>Climate Change is real. The climate changes, but not because of humans.
>Trump is a terrible choice. He's better than Bernie or Hillary.
>Planned Parenthood should be funded I don't respect people who think this.
>Breastfeeding is natural. Everyone knows this. Is it necessary to do it in public, however?
>Rape, which happens to males and females, is never the victim's fault. Of course not, but drunken debauchery and general sluttiness should not be endorsed or defended.
>Homosexuals deserve human rights. Marrying someone of the same sex is not a human right.
>Transgender people are their preferred gender. They are mentally ill.
>Feminism isn't about female superiority. Maybe not, but it achieved it's purposes once women were allowed to vote, and needs to die now.
>Most Muslims aren't terrorists. Most terrorists are Muslims.
>Oh, and the United States is not a Christian nation. You're right about that, at least.
So do you think same sex couples should be allowed to marry?
Noah Wood
#1 i agree #2 i agree #3 i think less people is good #4 i agree #5 i agree #6 if guys wanna get married let them #7 i agree #8i agree #9 i agree #10 i agree but i feel it is a shame
Camden Evans
It is past your bedtime, buddy
Benjamin Martin
current climate change is heavily influenced by humans, this isn't up for debate
Levi Mitchell
>this isn't up for debate Liberals always say this, but if it were true, they wouldn't have to keep saying this.
Alexander Nelson
This isn't about politics, it's about data.
Julian Price
the wild conservative in his natural habitat
Tyler Hall
They keep saying it because idiots with no idea what they're talking about, but with considerable influence keep denying it.
it IS true, and they DO have to keep saying it.
Jonathan Robinson
I agree with all of those but the planned parenthood one. I'd much rather people avoid having kids they don't want/can't afford, even if it means abortion. I think it's something to be avoided if you possibly can but the alternative is worse for the parents and the kid. Besides, PP does a lot of education type stuff that I think it's pretty hard to take issue to.
Thank you for compiling a list of all the ingredients needed for one piece of shit human being, as most conservacucks are. I've been wanting to simplify the identifying process for some time now. Well, you might get a pass on the feminism and Christian nation thing.
Noah Roberts
Oh boy, all these mundane quotes sure refute the mountains of research papers and atmospheric monitors.
Protip: somebody saying something doesn't make it science
Anyways, "But science was wrong before" isn't an argument.
We thought the universe was static once but that doesn't make all cosmological models wrong.
There are links to the articles. Maybe you missed that.
It clearly shows that the data is interpreted, put into constantly changing climate "models", and over and over have not proven to be accurate.
Most people don't buy into the hype anymore, because predictions haven't come true.
Thomas Bennett
>The climate changes, but not because of humans But we do cause it, you retard
Nathaniel Sullivan
No if 40% of Americans weren't retarded we wouldn't have to keep repeating ourselves and you would have found out the truth for yourself
Ayden Brown
>No we don't you retard. See? I can say things too. Doesn't make anything true.
Dylan Moore
>Climate Change is real.
Leo Price
who is we?
Carson Perez
> Carbon emmisons and mean global tempature are directly correlated. Carbon is causing the planet to heat up via the greenhouse effect causing climate change >inb4 climate changed in the past. Yes as we can see on the geologic record our climate has change many times. A few times due to atmospheric co2 concentrations. The fact that humans emit carbon is not up for debate The fact that atmospheric co2 concentrations are causing the earth to warm and the climate to change is not up for debate The fact that the climate is changing and humans are causing it is not up for debate No fuck off, I'm too fuckec up for this shit
Nathaniel Watson
>It clearly shows that the data is interpreted, put into constantly changing climate "models", and over and over have not proven to be accurate. That's not what they show, read the links; none of these even go into rigerous detail about how modeling is done. This website also does nothing to make refutations, all it does is quote things. It is true that there is a lot of hype, and it's unfortunate, but this doesn't refute the fact that man made climate change is happening.
Read some actual research papers, stop getting all your info for this online; the Internet is a terrible resource for climate science. This is especially true for news sites.
Also read the sites 'about' page. It explicitly states that it's not for people that are scientifically trained, that the person running the site has no scientific background, and something along the lines of "people called me names so it probably isn't true".
I'm done here.
Caleb Garcia
Leave with the knowledge that people will never accept the extreme measures the climate lobby wants to impose. In twenty years, the whole thing will be discredited, and it will be a stain on real science.
Aaron Morales
Thanks for the heads up, good thing you have a crystal ball.
Matthew Wilson
That's not knowledge. It's dangerously ignorant. Those extreme measures very well might be civilizations only hope to avoid the worst of it. Climate change is an existential threat to humanity and you don't even take the time to understand it. You don't need to wait 20 years the effects are observable today, and ACC is empirical
Aiden Jackson
It's logic. If you can't accurately predict what will happen in the future, confidence in your statements is eroded until you have none.
That's not logic. In the sciences, when we don't make accurate predictions we make better ones. And the better predictions have continued to show an increase in global temperatures.
This is another "but science was wrong before".
Yep, off the hook now.
Joshua Morgan
Awww.....even with links to the research and you still won't admit it? How scientific of you.
Justin Gutierrez
>This is another "but science was wrong before".
How many chances should you give before you say that the person is wrong? Doesn't that person have to show real world results that line up with all the predictions?
I know it's futile, but real science doesn't claim success without results.
