Claim: ‘Global warming’ could cause humans to develop webbed feet, cat’s eyes and gills

You’re not a pretender?

To recap:
You pretended Morano made up this ‘ridiculous story’ and was paid to lie by ‘BIG OIL,’ quoting a website dedicated to lying about and smearing skeptics.
You pretended I claimed that Morano was the scientist, then changed the subject.
You pretended that all skeptics are ‘neo-fascists,’ ‘propagandists,’ and ‘conspiracy theorists,’ then changed the subject, again.
You pretended to not being a pretender, then changed the subject … again.
You pretended to not notice the article about the scientist who committed fraud.

For someone who claims not to be a pretender, you sure do a lot of pretending!

“You pretended Morano made up this ‘ridiculous story'”

His name is on the article, sweetie!

…that’s kindof the thing that stands out most as what’s not in debate…

Can you find me an article on Climate Depot about what’s caused the clear and unambiguous warming that’s been going on for decades now?

If this weren’t a propaganda outlet, isn’t that something you should be able to do?

“2015 Unambiguously the Hottest Year on Record… 2015 set the record with 99.996% confidence.”

berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015-Hottest-Year-BE-Press-Release-v1.0.pdf

Still pretending that Morano made up the quote?

I thought you DENIED being a pretender … sweetpea!

Are you accusing Sarah Knapton, who wrote about the same ‘ridiculous story’ in the Telegraph, of making up the quote?

How about Julie Sprankles of Bustle?

How about the authors of all the other articles written about the ridiculous Skinner prediction? There are dozens of them. Morano is only one of many … are all of them liars in the pay of BIG OIL, or is Morano the only one?

“are all of them liars in the pay of BIG OIL, or is Morano the only one?”

Silly goose!

All of your propaganda can be traced right back to the same place…

“Christopher Booker of The Sunday Telegraph”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker

“Christopher Booker was a speaker at the Heartland Institute’s 2009 International Conference on Climate Change.”

http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-booker

“several prominent global warming skeptic organizations are actively working to sow doubt about the facts of global warming… Heartland received more than $675,000 from ExxonMobil from 1997-2006. Heartland also raked in millions from the Koch-funded organization Donors Trust through 2011.”

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html

Still not getting the picture?

Is it possible you’re that stupid?

Christopher Booker was not the author of the Telegraph article. You know it, I know it. Stop pretending.

Follow your own link … the story isn’t there.

As stated earlier, many, many news sites reported on the doofus Skinner predictions.

You are pretending to be unaware of the widespread coverage of Skinner’s silly AGW predictions of human mutations … after denying that you are a pretender.That is, of course, obtuse deceit.

Then you continued on to repeat lies/smears about people not even connected to this story … and finished up by calling me stupid. That is, of course, being gratuitously vile.

You are staying right in character.

“Christopher Booker was not the author of the Telegraph article.”

lol! Sweetie, what Telegraph article!?

What in the world are you talking about?

Who is “Skinner” and what does he have to do with this dishonest propaganda piece?

“Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the “greenhouse effect” “

climate.nasa.gov/causes

… what Telegraph article!?

What in the world are you talking about?

Who is “Skinner” and what does he have to do with this dishonest propaganda piece?

My goodness! Are you admitting defeat? Or are you admitting you have Attention Deficit Disorder? Or are you …

Still crazy after all these years.

“Are you admitting defeat?”

lol!

I don’t think so!

Are you blind? Did you miss the question in my question?

Who is Skinner and what does he have to do with this dishonest propaganda piece?

You brought it up!

What was the point of doing so if you aren’t going to explain yourself?

“The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion metric tons per year.”

climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice

Who is Skinner and what does he have to do with this dishonest propaganda piece?

Didn’t read the article, huh?

Are you a pathological liar?

“Didn’t read the article, huh?”

Of course not!

Why would I waste my time doing something like that!?

Did you verify the claims in the article are true?

…or did you just believe them without question?

Is that what you think a true skeptic would do?

“A new study by researchers at NASA and the University of California, Irvine, finds a rapidly melting section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be in an irreversible state of decline, with nothing to stop the glaciers in this area from melting into the sea.”

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-148

Why would I waste my time doing something like that!?

Oh, I don’t know … maybe so you know what you’re talking about???

When most people critique an article, and then calls the author ‘dishonest’ and a ‘propagandist,’ the expectation is that the critic actually read the article.

Of course, most of the time, the ‘critic’ doesn’t reveal himself to be the dishonest propagandist, himself … who is also a pathological liar.

But thanks for admitting exactly who and what you really are. I always knew you were a nasty piece of work, but your admission really takes the cake.

“maybe so you know what you’re talking about???”

I know that Mr. Morano is a liar, and well-known for attempting to mislead the public about the dangerous nature of fossil fuels.

If he’s not, find me an article he’s written that explains why the planet is warming.

I’ve already asked you to do that, BTW… Did you bother looking?

“Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities… The main human activity that emits CO₂ is the combustion of fossil fuels”

www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

Why should I waste time responding to you … who displays an utter lack of mental ability … or personal ethics?

You are exposed as a serial liar … amoral and disreputable. Yuck!

“Why should I waste time responding to you”

Well you want people to believe you, right!?

You want people to take you seriously, don’t you?

Assuming this article isn’t a complete fabrication, why is Mr. Morano writing about webbed feet and cat’s eyes instead of much more likely results of climate change?

Is it possible you lack the mental ability to comprehend deception so obvious, Geezer?

“the ice caps are melting at their base, caused by warming oceans.”

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/Ice_sheets

“Assuming this article isn’t a complete fabrication, why is Mr. Morano writing about webbed feet and cat’s eyes …”

If you’d read the article, you wouldn’t be ‘assuming’ anything.

YOU’RE the one who has been exposed as a serial liar, here and on numerous other comment threads.

I caught onto your lack of mental ability AND your lack of personal ethics several years ago … the first time I saw one of your ridiculously fact-free opinions.

That was the time you tried to tell someone that the reason the Antarctic wasn’t melting down was because it was at the ‘bottom of the world’ and it was ’tilted away from the sun.’

Your mental and ethical abilities don’t seem to have evolved much since then.

“If you’d read the article, you wouldn’t be ‘assuming’ anything.”

lol! I actually would, sweetie, because as I have informed you multiple times now, Mr. Morano is well known for being paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the dangerous nature of their product.

Anything he says is more likely to be false than true.

He has zero credibility.

Now, why would you eagerly believe someone with zero credibility when your well-being is at stake?

Are you suicidal, Geezer?

“Data from NASA’s Grace satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass.”

climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice

Blah blah blah
Same gibberish you’ve posted 17,000 times.
Blah blah blah

“The term, “liar, liar pants on fire” takes on new meaning when dealing with a pathological liar. This person may not be completely rooted in reality, believing the lies they tell, often in an effort to remedy low self esteem.”

http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Pathological-Liar

“The term, “liar, liar pants on fire” takes on new meaning when dealing with a pathological liar. This person may not be completely rooted in reality”

Well that describes one of the people in this conversation quite well, Geezer!

Which one of us does it describe?

If you lie about a threat to your well-being; if you reject the reality of its existence, does that make it go away?

“A recent acceleration in ice loss in a previously stable region of Antarctica has been detected by ESA’s ice mission.”

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/CryoSat_detects_sudden_ice_loss_in_Southern_Antarctic_Peninsula

“Which one of us does it describe?”

“CB” is the only one of us who has been repeatedly exposed as a serial liar.

“CB” is the only one of us who habitually calls everyone else a liar.

“CB” is the only one of us posting in DISQUS under two different identitities … CBlargh and CBlargh00. Multiple personalities on full display.

“CB” is the only one of us who once carelessly posted a quote from, and a link to, a well-known skeptic website.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/number%20watch.htm
When I pointed out your ‘error,’ you promptly edited your comment to eliminate the quote and the link. Like a small child caught with chocolate smeared all over your face denying that you ate the chocolate.

“Pathological liars will lie consistently, which is one thing you can count on––they will lie all the time.”

So, when “CB” says someone else lies, it is automatically understood to be a lie.
http://www.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Pathological-Liar

She is a one track mind.

Did you verify the claims in the article are true?

Or course I did. I even provided multiple links to prove it.

The story was written up at multiple news sites … which you would know if you didn’t think that reading them would be a waste of your very precious time.

And why would you care whether or not I verified a story that you couldn’t be bothered to even read?

And why am I talking to an admitted pathological liar? Now, THAT is truly a waste of time.

The Met Office released a PRESS RELEASE after their #1 climatologist in the world was nearly JAILED and confessed – it hasn’t warmed since 1 9 9 8. (he said 1995 but he was emotionally distraught having been caught fraudulently faking warming for 12 years)

That in fact since 2 0 0 2 there was slight COOLING. [BBC FEB 2010 Phil Jones Interview]

‘Met Office” ”The Recent Pause In Warming”

July 2013 – Global mean surface temperatures
rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the
most recent 15 years to 2013.
This has prompted speculation that human
induced global warming is no longer happening, or at least will be much
smaller than predicted. Others maintain that this is a temporary pause
and that temperatures will again rise at rates seen previously.

The Met Office Hadley Centre has written three reports that
address the recent pause in global warming and seek to answer the
following questions:

What have been the recent trends in other indicators of climate over this period?

What are the potential drivers of the current pause?

How does the recent pause affect our projections of future climate?

You’re not even in contact with REALITY. You didn’t get the LARGEST PRESS RELEASES in MAGIC GAS CHURCH HISTORY: YOUR HIGH PRIESTHOOD are FAKING WARMING. The REAL temperature is the temp of the RAW DATA POSTED ONLINE BY LAW.

To stop incidentally, YOUR CHURCH’S ADJUSTMENTS FRAUD.

”The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1 9 9 8. OK IT HAS but it’s only seven years of data and it isnt statistically signficant.”

Phil Jones to a fellow climatologist as they laughed at lying to the world in 2 0 0 5

The projection is all yours, 4sshole.

“The projection is all yours”

Maybe! Give an example and be specific.

…then explain how this article changes the fact that we are warming the planet through the emission of greenhouse gasses.

“Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Show where the empirical study is that proves your BS.

“Show where the empirical study is that proves your BS.”

The first study that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are warming the planet by emitting greenhouse gasses was conducted by someone named Eunice Foote.

She conducted her study over a century ago.

You have access to the entire internet.

How is it possible you haven’t located this information on your own?

“Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO₂ and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO₂ could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf

Your would the left considers a ” useful idiot”

“Your would the left considers a ” useful idiot” “

Someone in this conversation certainly seems to be a useful idiot!

Who is that person, Lance?

Remember how we started the conversation with the concept of “projection”?

What does that word mean?

“The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Here is a story that was censored in the United States, but takes all the links that CB claims that proves his case, and trashes them all. Everyone. Why? Because the numbers have been cooked by liberals and prejudiced scientists to help them get rich and powerful, that’s why. The numbers have been cooked. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

Temperatures that need to be “adjusted”, aren’t accurate in the first place. That is why they manipulate the data.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

First its going to freeze now its going to warm ….. which is it ? http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley/

Both. The earth is always changing and we cannot do anything about it.

I think we are coming out of a little ice age so we are gradually warming but there is a pause so we do not know if it will continue to warm or freeze over again.

After World War 1, The Italian Alps Glaciers grew and covered most of the Alps. Now that they are receding they are finding remains from World War 1. Of course, this cannot be explained.

“Both.”

True! In most of the world, temperatures will increase, but in some parts, the temperature may actually drop.

I love how Bolliver links to an article that showcases the fossil fuel industry’s dishonesty… unaware even that’s what he’s doing…

“As you can see, the cover title has nothing to do with an imminent ice age, it’s about global warming, as we might expect from a 2007 Time magazine… The entire purpose of this myth is to suggest that scientists can’t be trusted”

scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/06/04/the-1970s-ice-age-myth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley

Who needs facts, miright?

/s

It’s freezing right now in Michigan. Go figure though.. it’s the middle of January. Who woulda thunk it?

I am cocksure the use of electricity is causing climate change.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QkNUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=kjoNAAAAIBAJ&pg=5654,5973732&dq=climate-change&hl=en

CO2 does NOT trap heat. It absorbs a specific spectrum of IR, and then IMMEDIATELY releases it to OTHER molecules in the air.

Way to go, you are going to silence the alarmists. Haha.

I am on your side, BTW. I just realized you made the Foote comment.

Excuse me, but has it ever dawned on you that at any given moment, somewhere on this planet, there are (has always been and always will be) volcanoes emitting Co2 and other so called hydro carbon gases into the atmosphere in such immeasurable amounts that if all the automobiles and jet engines ever built and run on fossil fuels where to be operated for the next hundred years perpetually, they still could not even keep up with what the planet is making on its own in just ONE YEAR ALONE?
AND THAT BIT OF INFO IS WHAT’S BEING TAUGHT BY GEOLOGIST right now.

I know what your next retort will be, so let me state it for you: “But its the added amount by humans that is doing all the damage.”
My first answer- Oh really? If you can’t even measure what the Earth is already producing in “greenhouse gases” on any given day for just one year, then how the heck can you know for certain what is normal or abnormal amounts of said gases being produced by man that could contribute to “climate change/ Global warming?
Unless you can control the Co2 and other hydro carbons being spewed from the Earth itself, or even accurately measure them at all times; then simply keeping man caused Co2 down to a minimum is nothing more than an ill conceived exercise in futility simply because you will never know what the optimal balance of gasses are, and be able to keep them at an IDEAL level!

Hi there! Can you please explain to me the nitrogen cycle as it relates to the propagation of plants? Photosynthesis? Transpiration? Can you tell me why plants grow toward the sunlight? Can you tell me what the actual composition of the atmosphere is? (Actually, I’ll give you that one myself… it’s 78%N, 21%O and 1% other.) Of course, you’ll use the internet to get those answers, but hey, at least maybe you’ll learn something and quit posting your drivel for all the world to see. You’re embarrassing yourself. Truly.

Now CB you know you can’t cite NASA as a credible source. When corrupt politicians infiltrate the scientific community you no longer have scientists. Once again Scientists do not lie, climatologists lie, climatologists are not scientists.

Can you explain what happened to the ‘ice ages’..? Man made global warming..?

Oh gawd! And, as far back as the 1940’s, they were attempting to blame the rise of HITLER on global warming. Look it up.

Now they are blaming the rise of CIA-ISIS on global… er, climate change. Oh yeah, and lack of jobs!!!

Meanwhile, peer review means more government money. And in other news, you can use Go0gle to debunk this 97 percent bunk. Just do it. Satisfy yourself… no need to “prove” anything to these climate tard fanatics.

And by the way… why Obama can’t/won’t defeat ISIS – http://bit.ly/1ZiMof8 – and here – http://bit.ly/1ZYZYGO

Oh gawd! And, as far back as the 1940’s, they were attempting to blame the rise of HITLER on global warming. Look it up.

Now they are blaming the rise of CIA-ISIS on global… er, climate change. Oh yeah, and lack of jobs!!!

Meanwhile, peer review means more government money. And in other news, you can use Go0gle to debunk this 97 percent bunk. Just do it. Satisfy yourself… no need to “prove” anything to these climate tard fanatics.

And by the way… why Obama can’t/won’t defeat ISIS – http://bit.ly/1ZiMof8 – and here – http://bit.ly/1ZYZYGO

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development
that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of
consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid
debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you
hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for
your wallet, because you’re being had.

– Michael Crichton

100% correct–

So preindustrial revolution man caused the earth to warm. I see CB. CB, scientists do not lie, climatologists lie, climatologists are not scientists.

CB why is CO2 concentrations highest during the coldest times?

Plants are dormant. At least in the colder regions.

SO you mean that a warmer climate increases plant growth which reduces C02 which decreases plant growth?

co2 does NOT decrease plant growth anywhere, ever..

Come on Melvin try to keep up and I will type a little slower for you. It is a cycle, higher levels of C02 spur growth like they are doing now. Eventually we will hit equilibrium and then a decline as C02 decreases due to the larger plant population. All that to say that the earth is constantly changing and will work towards equilibrium.

Answer the question though, melvin, why is c02 concentrations highest in the coldest times. Hint it has already been answered above.

You got it right, Joe. I design audio(guitar) amps(my son plays), and feedbacks
are part of design. Negative feedbacks make the sytem more stable. Positive
feedbacks, even when starting up, always cause the output to swing high to low
in ac amps, or in dc amps to go to a rail and stay there, if the feedback is big
enough to affect the output. The plants-CO2 system is a negative feed back
system, that is inherently stable, although on human time scales is slow.

Those who work in one technical field are much more apt to understand others. The increased rain in CA caused by El Nino brings a milder winter to the Northeast. Same energy expended in different locations.

Agreed. Many if not most climatologists are not scientists but political activists. They should be treated as such.

I remember in 1976 we were going to run out of fuel and the world was going to freeze over from an ice age, came from the moths of the same idiots

Oh how right you are there! When I was in school ( 5th grade to be exact) I’ll never forget that we had a traveling educational exhibit come to our school, to teach us that “prominent scientist” where warning of the impending NEW ICE AGE, that we were NOW going into. Their citing of “nuclear testing and man made atmospheric pollution” where to blame.
Now that would have been 1968, and shortly there after ( about 1969) there was a new push out in D.C. for the U.S and the Soviet Union to enter into a nuclear test ban treaty; which they finally did under Reagan about 1980 something.
But in the mean time, they were still pushing the “ICE AGE CRAPOLA”, in an attempt to shut down things like de leading gas, Industrial and fossil fuel emissions as well.
Yeah the EPA ( began by Richard Nixon) was well on their way to solving all those problems, and they did them so well that we now have GLOBAL WARMING!
So it appears that in the final analysis; THE EPA Is to BLAME for Climate Change.

“I remember in 1976 we were going to run out of fuel and the world was going to freeze over from an ice age, came from the moths of the same idiots”

The moths of idiots, you say?

Sweetie, define the word “projection” for me.

What do you think that word means?

“There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.”

journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

William Connelly co-authored that article. Connelly is the main reason why Wikipedia is unreliable as a source for anything related to climate science. He is infamous for re-writing history. He is … your kind of guy.

I spent some time studying that article and researching some of the referenced papers. They do not say what the authors claim.

One of the papers they used to confirm their story was authored by a well-known skeptic who conducted an informal survey of 24 scientists and found a slight majority of them subscribed to the global warming theory vs. global cooling. Connelly and Co counted that as one of the overwhelming ‘consensus’ papers for warming. Shameless propaganda all the way.

You copied the opening sentences to that article. You didn’t read any further, let alone research it to verify its accuracy.

They put the main talking point on top of the article, cuz they knew that’s all most of you pretenders were looking for … a clear, concise statement that you could parrot, and say it came from a ‘peer-reviewed, published paper.’ More deception and unscrupulous behavior from the world of AGWers , and another reason why people don’t trust anything described as ‘peer-reviewed and published.’

More pretend science … from the Great Pretender.

‘Projection’ is defined as YOU claiming TYPOS make a difference because YOU CLAIM the do.

The way you claim the SKY is a BIG MAGIC HEATER.

That REDUCING TOTAL ENERGY to a light warmed object and subsequently

DISTRIBUTING the REDUCED energy to be EMITTED from a LARGER, COLDER, total MASS,

isn’t the DEFINITION of C O O L I N G
but is ACTUALLY the definition of ”A BIG old HEATER in the SKY! Ya’W”

Well country bumkin, it is what it is a prognosis, an estimate or a better way to put it, a guessing game no facts involved just guessing using present data just like they guessed that we would be in an ice age today and now they are guessing the we will be melting tomarrow … the mouths of idiots !

Hey Chicken Little, where were you in the 1970’s when these same idiots were spouting GLOBAL COOLING?

Impossible that .04% of 1% of the entire atmosphere can raise temperatures so high. Remember we’re talking about a 1 degree Celsius change as somehow being responsible for the melting of the entire polar ice cap but then it’s not really shrinking as much as getting thicker because that too is from global warming. I just don’t believe that every single fluke of weather from this warm winter to the colder winters being the act of global warming/climate change/whatever buzz word data picking scientists come up with next. 97% of scientists can read the work of “climatologists” and decide they agree with the data provided but that doesn’t mean 97% of scientists are experts in the field of weather! And please explain to me how “tricking the data” doesn’t mean making it say what you want it to say as the climate-gate email scandal mentioned. Doesn’t the data speak for itself?

And we’re still talking about an atmosphere that is 78% nitrogen.

“Mrs. Foote had determined, first, that the action of the rays increases with the density of the air. She has taken two glass cylinders of the same size, containing thermometers. Into one the air was condensed, and from the other air was exhausted. When they were
of the same temperature the cylinders were placed side by side in the sun, and the thermometers in the condensed air rose more than twenty degrees higher than those in the rarified air. This effect of rarefaction must contribute to produce the feebleness of heating power in the sun’s rays on the summits of lofty mountains. Secondly, the effect of the sun’s rays is greater in moist than in dry air.

In one cylinder the air was saturated with moisture, in the other dried with chloride of lime; both were placed in the sun, and a difference of about twelve degrees was observed. This high temperature of sunshine in moist air is frequently noticed; for instance, in the intervals between summer showers. The isothermal lines on the earth’s surface are doubtless affected by the moisture of the air giving power to the
sun, as well as by the temperature of the ocean yielding the moisture. Thirdly, a high effect of the sun’s rays is produced in carbonic acid gas. One receiver being filled with carbonic acid, the other with common air, the temperature of the gas in the sun was raised twenty degrees above that of the air. The receiver containing the gas became very sensibly hotter than the other, and was much longer in cooling. An atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a much higher temperature; and if there once was, as some suppose, a larger proportion of that gas in the air, an increased temperature must have accompanied it, both from the nature of the gas and the increased density of the atmosphere. Mrs.Foote had also tried the heating effect of the sun’s rays on hydrogen and oxygen, and found the former to be less, the latter more, susceptible to the heating action of sunlight” (Wells, 1857, p. 159-160).”

She proved MOIST air (water vapor) gets warmer than DRY air
She proved that CONDENSED air heats more than rarified air
She proved that “CO2 alone” heats more than “common air”
She proved that Oxygen heats more than hydrogen.

What she did NOT prove was that Earth’s atmosphere is like a sealed glass container left in the sun! She did NOT prove that “common air” will heat to enormous degrees like SOLID CO2 will! She certainly did NOT prove “beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are
warming the planet by emitting greenhouse gasses”.

CO2 only holds heat in a limited spectra. What gives?

And forgot the composition of the atmosphere itself. I don’t see that she tested nitrogen.

Cut the spam Lisa. Mrs. Foote is in defeat.

Pointing that out to CB is spam?

and since we have study’s that contradict that…of course they won’t count since they contradict the unestablished theories behind AGW. In all that time since not much testifies to this considering how much the temperatures have yo-yo’d do to more factors that could be counted. Meanwhile the left and everyone else wanting a cut of that pie have had to grasp at boasting about proof by living within a margin of error they had to rig to achieve. You’d think after 150 years – or especially the last 10 years where they decided only consensus establishes the science as settled that they would not only be flawless in their predictions and models but also wouldn’t have to be evasive about their records and not cower away from debate…while you’re citing NASA you should look up how that 97% consensus was established through the worst kind of cherry-picking followed by creating a commercial bandwagon of anyone willing agree…doesn’t matter if they confirmed it in their own practices or not. Reading it on paper sounded good ’nuff. Peer review not necessary and if it was, hell let’s make it up (as several internal audits showed).
You’re ’empirical’ study only shows the age of the theory and little else – this is something tantamount to a grade school science fair display and does nothing to delve into how it actually affects climate, just that gasses can trap heat – that’s all. You’re arguing we have a full understanding of gravity because an apple fell on Newton’s head and to diverge a little, please not the stark contrast between how the science is practiced in either field.

COULD and WILL are 2 very different things. wise up. 1850’s science sucked. How are your new taxes going to reduce China’s heavy CO2 output? What are you going to do regulate atmospheric water vapor? What warming by man made the last ice age endt?

Hi there! Please tell me what gaseous substance plants take in, and what gaseous substance is released during the transpiration process?

Thanks!

she is just as wrong then as now . eunice what a nice name . it has been proven by the warmists own chart that CO2 does not cause warming at all . 18 years and some months we have had no warming at all look it up yourself, seems you are carrying someone’s water,
maybe Gore?

Utter nonsense. Proven fact: from about 5500 BC to 4000 BC, temperatures were as much as 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer on average, WAY warmer than today. What caused that, Sparky? Buffalo farts?

CB

Like most climate change nuts, you are fixated on one area which may well be true, putting out more CO2 might bump up temps slightly. BUT every model put forward by climate change nazis has proven hopelessly inaccurate, all of them grossly exaggerate the effect that mans activity has and downplay the effects of naturally occurring cycles. Think of a sine wave on an oscilloscope. That up and down wave is the natural pattern of climate change the occurs whether man has an imput or not. Now consider that same sine wave which some fuzzy “noise” added. That is the very small impact that man has, added to the natural cycle. The point is that altering mans activity has almost no impact on the larger trend, and in fact could be counterproductive if for instance man’s imput was to slightly increase temps at a time when the broader natural trend was down. Even “accepted” models within the climate change community generally admit that changing our activity will have little to no measurable impact. The real goal is not to actually affect the climate but to implement redistributive leftist political goals using climate as the excuse.

nice try, but I learned a long time ago..NEVER trust someone named Eunice.

you keep losing, bobby

How many of these “peer reviewed studies” were sent to anyone other than reviewers the writer knew would agree with his findings? Being published in a “scientific journal” doesn’t carry much weight. You can have studies published in several journals-for a price.

NASA, who was caught changing the global temps. Next question?

The head of NASA works for Obama. You cannot believe this administration’s numbers on: VA Waiting Times, on Unemployment, nor on Global Temperatures. Adjustments.

I thought they were changing all the temperatures because they found their thermometers were off. And they were fixing the last 50 years of mistakes.

Whoops, we were totally wrong on that, back when you thought it was really cool in the winters turns out it was much warmer, you just didn’t notice through all the snow! Let’s just trick the data and bang, global warming.

Here you go. Scary huh?
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0168ebb1aa56970c-600wi

Is that graph with the changes? I notice the recent nose dive.

Nutcase. Here’s a link that says the climate has been COOLING from NASA for the last six years. But please note, one has to go out of the country to get real news because of the brainwashed liberals in this country that make up the media. http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/622043/GLOBAL-WARMING-NASA-Antarctic-COOLING-six-years-Arctic-north-pole-climate-change

int the 60’s a major earth quake was going to give beach front property in Bosie Id. in the 70’s we were told to worry about a new ice age coming. The new LIE is warming. There are scientist that say the whole solar system is heating up all planets.
It’s all lies meant to control the dumbed down sheep. rule of thumb if the “danger” requires you to pay more for less it’s a scam.

99 percent of scientist used to agree the Earth was the center of the universe to which everything else revolved. When someone would disagree they were labeled a heretic and hung. It used to be settled science that certain races were sub-human and therefore meant to be in bondage.
It is of the highest levels of arrogance that anyone should claim scientific absolution, yet every generation finds a cause to do just that. Be very cautious of anyone claiming “Settled Science” as they are but propagandist for their point of view wishing only to shut down discovery.

Human kind owes an immeasurable debt to those few true scientist willing to stand up to the brutal tactics of the to those that would stifle debate and show generations that science is never “settled.” Shame on all would wold claim different.

You are nuts. Seriously. How many people have to come out and say that the data has been skewed? How many have to come out and say getting the dollars for the grants for these studies is a self-propagating engine that only gives birth to lies, absolute lies. Howe many people have to say that it is literally impossible to accurately measure the temperature of the entire planet? How many have to say that the sun’s activities exponentially outweigh any lame efforts by man to alter the weather.

Al Gore started global warming during an election cycle to help him pander to special interests. He has said so.

I like it that you throw in the phrase ‘actively publishing climate scientists’ in your 97 percent claim. First, your 97 percent is a lie and secondly, the left is the source of the funding of the vast majority of these climate studies. The truth is – respectable climate scientists want no part of this farce and stay out of the limelight because the amount of ilk that has invaded the scientific process is such a problem that in fact scientific inquiry is successfully being suppressed.

It’s all about transferring money from those that have to those that are corrupt thieves.

I assure you that once Obama is out of office – and it will happen – that this type of garbage will disappear from government sites such as this. And, if you want to put forth the notion that what is on a NASA site it credible, well, like I said, just wait until the yoyo in the White House is gone and you will see what I mean.

Seriously, you have some serious mental health issues stemming from childhood. You probably had a strong dominant parent that you could just not quite please and as you grew you have transferred your hatred born from that situation to all things that are, in your mind, powerful. You have a very strong need to destroy things you perceive as powerful, with no plan or inclination to replace it with anything. In summation, a typical liberal, nothing special really … feckless sums you up, not able to confront personal responsibility one iota, always moody and actually not enjoying your life very much, mostly because you are a freeloader and a hater.

Sorry, your free session is over. You can get up off the couch now. Have a nice drive home in your Prius.

Unless you can show you can read Grumpy Cat’s mind, no giving an example is needed. Your “projection” claim crumbles unless you can prove that.

You lost me at climate.nasa.gov. You’re talking about an entity with unlimited resources, who has shown itself willing to report stories to support its own narrative. If the government wants global warming, the government will create it. We haven’t. Take a gander up at the sky, that’s not commerce.

We’re NOT warming the planet through GHGs to any significant extent.

Oh no. You DID NOT just use the debunked 97% consensus did you? HAHAHAAHAHAHAA!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/19/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/

You now have ZERO credibility. Crawl back underneath the evil, banker-whore rock from whence you came.

AGW is a fraud and we all know it.

Ok, so what your saying is because someone gets paid by certain companies to do research on the facts and validity climate change, away from the fear mongering, that it is unreliable and manufactured? I find immensely amusing that you use this as your counter point, when the whole industry of climate change is funded by the left government and the banks. How can we trust the validity of climate scientists when the conclusions of their research, if done objectively, could cost them their research grant renewals? Who in their right mind would publish any facts if they contradicted the established conclusion that climate change is the biggest threat to mankind? Maybe think about that before you become a zealot for a cause that has tons of scientific, objectionable counter research that proves otherwise.

Don’t forget being fired or as some what put in jail or being publically shamed for not towing the progressive line

Big Government : “Hey, I’ll give you a million dollars if you do a study for the government about global warming. Even more money could come later. Will you do it?”
Junk Scientist: “Where do I sign?”

His salary is a drop in the bucket compared with the trillions brought in by the global warming proponents. The sky is falling; send money!

“fascist right” ??
“All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” – Benito Mussolini. = BIG GOV!
Big Gov, bigger Gov, and no 1st or 2nd Ammendment, because that is what Big Gov likes.
Fascism has a lot in common with socialism and the left, and it has nothing in common with conservatives. Even though Stalin made that claim, yet you seems to agree more with Stalins take on this subject.

And how much do you get paid with the taxpayer’s dollars, vermin leftist?

You got that from the Far Left blogs and media, desmogblog, dailykos, and mediamatters (not). Therefore your assertion is meaningless.

Repeating a persons comment before replying to it is a Soros/Obama tactic. Science relies on fact, fact is truth. Climate Change is rigged by Liberals who do the polling research http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle. Do I care what you say or believe? No! I can do my own research and I have found that you are pushing an agenda: 1) a plan or goal that guides someone’s behavior and that is often kept secret 2) an underlying often ideological plan or program.
You push something based on computer models only, there is no other scientific facts to back up your bias agenda.

So Exxon is evil and government is good. What crap. Private is bad and public is good. Nutcases like this one will lead us to a gulag of extermination, and then we won’t be around to worry what our feet will look like.

Nice try scumbag, but the “fascist right” not buying into the global warming scam, not wanting my daughter and wife raped and killed by Muzzies, not wanting my son killed by Latino or black bangers, and not wanting to give my hard earned money to you for being the lazy arrogant POS you are is exactly where I wanna be. We’re about to kick you lefties collective-asses, you have awoken the Sleeping Giant, and you know it! Gun sales through the roof, Trump holds a 3 pt lead over Cankles in head to head poll, and that’s before he trashed her in debates, her pending non-indictment by the DoJ will knock her down another 10 pts with the 20% you have to win a majority of…

You commie f!ckers are about to get your lazy, hippie, homo, Muslim sympathizing, America hating dicks chopped off. And I LOVE watching you come unglued!

touché

Check out how many scientists rejected John Harrison’s Marine Chronometer because of financial ties. Warming Alamists are too tied to politics and academia AND MONEY. Alarmists seldom mention actual temperature degree changes because they are so slight.

Ever notice that alarmists demand details from us, but they can’t give us the temperature details proving AGW?

Goebbels? Really? Want to believe it was sarcasm, can’t. You have the “true believer” vibe. Progressives have blamed Conservatives for all of their bad behavior for more than a century in this country. It doesn’t matter. It won’t change the outcome. God still wins.

You do know that Hitler was a progressive leftie? You know that, don’t you?

Thank god there’s people like Marc Marano!

It is truly a public service for patriotic Americans to help finance CFACT and other truth-tellers to offset the pseudo-scientists and power-m0ngers in fedgov. Thanks to the foundations dedicated to freedom and prosperity for all for countering the falsehoods of the enviro-whackos.

It is truly a public service for patriotic Americans to help finance CFACT and other truth-tellers to offset the pseudo-scientists and power-m0ngers in fedgov. Thanks to the foundations dedicated to freedom and prosperity for all for countering the falsehoods of the enviro-whackos.

As opposed to alarmists who receive billions in funding?
At least Morano sticks to the science.

We are not subjects.

The superior Leftists think we are, and amenable to their molding.

These statists think you are

A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
ws…
➤➤
➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsMedia/GetPaid/98$hourly…❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

Obama, H Clinton, and many of the Republican candidates think we are.

And may they rot in he double scribble for what they have done to our country.

“Obama, H Clinton, and many of the Republican candidates think we are.”

Including Republican candidates! Hmmm….

What about the author of this dishonest propaganda piece?

Do you think he considers you a subject?

Were you unaware he is paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the dangerous nature of their product?

Do you think a person like that would have respect for a person like yourself?

“Marc Morano is the executive director and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot.com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Morano is also the Communications Director at CFACT, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. According to 2011 IRS Forms, Morano was the highest paid staff member with a salary of $150,000 per year. Morano’s blog Climate Depot regularly publishes articles questioning man-made global warming.”

http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano

You mean we aren’t growing webbed feet?

Now I’m just bummed.

“You mean we aren’t growing webbed feet?”

Some people may be!

What does that have to do with Mr. Morano being paid by the fossil fuel industry to mislead the public about the dangerous nature of their product?

“Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities… The main human activity that emits CO₂ is the combustion of fossil fuels”

www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

“Internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of disinformation—a deliberate campaign to deceive the public that continues even today.”

http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos

Haha! You’re as a big an idiot as those pseudo-scientists behind the article.
1. Morano is not paid by fossil fuels to mislead. PROVE THAT HE IS!
2. Memos revealing disinfo? No such thing. You must be referring to climategate that proved the alarmists engaged in fraud.
3. The percentage of human generated CO2 is irrelevant as all the data shows CO2 to have an insignificant effect on climate.

Give it up CB, you’ve been debunked every time.

“Morano is not paid by fossil fuels to mislead. PROVE THAT HE IS!”

How?

What would count as proof for a person like yourself?

“Without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a frozen -18 degrees Celsius (0 degrees Fahrenheit).”

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

What would count as proof is if you take us all through the atmosphere REDUCING ENERGY to EARTH
then DISTRIBUTING to EMIT the REDUCED ENERGY LOAD from a COLDER, LARGER, OVERALL MASS,

and YOU EXPLAIN who and how someone CONVINCED YOU that’s a MAGIC HEATER.

“What would count as proof is if you take us all through the atmosphere REDUCING ENERGY to EARTH”

You want me to take you through the atmosphere?

Like in a plane?

How might that prove anything about the effect of your tailpipe emissions on the temperature of the planet?

“During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth’s surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth’s surface cools, releasing the heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That’s what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 59 degrees Fahrenheit, on average.”

climatekids.nasa.gov/review/greenhouse-effect

Look! A DEFLECTION from your RELIGION which teaches YOU,

An atmosphere blocking 20% energy to a SUN WARMED SURFACE,

to then distribute and EMIT that LESSER ENERGY from a LARGER, COLDER, MASS,

isn’t the definition of cooling. To YOUR religion that is ”WARMING” .

to
reduce energy to a surface and
subsequently distribute and EMIT that LOWER ENERGY through a LARGER COLDER mass, overall.

A Magic Heater for D.A.R.E. graduates to sit and ponder while they wonder where to stick their D.A.R.E. sticker LoL!

I’m in it for the webbed feet. I could care less about your conspiracy theories.

You are more proof that liberals and global warmists have no sense of humor and are too easily swayed into watermelon belief systems.

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.”

…and what does that have to do with the effect of greenhouse gasses on planetary temperature?

“In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a “greenhouse effect” which affects the planet’s temperature.”

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
3crt………
➤➤
➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsFactory/GetPaid/98$hourly…❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.

Quote by Club of Rome: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.”

Quote by Club of Rome: “Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late.”

Quote by Club of Rome: “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”

“Quote by Club of Rome…”

Uh huh, and is it more likely that there’s been some “Club of Rome” conspiracy that consists of essentially all scientists on Earth for over a century?

…or is it more likely there’s a conspiracy of a few people over a few decades who are paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the dangerous nature of their product?

“Marc Morano is the executive director and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot.com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Morano is also the Communications Director at CFACT, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. According to 2011 IRS Forms, Morano was the highest paid staff member with a salary of $150,000 per year. Morano’s blog Climate Depot regularly publishes articles questioning man-made global warming.”

http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano

All scientists? They cannot even produce the list of those that do support this bad science. Please show me the list of all climate scientists and those that still support your claims? The 97% has been shown, over and over, to be a lie!

Sure. The national academies of science of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, the People’s Republic of China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, the UK, Japan, Russia, the U.S, Mexico and South Africa have all literally signed off on anthropogenic climate change. The Network of African Science Academies, and the Polish Academy of Sciences have issued separate statements to the same effect. Professional scientific societies which have formally acknowledged anthropogenic climate change include the American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, National Research Council (US), Royal Meteorological Society, and World Meteorological Organization. Not one scientific body of national or international standing anywhere on Earth disputes anthropogenic climate change.

Can you provide your sources?

Yep. http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf , http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/aaas_climate_statement1.pdf , http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/climate_change_2008_final.pdf , http://royalsociety.org/Report_WF.aspx?pageid=10028 , http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/climatechangeresearch_2003.html , http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=4825 , http://www.inqua.org/files/iscc.pdf , http://www.interacademies.net/file.aspx?id=4825 , http://www.aktualnosci.pan.pl/images/stories/pliki/stanowiska_opinie/2008/stanowisko_pan_131207.pdf (Polish) ,
DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (2007). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. The MIT Press. p. 68. ISBN 978-0-262-54193-0. Also see http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/main.html , http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ , http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-4.html , http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782 , and http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spm.html . I think that covers all of it, but if after reading through all that you see anything I missed, just let me know and I’ll get it to you.

Thank you

A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
3amj……
➤➤
➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsForce/GetPaid/98$hourly…❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.

Of course, greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is the weakest, always cause the earth to retain heat, a greenhouse effect. But not a catastrophe. In all of the past warm periods have had CO2 LAG global temperatures

What the crap does Socrates have to do with this? Give US a break

Did you forget about the numerous UN Resolutions, some going back to the early 1990’s, of which he was in defiant violation? Did you forget about the three card monte he was playing with the UN weapons inspectors? Did you forget about the videos of his henchmen teaching suspected Iraqi hom osexuals and other enemies of the regime to fly from 4th floor rooftops? Did you forget about his barbaric sons operating rape rooms and torture chambers? He had terrorized millions of Iraqis for decades, and killed hundreds of thousands. After he was caught, he was charged by his own people and found guilty of crimes against humanity. Do you have any idea why? Or were you asleep for the past 30 years? What do you think is propaganda? I suspect that the simple truth is just too much for you to process.

OH MY GOD!! THE UN? ALL PRAISE WORLD GOVERNMENT!!! WHAT IT SAYS IS TRUTH!! PRAISE THE BANKS!!!

“MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” HAHAHA #DERP

Do you ever wonder about how much news and information you miss, and are thus completely oblivious to, because of the sources you trust to decide what you should and shouldn’t know? For over three years after the fall of Baghdad, our troops, as well as engineers from coalition forces, were finding remnant caches of chemical munitions of various types and states of deterioration throughout the country, totaling in the tons, and all of it dangerous in the wrong hands. We were also aware that much larger stockpiles were likely moved by trucks out of northern Iraq into Syria prior to the invasion. Is it any wonder to you why Salon, HuffPo, and the rest of the left-wing media never told you about any of that, or a surprise to anyone else that you wouldn’t lift a finger to find out for yourself? You can go back in time to review it too, since you apparently didn’t live through it the first time.

Oh, so you have got all the information, never missed anything, and have the “correct” sources! Awesome! Who is the “correct” source? The US Gov or it’s fascist media organizations?

Funny how these “WMDs” were never produced #derp

And the US gave Saddam his chemical weapons! Hahaha you are lame as a duck

aww, bobby!