There you go again, being dishonest. No surprise there, when the facts don't fit, change them.
04]
This has got to be one of the most stupid posts on BC.If the government regulates emissions into the air & has the power to set fines against those who don't follow their rules , so if a volcano erupts who pays ?
If you are going to insult me, you should at least explain yourself. You posted a partial quote that was about font size, and made it look like it was about some 'agenda'. I would say that is dishonest.There you go again being a hypocrite.
There you go again, being dishonest. No surprise there, when the facts don't fit, change them.
Tit for tat.There you go again being a hypocrite.
All living things in the immediate area...If the government regulates emissions into the air & has the power to set fines against those who don't follow their rules , so if a volcano erupts who pays ?
There you go again, being dishonest. No surprise there, when the facts don't fit, change them.
There you go again being a hypocrite.
While I would say the two words are roughly equal in defaming another, I personally would consider saying someone is a hypocrite is less flaming or defaming than than saying a person is dishonest.Tit for tat.
The report was disingenuous.
But some one somewhere has to be held accountable for all that CO2 being released .All living things in the immediate area...
If the government regulates emissions into the air & has the power to set fines against those who don't follow their rules , so if a volcano erupts who pays ?
I thought it was a rather humourous post ... albeit more disingenuous than humourous.This has got to be one of the most stupid posts on BC.
So, is a liar dishonest or disingenuous ?While I would say the two words are roughly equal in defaming another, I personally would consider saying someone is a hypocrite is less flaming or defaming than than saying a person is dishonest.
Of course, this is by nature a subjective judgment call.
If you are going to insult me, you should at least explain yourself. You posted a partial quote that was about font size, and made it look like it was about some 'agenda'. I would say that is dishonest.
Please, I have seen nothing but editorials posted by you, and incomplete quotes. Link to the scientific, peer reviewed papers, or point me to the buried paper you posted.
av8torntn, Your put downs aren't even clever, and your links don't prove the lack of climate change, in fact just the opposite.
In any case, when moreluck starts chiming in with her cartoons and defense of Krauthammer, the noted climatologist that he is, you've pretty must lost any semblance of rationality in your stance.