this one is caused by people. So it's way worse. And people will be affected. If only there weren't so many people. Which brings us to another point.

If you're so worried about saving people, why are you totally cool with slaughtering millions of them before they come through the birth canal? Or is that really why you support abortion-on-demand? As population control to save the "environment?" Are you sacrificing those babies on the altar to Mother Nature? Your worship of nature borders on paganism, and your lack of regard for human life is barbaric. So tell me, why do you really care if some polar ice (that was once water), turns back into water?

---

I'm mystified at how people who won't do anything about climate change and repeat idiotic arguments to justify their inaction can refer to themselves as pro-life.

---

I"m mystified that someone who purports to care about saving the planet in order to save lives doesn't give a chit about mass infanticide RIGHT NOW. You aren't worshiping the planet for people's sake, your'e just worshipping the planet.

Climate changes. Man's presence on earth affects this. So would a major volcano or an asteroid. If it's getting slightly warmer, human beings will adapt. ALL the ice you're worried about melting WAS ONCE WATER. If some of it melts, it will be returning to a former state. And it will happen slowly. Taxing carbon emissions isn't going to change that.

Worry more about about the human beings that are being killed RIGHT NOW instead of the future ones you're supposedly worried about possibly being killed later.

---

I don't consider abortion "mass infanticide." I consider having control over your body over and above what the federal government wants you to do with it a basic human right for women. We're just going to have to disagree with that.

I'm one of the only women posting here, and it doesn't surprise me that many more women than men share my view on this issue, and that more men from a fundamentalist, authoritarian culture where men head the household and women "submit" think the government should make such decisions for women because, left to our silly little sinful devices, we won't make the decision you want us to make.

For some posters, that issue alone makes it impossible to have a dialog with me or anyone else who believes women should be able to make such intensely personal decisions for themselves with no government interference. Abortion is the only issue that matters to you, and if someone believes women should have the right to choose that with no government interference whatsoever, that precludes any other conversation If that's you, please put me on ignore.

For the record, I don't vote that issue. In the last several elections, climate change has been the sole issue that dictated my vote. I think it's that important.

Human beings are resourceful and we will survive whatever happens--but in fewer numbers and, likely, with harder lives. There will also be a good deal of upheaval as "climate change refugees" are forced from their homes. I fear these people will be the Palestinians of the future; no one will want to take them in. The nasty refugee battles of this day--Syrians no one wants dying at sea, people leaving failed states to seek asylum at our borders only to have their children taken from them in an act of gratuitous cruelty and stuck in warehouses or tents out in the desert or lost in a poorly organized foster care system--will pale by comparison. The refugee children matter so little to the U.S. government they were taken from their parents as infants until a federal judge stopped that inhumane practice. And lots people who are most virulently pro-life (Jeff Sessions is hardly liberal) developed and supported that criminal practice.

It takes a tremendous amount of selfishness and obtuseness to ignore a very real threat to our planet, which we can't replace, to say, "It's really too late to do anything" when your party is a big reason we didn't do anything, or to think the economy is the only thing that's really important--and what happens to that when the cost of natural disasters starts mounting? How many Katrinas and Florences and Harveys can we recover from?

Anybody on here done estate planning? You try to plan for the worst that can happen while hoping for the best, because you don't want to burden your children with the astronomical cost of nursing care for years, but are also hoping you will instead spend those years and that money traveling with your spouse and leaving a legacy for your children. We're doing the opposite as a nation.

---

If I don't consider climate change to be a threat, that makes no difference as to whether it actually is a threat. Same with your view on killing unborn human offspring.

It doesn't surprise me that you falsely believe there is some kind of gender gap on views of abortion. There really isn't, according to research, but you spin out an entire line of ad hom based argument contingent on that falsehood.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

What a 2C increase in average global temperature will do: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-report-half-degree.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

---

What, specifically, do you recommend?

---

First, let's get past the guys like Doc Holliday who think their observations of a melting ice cube in a water glass constitute authoritative scientific evidence that human activity--specifically, carbon emissions--isn't warming the planet really fast--to the point where some coastlines will be inundated and some island nations, like the Maldives, may no longer exist.

Along with the idiots who spout the 'climate has always changed" canard without also noting the fact that the planet has never before hosted the large a number of people, nor have the people living here had the technological means to heat and cool their homes and travel globally using carbon-based fuels. We are already at the point where we're going to kill the coral reefs, and we're also killing off the rain forests, which serve an important purpose in maintaining our atmosphere.

Then I'd like to hear recommendations from the guys with Ph.D.s who have concluded we're in big trouble about what we can do to stop emitting carbon at such high levels and what's not possible.

There are so many variables and so many things we don't know that scientists have already made one bad mistake--the effects are coming sooner rather than later. I will probably live at most another 30 years, and they will manifest during my lifetime. They are already in North Carolina and California.

Possibly the only positive in that is that all the conservatives who have claimed we're contending with normal variations in a planetary cycle are going to see how wrong they are before and realize how badly they've screwed their own kids and grandkids by their stubborness and selfishness. Or not. Some of these guys are hopeless.

As a small start, we COULD stop trying to resurrect the coal industry in the U.S. That's almost as dumb as building a wall.

---

Serious question: Why do you care? Is it because you want to save people? Is it people that you're worried about? Because even if your doomsday scenario occurs and water levels rise, this isn't happening overnight. You know that, right? People will just move. Over very long periods of time.

Plus, I can't imagine it's the people you're worried about because, after all, it's people that are causing this "disaster" to your sacred planet right? All of these climate changes have occurred in the past, but THIS one, well, this one is caused by people. So it's way worse. And people will be affected. If only there weren't so many people. Which brings us to another point.

If you're so worried about saving people, why are you totally cool with slaughtering millions of them before they come through the birth canal? Or is that really why you support abortion-on-demand? As population control to save the "environment?" Are you sacrificing those babies on the altar to Mother Nature? Your worship of nature borders on paganism, and your lack of regard for human life is barbaric. So tell me, why do you really care if some polar ice (that was once water), turns back into water?

---

I'm mystified at how people who won't do anything about climate change and repeat idiotic arguments to justify their inaction can refer to themselves as pro-life.

---

I"m mystified that someone who purports to care about saving the planet in order to save lives doesn't give a chit about mass infanticide RIGHT NOW. You aren't worshiping the planet for people's sake, your'e just worshipping the planet.

Climate changes. Man's presence on earth affects this. So would a major volcano or an asteroid. If it's getting slightly warmer, human beings will adapt. ALL the ice you're worried about melting WAS ONCE WATER. If some of it melts, it will be returning to a former state. And it will happen slowly. Taxing carbon emissions isn't going to change that.

Worry more about about the human beings that are being killed RIGHT NOW instead of the future ones you're supposedly worried about possibly being killed later.

---

I don't consider abortion "mass infanticide." I consider having control over your body over and above what the federal government wants you to do with it a basic human right for women. We're just going to have to disagree with that.

I'm one of the only women posting here, and it doesn't surprise me that many more women than men share my view on this issue, and that more men from a fundamentalist, authoritarian culture where men head the household and women "submit" think the government should make such decisions for women because, left to our silly little sinful devices, we won't make the decision you want us to make.

For some posters, that issue alone makes it impossible to have a dialog with me or anyone else who believes women should be able to make such intensely personal decisions for themselves with no government interference. Abortion is the only issue that matters to you, and if someone believes women should have the right to choose that with no government interference whatsoever, that precludes any other conversation If that's you, please put me on ignore.

For the record, I don't vote that issue. In the last several elections, climate change has been the sole issue that dictated my vote. I think it's that important.

Human beings are resourceful and we will survive whatever happens--but in fewer numbers and, likely, with harder lives. There will also be a good deal of upheaval as "climate change refugees" are forced from their homes. I fear these people will be the Palestinians of the future; no one will want to take them in. The nasty refugee battles of this day--Syrians no one wants dying at sea, people leaving failed states to seek asylum at our borders only to have their children taken from them in an act of gratuitous cruelty and stuck in warehouses or tents out in the desert or lost in a poorly organized foster care system--will pale by comparison. The refugee children matter so little to the U.S. government they were taken from their parents as infants until a federal judge stopped that inhumane practice. And lots people who are most virulently pro-life (Jeff Sessions is hardly liberal) developed and supported that criminal practice.

It takes a tremendous amount of selfishness and obtuseness to ignore a very real threat to our planet, which we can't replace, to say, "It's really too late to do anything" when your party is a big reason we didn't do anything, or to think the economy is the only thing that's really important--and what happens to that when the cost of natural disasters starts mounting? How many Katrinas and Florences and Harveys can we recover from?

Anybody on here done estate planning? You try to plan for the worst that can happen while hoping for the best, because you don't want to burden your children with the astronomical cost of nursing care for years, but are also hoping you will instead spend those years and that money traveling with your spouse and leaving a legacy for your children. We're doing the opposite as a nation.

---

If I don't consider climate change to be a threat, that makes no difference as to whether it actually is a threat. Same with your view on killing unborn human offspring.

It doesn't surprise me that you falsely believe there is some kind of gender gap on views of abortion. There really isn't, according to research, but you spin out an entire line of ad hom based argument contingent on that falsehood.

---

You are right that there's less of a gender gap in views on abortion than I thought: https://news.gallup.com/poll/235646/men-women-generally-hold-similar-abortion-attitudes.aspx

But more women than men identify as "pro-choice" and more women than men support abortion in all circumstances:

Since 1990, the average gender difference in the view that abortion should be legal in all circumstances is four percentage points, with women more likely than men to hold that attitude. For the past four years, an average of 31% of women and 26% of men have held this view.

And it's close to a 60/40 split of people who believe abortion should be available in all or some circumstances versus those who favor restrictions on that right:

http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

As of 2017, public support for legal abortion remains as high as it has been in two decades of polling. Currently, 57% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 40% say it should be illegal in all or most cases.

Fewer than 20 percent of men and women believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances and this is where there's no real gender difference:

Gender differences in the view that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances are even smaller, with an average gap of two points since 1990. For the past four years, there has been no difference, with 19% of both men and women saying that abortion should be totally illegal.

We have been told, over the years, that all possible circumstances are the result of climate change. More snow, less snow, more hurricanes, fewer hurricanes, mild winters, harsher winters ...

So you want to take action against climate change. How could we know if it is succeeding? What observable phenomena could we point to, to say look, our efforts are paying off?

Or will we keep being told, based on the fact that the winters are warm/cold/wet/dry, that climate change continues, and more sacrifices are needed, and higher taxes are needed, and the government needs yet more power?

CutTheTVoff said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

I don't need to watch any video.

Been reading data from various journals for years until a few months ago........when I finally gave up.

Concluded we are simply going to destroy ourselves .

---

Look at both sides. Plenty of scientists not sponsored and funded by the UN are NOT on board with the doomsday scenario.

---

Nm

CutTheTVoff said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

I don't need to watch any video.

Been reading data from various journals for years until a few months ago........when I finally gave up.

Concluded we are simply going to destroy ourselves .

---

Look at both sides. Plenty of scientists not sponsored and funded by the UN are not on board with the doomsday scenario.

---

In a world wide scientific study ....there is never 100% agreement on anything .

So one can always find 'plenty' to disapprove .

However the overwhelming majority of the scientific community not only supports the reality of global warming....they are amazed that so many people simply refuse to accept the obvious . There have even been studies on such behavior.

Unfortunately that is human nature . We often refuse to inconvenience ourselves even when it's necessary for our own survival .

Canada2017 said:

---

CutTheTVoff said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

I don't need to watch any video.

Been reading data from various journals for years until a few months ago........when I finally gave up.

Concluded we are simply going to destroy ourselves .

---

Look at both sides. Plenty of scientists not sponsored and funded by the UN are not on board with the doomsday scenario.

---

In a world wide scientific study ....there is never 100% agreement on anything .

So one can always find 'plenty' to disapprove .

However the overwhelming majority of the scientific community not only supports the reality of global warming....they are amazed that so many people simply refuse to accept the obvious . There have even been studies on such behavior.

Unfortunately that is human nature . We often refuse to inconvenience ourselves even when it's necessary for our own survival .

---

Have you forgotten that global warming errr I mean climate change was determined to be "settled science" during the early 2000s primarily from data supplied by the premier climate lab in the world based in the UK? And then somebody hacked into their system and exposed emails where they were discussing how they changed the data they recorded to meet the criteria needed to demonstrate global warming, and that the actual data they recorded didn't support that conclusion? Oh and how the International press completely ignored this staggering revelation, which should have put an immediate end to this ridiculous hoaky climate religion?

Gunny Hartman said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

CutTheTVoff said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

I don't need to watch any video.

Been reading data from various journals for years until a few months ago........when I finally gave up.

Concluded we are simply going to destroy ourselves .

---

Look at both sides. Plenty of scientists not sponsored and funded by the UN are not on board with the doomsday scenario.

---

In a world wide scientific study ....there is never 100% agreement on anything .

So one can always find 'plenty' to disapprove .

However the overwhelming majority of the scientific community not only supports the reality of global warming....they are amazed that so many people simply refuse to accept the obvious . There have even been studies on such behavior.

Unfortunately that is human nature . We often refuse to inconvenience ourselves even when it's necessary for our own survival .

---

Have you forgotten that global warming errr I mean climate change was determined to be "settled science" during the early 2000s primarily from data supplied by the premier climate lab in the world based in the UK? And then somebody hacked into their system and exposed emails where they were discussing how they changed the data they recorded to meet the criteria needed to demonstrate global warming, and that the actual data they recorded didn't support that conclusion? Oh and how the International press completely ignored this staggering revelation, which should have put an immediate end to this ridiculous hoaky climate religion?

---

This kind of 'rationale' flies the the face of literally dozens of studies conducted by various universities and governmental agencies throughout the entire world . Common sense would suggest it would be utterly impossible to coordinate such a fraud throughout the worldwide scientific community.

Done here.

Peace

Canada2017 said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

CutTheTVoff said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

I don't need to watch any video.

Been reading data from various journals for years until a few months ago........when I finally gave up.

Concluded we are simply going to destroy ourselves .

---

Look at both sides. Plenty of scientists not sponsored and funded by the UN are not on board with the doomsday scenario.

---

In a world wide scientific study ....there is never 100% agreement on anything .

So one can always find 'plenty' to disapprove .

However the overwhelming majority of the scientific community not only supports the reality of global warming....they are amazed that so many people simply refuse to accept the obvious . There have even been studies on such behavior.

Unfortunately that is human nature . We often refuse to inconvenience ourselves even when it's necessary for our own survival .

---

Have you forgotten that global warming errr I mean climate change was determined to be "settled science" during the early 2000s primarily from data supplied by the premier climate lab in the world based in the UK? And then somebody hacked into their system and exposed emails where they were discussing how they changed the data they recorded to meet the criteria needed to demonstrate global warming, and that the actual data they recorded didn't support that conclusion? Oh and how the International press completely ignored this staggering revelation, which should have put an immediate end to this ridiculous hoaky climate religion?

---

This kind of 'rationale' flies the the face of literally dozens of studies conducted by various universities and governmental agencies throughout the entire world . Common sense would suggest it would be utterly impossible to coordinate such a fraud throughout the worldwide scientific community.

Done here.

Peace

---

Lots of frauds that were the consensus have been debunked precisely because science was biased, faulty or just outright wrong.

Canada2017 said:

---

Gunny Hartman said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

CutTheTVoff said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

I don't need to watch any video.

Been reading data from various journals for years until a few months ago........when I finally gave up.

Concluded we are simply going to destroy ourselves .

---

Look at both sides. Plenty of scientists not sponsored and funded by the UN are not on board with the doomsday scenario.

---

In a world wide scientific study ....there is never 100% agreement on anything .

So one can always find 'plenty' to disapprove .

However the overwhelming majority of the scientific community not only supports the reality of global warming....they are amazed that so many people simply refuse to accept the obvious . There have even been studies on such behavior.

Unfortunately that is human nature . We often refuse to inconvenience ourselves even when it's necessary for our own survival .

---

Have you forgotten that global warming errr I mean climate change was determined to be "settled science" during the early 2000s primarily from data supplied by the premier climate lab in the world based in the UK? And then somebody hacked into their system and exposed emails where they were discussing how they changed the data they recorded to meet the criteria needed to demonstrate global warming, and that the actual data they recorded didn't support that conclusion? Oh and how the International press completely ignored this staggering revelation, which should have put an immediate end to this ridiculous hoaky climate religion?

---

This kind of 'rationale' flies the the face of literally dozens of studies conducted by various universities and governmental agencies throughout the entire world . Common sense would suggest it would be utterly impossible to coordinate such a fraud throughout the worldwide scientific community.

Done here.

Peace

---

Yes the worldwide scientific community is definitely never wrong. They totally nailed it in the 80s when they told us eggs were bad for us because they were high in cholesterol. Except oops, it turns out there's a healthy cholesterol that is not only good but absolutely necessary in your diet that eggs are high in.

Oh and a little secret for you, there's far more scientists worldwide than you can imagine that remain skeptical about climate change but are unwilling to speak up about it for fear of getting ridiculed by the hard-left scientific mafia who have the loudest voices in the community.