Liberals in tears! Climate activists refuse to credit Trump as U.S. emissions decline

Your source isn't credible:

"Throughout its history, the Washington Times has been known for its conservative political stance. It has drawn controversy for publishing racist content, including commentary and conspiracy theories about U.S. President Barack Obama, supporting neo-Confederate historical revisionism, promoting, Islamophobia,and spreading misinformation regarding the 2019-2020 coronavirus outbreak. It has published many columns which reject the scientific consensuses on climate change, on ozone depletion, and on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.

Looks like our new poster is a sock puppet of Gd5150. He always starts his thread titles with "Liberals in tears!"

Thanks for factual information.

Actually Trump, like most Republicans over the years, supports an "all the above" energy production strategy, including natural gas and nuclear (which liberals oppose). His policy was not signing on to one of these stupid socialist takeover schemes (Kyoto, Paris, whatever). The point, correctly made by Trump and others, is that the US emissions are declining without joining such a globalist agreement, more than most of those nations who signed onto those photo op "Green" accords, thanks to the free market without the need for imposing an oppressive government regulatory burden.

Your gratitude belongs with private companies whom Trump allowed the freedom to innovate.

How stupid are both of you? Oh wait. Nevermind.

Apparently, pulling out of the Paris accords didn't affect America, did it? Thus, we didn't have to be lectured by bunch of agenda driven politicians or agenda driven scientists with their non-peer reviewed data. Not only did we save ourselves from being lectured a load of chepooka, but no chepooka policies were enacted and no new pointless regulations were enacted and yet the US still LED THE WORLD in reducing carbon emissions. That's a good thing. How you fail to acknowledge that is either stupidity or ignorance.

So just remember these three words...How Daaaree You! 🤪🤪🤪🤪😄😄😄😂😂😂

What does this have to do with this thread? Well since this is potpourri, Did Obama bypass Congress and enact policy on his own via presidential memorandum, yes or no?

Answer: FRACKING is legal. Duuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....

You do know that natural gas is cleaner than coal, yes?

Per Biden and reiterated by Bernie, "climate change is an existential threat..."

And yet they will end the fracking industry. Thus, the US will no longer be a net exporter and we will once again be reliant on foreign oil. So if Bernie becomes czar, no more fracking jobs. Oil prices go up. Consumers get screwed. Won't fire up the coal plants because they contribute to the "existential threat". So what? Higher prices. Higher unemployment. Higher taxes. But the air is maybe .001 part per million cleaner? Is that victory lap for you dems? 🤪🤪🤪🤪

Same question to you Bucky, since we're obviously going off topic on purpose and since this is such a sore spot for you personally. Did Obama enact policy on his own and bypassed Congress via presidential memorandum, yes or no?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha!

You can’t measure climate “change/disruption” which is what their political cause has chosen to name it this week. This was done specifically because it’s unmeasurable. They used to call it population bomb. Then peak oil. Then global cooling. Then ozone hole. Then Global warming. All measurable. Then they decided it was change. Then disruption. Now we’re back to “change”. Clearly “change” focus groups better. Ironically The focus grouping of terms is the only real science in their political cause.

I’m sure you care about the environment as the rest of us do. And I’m sure you think you know something on this subject because someone you trust spoon fed you their flavor of the weak cherry picked data. But you really should study and learn the scientific method.

The scientific method is not a popularity contest. It doesn’t take a vote. It doesn’t measure “consensus”. To be proven a scientific theory requires hard measurable data and repeatable results that can be tested and proven. In this case “change” cannot be measured because the Earths climate has never been a flatline. It’s changed for 4.5 billion years and will continue to change for the rest of its existence.

The people backing today’s political movement called “climate change” continue to ignore China and India, the 2 biggest producers of co2, the so-called cause behind climate change. The political cause, as with everything communists push, is about acquisition of power. A way to allow the elites to control people. It was when it was population bomb. And it is with today’s “climate disruption”.

The scientific method exists specifically to prevent real science from being hijacked for political/religious causes. Like when science said the Earth was the center of the universe for 2000 years. It exists to prevent the suppression of study of new ideas. The exact reason the communists behind the cause continuously cite “consensus”.

"There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's all right. It's the aperture to finding out what's right.
Science is a self-correcting process.
To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny.

The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is not that many of his ideas were wrong or silly or in gross contradiction to the facts.
Rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas.

The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge.
And there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system. And the history of our study of the solar system shows clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources." - Carl Sagan