Exactly. This story is complete bullshit. What sort of data is going to show you that some bullshit story had an affect on the election? If a bunch of morons were chattering away for millions of hours about some nonsense, what sort of data is going to prove that this particular nonsense swayed them? Also, an argument…

Oh geez, you have no fucking clue, but you’re still going to pretend like your decision to deny science is just being sensible. You’re the worst.

Nothing you’re saying refutes the fact that we are changing the climate at a fairly insane rate. Regardless of what the popular press might have published forty years go, regardless of the other factors that also affect climate, this is science and acting like a moron doesn’t refute it.

So, newsflash: CO2 affects climate, but it isn’t the only thing that affects climate.

You may or may not know it, but I’m being trolled. Fuck off.

The article mentions the death of millions of trees with no frame of reference, then it talks about what to do, not its effect on wildlife.

Yes, in fact that is what this article is about. I starts with “California drought update: It’s still bad. How bad?” and it continues on with more references to the consequences we are facing along with the demise of forests. Your question is retarded and everything relevant about these numbers is having a hard time…

No, if you’re being an obnoxious idiot asking obnoxiously stupid questions, then it’s perfectly appropriate to call you names. I’m not saying that the total number of trees in California is completely irrelevant. I’m saying that the point of interest here is how California wildlife is being affected by climate change.…

Shockingly, one idea that was floated involved staging terror attacks on U.S. soil.

Are you fucking kidding? You don’t think the CMC was a consequence of US policy towards Cuba?

The US Forest Service counts trees in forests, dickhead. Trees in your backyard and along the sidewalk 1) are hardly fucking trees 2) usually have irrigation and aren’t subject to the same pressures due to drought. A percentage of trees that have died in forests is a much better measure of the effect of climate change…

This number was taken by the US Forest Service. They aren’t counting the total number of trees in the state, they are counting trees in forests. Why do you care how many trees are in California? It sounds fucking pointless.

There are about 21 million acres of trees spread across California’s 18 national forests, and the latest figures show 7.7 million of them — more than one-third — are dead.

It’s not only illogical to think that the campaign wasn’t behind this, it’s incredibly naive and stupid. https://shadowproof.com/2016/10/28/podesta-emails-clinton-coordinate-dnc-plan/

Funny, every single poll showed Bernie with a much bigger lead over Trump than Hillary, which had been fairly consistent up until that last week or two. You’re clearly full of shit. The whole “communist” nonsense only worked with people who by now are mostly six feet under.

Are you really serious? Do I need to show you the emails? Do you think Donna was laying these questions at the campaign HQ’s doors anonymously? How the hell is coordination between the campaign and a mole at CNN not evidence of wrongdoing by both? I keep seeing otherwise rational people bending over backwards to…

Re-read the part about the purpose of the strontium chloride bath.

10 ppb doesn’t sound like a LARGE amount. And the two larger colonies do show a decline correlated with dose. There’s just that odd outlier there at 100 ppb in the 7000-bee colony.

To be fair, that has nothing to do with the fact that the staff at GM have consistently slimed Jill Stein with articles that are entirely ignorant of the science.

Doing a great job embarrassing yourself here, Eve. Keep it up.