Over 59540
politifake

Kathy Politics


Kathy Griffin, Typical Liberal Monster -




If you wanna' be like Tiger Woods... -


TAGS: kathy griffin tiger woods
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by ScatXXVII

Reality Lord - June 6, 2017, 11:43 am

LMFAO!!!


Democrat Fake News Brainwashing -




The Trues face of the Democrat Party -




The true face of the Democrat Party -




Kathy Griffin, Typical Liberal Monster -




Russia Hacked -


TAGS: kathy griffins
Rating: 5/5

More politifakes by BUCKO

Reality Lord - June 6, 2017, 11:44 am

lol


sexism -




Your typical climate-change Denier argues like this -


TAGS: kathy bates climate change denier
Rating: 1.8/5

More politifakes by fauxnews

fauxnews - February 27, 2015, 12:31 am
If you live in Antarctica http://chemistry.about.com/od/environmentalchemistry/ig/Colored-Snow-Ph**o-Gallery/Green-Snow.-c2H.htm
OTC - February 26, 2015, 11:53 pm
Wouldn't that be green snow?
fauxnews - February 26, 2015, 9:31 pm
Aliens?
OTC - February 26, 2015, 9:24 pm
Climate scientist Kirk Maarsch would probably disagree with you, but that's your opinion. During GC growing cycles are shorter creating less crops,but maybe you'll be happy eating yellow snow
fauxnews - February 26, 2015, 5:59 pm
@OTC said>>>"During the eocene optimum, little to no ice was present on Earth with a smaller difference in temperature from the equator to the pole. So why worry about warming? Global cooling is a bigger threat" SAID.NO.REPUTABLE.CLIMATOLOGIST.EVER X-D
OTC - February 26, 2015, 5:53 pm
During the eocene optimum, little to no ice was present on Earth with a smaller difference in temperature from the equator to the pole. So why worry about warming? Global cooling is a bigger threat but maybe you'll survive on your MMGW kool-aid
fauxnews - February 26, 2015, 9:41 am
you forget the link? or did you just want me to google "Abdussamatov" and hope I find it myself??
fauxnews - February 26, 2015, 9:40 am
It doesn't matter. The thing is: I make a poster. You comment on it. I try to debate you. You run from the debate. If you want a debate. Great! I'm all for it. If you want attention, please look elsewhere as I will just ignore you.That said, what article?
OTC - February 26, 2015, 8:47 am
Why does it matter what I believe? Your debate tactics are ridicule and demean, so what's the point in debating? Anyways, here's an article that quotes Abdussamatov, and if he is right, you GW worriers will be unprepared
OTC - February 26, 2015, 8:18 am
Was I too subtle in saying I was at work?
fauxnews - February 26, 2015, 1:17 am
So (C) it is [see comment #73222]. In other words, you got nothing OTC and don't want to stand your ground out of fear of losing ground. Explains why you hide on the fence.Well...you made this easy for me.Again see #73222 for now on. Have a good one,OTC.
OTC - February 26, 2015, 12:55 am
You might hear crickets but I hear machinary as not everyone in the states isn't in the unemployment or welfare lines
fauxnews - February 25, 2015, 10:03 pm
*crickets* *crickets* Why am I not surprised :-/
fauxnews - February 25, 2015, 9:51 pm
You say you believe in climate change but you think the hoax part is where scientists mostly blame humans. Again, what in that competing research you cited shows that the scientific community is engaging in a hoax/conspiracy to pin climate change on men?
fauxnews - February 25, 2015, 9:43 pm
Once again....how does the research pertaining to those different subjects DEMONSTRATE a "manmade global warming HOAX" or a "97% consensus scientist hoax"? where in that research does it show the scientific community is engaging in a deliberate hoax???
fauxnews - February 25, 2015, 9:42 pm
You're confusing semantics. I don't care. So.....how does the research pertaining to solar activity, volcanoes, el Nino, Earth's orbit.etc, demonstrate a 97% consensus hoax OR a man-made global warming hoax?
fauxnews - February 25, 2015, 9:40 pm
And(C)if u cant answer the question(or you just dont wanna)THEN AT LEAST SAY SO.Then I'll just ignore you when u leave behind your opinions on my posters.If you're looking for a debate.Great!But if you're looking for attention,please look elsewhere.Cheers
OTC - February 25, 2015, 9:35 pm
Comment #73177 you said man-made CO2, but you keep bringing up man-made GW. Well, either way, there plenty of research pertaining to solar activity, volcanoes, el Nino/ la Nina, earth's orbit which affect climate change, yet libs only see 1 thing: humans
fauxnews - February 25, 2015, 9:24 pm
Again, in your comment #72941, OTC, you say "Someone who believes the "man-made" global warming hoax its no surprise they believe in the 97% consensus hoax too". Okay,all I care about is: what is your EVIDENCE that there are these TWO HOAXES by science?
fauxnews - February 25, 2015, 9:20 pm
Sooooo.....OTC, you think that man-made global warming is a hoax AND that the 97% consensus is a hoax. Yes? So then...that represents a MAJOR indictment of the scientific community. So WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE proving that their are perpetraing these hoaxes?
fauxnews - February 25, 2015, 9:16 pm
But you DID say, OTC #72884 -->"I haven't changed my stand on 'man-made' global warming, I still think it's a hoax." And #72941 "Someone who believes the "man-made" global warming hoax its no surprise they believe in the 97% consensus hoax too".
fauxnews - February 25, 2015, 9:13 pm
P.S. Are you talking about the gas itself? LMAO..I never thought you thought that...lololololol..But, hey, if that is the straw you want to grasp onto, go for it. So you've MADE your clarification, yes? Fine then. We are not speaking about the gas.
fauxnews - February 25, 2015, 9:10 pm
So (B) it is. #73211
OTC - February 25, 2015, 8:11 pm
Comment #73177 you clearly stated man-made "CO2" is a hoax, which I didn't say, but you want to evade that with something I said that is totally different
fauxnews - February 25, 2015, 6:07 pm
Ah, now comes out the "meds" comeback. So many one-trick ponies. ;-) Ok, nice dodge,but again I asked you about this--> OTC said,"my stand on'man-made' global warming,I still think it's a hoax." And (A)your proof for this is? or(B)you'll sit on that fence
OTC - February 25, 2015, 6:02 pm
You stated i said man made "CO2" is a hoax, which I never did. and you cone back with something I said about man man "Global Warming"? So you think CO2 and GW are the same thing? lol. you must be off your meds again
fauxnews - February 25, 2015, 2:04 pm
You're evading now. Ok, whatever.Anywayz,here is what you said:[@OTC-->]"I haven't changed my stand on 'man-made' global warming, I still think it's a hoax." Okay then, what's your evidence showing the scientific consensus is engaging in a hoax?
OTC - February 25, 2015, 1:54 pm
You really have comprehension problems, I didn't say man made CO2 was a hoax
fauxnews - February 25, 2015, 6:18 am
...stop confusing SITTING on the fence for an actual argument. You conveniently dodged THAT PART of my post too.Since u keep bringing up that man-made CO2 is a hoax but climate change isnt: what's your evidence showing the consensus fabricated this?
fauxnews - February 25, 2015, 6:11 am
...so let's start off with something easy; why dont you jump off the fence on that at least? For it seems that you won't leave the fence AGAIN on CO2 even when given the chance to explain yourself: you won't provide evidence to make your claim
fauxnews - February 25, 2015, 6:00 am
As for your suggestion,though..Ladies first. ;-) BTW,for the umpteenth time u never addressed THAT PART of your debate.Ya,know...to clear that up once and for all?since you get annoyed whenever it comes up,madam.Or is it sir?Your the SOURCE for that ;-)
fauxnews - February 25, 2015, 5:57 am
No,that's the main source it came from if you bothered to actually check it out.The title from the MAIN, ORIGINAL SOURCE was/is, "Man-Made Climatic Change: Man's activies have altered the climate" and should've discouraged u had u actually checked it out
OTC - February 25, 2015, 2:30 am
No, you just found a different report than the one I came across, but that's fine. if you believe so strongly in human activities causing global warming, why don't you help by shutting off your internet?
fauxnews - February 25, 2015, 12:39 am
...you are citing a dead scientist who was actually CONCERNED with,not in doubt of,the effects of man on global climate.Well!I dont know what's sweeter:the smores I made or the irony;-) Off to grab some milk to wash this down and call it a night.Cheers =)
fauxnews - February 25, 2015, 12:26 am
So, once again, you offered "evidence" that doesn't say what you want it to say, and in fact, says the opposite. But even then, you offered a quote from a 45 year old paper from a dead scientist? And as your proof against the current LIVING consensus?
fauxnews - February 25, 2015, 12:21 am
The quote you siphoned came from H.Lamberts 45 year old paper,"Man-Made Climatic Changes: Man's activities have altered the climate... - PubMed - NCBI". The paper, puts that quote well on context and shows the concern even from nearly a half century ago.
fauxnews - February 25, 2015, 12:14 am
H.Lambert did indeed say 45 years ago: "on the global scale natural forces still prevail."And the rest of his Landsberg's comment was "this should not lead to complacency" about the risk of global changes in the distant future."
fauxnews - February 25, 2015, 12:11 am
P.S. You're right...sorta. THAT Landsberg's work DOES come up in many reports. But it is clear you really did just blindly google him, because...*ahem*...you left out important parts of that 'quote' you shared ;-)
fauxnews - February 24, 2015, 9:25 pm
Any more dead scientists you'd like to trot out? Because his work is antiquated and has since been disproven by the data RECEIVED SINCE THEN. Try again.
OTC - February 24, 2015, 9:21 pm
Actually I didn't Google him, his work comes up in many reports
fauxnews - February 24, 2015, 9:12 pm
...the consensus that MATTERS to us is 'since the early 1990s, at its EARLIEST. Kinda hard to count him as part of that unless he's like that Christ fellow and has the powers of resurrection. ;-) *chortle* PWNED
fauxnews - February 24, 2015, 9:10 pm
I was hoping you DIDN'T mean THAT Landsberg and you made a mistake considering that Lansberg DIED in 1985 and, well, unless he invented a time machine - what data has he examined relevant to this debate? lololololol Again, did you actually google him? :-/
OTC - February 24, 2015, 9:04 pm
Why don't YOU try googling Helmut Landsberg (the climatologist)
fauxnews - February 24, 2015, 8:48 pm
...because Landsburg (the economist) has not produced or done any climate studies disproving the theory on man-made climate change which is STILL supported by virtually every climatologist on the planet and most every other credible scientist.
fauxnews - February 24, 2015, 8:46 pm
Stop confusing op-ed columnists and conservative bloggers with scientists.
fauxnews - February 24, 2015, 8:44 pm
As for Landsburg, do even bother to read the stuff you blindly google? Landsburg is an economist who writes for the Slate. He's your evidence against man-made climate change??? He's about as qualified as my cat.His opinion's about as valid as Al Gores,NOT
fauxnews - February 24, 2015, 8:34 pm
Oh,so now "CO2 might be altering climate?" albeit in limited regions?So ManMade CO2 CAN have an affect on the environment,madam? Or is it,sir?Seriously,why dont you at least settle THAT once and for all if it bothers you so much-you started it,ya know?;-)
OTC - February 24, 2015, 8:08 pm
You're buying into the words cranky put in my text, just like you're buying into the MMGW. "While pollution and CO2 might be altering the climate in limited regions," H. Landsberg wrote, "on the global scale natural forces still prevail."
fauxnews - February 24, 2015, 7:18 pm
Just like there's 2 kinds of CO2,eh OTC?The kind that causes climate change that's naturally produced VS.the mass quantities of it by man that dont cause GW,amirite? Sorta like how you're 2 different kinds of gender depending on the argument? ;-)Nice try
fauxnews - February 24, 2015, 7:12 pm
Now since I listed the majority of experts, curious to see your citation for the "vast majority of experts who've dismissed GW." Cuz if your experts ain't scientists. They must go by a different name. Source? Mad Magazine doesn't count ;-)
fauxnews - February 24, 2015, 7:09 pm
But don't worry...gotcha covered by YOUR consensus, the bold 3%: American Bigfoot Society, Elvis Is Alive Museum, Official Xfiles X-Philes Fan Club, the crazy homeless guy down the street holding that sign, and, well, virtually no scientists.
fauxnews - February 24, 2015, 7:06 pm
11 international science academies, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, U.S. Global Change Research Program, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or yeah, and virtually every other scientist on planet. X-p
fauxnews - February 24, 2015, 7:05 pm
American a**ociation for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Medical a**ociation, AMS emblem American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, GSA emblem The Geological Society of America
fauxnews - February 24, 2015, 7:04 pm
bwahahaahahahahahah....Is that even a question? Surrrrre...
OTC - February 24, 2015, 6:41 pm
His poster is about climate change but his argument is about man-made climate change, totally different subjects
posterman - February 24, 2015, 6:19 pm
please show us the consensus of scientists you purport to validate these findings. The vast majority of experts have dismissed the notion of man made contribution and even the existance of global warming
fauxnews - February 24, 2015, 4:40 pm
...if you disagree w/theory about man-made climate change, then you are disagreeing with virtually every scientist worldwide. Your problem isn't with climate change but with science then. Disagree if you like. But you're not fooling anyone, only yourself.
fauxnews - February 24, 2015, 4:35 pm
*yawn* Al Gore is a hypocrite who decided to opportunistically piggyback off of a big problem for self-advancement. his work is not relevant here. Scientists are. Tirelessly blaming Gore is like Obama blaming Bush for everything...
posterman - February 24, 2015, 4:18 pm
When it comes down to Al Gore vs a consensus of experts on the subject political affiliation is irrelevant.


PREV PAGE