Deranged MAGA climate denial: The White House wants NASA satellites DESTROYED!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Libs are insane when it comes to "climate change." Let's just assume that the science is perfect and carbon dioxide is a problem. It stands to reason that the largest emitter of carbon dioxide should be reined in.

Do libs want to stop China? Nope, they want to make it harder to do business in the US, which has the pernicious effect of driving business and production to China, thereby increasing carbon dioxide overall.

Hard to take such people seriously when they can't understand the second order consequences of their own policies. Also makes it hard to take them seriously when they claim the science is settled.

Don't you think we need facts in order to make good policies? Or should we just make them based on feelings and whims?

Libs don't operate from facts, though. They operate from first principles. If facts were relevant, libs would oppose trading with China due to its carbon footprint. So why waste money giving libs ammunition for them to draw absurd conclusions? It's inefficient.

Again, show me where libs use facts to lower CO2 overall instead of just in their home territories? You can't because libs use CO2 as an excuse for their communism, not to actually change environmental outcomes in which they don't actually believe. See, e.g., the politics of any coastal town that is allegedly at severe risk of rising oceans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Libs are insane when it comes to "climate change." Let's just assume that the science is perfect and carbon dioxide is a problem. It stands to reason that the largest emitter of carbon dioxide should be reined in.

Do libs want to stop China? Nope, they want to make it harder to do business in the US, which has the pernicious effect of driving business and production to China, thereby increasing carbon dioxide overall.

Hard to take such people seriously when they can't understand the second order consequences of their own policies. Also makes it hard to take them seriously when they claim the science is settled.

Don't you think we need facts in order to make good policies? Or should we just make them based on feelings and whims?

Libs don't operate from facts, though. They operate from first principles. If facts were relevant, libs would oppose trading with China due to its carbon footprint. So why waste money giving libs ammunition for them to draw absurd conclusions? It's inefficient.

Again, show me where libs use facts to lower CO2 overall instead of just in their home territories? You can't because libs use CO2 as an excuse for their communism, not to actually change environmental outcomes in which they don't actually believe. See, e.g., the politics of any coastal town that is allegedly at severe risk of rising oceans.

Which party is destroying the ability to gather data? The Republicans. End of story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Libs are insane when it comes to "climate change." Let's just assume that the science is perfect and carbon dioxide is a problem. It stands to reason that the largest emitter of carbon dioxide should be reined in.

Do libs want to stop China? Nope, they want to make it harder to do business in the US, which has the pernicious effect of driving business and production to China, thereby increasing carbon dioxide overall.

Hard to take such people seriously when they can't understand the second order consequences of their own policies. Also makes it hard to take them seriously when they claim the science is settled.

Don't you think we need facts in order to make good policies? Or should we just make them based on feelings and whims?

Libs don't operate from facts, though. They operate from first principles. If facts were relevant, libs would oppose trading with China due to its carbon footprint. So why waste money giving libs ammunition for them to draw absurd conclusions? It's inefficient.

Again, show me where libs use facts to lower CO2 overall instead of just in their home territories? You can't because libs use CO2 as an excuse for their communism, not to actually change environmental outcomes in which they don't actually believe. See, e.g., the politics of any coastal town that is allegedly at severe risk of rising oceans.

Oh come on. Hard to take your disingenuous comments about "libs" seriously when Trump himself yanked the U.S. out of the Paris Accord, not once but TWICE, gutting global accountability and handing China a free pass on carbon rather than putting any pressure on them to do something about it. If you’re worried about second-order effects, maybe start with the guy who torched the first-order framework for coordinated CO₂ reduction. Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Libs are insane when it comes to "climate change." Let's just assume that the science is perfect and carbon dioxide is a problem. It stands to reason that the largest emitter of carbon dioxide should be reined in.

Do libs want to stop China? Nope, they want to make it harder to do business in the US, which has the pernicious effect of driving business and production to China, thereby increasing carbon dioxide overall.

Hard to take such people seriously when they can't understand the second order consequences of their own policies. Also makes it hard to take them seriously when they claim the science is settled.

Don't you think we need facts in order to make good policies? Or should we just make them based on feelings and whims?

Libs don't operate from facts, though. They operate from first principles. If facts were relevant, libs would oppose trading with China due to its carbon footprint. So why waste money giving libs ammunition for them to draw absurd conclusions? It's inefficient.

Again, show me where libs use facts to lower CO2 overall instead of just in their home territories? You can't because libs use CO2 as an excuse for their communism, not to actually change environmental outcomes in which they don't actually believe. See, e.g., the politics of any coastal town that is allegedly at severe risk of rising oceans.

Which party is destroying the ability to gather data? The Republicans. End of story.

"Destroy the evidence" is something a criminal says and does. That's what Trump is doing now. You elected a felon, and he's behaving like one.

[Anonymous]

Hurricane season is just around the corner. I wonder what parts of the USA will be hit this year? Doesn’t matter anyway. They don’t exist if we don’t have the data to predict their movement nor severity.

We might not be experiencing more hurricanes per season but we will definitely experience more severe hurricanes as the years go by due to human induced climate change. Good luck Florida and Texas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Libs are insane when it comes to "climate change." Let's just assume that the science is perfect and carbon dioxide is a problem. It stands to reason that the largest emitter of carbon dioxide should be reined in.

Do libs want to stop China? Nope, they want to make it harder to do business in the US, which has the pernicious effect of driving business and production to China, thereby increasing carbon dioxide overall.

Hard to take such people seriously when they can't understand the second order consequences of their own policies. Also makes it hard to take them seriously when they claim the science is settled.

Don't you think we need facts in order to make good policies? Or should we just make them based on feelings and whims?

Libs don't operate from facts, though. They operate from first principles. If facts were relevant, libs would oppose trading with China due to its carbon footprint. So why waste money giving libs ammunition for them to draw absurd conclusions? It's inefficient.

Again, show me where libs use facts to lower CO2 overall instead of just in their home territories? You can't because libs use CO2 as an excuse for their communism, not to actually change environmental outcomes in which they don't actually believe. See, e.g., the politics of any coastal town that is allegedly at severe risk of rising oceans.

I read your comment twice. I honestly have no idea what point you were trying to make.