It used to be Global Warming, but then, when there was no warming, the switched it to climate change, which is meaningless because the climate, along with everything else under the sun, changes constantly.

Speaking of science, science is supposed to be a more reliable way to discover facts about matter.

But it does have anything to do with how we reason concerning those facts. That is entirely different. How we reason, draw inferences, use logic and so forth, that is not science at all.

So when a guy with white lab coat gets on TV and says something, even about science, we should not put more faith into what he says that is warranted. But people think that just because they see the lab coat, and just because the conversation stars off with science, it all must be true. But it's not. There comes a point when the scientist is still talking but it's not science.

2014, 2015 and 2016 were the three warmest years ever recorded.>

Under Obama??@#$%?
Say it ain't so!!!

At least Soros made out like a stuck pig, shorting coal. (having Obama as a climate puppet is fantastic)

<Speaking of science, science is supposed to be...>

but you never offer anything of substance.>

BP, will you please supply climate data
and climate damage data 30 years from now, so GSM can have his "substance."

As you fawn over 30 year computer models, GSM. I wonder what you've missed in the "substance" of a multi trillion dollar "Great Society" where civil rights leaders watch the minority die?

Where healthcare champions watch it implode under Obamacare?

All the "substance" one would need exists right here in 2018.

As you yap, yap, yap, about "climate change."

I'm a government is benevolent denier.
I'm a government is competent denier.
I'm a government is honest denier.
I'm a government isn't greedy and power hungry denier.

What is climate change/global warming?

Doesn't matter if power hungry liars and frauds are put in charge of it.

<What is climate change/global warming?

Doesn't matter if power hungry liars and frauds are put in charge of it.>

America is a republic rather than a pure democracy. James Madison warned against a pure democracy.

<what should be provided to everybody, (roads, schools, a social safety net)>

Government is supposed to provide protection from invaders and would be conquerors, and to ensure that contracts are honored domestically and that law and order prevail.

The idea that the gov't needs to "provide stuff" to people is not true. That would be to presuppose a liberal worldview.

<The same people who tried to convince us that cigarettes weren't addictive or didn't cause cancer were hired by global warming deniers to try and confuse the issue with climate change.>

Empty rhetoric. Try again. Better yet, why don't you disclose who these people are. Thanks. I'll wait.

Remember, it changed from Global Warming to Climate Change when there was no warming. This is why the libs call it climate change. We all know that the libs don't call it climate change because they are trying to follow in the footsteps of GWB.

Empty rhetoric. Try again. Better yet, why don't you disclose who these people are. Thanks. I'll wait.>

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...

<Government is supposed to provide protection from invaders and would be conquerors, and to ensure that contracts are honored domestically and that law and order prevail.>

Just FYI, I think it's cute when you try to sound profound.

< Gregor Samsa Mendel: <<The same people who tried to convince us that cigarettes weren't addictive or didn't cause cancer were hired by global warming deniers to try and confuse the issue with climate change.>

Empty rhetoric. Try again. Better yet, why don't you disclose who these people are. Thanks. I'll wait.>

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...

No response.

Look, if you want to discuss this with me, then you need to be serious. If you don't care then fine, I will be on my way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merch...

<Just FYI, I think it's cute when you try to sound profound.>

<diceman>--Like it or not>

Now we're getting somewhere!

Once we get past your limited understanding of government, the wanton slaughter/destruction of the minority has a "like" option.

Who Knew????

<The same people who tried to convince us that cigarettes weren't addictive>

Awwwww, isn't that sweet?

As GSM pats himself on the back for
saving us from cigarettes.
(which could take you into your
50s, 60s, 70s)

He ends life in the inner-city in your 20s, with the "addiction" of the hand-out.

Nice!
...and all he'd like to do is expand it.

<convince us that cigarettes weren't addictive>

Too bad he didn't mention, "for profit."

So I could focus on GSM's politicians.
Doubtful Obama would stomp his people
for minimum wage, but wave millions and
mansions under his nose and you
got a Toyota.

<Of course, they still allow their wallets to receive social security checks.>

Yes GSM, the inability of your church/
house of worship, to ever be wrong,
guarantees we will always have "Social
Security."

Even after all the money runs out.

Of course, eligibility will be 92 years
old, and your check will be 38 cents.
Obamacare Death Panels with suffer
the growing pains of implementation
by Government incompetents.

<OCF: Says who? So easily you say that without considering or citing the philosophical underpinnings of democracy. I will also add that any time a liberal starts talking about what "should" happen, I reach for my wallet and hold on tight, because I know they're coming to take money from me to pay for what they insist "should" happen. >

<GSM: When a conservative like you starts talking about philosophical underpinnings of democracy, they tend to reflexively reach for their wallets at the same time. Of course, they still allow their wallets to receive social security checks.>

The poor and powerless don't have money on their side to induce elected representatives to look after their interests, but they do have numbers. I have no problem allowing those with numbers and without power to use their votes as influence, counteracting the influence of those who will use their wealth to bend the rules of society in their favor. I think those who have benefited from society should give back a little of what they have received (or taken) from it, in order to promote the general welfare. The Founding Fathers considered "pursuit of happiness" to be an inalienable right--how can one pursue happiness if they don't have access to minimal housing or medical care? Government may not always be efficient, but it's supposed to answer to the people--private companies are answerable only to their shareholders, even if shareholders' interests run counter to those of the rest of society.

<GSM: --in a representative democracy, usually people go along with the will of the majority, as long as nothing illegal happens or no violation of rights occurs. But I see conservatives who don't like demographic trends reacting in ways to subvert majority rule. (Getting voter ID is free! Who cares if we make certain groups jump through a few more hoops, or drive a few more miles, to get it?) In the long run, though, I think trying to stop the changes taking place here will be like trying to hold back a tsunami with just your white, wrinkled fingers. I'm not sure why you care so much--don't you think the Second Coming will save you from these gays and ethnics within your lifetime?>

I'm sure that's very interesting, but to refresh the context, you said:

<Like it or not, in a democracy the people without power use government to provide what should be provided to everybody>

And I have now asked for the third time:

Says who?>

I think that if that's what the majority of voters wants, it's fine with me. I'd rather see people fight the unfettered greed of the privileged few with the ballot box instead of the cartridge box. History has shown that when the 1-percenters keep trying to bend the rules of society in their favor, revolution is the eventual result. Sorry if that opinion offends your philosophical underpinnings.

<Says who?>

<I think that if that's what the majority of voters wants, it's fine with me.>

I'm sure that's very interesting, but the question I asked was "Says who?"

<Seriously--don't you think the Second Coming is likely within your lifetime, or not much later?>