All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    +1 back, pal.
    Someone -1 THAT!?!?
    Nyah in your face, Big Brother!
    Frack, baby, frack!
    Mine, baby, mine!
    Pipeline build, baby, build!
    Coal car trains chug, baby, chug!
    Truckers drive, baby, drive!
    Sea container cargo blub, baby, blub!
    I am dino!
    Hear me ROAR!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Alcohol doesn't cause health problems. Excessive consumption of alcohol, and almost anything else causes health problems.

    As far as I know, Exxon doesn't deny climate change--they support science that studies and performs experiments and research and development of various and sundry topics and discoveries and technologies. Just as many businesses do, including marketing of their product and protection of themselves from many forms of idiocy. They've made many significant advances and discoveries over the decades of their existence that has improved our lives and has made a lot of money for many, many of their stockholders.

    The shame is that they find it necessary to spend a great deal of money to protect themselves from other groups that attack them based on false and lieing charlatans of science, anti-life and anti-human attackers--to the effect that it increases our cost of their products and decreases the profit of their stockholders.

    There is acknowledged proof of false science and data manipulation of those that are proponents of AGW. There is also more than adequate proof in the geography of this planet that climate changes. There is no proof of AGW.

    I would add that this entire subject provides adequate proof that much of the population of this country are idiots--some malovelent. This is what you get with unlimited democracy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Stormi 8 years, 10 months ago
    First, this is stupid that liberals think they can take the right of free speech, just because we do not agree with their talking points by government paid scientists. When global warming was a bust, they changed to climate change, which is what weather has and will do.
    I want them to talk about what government has done to change the weather, and what other countries' governments have done to change our weather. Let's be honest, thess facilities are weapons of war now. Ask for the budget for HAARP and say you want accountability for your tax dollars, and the Congressmen run like scared deer. They have HAARP Alaska and Puerto Rico, Russia, England and several countries have similar facilities. Ours heated the ionosphere and changed the jet stream. Blaming oil companies is like blaming a bunny rabbit for human overproduction. We can not stand for letting liberasl who do not do their homework shut down free speech of others. If liberals want a debate, let them use their own words, not something fed into their brains by politicians. They are scared, because they know they are lying to suit the UN, which says they just want people to believe, true or not, so they can control all of us.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 10 months ago
    I wonder how many controversial subjects could be subjected to believe-it-our-way or go to jail? Rand said that the first sign of totalitarianism is censorship. This has got to be the sign that totalitarianism is already here.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 8 years, 10 months ago
    this is the same as fcc censorship of radio and tv,
    the same as the police keeping your money on mere
    suspicion of illegality -- it's creeping hitlerism on the
    left. . and they blame right-wingers for just that,
    to distract from its existence! -- j
    .
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "your insulting attempts at changing the subject"
    I think you misunderstood something. I don't get how name-calling even came into this. I do not want you to support my statements. I have no idea what you're talking about.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by BradA 8 years, 10 months ago
    So do we also get to prosecute the Priests of the Church of Man Caused Global Warming when their fear mongering and predictions fail to come true and their theories are shown to be nothing more than a techno-fakeout to support socialist income redistribution of wealth?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 8 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." Unfortunately we have already had this, there was an ex-post facto tax law passed under Bill Clinton.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 8 years, 10 months ago
    I wonder what would happen if one believed the earth is flat and climate change is caused by that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Riftsrunner 8 years, 11 months ago
    Did I miss the announcement that California had seceded from the United States? As much as I have personal opinions on climate change, I am pretty sure that this isn't settled science one way or the other. As such, the first amendment is still in play as regards both sides on this issue. Or has the Social Justice Kool-aid somehow gotten mixed into the state legislature coffee. I understand why SJW's try to preclude opposing views to their own, but for government to run as smoothly as possible it relies on the full spectrum of opinions to be heard. Even science doesn't claim to have absolute answers and is quite willing to entertain opposing views to reach the best truth available.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lone_objectivist 8 years, 11 months ago
    Oh joy. Welcome to the Spanish Inquisition. "Our chief element is surprise - and a fanatical devotion to bad science."
    Whether "global warming" is true or not, you can't stifle comment on it, unless you resort to thumbscrews...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 11 months ago
    At least the bill died.

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 8 years, 11 months ago
    How about arresting employees of OUR government for misleading the people who comprise the population of the nation with false statements about climatic conditions.
    last week I checked the average temperature for the western slope of colorado for just the monthe of May. the average is 50's at night and 70's during the day, however the month of May 2016 has been 40's at night and 60's during the day.
    I also read that the atlantic ocean level from d.c to ny harbor has actually declined slightly, and then yesterday i read that england is having december weather now. maybe the government employees should go to the new england area and experience the summer winter that the people that live there are enjoying.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 8 years, 11 months ago
    The law, of course, assumes (without warrant) that the globe is warming, and that human beings, through their development and use of fossil fuel resources, are to blame for it. Apologists for this new law have already told me, "But this law aims itself at greedy giant corporations, who knew, have known, or ought to know that global warming is real, and are trying to deny the value of alternative energy." In answer, I gave them Floyd Ferris' crisp observation about the purpose of law in a looters' State: to create criminals.

    Logically, this law would extend itself to more than businesses trying to "protect the old way by denying the need for the new." Would it not also extend to any politician who campaigned on the basis of rolling back global warming regulation? Would not the AG have the power, indeed the duty, to prosecute any politician running on an anti-regulatory platform? And any advocacy group showing that global warming is a lie?

    This is unconstitutional on its face. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." And: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    First, I'm not being distracted by your insulting attempts at changing the subject and trying to attack the character of anyone who disagrees with your unsupported theory by name calling.
    That detestable behavior is unacceptable in the Gulch. Its irrational and not objective. Take that irrational rubbish to facebook. It has no place here.

    Its your statement, CG. You can't support it and you want me to go back up your statement. Not my job. You want any credibility, you have to back up what you say. If its so easy to do and based on such solid science, then provide links to the unassailable data.
    You made statements that depend on unproven assumptions. Prove them or shut up.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have been simply looking up their simple minded crap for years and simply put it's pablum for the a secular 700 club mind set which means no mind at all. Which of course is a damn good definition of California. For them the sky is always falling but if will just (insert Sally Strothers) and call now .... etc. I can skip California . Seen one freeway you have seen them all.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -6
    Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You can simply look this up. If you want to deny the facts, you have to resort to wishful thinking or a political conspiracy.

    The wishful thinking relies on the possibility that future discoveries will break in our favor. That could happen. I always think of how the scientific evidence showed all fats were unhealthful in the 80s, and scientists later found new evidence in favor of what we all wish were true. So that could happen.

    The conspiracy theory says science is too influenced by the interests who fund the studies. I agree with that part. For example, someone has a reason to fund a study to see if there's a slight benefit from administering blood pressure drugs to someone with only slightly elevated blood pressure. There is less motivation to study the effects of eating celery every day or something like that. Following this path, we'd expect research to understate the risks of economic activity and overstate the benefits of some approach that business can provide to mitigate those risks. Most economic activity is in some way powered by releasing carbon by extracting and burning fuels from the earth. So almost all political forces push in favor burning stuff, e.g. Exxon's out-and-out lies.

    My claim is that the lies are so transparent that they do not constitute fraud in any form. Anyone can go look up the facts.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 10
    Posted by Dobrien 8 years, 11 months ago
    Freedom of speech is fundamental. But I would be ok with a gag order for politicians. When they open their mouths I gag.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo