Posted on 01/21/2016 10:28:02 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Please oh please let the Trump people attacking Cruz for this....
This statement explains alot. You clearly have no clue who Trump or his supporters are.
My thoughts exactly.
Since Trump is anti-Cruz on everything lately, and even willing to become a birther just to attack Cruz, what’s the over/under on Trump becoming Global Warming Alarmist?
And, the several ant-hills in my yard cause micro-climate change by their activity.
The tagline...please.
And at this rate it MIGHT be a degree warmer (or colder) several decades from now, and there MIGHT be negative consequences (or not).
Global warming is settled (political) science.
Because alot of liberals do support Trump over Hillary
Isn’t this pretty much a necessity if republicans are to win?
Trump being on record matters little to him.. sight well anything he has ever said before this election cycle and then contrast to this election cycle.
Sarah Palin running as McCain’s VP didn’t make McCain less of a liberal.
Sarah Palin Endorsing Trump for president doesn’t make Trump any less of a liberal.
Sarah Palin is doing what is right for Sarah Palin. Beck...I don't defend him.
It would help if the posters would fix the headlines so they pointed you the right direction
‘Cause blizzards in the NE are a sure sign of “climate change”, formerly known in the algore parlance as “global warming”.
The only cure is to immediately purchase carbon credits from algore INC.
Why does not Constitution expert Cruz simply say the following concerning major constitutional problems with the federal funding for global warming?
Even if so-called global warming had been proven with the repeatable results of scientific method-based experiments, it remains that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate environmental issues.
In other words, global warming is nothing more than a PC buzzword to secure unconstitutional federal funding with no accountability.
According to satellites.
So we have 36 years of satellite data.
And the earth is HOW old again?
4.5 billion years?
What kind of retard scientist would draw any "conclusions" from that?
Btw, to date I've preferred Cruz.
Well, I'd best hold my tongue on that one... But I get your meaning. ; )
It’s been a little colder up here in the mountains of MD, but looking forward to the snow!!
We got like 1/4 inch last night here (Howard county)
It was pretty.
However too many Maryland drivers drive 40MPH on 55 roads when the only snow (or ice) is on the sides.
Gee, if only we’d broadcast black coal dust on the polar caps, like activists suggested in the 1970’s to fight ‘the coming ice age’ and subsequent crop failures and starvation...
Imbecile. The data Cruz is referring to is a least squares regression analysis to determine how far back you can go in the tempreature record without getting a statistically significant rise in temperature. The start point is determined by the calculation.
Crock of crap.
You won't be laughing when we are all under water and the sharks are chasing you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.