The disconcerting truth is Don isn't the biggest problem we face......

What sort of response is this? Why do people bother? Just to throw in a little insult?

So you wanted legal immigrants deported?

What has Trump done about legal immigrants?

 

Stop trying to jump around to new issues to save face. Trump is working on the problem and getting resistance from 100-percent of democrats. Keep it up and dems will be at even lower levels of power in coming years. They are currently at 1929 levels of power now.

Steve

 

Oh I know the science great and the politics behind it, AGW is not a topic you should take me on at because I am good, very good at it, I have been studying it since the early 1970s when I started reading..

Let's go back to Trump and Obama being narcissistic..shall We?

 

Who gives a **** about NASA the same NASA who couldn't figure out the difference between the metric system and English measurements , those guys? Our military space program dwarfs NASA by along shot.

 

What do you mean jump around?

You posted a stat, and I asked about it.

 

I don't think he meant it like that Bobby joe, who would want legal immigrants deported?..

They are the heart and soul of America...

I welcome all legal immigrants with open arms, I despise the ones who jump ahead of the line..and *******s that defend them..

 

Then the stat seems useless, that's all I was asking about. Makes no sense.

 

Okay Einstein, immigration laws originally had the purpose of protecting American worker's wages and jobs. The 27 MILLION legal and illegal immigrants here now show that immigration laws have been ignored and citizens are hurt economically. Get over it, or dems keep losing elections in the future.

Steve

 

Well Einstein...

Bear says:

They are the heart and soul of America...

I welcome all legal immigrants with open arms

 

Translation ~ you couldn't answer the question..we are dealing with guys in the late 1800s

So are you going to tell us They had this in 1880 ..dude I am serious about this you want to take me on I will make you cry ...i will rip your arguments a part..this is not a good subject to take me on with because I studied it for the past 42 years

 

?

 

Oh hell Bobby joe you're right, I didn't read that ..

 

h1bshave been limited

 

WTF?


I welcome all legal immigrants..

I could care less, we have a limit though we have rules ..i love legal immigrants..


They don't do anything except contribute to America in a good way.

 

Thanks Bobby joe ...

 

So you are of the opinion that climate scientists around the world who are in virtual unanimous agreement about the data are a bunch of bungling dopes, not capable of calibrating a thermometer, but are all involved in a massive conspiracy to perpetrate of colossal fraud on the world's population? Scientists question science, that's right. That's why there are continuous peer reviews of the analysis of the data all reinforcing the.........you know.......the virtual unanimous consensus.

 

^^^ Reported for flamebaiting.

That's not what I said at all. Read it again, with the idea that REAL SCIENTISTS QUESTION SCIENCE. They don't fall in line and believe what they are told to believe. That makes them politicians of the democrat sort.

Steve

 

We are in agreement. Real scientists question science. Regarding human caused climate change real scientists around the world who question science agree with each other. They peer review each other's work. They have done exhaustive research. The data unequivocally points to one thing causing global warming, the burning of fossil fuels resulting in increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Let me put this another way. Can you think of another example where there is an almost 100% consensus among the scientific community on a topic that you believe the scientists are wrong about? In essence what you are doing is the equivalent of saying you don't believe scientists who say smoking causes cancer.

 

There is NO consensus on climate change, ESPECIALLY when it comes to the cause. You are only brainwashed into believing there is a consensus. I'm sure the Wiki page below is incomplete so I'm giving you the link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming


"Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]
Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[27][28][29][30]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[31][32]
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[33]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[34][35]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[36][37][38][39]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46]
Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics and CBE Chair in Sustainable Commerce, University of Guelph.[47][48]
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[49][50][51]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[52][53]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[54][55]
Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[56][57]
Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.[58]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[59][60][61][62]
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[63]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[64][65]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[66][67]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[68][69]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[70][71]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[72][73]"

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

 

There is virtual unanimous consensus among climate scientists, a qualification most on your list lack.