So they’re scientists who are constantly wrong and make wild projections about the future and each and every single one is outstandingly and dangerously wrong, we should say “oh but the science that made that projection is completely right. Let’s not question it” but the person who points to actual flaws in the model…

Really? Climate change is anthropomorphic in nature? What percent of climate change is anthropomorphic? Give me a ballpark. 5% 55% 95%?

If all $1,000,000,000 is in actual physical assets then yes, you would need to sell them to pay your yearly fine to government. That’s the government taking it. Again. Who gets to decide what’s enough? Why isn’t $50k a good cutoff. It’s enough to live happily on. Why not $100k? Why not $200k? Why not $500k? I’m not…

My lack of understanding? Climate is the one field where questioning scientists, especially ones who are continually wrong, is viewed as a crime. 

Superstorm sandy is different than the rising sea levels causing all of Manhattan to be underwater by ten feet. I mean. If you don’t understand the difference then you’re truly a lost cause. 

The article (form the writer’s point of view) is that income inequality is immoral. The top poster just assumes that income inequality is immoral. So my question is, if it’s immoral and we start at $32M, why SHOULDN’T it apply at $1M? Is income inequality suddenly moral below $32M? What makes that the moral amount?…

If you have $1M can you stand to lose half of it? Sure. Why shouldn’t you? If this is all grandstanding about what’s good and what people should do because who NEEDS that money they why not lower the bar? It’s easy to take away someone else’s money. Why don’t we all put our money where our mouth is and give away…

This idea of a country that looks out for people in the country seems so antithetical to the left’s open borders policy that it’s remotely blowing my mind.

So bold to post that on a leftist echo chamber. To not challenge what was said but just gaslight instead. Strong. So strong. You must be incredibly brave. 

Wow you missed the point. Capable of what? Or repeating what she has heard and read from scientists. Okay. And what of all the reports, projections and predictions of the last three decades that have been not just wrong, but hilariously so? Why can’t those be questioned? Why can’t those same scientists be questioned?…

I completely agree. So why don’t we discuss policies that help make the poor wealthier? This policy fixes wealth inequality by taking wealth from the wealthy. It talks nothing about what to do with that wealth or how to help the poor obtain more wealth.

Maybe because taking something that isn’t yours is immoral whether you have that thing in the first place or not. Imagine that. People being against the government coming and taking something at gun point because the government itself decided it’s immoral to simply have it. What a shocking revelation.

Hoarding of wealth is immoral because...?

Ugh, the insufferable Orange Man Bad-ers are infiltrating the Jalopnik comments again.  I guess they got sick of commenting about 3 year olds knowing more than them on climate and jumped over here.

I mean this dumbing down of ‘all right wingers dumb and evil, leftist all good angel. Har har’ is the reason why we have news channels like msnbc and fox that are designed around adults having the attention span of a guppy fish. Making that point about ideas that are contrary to your own shows your ignorance. For your…

Capable of....? The logic in these comments is elementary in a way that would embarrass Greta. 

You’re doing the Lord’s work coming on a far leftist echo chamber like Splinter and being incapable of making an argument past ‘must be white privilege’ even when the ideas are spoken by a person who isn’t white.

But what if it never eroded their bottom line? What if these leaders, the ones that heard this in the 80’s and 90’s and were told the world would be irreversible by now, were too jaded to care? Even worse, what if the hysteria that told us the UK would be like Siberia by 2020 (which is four months away) is simply…

I remember in school in the 90’s the teachers would try and scare us into thinking our rainforests would be gone by the time we were adults. And here we are now with more trees on earth now than we had then. And yet the hysteria around these things just grows exponentially. It’s almost like they *want* something to be…

Triggered much? Three posts about the same guy. Living rent free in your head, I see.