Search results

my mistake; I interpreted your willing and enthusiastic acceptance of the denier label as a reflection on your proudness for it.

that's as broad as broad can be. Can ya tighten that up just a tad?

we have a start here! So... "alarmists" are your "they". What's an alarmist to you? Just who/what do you collectively include in your "alarmist" labeling? You stated "outrageous demands" being made by your "they", by alarmists. What outrageous demands? why get testy and insulting? Aren't we...

yes; I clearly see that it takes little to nothing to keep you amused!

am I in your described "they"?

other than youse guys rambling on with your chuckle-head themes about "eco-tards, enviro-zealots, tree-huggers"... do you guys have any real game here?

who could have imagined such a relatively benign question like asking you to qualify your statement would have you back-pedaling so feverishly. It's a simple question that directly follows your statement; again, "who is your "they" and what outrageous demands have been made... by your "they"?"

really? That's your response to being asked, "who is your "they" and what outrageous demands have been made... by your "they"?" Why, one would think you should have a ready quip at hand; apparently, this is a most inconvenient question for you to actually answer.

who is your "they" and what outrageous demands have been made... by your "they"?

postingCountPadders-R-Us

***yawn***

no worries; even though the new code ignores, for example, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and protection of drainage basins, the Sask Environment Minister Scott Moe says they're simply, "waiting on the Harper Conservative feds"!

sure, just plant seeds; that's all there is to it! There are no other factors, no other influences... right? thanks for your attention ya got nuthin; ya got no game! Move along now...

it's a legitimate English word; those that presume to co-opt it for Nazi attachment are delusional. Again, it's a matter-of-fact label that succinctly identifies a position that doesn't accept (degrees of) AGW/GW/CC... again, I don't attach pejorative intent to it. I mean, one could use the word...

sorry to brush up against your apparent zeal for the "CO2 is plant food" meme. I look forward to you providing predictive analysis citation to support your suggestion/implication of a global increase in staple crop yields due to increased atmospheric CO2...

your premise appears to be one that suggests accelerated atmospheric CO2 will lead to increased global crop yields. IPCC analysis suggests select regional gains; however, overall global staple crop production will decrease. Of course, a full analysis includes all factors inclusive of such things...

get over it; it's a matter-of-fact label without pejorative attachment... just say'n with little to no foundation, reference or background, you're going out of your way to raise question/doubt. Your 'governments have agendas' & 'follow the money' references are nothing but conspiratorial...

rating posts isn't something I'm familiar with. Is it a condition of membership? I do note I've attracted quite the ratings attention from the usual suspect denier types - go figure.

your "new converts and religious conversion" comment associates to your quote; the quote that references... me! So ya, my name is in your post. You should learn to remember what you write, not what you think you wrote.

the "science is settled" is nothing more than a meme perpetuated by deniers. No legitimate scientists would suggest the science... is settled. The question is whether it's "settled enough" to draw conclusions and act upon them; i.e., is enough known within degrees of certainty to support summary...