It's Time (The Economist Presidential Enodorsement)

[ryanXL977]

what do we have to show for the 5 trllion spent over the last 8 yrs
what have we gained

[Larry Sinclair]

So you're saying since we can't test this, let's ignore the scientific consensus?

-There are hundreds of scientists and climatologists who doubt man made GW

-Consensus isn't science.

- Every single GW advocate has some kind of financial benefit in doing so.

[MonkeyF0cker]

What financial benefits do climatologists from Canada have, Larry?

[Larry Sinclair]

What financial benefits do climatologists from Canada have, Larry?

Not really sure.

Ask this guy:

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0707/0707sungw.htm

[McBa1n]

They support a carbon tax for the pseudo-science of global warming.

Not exactly "very, very conservative"

You must be a neocon - part of the 'fundamentals' of republicanism is the environment.

[pavyracer]

-There are hundreds of scientists and climatologists who doubt man made GW

-Consensus isn't science.

- Every single GW advocate has some kind of financial benefit in doing so.

Man didn't make GW. God did it after consulting with Exonn and BP.

[McBa1n]

-There are hundreds of scientists and climatologists who doubt man made GW

-Consensus isn't science.

- Every single GW advocate has some kind of financial benefit in doing so.

Point 1 - Wrong - there are not. They didn't show up until they started to get paid by neocons. This is proveable if you do any research beyond Sean Hannity. Crap, most neocon trendsters didn't get involved until fairly recently and they're brainwashed knuckleheads. The Republican Party WAS about the environment before the party was hijacked by a bunch of bible thumping, opportunistic bigots.

Point 2 - Consensus was a weak term. Global warming was spoken of years before the modern parade on people living with dinosaurs - and all science pointed to global warming. That's actually not consensus - that's fact. You're arguing a point like Darwin's theory. You lost that fight - your offspring will live with it. You can argue it all you want, you'll make a good antagonist that gets destroyed in 50 years in some liberal elite hollywood movie. That's what happens to retards that let other people do their thinking for them.

Scientists study things and come up with conclusions. When it came time to fight 'using oil' - then it became 'debatable' - again - those studies were funded by oil, yet years and years of nonpartisan science was tossed out. It's bullshit and you have no soul if you think otherwise. Global warming, factually, is now accepted. It's cause? The science for that is older than you - I suggest you spend more time reading science rather than neocon tripe.

Point 3 - yeah - advocates of GW are there to fight what they didn't have to - and that's PROVEN SCIENCE. Of course they have a lot to benefit - they're trying to establish truth, son.

[EBSB52]

what do we have to show for the 5 trllion spent over the last 8 yrs
what have we gained

It was redistributed up and that's what pisses Larry off.... oh wait, he's ok with that, just pissing it down that sucks for him