Bill Maher: Climate Change Deniers Are "So Stupid They Make ME Question Evolution"

Judged:

1

1

1

Michael Allred wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah, so you believe in whatever you're told is true from minute to minute. Right. Gotcha...
So, since you've now admitted that you form no actual opinions of your own, and in fact don't even think about THOSE, we're to take you seriously why?

Judged:

1

1

1

Really wrote:

<quoted text>
You just recited the liberal credo.

Judged:

1

1

Michael Allred wrote:

<quoted text>
The liberal credo being "Don't listen to idiots who can't even be bothered to think for more than a couple of nanoseconds about whatever slogan they've just read off of a bumper sticker".

Judged:

2

1

1

Really wrote:

<quoted text>
Again with your credo.... tell us more dumb ass.

Judged:

1

1

1

Michael Allred wrote:

Ah, so you believe in whatever you're told is true from minute to minute. Right. Gotcha...

So, since you've now admitted that you form no actual opinions of your own, and in fact don't even think about THOSE, we're to take you seriously why?

Judged:

1

1

Really wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you truly that stupid?
C02 obviously does exist... has anyone proven that it is a direct cause of global warming? NO.
Is global warming man made? Hell NO.
Tell me oh unwise one... how is it that mars (you know, 4th planet from our sun) is experiencing the same rate of global warming as we are... tell us oh unwise parrot...... did man cause that on mars too?

Judged:

1

1

Really wrote:

<quoted text>
Ahh another spread the wealth idiot speaks.
If you have money, why should you be taxed differently than those who don't?
You should be taxed on money earned not money saved genius. Granted you probably don't have much if any saved... so that would not affect you... FL has what is known as a liquid assets tax....$40K or more in a bank (savings acct) gets taxed at 1%.... this is another tax after already paying income tax. Although I can't imagine anyone smart enough to earn enough to save and not being smart enough to invest.
Yet, You lame ass libs want to tax success and reward failing... typical.
Flat rate tax is fair... but you lib losers refuse to pay your fair share... you think that rich folks owe you something. Get a job and earn your own money you sponge.

Saul Alinsky wrote:

<quoted text>
Demagoguery and spin? Is that what the far-left now calls simple questions? I guess so...
Isn't spin saying that "too much CO2 causes problems..." and then by extrapolation saying that there is too much CO2 in our atmosphere because you believe it to be the mechanism for global warming, and you then believe global warming is caused by man as opposed to a natural phenomenon? Aren't you making quite the leap?
By the way, thanks for disregarding each and every question. It's nice of you to add so f'ing much to the conversation.
P.S.– You say, "And ANY amount of arsenic is a pollutant because we have no need of arsenic in our biology." Apparently you have nothing CORRECT to add to the conversation. Nicely done, jackass.
"Despite arsenic's reputation as a poison, it actually has fairly low toxicity in comparison with some other metals, although with chronic exposure there is some concern about arsenic's effect on chromosomes and its carcinogenicity. In fact, arsenic may even be essential and functional in humans in very small amounts. It has been shown to be essential in rats and other animals, though it is found in higher concentrations in them than in humans. Organic arsenic as arsenates (+5 form of arsenic) and elemental arsenic both found naturally in the earth and in foods do not readily produce toxicity. In fact, they are handled fairly easily by the body and eliminated by the kidneys. The inorganic arsenites or trivalent forms of arsenic, such as arsenic trioxide used industrially and found as a food contaminate, seem to create the problems. They accumulate in the body, particularly in the skin, hair, and nails, but also in internal organs. On the average, there is about 10-20 mg. of arsenic in the human body; higher levels may lead to problems. Arsenic can accumulate when kidney function is decreased. Luckily, absorption of arsenic is fairly low, usually less than 5 percent, so most is eliminated in the feces and some in the urine."
http://www.healthy.net/scr/article.asp...

Judged:

2

2

2

Saul Alinsky wrote:

<quoted text>
"AS for if we find out that a few degrees warmer is better? No thanks. I don't think we can EVER know the long term impacts of meddling with the temperature - so abating the CO2 We are producing artificially(and only started doing so in the last few hundred years) is one thing - trying to target certain temps or climates is a whole other ball game."
So is it or is it not correct that CO2 has greatly fluctuated over the life of the planet, most often without the benefit of man? Are you positive that CO2 is now driving AGW? Are you not advocating "meddling with the temperature"? Since CO2 is just a trace gas, 95% of which is generated by natural factors, can you guarantee there is any benefit from CO2 sequestration? Can you guarantee that this "cure" won't be worse than your touted AGW "disease"?
Why should the rest of us believe the AGW hysterics when you have been wrong so many times in the last century in regard to ice ages and global warming?

I Am DigitaP wrote:

<quoted text>
It FEEDS the PLANTS, that GIVE YOU OXYGEN you insipid twit.
Greenhouse gas has not EVER been proven to be responsible for warming of the atmosphere and it can be easily shown it is NOT heating the atmosphere at large.
It MUST be trapping at 50,000 feet. If it were trapping it we would have FOUND it in 30 years.
And lest you claim MORE MAGICAL FORCES made the CO2 magically DROP and start MIXING so well we can't even photograph it,
there's no reported rise in atmospheric light distortion due to the incredible heat necessary to MELT TWO ICE CAPS and disrupt three continents.
Actually the leveraging of CO2 making dramatically increased humidity: MANDATORY
has been repeatedly shown NOT to be happening.
So it's all lies as soon as you hit 'reply' like it always is.

Judged:

1

1

1

I Am DigitaP wrote:

<quoted text>
It FEEDS the PLANTS, that GIVE YOU OXYGEN you insipid twit.

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Nuclear energy? Let's get moving and build a decent waste repository, let's be prepared to pay developing countries for NOT building bombs, and let's come to terms with the actual, unsubsidized cost of nuclear power. Then let's realize that nukes take a VERY long time to build, so there is no freakin' way they can meet our urgent need to cut emissions dramatically within 15 years. High costs and long waits; that's nuclear power.
Gas and wind will get us further, faster. Nuclear and solar will take it from there.

Judged:

1

1

1

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
Nuclear energy? Let's get moving and build a decent waste repository, let's be prepared to pay developing countries for NOT building bombs, and let's come to terms with the actual, unsubsidized cost of nuclear power. Then let's realize that nukes take a VERY long time to build, so there is no freakin' way they can meet our urgent need to cut emissions dramatically within 15 years. High costs and long waits; that's nuclear power.
Gas and wind will get us further, faster. Nuclear and solar will take it from there.

Judged:

1

1

1

Jeffery Wright wrote:

Deserves a repost:
Al Gore / AIT Index, Vol. 18: Globally averaged temperatures have dropped .151°F (.084°C) since An Inconvenient Truth was released

Judged:

1

1

1

CTEd wrote:

<quoted text>
I have no idea about arsenic personally, but you do realize that he said we have "no need of arsenic" - which you take issue with, then post a big post about how it isn't harmful - but still nothing that says we need it, so you really haven't debunked what was said at all.
Whether something innocuous but unnecessary is a pollutant would be the real question - and in some cases that answer would be yes, in others no.

Judged:

1

1

1

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

<quoted text>
Total crap.
Land temperatures from boreholes show strong increase.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_sc/...
Independently verified check of the processing.
and Oceans have also steadily warmed.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/2009...
Now that constitutes 97%+ of the 'surface temperature' so there is no way that you can find a strong cooling.
I suspect that you are just cutting and pasting some confused idiots claims who got it third hand from Rush Limbaugh..

NobodyYouKnow wrote:

...I suspect that you are just cutting and pasting some confused idiots claims who got it third hand from Rush Limbaugh.

Judged:

1

1

1

Saul Alinsky wrote:

<quoted text>
So you and your enviro cohorts have stalled any and all attempts at a respository solution.
You and your enviro cohorts have stalled and, indeed, nearly put the nuclear industry out of business with continual abuse in the courts, making plants more costly, more time-consuming, and difficult as hell to build in any efficient manner.
Then you come on this board and decry the lack of a repository and the length and cost of building a nuke plant? Are you for real?