And their #1 promise in 2016 to repeal and replace BarackObamaCare never happened.
Party of No = Party of Nada.
As I have said many times, I grossly overestimated his competence.
I was trying to think of legislation I'd really like to see passed and other than entitlement reform to reflect the reality of the modern life span I really had no wish list. For the most part, Democrat legislation would mean taking from some and buying votes by giving to others. As to the hot button social issues (from gun control to abortion rights to immigration reform), neither party wants to lose these fund raising issues by resolving them.
Which would of course require that the anti-science party acknowledge that it exists.
Have on the climate is highly questionable and not worth a congressional debate. The only conversation that should be had is how the infrastructure should be managed to deal with any weather event.
No it's not, it's only questionable to buffoons and ignoramuses. We know this by your last part of your statement - "The only conversation that should be had is how the infrastructure should be managed to deal with any weather event."
(no message)
Most of the biggest climate change warriors are art history majors or the like.
Ya just needs some Hannity ta know.
Impact. As for infrastructure, there should be a debate on where things are built, how things are built and how they are managed. For instance, forest fires can be managed with better forestry techniques.
any weather event."
That is about as dumb as a MarkHarman post.
"The earth constantly changes and we have little Impact. As for infrastructure, there should be a debate on where things are built, how things are built and how they are managed. For instance, forest fires can be managed with better forestry techniques."
And that is dumber than any Markharman post.
Variance before man’s evil fossil fuels filled the atmoshphere.
Since when is Jim's inability to explain a scientific theory render the scientific theory unproven?
Perhaps you could explain how many lives a 5 billion dollar border wall will save?
You mean, not wanting to rehash all the obvious data over and over again to someone who generally won't take science based data into consideration.
I merely meant that whether or not you can explain complex theories upon which the scientific community has endorsed does not render the theories null and void.
That seems to be WestCoastIrish's argument here. He saw some factoid talking point that Hannity broadcast, and uses it to refute 100's of peer-reviewed papers unless you, Jimbasil, can personally explain to him why the 100's of peer reviewed papers refute Hannity's conclusions/questions.
It's not that the earth's changes don't influence weather, it's that man is influencing it in a negative way and our living conditions and quality of life is being drastically altered so much so, earth could be unlivable for man. The earth will still be here, it's us that might not.
I don't understand how people like you don't get that it's not just you on the planet or your family and friends, it's the other 7.53 BILLION on the planet that make the difference with you. And that population is growing fast.
Has been billions of years of fluctuations. Billions of years before man and fossil fuels. Just haven’t seen anything, nor can you produce anything, linking man to anything more than a marginal impact, an impact within range, on climate.
Furthermore, your post pretty much reinforced what I mentioned earlier. We should be talking about ways to live in a world that fluctuates greatly rather than discussing how to prevent the fluctuations.
(no message)
Link: Climate science and man's influences
No climate change. No climate change, You're the climate change!
(no message)