Yellowtail

And I stand by what I said. No, it is not the same to me or anyone else as far as I know. Misinformation is just false information. Like when someone claims 100% of warming is caused by burning fossil fuels. The person is clearly misinformed, but has either just made a mistake, or actually believes what they are saying is true. There is no malice, it's just someone that, for whatever reason, does not know any better. Disinformation is intentionally lying or misrepresenting the facts to deliberately mislead people. Like when a newspaper reporter claims Florida is teaching kids that slavery was great, or that the Supreme Court outlawed abortion. These people are not just wrong, they are intentionally misrepresenting the facts to promote their agenda. One could argue that that there is no malice because they (the liars) believe is for the greater good, but it should not be up to them to make that determination. See the difference? Reading is FUN-damental!

I said nothing of misinformation, please try reading a little more slowly.

That's what I thought, thanks!

To be fair, La does not claim his EV is green, he only claims that he likes it, and that it saves him a lot of money.

Placeholder indeed confirmed the natural world would end, please try to follow along. You accuse me of making arguments in bad faith, yet you refuse to make an argument at all. You clearly stated that the warming was caused 100% by burning fossil fuels. That statement is absolutely false, yet you refuse to support it, and in fact you doubled down on it. Please, I want it to understand what Raw Story related "science" supports your claim.

What I said was: The left seems to get angry when the right calls it a baby rather than a fetus, but the left wants to call it "women's health care" when they are talking about abortion. What does your response have to do with what I said? And to be clear, I never accused Democrats of thinking.

So porn stars are prostitutes? Actors that have sex with producers are prostitutes? Poor women that marry for financial reasons are prostitutes?

No, that is not prostitution.

I've started watching "Blacklist", but it's seems to get stupider every episode.

I won't, nor will a lot of people. I think Tonight Show viewer numbers are off almost 50% from his debut. I think Jay Leno (who was actually funny) averaged 5M viewers a show, and Colbert is averaging around 2M. I'm glad you think he's funny.

That way the rich can continue generating all the CO2 they like.

Exactly

Well, that and he's not funny.

How much had CO2 output been reduced over the last twenty years? I do not expect you to be able to explain the science to me because I think it clear you do not understand it, that's why you have to call me a troll. You claim: "...the plan is to rapidly slow the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere and then get them to drop." That is not a plan, that's the desired result. The fact is, that we're twenty years in on the plan and humanity is generating more CO2 than ever, and the rate of increase has not slowed. The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

Cars are cheaper in the US? Say it ain't so! How much are the MGs in the US?

The left seems to get angry when the right calls it a baby rather than a fetus, but the left wants to call it "women's heath care" when they are talking about abortion. Carry on

I believe the single biggest problem facing the GOP's election prospects is disinformation.

Lies are all they have.

I think that would be Ken...

What I said was: "So, the world is ending because we are generating too much CO2, and the left is going to save the world by reducing the amount of CO2 we generate by a few percentage points. Seems like a great plan to me." So rather than address what I've said you call me ignorant, typical. I understand how a carbon tax works, I've explained it couple of times already. What don't I understand is why you refuse to respond to what I said. Is the world ending because we are generating too much CO2 or not? Is the plan to save the world by reducing the amount of CO2 we generate by a few percentage points, or isn't it?

Sorry, I'll rephrase: The idiotic carbon tax is just a permit the rich industries (left and right) can buy so they do not have to alter their lifestyle operations. Of course, rich people own the industries, and keeping their the industry's operations going allows the rich owners to maintain their lifestyle. One has to fly private if one is going to save the world in time don't 'cha know!

Sorry, I'll rephrase: So, both the natural world and the human world is ending because we are generating too much CO2, and the left is going to save the world by reducing the amount of CO2 we generate by a few percentage points. Seems like a great plan to me. Is that better?

Exactly. They have to do something about the allegations of soaring crime rates, so they decriminalize stuff. I think it's great. 18-year-old girls will be able to earn minimum wage, while rich, well connected brothel owners get even richer.

Japanese cars are more expensive than Chinese cars, shocking. Has anyone looked new Yugo EV? Great value...