(post shortened)
I wish them the best of luck. I’m in favor of investigations. However, investigations are not criminal convictions or civil judgments against.
It will be interesting to see if the scientific “claims” in question actually turned out to be true. In court and under oath.
A court of law sometimes will take judicial notice of the scientific consensus on a given point, but has no jurisdiction (nor qualifications) to rule on the “truth” of a scientific claim as such. As Clarence Darrow learned in the Monkey Trial (or was it Henry Drummond in Inherit the Wind? well, doesn’t matter).
Zealotry isn’t accepting the broad and well-established scientific consensus. You’re characterizing it as zealotry because you’re a pussy who can’t argue worth a shit.
Climate change is real, regardless of my congeniality.
Zealotry is having a very strong opinion about something. A zealot is someone who has a very strong opinion about something. You are a zealot when it comes to man-made CO2. Embrace your calling.
zealot
noun [C] uk us /ˈzel.ət/
› a person who has very strong opinions about something, and tries to make other people have them too:
That’s a fair definition of what a zealot is. Now perhaps I should introduce you to a definition of what an “opinion” is, and how it markedly differs from what a “fact” is.
That’s not fair. He can only handle one new word each year and zealot was it for 2015.
Like I said before, there’s nothing lamer than someone who comes into the Pit, says stupid and obnoxious things, and then tut-tuts when people insult them. You’ve had ample opportunity to learn about the subject in Great Debates, and you’ve resolutely and deliberately failed to do so in the face of all the evidence.
This is not the place for us to try to convince you on the subject, because you’ve made it very clear that you’re both too stupid and too politically biased to ever learn anything. The only thing that really remains is to insult you.
Ha! I asked myself the same question! Maybe, maybe not. And if so, how different would Reagan have behaved if climate change had been the big crises instead of, say, AIDS and crack cocaine?
That is never your position when the topic involves Hillary Clinton. 
:smack: You forgot to introduce the definition of “opinion”. This isn’t rocket surgery. :rolleyes: Little wonder you’re having so much trouble convincing more people that CO2 is evil.
Who is this Hillary Clinton you speak of? Are you referring to ol’ Hillary, the Benghazi kid? What’s ol’ Hillary up to these days? Has she emailed Chelsea (aka Diane Reynolds) her opinion on the evils of CO2? Did she sent the same email to Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil and Libyian President Mohammed Magariaf?
Hahahaha. That’s the most stupid and obnoxious thing you’ve typed so far. It doesn’t appear that you are able to convince more people that man-made-CO2 is actually evil. That must be very depressing for you. Don’t worry, Al Gore has got your back.
To be fair, I don’t recall either of those issues being the focus of the campaign in 1980.
It’s not “evil,” it’s a principal causal factor in the present period of global climate change. Science makes no value judgments.
It is clear your opinion is misguided. And a straw man too, the problem is that humans are emitting more than nature is sequestering, we are not calling vitamins evil just because an overdose of them can kill. Many quacks though are evil when some advise people about unfounded benefits of taking lots of them.
Regarding CO2, people in power are evil when spewing and funding FUD about unfounded risks if we deal with the overdose of it that we are putting in the atmosphere.
A perfect example of why you have no credibility. All those things have been discussed with you endlessly and your views thoroughly debunked. and you happily continue to repeat them anyway.
ol’ doorhinge - always willing to spread a lie he likes rather than a truth he doesn’t, whether it’s about Clinton or global warming.
This is like watching people fatten a turkey for Thanksgiving.
And those who are determined to ignore the science for profit are venal and greedy, which can certainly lead to evil. Those who choose to ignore the science out of laziness, ignorance, or fear are, well, lazy, ignorant, and fearful. And they serve the venal and greedy. They are not evil, but they carry evil’s water.
doorhinge is at least ignorant. That he chooses to remain that way means he’s lazy. But he’s not evil, any more than CO[sub]2[/sub] is.
.
I’d go with goose, and foie gras. We’re actively force-feeding the troll.
Like I said before, even your (attempts at) insults are stupid, not to mention pathetic.