Who still takes global warming seriously?

Judged:

4

4

3

YouHelpFixIt wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope, You did not say 2010 in your post. Here is your post again:
<quoted text>
Please tell me where you see 2010 in that post. Its simply not there. You did follow up with an excuse why you got the year wrong after I pointed it out your error, but 2010 is not in your original statement. Your statement was LIE. Perhaps you lied because you were confused and think that makes it ok, thats the type of deluded thinking that I expect from an alarmist LIAR like you.
Now do you have any wheat production stats that show a declining trend? So far you have posted no stats a all.
Do you have the post number where you think I wrote that the wheat productions stats were on this forum? Nope, thats just another one of your lies. Funny, you imagined you wrote 2010 in your post, even though you clearly did not and then procede to also say that I wrote the wheat production stats were in this forum even though I never wrote that.
You obviously live in your own little self deluded world and probably hate me for confronting you with reality.

Judged:

3

3

3

Mothra wrote:

<quoted text>
Run along, sonny.
Adults are talking here.

Judged:

3

3

3

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
And the climate is getting warmer. That's a fact!

Judged:

3

3

3

SpaceBlues wrote:

The rule of thumb is that we will lose 10 per cent of global food production with every rise in average global temperature of 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F). Since we are virtually bound to see an increase of 2 degrees C before global average temperature stops rising (if it does), that's one-fifth of world food production gone.
It will be considerably worse in some places. In India, for example, a rise of 2 degrees C means a 25 per cent loss of food production. In China, it will probably be worse than that. And a crash in food production doesn't just bring hunger. It brings chaos: collapsing governments, waves of starving climate refugees crossing borders, even wars between countries that depend on the same river for irrigation water.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/commentaries/T...

Judged:

3

3

3

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Well you tried.
Extortion is not withholding something it is taking something. Extortion is illegal. Lobbyists are not illegal, maybe they should be, but they aren't. I mean who would get to go on golf outings without the lobbyists.
And yes our legislators like taking advantage of the lobbyist money. They like their paid for trips, dinners out, shows in NYC. But no one is forcing our legislators to vote a specific way. Our legislators do that all on their own.
Yes if they didn't vote the way the money wants, they wouldn't get any of the money benefits. But that's not extortion, that's corruption practiced by our elected officials.
Term limits would help to end that level of corruption.

Judged:

3

3

2

SpaceDummy wrote:

The rule of thumb is that we will lose 10 per cent of global food production with every rise in average global temperature of 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F). Since we are virtually bound to see an increase of 2 degrees C before global average temperature stops rising (if it does), that's one-fifth of world food production gone.
It will be considerably worse in some places. In India, for example, a rise of 2 degrees C means a 25 per cent loss of food production. In China, it will probably be worse than that. And a crash in food production doesn't just bring hunger. It brings chaos: collapsing governments, waves of starving climate refugees crossing borders, even wars between countries that depend on the same river for irrigation water.
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/commentaries/T...

Judged:

3

3

3

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
And it has been doing just that for most to the past ten thousand years. That is a fact as well.

Judged:

2

2

2

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, you tried..
You really are confused. In all that convoluted ranting you proved nothing other than the fact that you really don't understand the term extortion.
Lobbyists most certainly are using extortion to get what they want, you should check out the very first definition, I am surprised you are confused as you went through all the trouble of posting it:
1. to secure (money, favours, etc.) by intimidation,
The threat of withholding votes, money, or both most certainly is a form of intimidation, and lobbyists most certainly DO invoke such tactics when attempting to secure money, favors, etc.
So yes, they most certainly are extortionists, and the fact that corruptible politicians drunk with power succumb to such tactics doesn't change that fact!

Judged:

3

3

3

Snowman wrote:

<quoted text>
Clear only to the Communist and scam artist that hype AGW.
Try this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...
There are also reports of record cold in many areas, including record sea ice near Korea.
How can this be?

Judged:

2

2

1

Snowman wrote:

<quoted text>
Clear only to the Communist and scam artist that hype AGW.
Try this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl...
There are also reports of record cold in many areas, including record sea ice near Korea.
How can this be?

Judged:

2

2

2

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
It is not 'intimidation' to withhold a 'benefit'. A lobbyist can't withhold a vote. Lobbyist can withhold money, but that is not extortion. You can't extort that which the subject party doesn't have.
"to extort, wrest or wring (money, information, etc.) from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of authority; obtain by force, torture, threat, or the like. b. to take ..."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extort
A lobbyist can't make a legislator 'give them a vote', unless they have pictures.
The lobbyist can 'buy a vote'.
It takes a corrupt legislator to 'sell a vote'.

Judged:

4

4

4

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
You are an idiot..
Intimidate:
transitive verb
: to make timid or fearful : frighten; especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats <tried to intimidate a witness>
To threaten ones power, or office, by withholding votes or money is certainly intimidation.
You can send me the check for the education..
The lobbyist are no better than the politician, but they certainly are extortionists.
BTW, with the way you defend them, I must wonder, are you a lobbyist? You sound dumb enough..

Judged:

2

2

2

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
No.
"To threaten ones power, or office, by withholding votes or money is certainly intimidation"
We can threaten to withhold votes and we can threaten to withhold cash, that's not intimidation, that's not extortion, that's the method we use to encourage our lawmakers to make decisions we want them to make.
We do that on all levels. The individual voter, the lobbyist, the advocacy groups, the unions, etc. It may not be the best way of influencing decisions, but it is not extortion.
The legislator can be fearful of losing the next election, that's not intimidation. That's the process.
The only power our government has is that which has been granted by us and if we chose we can take that back with the next election.
I am not defending the lobbyist. I think we would be better off without them, but they are not guilty of extortion.

Judged:

3

3

3

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
It is crystal clear that the Earth is warming. The only questions are, how much is man contributing and how much will the temperature rise. We do know that man is contributing a significant amount to the warming.

Judged:

2

2

1

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
You're a moron, and you aren't very good at dancing either, though you certainly are trying to dance around your nonsense..

Judged:

3

2

2

Dang Yankee wrote:

Ok, I'll admit it I caused global warming.
It wasn’t on purpose though, who knew driving monster trucks through a pristine alpine meadow and firing up the BBQ with old growth forest wood to cook those baby seal kabobs and the polar bear steaks would have any effect?
If anything, I’d have thought heating my 6,500 sq foot home with discarded automobile tires would have done the trick.
Look at the bright side of global warming, I can fire up my 500 cubic inch, turbo charged lawn tractor in December and mow my grass in short sleeves.
(for you thick headed dolts, this is called sarcasm and the legal disclaimer is this: No baby seals, polar bears, old growth forests or global warming alarmist were harmed in the generation of this message.)