The witch hunt begins as Obama summons the tribunal of pitchfork wielding peasants to seize “climate change deniers.” Sen. Cruz has denounced Democrat’s efforts to take more and more money from the people from ObamaCare to “saving the planet” from CO2. The great global warming swindle has been foremost in both convincing fools to part with their money while reducing the American economy. It’s high time the Left’s claim that man causes climate change be crushed!
With the announcement by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz that he is running for president in 2016 to replace Obama, the Left has gone into apoplectic seizures. Obama himself posted on his Washington webpage to “call out the climate change deniers” in an effort to label Cruz as uneducated and insane – the typical leftist character assassination of anyone on the Right. It worked with Gov. Sarah Palin in 2008 when half of Americans believed “she is so stupid she thinks she can see Russia from her house.”
The Left’s entire agenda is geared toward only one thing; parting fools of their money. And the best way to do that is to convince them they are striving for a higher goal, that being “saving the planet.” But the only thing they are saving the planet from is a strong America, which is exactly what the socialists, Communists, Nazis, Fascists, and Islamists of the Left all want.
Portraying anyone who exposes the Democrat’s fraud; that climate change is caused by man’s pollution as “deniers who don’t believe in science,” is their greatest achievement. Convincing ignorant liberals who don’t know enough science that they are more advanced in science than educated conservatives is a brilliant achievement in deception. It is high time Americans had it out over this scam and the truth in the science that Democrats are successfully playing Chicken Littles to dupe the ignorant.
Is America’s wealth to continue to be stolen by Washington in the name of “saving us from ourselves,” or are people going to learn that they are being treated as dupes being milked by a swindler? Democrats want to raid 401ks and 459s for more money because they can’t tax enough from the rich. The modus operandi of Democrats is to label conservatives as “too stupid to be president,” not because they are smarter than Republicans, but because their followers are dumber than Republican voters. The proof of this is found on Twitter where liberals are disqualifying Cruz for all the same reasons they said Obama is eminently qualified to be president.
Obama condemns “climate change deniers”
Refuting global warming is elementary
Refuting global warming is elementary, part II
Occam’s Razor – the scientific principle that, all things being equal, the simplest answer tends to be the right one.
So which is more plausible?
That mankind’s pollution is causing the atmosphere to heat to the point of burning up the planet and destroying all life?
Or, that swindlers are duping people into giving them their money to “save the planet” by telling them they are scientists?
Bottom line: If there were any truth to the reality and urgency of preventing man from causing more global warming, then Obama would not have just concluded a deal with China that lets them increase their pollution for the next fifteen years.
Related articles;
Ted Cruz’s dazzling announcement scared the heck out of the Left
The problem with Obama’s reality is people listening to FOX News
America needs a team that puts America first!
Other articles;
Racism – the colossal ignorance of the Left’s language of division
Christians crushed the Inquisition, Moslems endorse the Jihad
Proof of fraud – the Democrat agenda to tax Americans
The Final Solution to Islamic terrorism
(Please like, follow, and share this with your friends. Let them know the truth.)
Liberals Backwards Think 
These were remarks left on FB:
Ab_Iorwerth Dusty Koellhoffer • 2 hours ago
the only science involved is that of promoting a fraud to milk taxpayers of more money.
Nope, and you’re part of the reason we’re losing moral and intellectual authority if you think climate change is a hoax. It clearly is not. The question is no longer if, but how quickly it will happen, how much we have an effect on it, and if it’s economically viable to pursue solutions. Claiming it isn’t happening at all is in fact science denying.
That link you posted in ostensible support of your claim is one of the most ignorant things I’ve read this week, as well. It’s embarrassing to see Republicans debase themselves to score imaginary partisan karma.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Dusty Koellhoffer Ab_Iorwerth • in a few seconds
Now here’s clear evidence of the problem. The Earth has been through repeated warm periods between Ice Ages. You think humanity caused those warm periods and then ruined them? Science denial begins in thinking mankind has such immense power over the planet and can control the climate. All the link points out is the deep flaws in liberal thinking and lack of scientific understanding, which you display brilliantly!
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Ab_Iorwerth Dusty Koellhoffer • 5 hours ago
The Earth has been through repeated warm periods between Ice Ages. You think humanity caused those warm periods and then ruined them?
That all factors into every modern climate model and our understanding of climate change. What I “think” is irrelevant. What I know is that there’s mounting evidence that we actually have an effect.
Science denial begins in thinking mankind has such immense power over the planet and can control the climate
Simply put: no. This represents both a categorical ignorance of science as a concept, and the specific science in this case.
All the link points out is the deep flaws in liberal thinking and lack of scientific understanding, which you display brilliantly!
Not only am I not representing “liberal thinking”, but your link doesn’t actually demonstrate any sort of “flaw” or “lack of scientific understanding”. Not even close.
Further, if you think you’re going to get quality science from a site called “Liberals Backwards Think”, you’re going to have a bad time.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Dusty Koellhoffer Ab_Iorwerth • 2 minutes ago
The only mounting evidence is that we produce pollution. There has never been any evidence that it is accumulating, that the Earth cannot “clean it up,” or that it is having an effect on the climate. The science denial that I say begins with people believing man has immense power over the planet is correct because there have been numerous times that scientists made proclamations of our effect only to have it blow up in their faces. Cases in point;
The Exxon Valdez that they said destroyed the Alaskan coast for a thousand years yet was gone in ten.
The Gulf War when Saddam set all Kuwaiti oil fields on fire scientists said would cause great climatic cooling and kill everything in the Persian Gulf, yet had no measurable affect on either.
The Gulf oil spill that scientists were saying would ruin the beaches from Louisiana to North Carolina covered in oil, and the most that happened down current from Louisiana was a few tar babies on the Florida panhandle.
None of this is science, it’s just liberal absolutist Chicken Little thinking. Nothing ever needs be measured or proven for liberals to declare the most dire results. Actual scientists know better than to believe science knows all the answers, let alone can predict the future.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Ab_Iorwerth Dusty Koellhoffer • 29 minutes ago
The only mounting evidence is that we produce pollution. There has never been any evidence that it is accumulating, that the Earth cannot “clean it up,” or that it is having an effect on the climate.
You’re wrong about the evidence; that we can “clean it up” is not relevant; that it’s having an effect is supported by a growing body of evidence.
The science denial that I say begins with people believing man has immense power over the planet is correct because there have been numerous times that scientists made proclamations of our effect only to have it blow up in their faces.
What a joke. Bad predictions that did not represent the scientific consensus are not disproving of the scientific consensus.
None of this is science, it’s just liberal absolutist Chicken Little thinking.
None of that represented the scientific consensus. You’re being entirely disingenuous in your representation of “scientists said”.
Nothing ever needs be measured or proven for liberals to declare the most dire results
Irrelevant to the science.
Actual scientists know better than to believe science knows all the answers, let alone can predict the future.
It is stupidly fallacious to present this as claimed omniscience. And science is definitely capable of predicting the future in many cases.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Dusty Koellhoffer Ab_Iorwerth • in a few seconds
There is no such thing as a “scientific consensus” that proves anything. Galileo and Newton were laughed at by the scientific communities of their day. And a consensus of scientists paid by our corrupt government means less than the paper it’s printed on! Science cannot predict the future. They can make an educated guess. And in the case of global warming scientists who said CO2 pollution increasing exponentially will cause temperatures to increase exponentially have been proven wrong. As for the rest, the fact that people like Al Gore say we can plant trees to “offset” our “carbon output,” and has his own company through which he pays himself his “carbon credits” is just proof it is all a scam.
There is no proof that “greenhouse gases” even exist besides computer models which, as is said, is just garbage in/garbage out. There is no mounting evidence that man is causing or influencing climate change except from those who get paid by Democrats to promote the fraud to convince fools to give the government more of their money and live on less energy. That the Communist Party has found a home in environmentalism to bring down America is all anyone really needs to know to realize the truth.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Ab_Iorwerth Dusty Koellhoffer • 15 minutes ago
There is no such thing as a “scientific consensus” that proves anything
Incorrect. If you think science can’t “prove” something, I think this (already one-sided) conversation is over.
Consensus can change over time, as more facts are introduced, but that in no way suggests that a given topic can’t be definitively concluded. Regardless, you’re just playing semantics out of a failure to challenge the realities.
Galileo and Newton were laughed at by the scientific communities of their day
You’re only supporting my point about consensus changing. As far as it being evidence for any sort contention that current consensus on climate change is inaccurate, I don’t think you understand how anecdote fails to serve that purpose.
And a consensus of scientists paid by our corrupt government means less than the paper it’s printed on!
And thank you for shredding what little credibility you had remaining. Now all the science that contradicts your assertions is just a big conspiracy, from a corrupt government. Get bent.
Science cannot predict the future
Nothing about this is inherently true. Science can predict a lot of future, with great accuracy. You’re being an incredible moron about this based on your flawed premise that weather and temperature can’t be predicted.
As for the rest, the fact that people like Al Gore say we can plant trees to “offset” our “carbon output,” and has his own company through which he pays himself his “carbon credits” is just proof it is all a scam
Nope, it’s not proof of anything related to climate change or climate science. It’s only proof that people are willing to pay to feel they’ve accomplished something.
There is no proof that “greenhouse gases” even exist besides computer models
Ah, so now we’re moving the goalposts. It’s not climate change, but “greenhouse gases”.
as is said, is just garbage in/garbage out
You saying it doesn’t make it true, especially when you said it in the context of an asinine conspiracy theory.
There is no mounting evidence that man is causing or influencing climate change except from those who get paid by Democrats to promote the fraud to convince fools to give the government more of their money and live on less energy
The second half of that sentence completely wrecked your contention in the first half. There’s no objective component to this for you, which is your categorical failure.
That the Communist Party has found a home in environmentalism to bring down America is all anyone really needs to know to realize the truth.
You have no idea how many people are going to get to laugh at this today. “Bring down America”. What a clown.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Dusty Koellhoffer Ab_Iorwerth • a few seconds ago
And there we have it. I didn’t say science can’t prove anything, I said consensus of scientists is not proof. I didn’t prove your point about consensus with Galileo, but the opposite. And if you can’t admit that government is corrupt, that Obama is a pathological liar who misleads people every time he talks, and you think anyone that calls him out on his lies, then you are fooling no one but yourself.
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Ab_Iorwerth Dusty Koellhoffer • 24 minutes ago
I didn’t say science can’t prove anything, I said consensus of scientists is not proof
Which is not inherently true, at least in the way you’re implying, which is a misunderstanding of what that even means. The evidence that leads to consensus can be proof.
I didn’t prove your point about consensus with Galileo, but the opposite
You’re a fumbling clod. Yes, you did support exactly what I stated: which was that it’s possible for consensus to change. I further pointed out the precise flaw in your logic, and how that was not evidence of your contention.
And if you can’t admit that government is corrupt, that Obama is a pathological liar who misleads people every time he talks, and you think anyone that calls him out on his lies [sic], then you are fooling no one but yourself.
You don’t seem to understand how irrelevant this rant of yours is. Your aggressive partisanship does not change how science works, what evidence there is of climate change, and what it means to have scientific consensus based on the plurality of said evidence.
All you do with that rant, in fact, is appear exactly as ignorant as most people will take you to be.
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Dusty Koellhoffer Ab_Iorwerth • a few seconds ago
“The evidence that leads to consensus can be proof.”
This is where you go wrong in your assertions. If you are arguing in court this can be true, but when it comes to science only proof is proof.
While the science of psychology is subject to interpretation, the fact is that when you can prove that what someone says is not a fact, then it is, in fact, a lie. The other is that when someone is engaged in a debate and they resort to name calling, it is always a clear indicator that they have lost the argument. I bid you good day!
• Edit• Reply•Share ›
Visit Ab_Iorwerth’s profile
Ab_Iorwerth
Why you like getting kicked in the nuts repeatedly for demonstrating ignorance, I’ll never know.
This is where you go wrong in your assertions. If you are arguing in court this can be true, but when it comes to science only proof is proof.
More useless semantics. What a shock.
The other is that when someone is engaged in a debate and they resort to name calling, it is always a clear indicator that they have lost the argument
Speaking of psycho logy, this is called a rationalization.
6:45 p.m., Wednesday March 25 | Other comments by Ab_Iorwerth
LikeLike
Post on Discus:
ConservaTards $uck Dusty Koellhoffer • an hour ago
Global warming is all about proving you are a fool. Period.
How bad is Antarctic ice loss? Let scientists count the ways. In December, researchers reported that West Antarctica, one of the world’s most unstable ice sheets, is collapsing faster than anyone had predicted and contributing to rapid sea level rise.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Dusty Koellhoffer ConservaTards $uck • a few seconds ago
I’ll believe the Antarctic ice sheet will melt when I see the north polar ice melt.
LikeLike
Predictions CAN be made with computers, BUT FACTS have to go in (ALL the facts) for facts to come out. If predictions coming out do not concur with reality, then all the facts have not gone in. OR false data (Lies) has been entered. SCIENCE is TRUTH. Figures don’t lie. However, Liars do figure. What predictions were made, and what actually transpired?
LikeLike
Exactly the point! Al Gore and his climate scientists were stupid enough to predict that the north polar ice would cease to exist in just a few years. The lesson for us – they are proven liars. The lesson for them – never make a prediction that is supposed to come true in your lifetime, which is why they have pushed back their prediction to the next century. The bottom line – only complete fools believe them.
LikeLike