Tesla Loses $50 Mil, Gets $250 Mil in Environmental Wealth Redistribution

George Clooney's car... you're paying for it

George Clooney’s car… you’re paying for it

Tesla, the crony capitalist car company that couldn’t… without government intervention, is still performing spectacularly. And by performing spectacularly, I mean it’s losing enough money every year to build a car company that makes flying cars.

Tesla Motors, an electric car maker backed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), posted a $49.8 million loss in the first quarter of 2014. This loss compared to a profit of $11.2 million in the same period a year earlier despite selling more cars.(i) Last year’s profit was not due to electric car sales, but to sales of California zero-emission-vehicle environmental credits to other auto manufacturers. Those lucrative credits have declined and tight battery supply has made it harder to produce the carmaker’s electric vehicles…

Tesla has been able to garner millions from California’s zero emission vehicle standard. California’s Air Resources Board has mandated that zero emission vehicles (cars with zero emissions of tailpipe pollutants) comprise 15 percent of new-car sales by 2025. Those vehicles comprise less than 1 percent of new car sales in California today.

Companies that exceed California’s milestones towards its zero emission vehicle goal receive credits that are worth cash when sold to auto manufacturers that do not meet the state’s requirements.  Essentially, California has mandated the sale of electric cars, and enforces the mandate by requiring that companies that do not sell enough electric cars pay into a fund that subsidizes those companies that do.

Tesla doesn’t actually make money, it resells California’s mandated energy credits. So if you’re buying a regular car, you’re basically paying rich people to drive a Tesla.

That’s how environmentalism works and Big Green is slaving over the thought of doing this on a national level with Carbon Credits.

Tesla makes unprofitable mandated cars that it subsidizes by selling the mandate credits to companies that make affordable cars.

During the first quarter of 2013, Tesla received about $68 million (12 percent of revenue) from the sale of zero vehicle emission credits. Note that without the sale of these credits, the company would have lost over $50 million during the first quarter of 2013.

According to a Wall Street analyst, Tesla earned as much as $250 million in 2013 on their sale. Translated into dollars per vehicle, Tesla made as much as $35,000 extra on each sale of its luxury Model S electric sports sedan through state environmental credits that it sold to other auto manufacturers that need to buy credits to satisfy California regulations. Adding in the Federal tax credit of $7,500 per vehicle and a state rebate of $2,500 per vehicle, the state and federal incentives totaled as much as $45,000 per vehicle that Tesla sold for as much as $100,000, depending on the model and options.

Essentially, regular taxpayers who buy typical cars, trucks and minivans are heavily subsidizing an additional car for a clientele whose average income is just under $300,000 per year.

That’s environmentalism in a nutshell. Steal from the poor to give to the rich.

  • WeaponZero

    Have you considered doing some fact checking before posting this?

    Here is Tesla’s earnings of zev credits for 2013:

    Q1 = 68 million
    Q2 = 51 million
    Q3 = 10 million
    Q4 = 0

    68 + 51 + 10 = 129 million.

    129 million != 250 million!

    Tesla has not made a penny from zev credits in the past 2 quarters as the zev credit market has dried up.

    The biggest flaw of the WSJ analyst was he took an article from 2012 LA Times which estimated that Tesla would earn 250 million in 2013. Come 2013 those numbers did not come to fruition.

    Kind of like the game of telephone, the more something is republished the more distorted it gets. This is the sad state of media these days, nobody bothers to fact check and nonsense keeps being spread being more distorted every single time.

    And btw, Tesla is doing fine financially (and without any zev credits), they have a healthy gross profit margin and free cash flow. And spending all their profit on growth of the company, hence the net profit. Actually, if not for the regulatory delays in getting those 1000 cars that they produced this quarter to their designated countries, they probably would have reported a net profit this quarter even with the growth in spending.

    • DogmaelJones1

      Whether or not the facts are “straight,” you’re missing the point. The government shouldn’t be in the car business. Tesla wouldn’t exist except for government subsidies, government “start-up” subsidies, government emissions standards….shall I go on? Then there are all those solar panel companies, and wind turbine makers, and — dare I mention it? — health care insurance? Of course, there’s Government Motors, formerly known as General Motors. Finally, what are the sources of YOUR “facts”? You don’t provide any. Or is there any point in discussing any issue with you? It seems that, like all liberals and demi-fascists, you want things to be true.

      • ThatsHowISeeIt

        Government should also not be in the banking, insurance, airline, and energy business either but apparently all that is fine with you just as long as we don’t build a vehicle that is powered by something other than gasoline. Thank god you represent the minority point of view of this country or we’d all be doomed for your hatred of Tesla’s American innovation.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          You’re not too familiar with the Tea Party, are you?

          • Randall Smith

            The party that at one time was about reining in dubious taxes. Now it’s mostly lunatic libertarian idealist. This coming from someone who voted for Ron Paul and Paul Johnson the last two elections.

        • UCSPanther

          Seeing how you more or less accuse those who question the Tesla’s capabilites of heresy, it is clearly a religion to you.

          • Randall Smith

            The parent made a good point and instead of bringing substance to the discussion, you dismiss it as “religious”.

            Bad form.

            That seems to be the norm though. Why bother with thinking through an issue when you can just attack the other person. The age old “ad hominem” attack.

        • glpage

          No, I’m opposed to any form of welfare, otherwise known as government subsidy. So, yes, the government should get out of banking, insurance, health care, energy, transportation, farming, etc. If something is truly innovative it will stand on its own in the free market, look at what innovation has done in the internet. Electric cars really aren’t innovative, they have existed for over 100 years.

          • Greg P Shelton

            well i don’t know about all that but i do think the government should sell all the interstate highways to companies that want to toll them… When you think of the debt we could retire from this it is just amazing… besides all these free highways amount to a subsidy on Cars anyway.

          • Johnny Le

            Just interstate highways? Why not all roads? The moment you leave your driveway, you should pay.

          • rcornue

            You DO pay. Ever heard of a gas tax, car registeration, inspection sticker, tire disposal fee, sales tax on car repairs & parts, oil disposal fees, and on & on.

          • Johnny Le

            I know that, but what they are saying is that if they don’t use the highways, they shouldn’t have to pay. If they don’t buy electric cars, they shouldn’t have to pay for the subsidies. So I’m saying I don’t drive on the road in front of their driveways, I shouldn’t have to pay. If they live in a cul du sac or a country road, there is no way that all the taxes and fees listed above of just people living on that road enough to pay for it. My point is, if we don’t collectively chip in to accomplish something, we’d get nowhere. They would have to walk for miles to their houses.

          • Johnny Le

            That’s an unfair comparision. The internet is composed of million networks, built by millions of companies and billions of individuals, costing trillions of dollars, and the government put a huge amount of money to build its own networks and infrastructures too. Tesla is building the cars on its own, building the supercharging network on its own, building a service network on its own. That’s a huge undertaking. You can create something truly innovative, but if you have no money to produce or distribute, you got nothing in the free market. The fact that electric cars have existed for over 100 years but only Tesla can create some momentum for it, then that is huge.

          • pete

            hey, look, it’s okay – okay?
            according to forbes billionaire book, elon more than doubled his networth, up to 8 billion, now.
            and seriously, what billionaire would actually donate to ANY democrat for a better position in which to place their company, seriously?
            obtw, did warren buffet ever pay that billion dollar tax that his company owes the IRSS?

      • WeaponZero

        I am not missing any point, factual accuracy is extremely important as our information is a collection of such information. If our facts are flawed we end up making inaccurate judgements.

        For one your assuming that Tesla would not exist if not for government subsidies, I’d argue they would exist just fine.

        But lets rewind the equation a bit. What would have happened if GM, Chrysler and Ford and their suppliers were allowed to go bankrupt without government’s assistance?

        The biggest mistake people make is they somehow assume that government interference will only rewind on 1 side of the equation without realizing it has an impact on the entire equation. I assure you that if government subsidies stopped, 100% of businesses would go bankrupt.

        The reason? Because since over 40 years, over 30% of the GDP has been government spending. It has become so deep rooted into our economy it virtually became our economy. Your argument of company X not being able to survive without government is silly because neither company A, B or C would either.

        But hey, if you want to take away subsidies from ALL companies. I am all for it. But so you know the outcome is not what you think it is.

        • republicc

          Wait a second, I thought Ford motors declined a bailout. That is the only reason I bought a Mustang and made a sizable investment in their stock. The car is fantastic and I have a sizable profit on the stock. Gee, if I had known that they took Government assistance I never would have taken those actions.

          • WeaponZero

            They just took it out through other means, they lobbied in for the ATVM loan which netted them 5.9 billion in low interest loans from the government.

          • Randall Smith

            And produced the Ford Focus Electric with the 5.9 billion they took and will take 20 years to pay back. For 10% of that, Tesla built the S and already payed back the loan. Go Ford !!! Meh.

          • Drakken

            Ford didn’t take a govt loan, the govt buys vehicles at every level.

          • WeaponZero

            Ford did take a 5.9 billion ATVM loan, it is right on the DOE website. Again, fact check!

          • Johnny Le

            The other day I heard a tea party person said we should boycott Tesla because Tesla got a government loan. So I wondered what kind of car he drives because all American car companies got loans from the government. Could this tea party patriot drive a foreign car?

          • WeaponZero

            Even with foreign cars, you would be hard pressed to find a car manufacturer who is not subsidized by the government. Toyota and BMW both took loans, Volvo is ~20% owned by the government. I did not look at all the manufacturers but I would not be surprised if all of them took loans/had bailouts at one point or another.

          • Johnny Le

            Well, my point is that the tea party calls themselve patriots, but they can’t be patriots if they call to boycott American cars and buy foreign cars. Patriots support their own country, not someone else’s country. By calling people to buy foreign cars, they are more of traitors than patriots.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Even with foreign cars, you would be hard pressed to find a car manufacturer who is not subsidized by the government. Toyota and BMW both took loans, Volvo is ~20% owned by the government. I did not look at all the manufacturers but I would not be surprised if all of them took loans/had bailouts at one point or another.”

            There is a difference between sovereign (government) investment and taxpayer subsidies.

            We used to be leaders of the free world. Now we’re turning in to followers of socialism.

          • WeaponZero

            So what do you call a low interest loan that you can pay off in over a decade? I mean how do you think the government pays for these “investments”?

            Especially when these so called “investments” are the products of lobbying.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “So what do you call a low interest loan that you can pay off in over a decade?”

            That depends on the details.

            “I mean how do you think the government pays for these “investments”?”

            Yes people of course play word games. But some sovereign investments are structured to create income for the state. Subsidies are negative cash flow to achieve some policy aim.

            Sure, subsidies can mendaciously me characterized as “investment” for some policy, but some sovereign investment truly is structured like any other investment.

            Just saying it is not always about trying to intervene in the market.

          • WeaponZero

            Ok then, where would you place the 5.9 billion that was loaned to Ford by the government which was lobbied in by Ford and requested that the money be paid to them immediately. At a 1.6% interest rate from 2009 till 2022. For helping “retool their factories” (when in reality it was a bail out).

            Also, some subsidies do make sense like certain food subsidies. (Not the ethanol subsidies, those definitely need to go)

          • objectivefactsmatter

            For one thing, the USA does not have a designated sovereign investment fund. So the justifications for intervening have to be driven by some policy aim rather than simple investment.

            I would characterize it as an intervention subsidy that was structured to be somewhat “fair” rather than to achieve some radical policy aim.

            The GM deal IMO was about pandering to the unions. And the Ford deal was perhaps more of the same or just cover to distract from what was happening with GM. And any such interventions always help the unions in any case.

            But also we have a long history now of playing big daddy some times. So I’m not saying that we should suddenly be absolute free market purists. It’s not good to be radically changing policies from one administration to the next. So I accept that even if we get a lot smarter about it, we can’t go cold turkey and simply say hands off from now on. We have to guide the addicts back to healthy independence.

            There are rare cases when interventions make sense. But we usually screw them up. We need to wean ourselves away from this tendency to think that it’s just fine because “(union) jobs depend on…” People should NOT depend on the government to find work for them. But many are used to this idea. We’ve created addicts.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I had at least one other comment that is now missing…

            “Also, some subsidies do make sense like certain food subsidies. (Not the ethanol subsidies, those definitely need to go)”

            Well…it seems harmless or even a good thing to subsidize certain crops. The problem we have is that it leads to justifications for more interventions.

            In theory some interventions can do good things, but usually it turns out with governments a lot like people who show up at roulette and win for a while. People start thinking its magic to “win” and then suddenly their money has gone missing.

            So really there are lots of good ideas that often pan out differently than they would in an ideal world. But if the world was ideal, we wouldn’t need to intervene in the first place. Proceed with caution. But we don’t.

          • Randall Smith

            What? Of course they did. Ford took a 5.9 billion dollar ATVM loan. The same one Tesla got, just 10 times bigger. And what have they produced? The Ford Focus Electric.

          • gray_man

            Actually, Ford has been producing for years the most popular vehicle in the world. The F-series pick-up.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I’ll take the analysis as quoted over a guy who commenting history seems to involve popping up to defend Tesla whenever it’s mentioned.

      • ThatsHowISeeIt

        Yes, keep listening to your little echo chamber as you become even more irrelevant. It’s this type of backward logic and being against progress in America the reason you are in the political minority. Get used to it because most Americans who care about the country are proud of what Tesla has accomplished.

        • Toni_Pereira

          Only if the new concept of american citizenship reduces itself to the Ivy League Faculty…

          • Daniel Greenfield

            That’s exactly how they think.

          • UCSPanther

            Ivory Tower “intellectuals” are arrogant fools who think they know what is best for the common person while lording over them.

            They are generally clueless about what happens on the ground, and their ideas always get ripped to shreds when exposed to reality.

            They would be well advised to read about both the French and Romanian Revolutions when people get fed up with stagnation, lack of necessities and the disconnect between the common folk and ruling class…

        • UCSPanther

          Call me in 20 years when your Tesla is in the scrap heap because it has become too costly to replace the batteries…

          • Johnny Le

            In 20 years? You don’t happen to drive a 20 year-old car, do you? If I only have to replace the battery to make the car work like new, then I’m sure it’s cheaper than buying a new one.

          • gray_man

            I drive an ’83 Ford Bronco. Works just fine.

        • glpage

          Progress in America, is that anything like the progress in our government that has been pushed by progressives? The sort of progress that has gone from individual freedom to totalitarianism.

        • George Clark

          I doubt that Nicola Tesla would be proud of this vehicle, were he allowed to return from the grave and take a look at it. Tesla was no fan of direct current. Tesla literally gave everyone AC power for free, handing over the patent to Westinghouse free of charge, when the old ratfuc&&r Edison wanted to plow along with direct current to supply cities with power. Batteries and battery power were and always will be a dead end, and Tesla knew this. Direct current is dangerous, and this is why Nicola Tesla opposed it, and this is why we use AC power for our homes now, instead of DC. This company calling itself “Tesla” brings shame upon the name of Nicola Tesla. I’d like to see Nicola Tesla rise from the grave and have a talk with this CEO of this “Tesla” company.

          • WeaponZero

            Complete nonsense and let me explain why. First of all, neither AC nor DC is safer by any means. Both can kill you if you don’t know what your doing. The Tesla Model S has a battery which is DC, but the motor the Tesla Model S uses is an AC Induction motor which runs on AC.

            So you know, most of your electronics run on DC. AC is used for transmission. If we had to start over, every house would be wired for DC instead of AC. But we would still use AC for transmission.

            And by the way, if Nikola Tesla did rise from the grave, and talked to the CEO of Tesla Motors it would be an interesting conversation, because the relative of Tesla and the CEO of Tesla are opening the first museum for Nikola Tesla in the US. With Tesla CEO providing the funding.

          • George Clark

            Edison tried to wire every house in the country for DC, Einstein. It would have taken a power generation plant about every two miles. AC power can can be regulated, and manipulated–AC can be turned down in voltage, DC cannot. DC is so good that Edison traveled the country electrocuting cats, dogs, and elephants with AC, to show how safe DC was. Good lord you are ignorant.

          • WeaponZero

            Can you at least learn to READ. I said houses would be better wired for DC, but transmission is better done through AC.

            And Edison using AC to electrocute things is nothing more then PR at the time.

          • George Clark

            Electrocuting elephants is PR? Paying children to round up stray cats for electrocution was PR? Is you ingnant or sumfin?

          • WeaponZero

            Yes, PR. Putting negative PR spin on your competition is nothing new. Take politics for example and how much is put into negative ads.

          • Conservative

            First, its a inverter rated ” AC ” motor that is being supplied DC square wave from a large Variable Frequency Drive.

            It’s a big Oscillator with the ability to modulate frequency to control motor speed. Its not a AC Generator. Unless Telsa invented inverter technology the car shouldn’t be called a Telsa.

            The Car is named after Tesla because calling it the ” Eddison ” wasn’t an option.

          • WeaponZero

            The car runs on an a 3 phase AC Induction Motor.

          • Conservative

            Technically its a AC inverter rated motor thats being powered via a variable frequency drive that outputs both positive and negative DC Square Waves with varying frequency.

            The power comes not from a generator creating a true AC sinusoidal waveform through induction, it comes from a electronic device. There are distinct applications between the two devices so its a bit lazy to ignore those distinctions based on some predisposed ideology.

            In the interest of the famous debate between Edison and Tesla on which type of current is best suited for power distribution the Cars name is a misnomer.

            It is powered by DC not a AC Generator.

          • Daniel Lomeli

            Oh Jesus. Nikola Tesla was not a fan of DC for transmission lines. AC could be stepped up for more efficient transmission over long transmission lines through a coiled transformer and stepped down at the customer just like it’s done today. DC comes from lithium ion batteries but the motor is inductive (ie AC motor) and requires an inverter. Nikola would be blown away and probably fixated on the infotainment system.

      • Randall Smith

        How about instead you find out the truth? Are you afraid it won’t mesh with narrative you’ve already accepted?

        • glpage

          You ought to heed your own advice. Or is the truth just what the left says it is?

          • Randall Smith

            The truth alludes those on the “Right” or “Left” because they think what they’re told to think without researching facts. The rest of us make up our own mind after digesting the facts.

            As you’ve made very clear in your parent post, you’d rather take the word of someone in your “camp” than get the facts and form your own opinion.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It’s not a matter of camps. One is a credible source with research, the other is a Tesla fanboy commenter.

          • WeaponZero

            The mistake that you are making is that your assuming that he WSJ guy actually did research and not quickly grab pieces of information like you without actually doing any real research.

            If you are so confident lets make a bet you will blindly trust what the WSJ says and I will trust my own research.

            What do you want to bet?

          • glpage

            Quite to the contrary, I have done lots of research on Tesla and the electric car industry. Not for political reasons but because I happen to really like cars; I’m a bit of a gear head. It is doubtful Tesla would be anywhere close to where they are if they had not had all sorts of subsidies, even Mother Jones noted that. So, I will reiterate, heed your own advice. Hey, it’s no big deal if you really like Teslas, I happen to think they’re kind of cool, but be honest with yourself.

          • Johnny Le

            So what if it takes subsidies? The oil companies take subsidies. The farmers take subsidies. You take subsidies (through tax credits and deductions). What you do with the subsidies is more important.

      • WeaponZero

        The information is available to the public via SEC filing. Check them yourself.

        PS I don’t deny that I am pro Tesla. Hence why I don’t make my posting history private. But that doesn’t change the fact that my statement is factually accurate.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Do you have a financial interest in Tesla or are a Tesla employee?

          • WeaponZero

            Niether. My interest in Tesla is purely technological. (I like the progress of technology, and the fact that I don’t like smelling the exhausts kind of helps a bit too)

      • hiernonymous

        Well,sure. You’ll post as fact articles you’ve only had machine translated, and clearly haven’t sourced or fact-checked, so of course you’ll take the analysis that appeals to you.

        The salient point is that you haven’t done enough homework to know who’s right, which means you don’t really bring anything to the table.

    • glpage

      Your statement that Tesla has not made a cent from zev credits in the past two quarters might not be entirely accurate:

      http://finance.yahoo.com/news/teslas-zev-credits-fall-210814359.html

      Then there is the really cool subtitle for this article that sort of points out that Tesla wouldn’t be doing so well if it hadn’t gotten all the subsidies:

      http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/tesla-q2-second-quarter-earnings-elon-musk-subsidies

      Oh yeah, Mother Jones usually isn’t noted as being conservative.

      • WeaponZero

        What does this have to do with being conservative or not? Factual accuracy doesn’t pick sides.

        I don’t know what reality you live in, but the Yahoo article was published April 8th 2014. The Mother Jones article was published in Aug 7th 2013.

        Since last quarter data has been published May 7th 2014, your response makes no logical sense as they would not contain any data at all. Try doing a bit of fact checking.

      • hiernonymous

        From your first link:
        ” The electric carmaker had received $129.8 million from the sale of ZEV credits in 2013.”

        Didn’t Daniel’s “well-researched” article claim $250 million?

      • Daniel Lomeli

        Tesla is doing extremely well. It’s achieved 25% gross profit margin. It’s won numerous awards and has the highest crash rating and owner satisfaction of any vehicle. It’s also supply constrained unable to meet sales demand with a 3 month and growing waiting period. Any EV purchaser can take advantage of the federal tax credit. It’s not like Tesla lobbied for it. It’s not like anyone rails against the federal government for subsidizing student loans with insane “crony capitalism” (taken from the author) like you wouldn’t believe. No one cares about farm subsidizes as long as the government pays half the price of a gallon of milk. The reality is that subsidies are not part of Tesla’s sales model and just icing on the cake for those who can easily afford a model s.

    • Guest

      That’s because the WSJ analyst made estimates based on market that had yet to be realized. It’s not even public information on how much a ZEV credit goes for and how many are available or bought and sold. It absolute exercise in futility to have even attempted but go figure that the estimate would be taken as factual by shill columnist.

    • Daniel Lomeli

      That’s because that WSJ analyst made estimates based on market that had yet to be realized. It’s not public knowledge how many and for how much a ZEV credit goes for. Its an absolute exercise in futility to have even attempted to speculate but go figure it would be assumed factual by shill columnist.

    • joe ridge

      I wouldn’t argue with these idiots they are more than likely oil/big car dealer shills trolling discussion boards. They could give an sh*# about anything other than their immediate profit, and care less if they destroy the planet and themselves with their short sightedness.

  • ThatsHowISeeIt

    What a bunch of BS. I guess the author f the article has no issues with he US government bailing out the banking and insurance industries but god forbid we do something to affect the oil industry of Putler and the Middle East.

    You do realize Tesla is an American car company that is about to revolutionize the car industry right? I am disgusted by the whole tone of this article.

    Our family always used to by German luxury cars because nothing made in the US interested us. We are about to trade in our Mercedes E550 for a Tesla Model S P85. But for the ideologically narrow minded supporting America falls to second place next to promoting their BS political ideology.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I have issues with the US bailing out any company. Especially a company closely tied to one of Obama’s donors.

      It sounds like you’re pretty well off financially. Why should working people have to subsidize your latest car?

      • ThatsHowISeeIt

        One word. Halliburton. Where were you then?

        Unlike Halliburton, we have here a 100% American company creating American jobs and devoted to American innovation as they are about to change the entire auto industry. But god forbid we support a company like that. China is more supportive of Tesla than the United States. China. Think about that.

        You keep spewing out your BS political drivel while the rest of the country passes you by.

        • DogmaelJones1

          Look, guy, if you don’t like what you read here, don’t read it. There are plenty of pro-government blog sites out there you can enjoy and do your happy dance over. Or are you a troll? An Obama donor? I’ll bet you’ve attended plenty of $10,000 a plate fundraisers. I can barely afford a $10 a plate dinner at Denny’s because of all the taxes and hidden taxes I’m socked with to keep the liberal elite in the lifestyle to which they’re accustomed. So, if you don’t like what you read here, or are easily offended — don’t read it. Don’t be a Muslim.

          • UCSPanther

            These idiots don’t like it when we criticize them or point out glaring flaws in their twisted dream world. Reality is painful for them.

            They think having a battery car with questionable claims about its capabilities and built by a company that is propped up by taxpayers’ money is morally superior to standard vehicles that survive on the free market because they are a truly functional and reliable product.

            The electricity that powers those cars has to come from somewhere, and going electric only outsources it to the power grid…

          • DogmaelJones1

            And the electricity that charges up those liberal chariots taxes the power grid that includes inefficient wind turbines and arrays of inefficient land-consuming solar panels and inefficient compost heaps, other favorites of the Greens. The next time George Clooney powers up his Tesla and your lights dim, that’s why.

          • UCSPanther

            They want progress, but they can’t do it right. Often as not, they end up outsourcing and suffering when it fails.

            All they do is end up creating a Potemkin village of green energy while outsourcing the heavy peak loads to traditional power generation methods like coal, gas and hydroelectricity…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “All they do is end up creating a Potemkin village of green energy while outsourcing the heavy peak loads to traditional power generation methods like coal, gas and hydroelectricity…”

            Exactly. It’s not about making coherent, rational plans. It’s about drama and selling schemes to the taxpayers. And when some technology windfall comes along, the Chinese will steal it from us after we’ve funded the huge development costs.

            Great planning. Stupid dupes.

          • WeaponZero

            EVs do not tax the powergrid, most EV charging is done at night at offpeak hours. If every car in the US turned into an EV over night, they would only add 10-20% demand to the grid. (peak demand is more then that).

            Also, the price of solar panels have dropped tremendously and are very cheap. The biggest issue though is that solar installers charge a ridiculously high rate of over 100$ per hour. If you know what your doing, installing solar is cheap (even without any subsidy).

            Last thing, Clooney doesn’t have a Tesla. He had a Roadster which he bought and kept at a house he rarely visited and afterwards he sold it for charity.

          • Kdog

            Questionable claims about its capabilities? How about the “best car ever tested” by Consumer Reports (99 out of 100)? How about a 99 Customer Approval Rating from Consumer Reports based upon a survey of Tesla owners?

        • Daniel Greenfield

          I repeat, Why should working people have to subsidize your latest car?

        • UCSPanther

          Being a realist about something is NOT a crime.

          • Randall Smith

            Good. Because the reality is that Tesla is succeeding despite the predictions they would not. I’ve been listening to predictions of Tesla’s imminent death since 2012. Yet they’re growing and expanding.

        • Habbgun

          You’ve got me convinced. I’d love to get rid of the sauerkraut burners and get me a great American car. I agree Tesla is the future.

          So the question is now why not get rid of the zero emission standards? I’m going to ride electric one day and the extra cost associated with the emissions standards get passed to the consumer. Why even have the emissions standards if it means lower priced cars that help us save toward our eventual purchase of the electric cars? Its a win for me, its a win for you and a win for Tesla.

          • WeaponZero

            To answer your question, the ZEV credits were passed to lower pollution in California from toxins such as NOx, O3 and etc. The state figured it cost them more money to cover people’s health from the pollution then it did to implement such a program.

            Just to iron out a common confusion just in case. ZEV credits have NOTHING to do with green house gases. They regulate local pollution that cause smog, acid rain and lung damage.

            That said, there is no indicator of any price increases for consumers due to zev credits. The reason is simple, most companies don’t need to buy them and are fully compliant. Those that were not compliant became compliant fairly quickly hence why Tesla has earned 0$ in ZEV credits the last 2 quarters.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The state figured it cost them more money to cover people’s health from the pollution then it did to implement such a program.”

            And how did they figure that?

            The problem is not with the car, it’s with delusional socialist schemers.

          • Randall Smith

            Pollution (smog) in L.A. is a problem now and was really bad in the 70s and 80s before advanced emission controls. Beijing is so bad, they ration license plates in a lottery to help reduce pollution from gas and diesel. Zero emission vehicles do not contribute to this localized pollution. This is why they are encouraged and this is why the ZEV mandate exists in California. Or do you think a license plate lottery would be better?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Incrementally ratcheting emission standards works pretty good. Creating incentive for zero emissions vehicles might be OK at some point.

            As I said elsewhere, if they want “zero emission” electric cars, what they should do is build a few more hydroelectric power plants and maybe even one or two nuclear power plants. They can subsidize the costs for that.

            There are lots of choices. The main point here is that these kinds of schemes where manufacturers can sell credits can be too easily to manipulate.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “One word. Halliburton. Where were you then?”

          Not a good answer.

          “China is more supportive of Tesla than the United States. China. Think about that.”

          You really must be a dupe if you don’t see what’s going on here. How is China “supportive?” Are they subsidizing any of the operations without any equity in exchange?

          You went in one comment from talking about how “All American” it is and then revealed that China has access to the technology.

          Where exactly do you go to sue when someone in China steals the best technologies from Tesla that were subsidized by US taxpayers?

      • Randall Smith

        Did you take any tax deductions this year? Well then, by your definition of subsidy, I subsidized you.

    • UCSPanther

      So you do admit you are an elitist who thinks you know what is best for the little person?

      Thanks for your honesty.

    • Calvinius

      Unfortunately, people like Daniel Greenfield seem to favor shilling for the oil industry over supporting what’s best for America.

  • Billy Lobner

    It’s true that Tesla is benefiting from these incentives, but the ultimate goal of TM is to produce a “compelling mass market electric vehicle.” They are charging a lot for their cars now because they are building out service centers, superchargers and expanding manufacturing capacity. They will be able to operate without government incentives once they scale up production.

    • UCSPanther

      I’ll believe it when I see it.

      Expressing skepticism about something that is new is NOT a crime.

      • Billy Lobner

        I can respect that, but it will happen. When consumers are informed of all the benefits of electric vehicles when compared to ICE vehicles, the demand will skyrocket.

        • UCSPanther

          Like I said, I’ll believe it when I see it.

      • Randall Smith

        Believe it. It’s happening now.

    • glpage

      Most mass market vehicles cost a lot less than $70,000 which is the starting price for a Tesla S. As Chevrolet and other manufacturers have found, producing a truly mass market electric car is not feasible if you want to make any profit at this time. That may change. There are other issues regarding electric vehicles that make them less attractive than internal combustion engines, range primarily; Teslas have good range and other electrics are improving, but they still cannot go coast to coast in the same time as an ICE. When they have the ability to hot swap batteries as quickly as you can fill a gas tank they will match ICEs in that regard.

      • Billy Lobner

        Battery swapping as evidenced by Better Place probably isn’t the future of electric vehicles. Tesla and the automotive world are a ways off of the convenience of ICE vehicles, but how often do people need to drive across the country? Tesla’s supercharging capabilities far exceed that of any competing standard and are currently fast enough to use a Model S as your only vehicle.
        My biggest concern with TM is that there will be greater demand for supercharging than Tesla alone can supply. Tesla will either need to license their technology to a company like ChargePoint or another fast charge standard similar to Tesla’s will need to go mainstream. Fragmentation in EV charging is going to be a salient issue going forward.

        • Randall Smith

          AS more EVs hit the road, restaurants and shopping centers will add chargers just to get you to stop there. It’s already happening. I saw one yesterday at a grocery store in Jackson MS of all places. Chargers are pretty cheap. Just look at all the campgrounds with 50 amp outlets.

          • Billy Lobner

            That’s great, but those aren’t the types of chargers I’m talking about. I’m talking about getting 200-300 miles of range in 30 minutes. Tesla’s chargers can get the lower end of that range/time, but to convince the masses charging will probably need to be faster than what Tesla currently offers.

      • Randall Smith

        “producing a truly mass market electric car is not feasible if you want to make any profit at this time.”

        And this is the basis for Tesla’s business plan. 1. Start with high margins cars so that the battery price isn’t as big of an issue. 2. Bring the price of the battery down. 3. Produce a mass market EV. #2 is their secret sauce and they are tight lipped about it, but estimates are that they’ve brought the price down by 50% or more already and can shave another 30% off with their new factory. In the meantime, power density (range potential) has increased 60% since the Roadster.

        As demonstrated, superchargers make coast to coast feasible. But really who buys a car based on how quickly they can drive from New York to L.A.? Buying a car based on something you’ll never do is pretty dumb.

        • glpage

          I live in Texas. It certainly is not a weekly occurrence, but driving from one large city to another and back in one day, is fairly common. In most cases exceeds the mileage capability of a Tesla without a recharge. For me, that is an issue. If I want to drive to Houston to do something and then get back home by that evening, I won’t be able to do it in a Tesla. maybe someday. but not now. And if I’m driving from here to the other side of the country I will want to do it without having to sit a a charging station for a few hours. Currently, electric cars are great for local use or longer trips if you don’t mind the forced waits. But, I’m tired of dealing with the TSA just to get on a plane, I’m tired of other hassles associated with flying, so, unless absolutely necessary I just might want to drive.

          You’re not me, don’t make assumptions about what I will or will not do. Telling me I shouldn’t buy a car based on your judgement about what I may or may not do is quite stupid. Just because you won’t do something doesn’t mean I won’t, there’s a better than even chance I will, I certainly use ability to cover distance quickly as one basis for buying cars.

          • Randall Smith

            You said cross country and that’s what I addressed. Not one big city in Texas to another. I never made any assumptions about you or told you what you should buy. I said buying a car based on something you’ll never do is stupid. It’s like buying a suit that’s too small because you “might” lose weight. If you drive cross country, then you are the exception.

            As for Texas, there are currently 5 superchargers situated between the largest cities. 30 minutes adds 60 kwh or about 120 miles. So you could do Houston to Dallas and back with one 30-40 minute break each way. Maybe that suits you maybe it doesn’t.

            As for me, I don’t mind a 30 minute break on the occasional long trip if it means I get to enjoy the super smooth, quiet, efficient and powerful electric drivetrain. Add to that all the times I DON’T have to stop at the gas station when I’m at home and don’t have to waste part of my Saturday getting an oil change. For every CON you find there are two PROS.

      • Phil Jackson

        Yes, and I find myself driving coast to coast all the time. It makes me feel good that I can get there a few hours faster than a Tesla. I spend my extra time trying to earn back the money I spend on gasoline. The damn Tesla got to drive the distance for free.

  • Randall Smith

    Garbage. There is nothing true in this article. Tesla is very profitable and selling cars at a 25% profit margin. They are doing so well in fact that they’ve expanded into Europe and China, built over 100 superchargers nationwide and are building a new 5 billion dollar factory. They are doing so well that GM created the ELR to try to get a piece of Tesla’s pie. They are doing so well that they are outselling Mercedes S-Class, BMW 7 series and Audi A8. Only a moron or someone with an agenda would say they are performing poorly.

    And neither you nor I payed for George Clooney’s car unless you count buying tickets for his movies.

  • Kdog

    Government makes all kinds of decisions to promote or discourage behavior. It cannot not do this; every law has this effect, whether it is acknowledged or not. At least these incentives are directing the US off of foreign oil by encouraging alternative energy vehicles using domestically-produced electricity and by US workers.
    I don’t understand the absolutism exhibited here when having a reasoned, situation-specific approach to what is best for the country is exhibited in this policy. The goal is to encourage the weaning off our addiction to Middle-eastern oil, which has been and will continue to be a costly disaster for the US.
    (BTW, I am a big fan of fracking too for the same reason…)

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “I don’t understand the absolutism exhibited here when having a reasoned, situation-specific approach to what is best for the country is exhibited in this policy. The goal is to encourage the weaning off our addiction to Middle-eastern oil, which has been and will continue to be a costly disaster for the US. ”

      I’m for reasoning, if your reasoning is good. Something good in theory can go bad if the execution is bad. Or your underlying theory might not be that good. Or both. Competence matters. It actually all matters. Good intentions don’t matter that much.

      “The goal is to encourage the weaning off our addiction to Middle-eastern oil, which has been and will continue to be a costly disaster for the US.”

      If the nation wasn’t stuffed full of stupid bureaucrats we might be able to come up with some incentives that make sense. The problem right now is that the government is too big and too wasteful, and any “smart” incentives are more likely to be absorbed by them and their cronies than actually hitting the streets where the desired effects will be achieved.

      It’s not an attack on creating smart incentives, it’s an attack on our bloated state that screws everything up.

      • Randall Smith

        “The problem right now is that the government is too big and too wasteful,”

        Did someone tell you that? Truth is the number of federal government employees is the lowest on record going back to 1962. There were 4,312,000 federal empoyees in 2012. When Reagan took office in 1981, there were 4,982,000 which he INCREASED to a near record of 5,292,000 when he left in 1989.

        You like facts huh? Chew on that one for a while.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “You like facts huh? Chew on that one for a while.”

          In your mind you just refuted my statement?

          • Randall Smith

            I guess you can set the target wherever you want. Your statement that “the government is too big and too wasteful” sounds like a sound bite from Glenn Beck or Rush. In an absolute sense that might be true, but the trend is that the government has been getting smaller, not larger.

            For instance, in 2009 the deficit was $1,413 billion. Since then it has dropped every year to where is stands now at $564 billion. Relative to the GDP, it’s at the level it was through the 80′s and 90′s until there was a surplus around 2000.

            I listen to Rush, Beck and Hannity pretty regularly and they certainly give the impression that the government is growing faster than ever and bigger than ever and basically the sky is falling and all you can do to save yourself is buy gold and stock up on MREs ;)

            Unfortunately people are buying this lie and I can see why. So lately I’ve become quick to pull out real numbers when I hear the “government is out of control – then end is coming” statements.

            Ask some random people if they think the number of federal employees has increased or decreased and if the deficit has increased or decreased. I’ll bet they get it wrong.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I guess you can set the target wherever you want. Your statement that “the government is too big and too wasteful” sounds like a sound bite from Glenn Beck or Rush. In an absolute sense that might be true, but the trend is that the government has been getting smaller, not larger.”

            My concern is with wasteful spending and “social justice” interventions. Speakers don’t create sound bites. Editors do. If AI becomes a reality (which it won’t really), you won’t mind anything the government does as long as the employee count goes down?

            “For instance, in 2009 the deficit was $1,413 billion. Since then it has dropped every year to where is stands now at $564 billion. Relative to the GDP, it’s at the level it was through the 80′s and 90′s until there was a surplus around 2000.”

            Fighting wars is not the same thing as rolling out entitlements. That’s not to say that every war can be justified, but some times it’s unavoidable. Rolling out entitlement programs is something that is a lot harder to end than ending a war. And entitlement programs can be even more destructive over the long haul.

            Passing more and more laws and regulations trying to intervene for questionable (or worse) reasons, that’s the government getting too big.

            “I listen to Rush, Beck and Hannity pretty regularly and they certainly give the impression that the government is growing faster than ever and bigger than ever and basically the sky is falling and all you can do to save yourself is buy gold and stock up on MREs ;)”

            I don’t listen to them. I wouldn’t know. The ACA alone is enough to make me worry that the government is getting “too big” in terms of presumed and de facto sovereignty. And it’s not like anyone is really happy about war time restrictions due to Islamic terror. Now is not the time for forcing socialism on our nation.

            I don’t care that much about body count unless it starts to get ridiculous.

          • Randall Smith

            I agree for the most part. Most days I think charity (purpose of “entitlement” programs) would be better handled through organizations like Red Cross rather than the government.

            But I think the focus on entitlement programs is a distraction from things that would make a real difference. If you had personal finance problems, you’d go after big ticket items first like a $100 cable bill or a $400 car payment or a $200 cell phone bill rather than say cutting coupons to save on cans of green beans at the grocery while ignoring the former.

            The biggest three items in our budget are 1. Medicare/Medicaid (25%). 2. Social Security (23%) 3. Defense (18%). for a whopping 66%. Going after these 3 would make the most difference. Regardless of you you feel about it, ACA is going after #1 which is a good start. There are many things I don’t like about ACA and somethings I do, but that’s another discussion. #2 isn’t worth the pricetag. I would be happy to see it phased out and replaced by a combination of IRA savings and charity organizations for elderly. #3 – We should always keep a strong military and stay ahead of the rest of the world, but put and keep at bay the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned about. Companies that produce weapons want war. That’s just how it is.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Regardless of you you feel about it, ACA is going after #1 which is a good start. ”

            I “feel” that it is destructive and will make everything worse.

            I agree with all of your other comments in general.

  • Peter Gordon

    Fact: This article is full of lies.

    Fact: Tesla is in profit and at 25% gross margin with no government credits.

    Fact: It fully repaid repaid its DOE loan almost 2 years ago and made about $15 million for taxpayers.

    Fact: Tesla is #1 in its class, outselling Mercedes by over 60% and BMW by over 100%.

    Fact: It is big oil that receives the most subsidies – $52 billion a year from taxpayers. To complain about the tiny bit of help green tech gets in comparison is to be a giant hypocrite.

    Frontpage should apologize for all the lies in this article.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/63139?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

      Conclusion

      Tesla Motors, the ‘cadillac’ of full electric vehicles, are being purchased by extremely wealthy individuals aided by lucrative subsidies and incentives from federal and state taxpayers and those who choose to buy more affordable vehicles. In particular, the credits from the California zero-emission vehicle program have enabled Tesla to reap huge revenues and to repay its DOE loan. But, the company still has a long way to go to make it in today’s vehicle markets where few people can afford Teslas.

      (i) LA Times, Tesla Motors posts 1st quarter loss; Model X delayed until next year, May 7, 2014

      [ii] NY Times, Seeing Future in Fuel Cells, Toyota Ends Tesla Deal, May 12, 2014

      [iii] Bloomberg, Tesla Wins $100 Million Supply Deal With Toyota for RAV4 EV, July 20, 2011

      [iv] Tesla Repays Department of Energy Loan Nine Years Early, May 22, 2013

      [v] Wall Street Journal, The Other Government Motors, May 23, 2013,

      [vi] LA Times, Tesla drives California’s environmental credits to the bank, May 5, 2013

      [vii] Money and power: Proof that Tesla buyers are cut from a different cloth, August 29, 2013,

      • WeaponZero

        There are so many factual mistakes in that article it is silly. I outlined those mistakes in the comments a few days ago.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Repost it here.

          • WeaponZero

            Well for one, I already outlined the 250 million in zev credits is inaccurate. It also had nothing to do with repaying their loan.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Write your own article and see if you can articulate a clearer and more accurate accounting.

            This is not a review of their accounting documents. We all understand that it’s rough. But the general idea is that the company is probably not viable without the credits. Or worse, it would be viable but they chose a different strategy because of those incentives.

            I don’t have a huge problem with a program such as this in theory. But I do think that there is a lot of corruption in everything that can be connected with “climate change” because it brings out the frauds.

            And California is deluded thinking that they are the vanguard of state progressivism. Incentives can be OK. But they go too far because they see themselves as saviors of the planet.

            In the end, what it looks like is that wealthy people get to drive around in subsidized cars. Does that really help “the planet?” Only if those cars truly are part of some effective solution. And that’s not clear.

          • WeaponZero

            The general idea is very different. For example, did you know that the last 2 quarters, Tesla earned 0$ from ZEV credits and reported record quarters?

            I also disagree that “climate change” brings out frauds any more or less then anything else. Like all things there are frauds and there are not frauds. The reason is simple, when there are issues people care about, there will always be people trying to abuse the issue and take advantage of people.

            But so we are on the same page, ZEV credits have nothing to do with climate change. ZEV credits regulate local emissions such as NOx (smog and acid rain), O3(lung damage) and etc.

            The goal of Tesla has always been to make a mass consumer car. That will be the Gen3 that they release in 2016/2017. Hence why they are building the gigafactory.

            Also I will note one last thing, humans are incapable of saving or destroying the planet. We can only make the planet inhabitable or not inhabitable for us humans. If the entire human race was wiped out tomorrow, the planet wouldn’t really care.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I also disagree that “climate change” brings out frauds any more or less then anything else.”

            Frauds go where the money is plentiful and easy. And if the underlying objectives are not quantifiable, all the better.

            That’s 3 reasons why frauds are attracted to “climate change” scams more so than say, selling some of the debunked schemes from the past.

            “The goal of Tesla has always been to make a mass consumer car. That will be the Gen3 that they release in 2016/2017. Hence why they are building the gigafactory.”

            I hope they make a viable product based on real functional value.

            “Also I will note one last thing, humans are incapable of saving or destroying the planet. We can only make the planet inhabitable or not inhabitable for us humans.”

            That’s a separate conversation. It’s not clear at all that Tesla is helping anything. In theory electric cars could be part of a post fossil fuel future. But let’s not pretend there aren’t also ways that it could make things worse.

            What the government should do is simply make electricity cheaper. And then fund nuclear or hydro electric sites to make that a reality without robbing others. But the plan is to make the West poorer, not cleaner. We’re to fund all of the technology so that the communist (and post communist) aligned states can steal it once the value is developed and proven.

            That’s how the incentives are constructed. High risk and high cost to the taxpayers in the developed nations.

            “Humans” are not working together in these schemes. There are factions attacking the wealthier nations for economic and political reasons, not concern about the environment. We should take care of ourselves and our planet for our own reasons and not get deceived by hostile foreign factions.

            There are probably uses for electric vehicles in our future. I just don’t want to get robbed by any of the schemers, from the UN on down.

          • WeaponZero

            Scams exists in all industries today, it is just how things work but anyways I’d rather not get too off topic.

            “I hope they make a viable product based on real functional value.”

            That is the point, Tesla’s goal is not to make ecnoboxes. The Gen 3 will be a mid sized sedan with good performance and technology.

            And like all things there are pros and cons, nothing is ever perfect. But electrification is the way to go.

            “What the government should do is simply make electricity cheaper. And then fund nuclear or hydro electric sites to make that a reality without robbing others”

            With the cost drop of batteries from the gigafactory and the rapid dropping prices of solar. Personally I plan to go off grid completely. Where I am the utility charges more for delivery charges then most people pay for electricity.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            That’s all fine. But you think the car is being attacked when actually the criticism is directed at delusional leftists in power and the schemers they attract from the UN on down.

            I actually think that electric cars have a place. And I think that the “environmentalists” have actually impeded its development more than anything else. They’re attacking everything at once in developed nations while giving the others a pass. That’s not acting like a “global community.” That’s scheming.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But so we are on the same page, ZEV credits have nothing to do with climate change. ZEV credits regulate local emissions such as NOx (smog and acid rain), O3(lung damage) and etc.”

            There are real benefits, but the reason for the massive support is irrational fear of “climate change.”

          • WeaponZero

            Massive support for what? You can make an EV that releases nothing but CO2 and it would still qualify for ZEV credits all the same.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The average voter doesn’t know that much. They know “green.” Or think they know green. They’ll buy “green” paint if that seems like the thing to do.

            Climate change is the “fear factor” that gets everyone looking at “green” solutions.

          • WeaponZero

            That is true, but again I go back to my statement about there being scams and there being the real deals. It is a matter of sorting through them all and it goes for everything.

            For example, many things that are green are good simply because they are more efficient. And end up saving you money or better overall. Example, LCDs were green compared to old CRTs.

            Though to show you an example, in lighting CFL was horrible. LED though is nice. IT is just a matter of sorting out the good from the bad. (Though obviously if your not careful you can end up with a crappy LED as well)

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Though to show you an example, in lighting CFL was horrible. LED though is nice. IT is just a matter of sorting out the good from the bad. (Though obviously if your not careful you can end up with a crappy LED as well)”

            I’m working on “real green” home and small building designs right now. Good quality LEDs are very helpful.

            That’s my entire point. You have to sift. The people with a direct stake in the effectiveness do the best sifting. I like Cree a lot. They’re a little pricey but the performance and selection make it worth it to me.

            Market interventions from the government often make that “sifting” more difficult even before you evaluate the “greater good” arguments and figure out who is supposed to pay for the incentives. There is no objective standard for “social justice.”

            The best role government can play is creating libraries of best practices and vetted reference materials. After that, a few subsidies might be OK – but the problem is that the mindset of today is that if a little intervention is helpful, more intervention must be even better. And it never ends because our schools turn out dupes more than anything else.

          • WeaponZero

            On the subject of schools, there is 1 thing I found very interesting.

            Calculus is important, but 99.9% of people will never use it in their lives, in comparison, personal finance would be used by 100% of people and yet is never taught.

            Shakespeare is important, but 99.9% of people will never use it in their lives, in comparison being able to read and interpret legal binding contracts that would be used by 100% of people is never taught.

            History is important, but 99.9% of people will never use it in their lives, in comparison, how our government actually works is never taught (yes they cover the most basic of things like the branches of government but don’t get into any more detail)

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Calculus is important, but 99.9% of people will never use it in their lives, in comparison, personal finance would be used by 100% of people and yet is never taught.”

            Exactly. We should also require classes on the fundamental theories used in macroeconomics. It would not be that hard. It seems hard before the study because there are so many bullshit ideas floating around.

            What we should have are classes that teach the theories of Marxism and free market capitalism from a critical POV, not Marxism as the only valid criticism of “capitalism.”

            “History is important, but 99.9% of people will never use it in their lives, in comparison, how our government actually works is never taught (yes they cover the most basic of things like the branches of government but don’t get into any more detail)”

            They should use it to become better citizens. Ideas are presented as “new” when they’ve already been disproved. There are too many valuable lessons from history to ignore it. If we consider universal suffrage as a right, we should also consider education as a vital component to ensure that it makes sense to guarantee such voting rights.

          • WeaponZero

            Just to clarify, I am not saying we should not teach Shakespeare, Calculus or History. Just saying that I am sure they can easily fit a half a year class covering these topics that covers the overall concepts. Similar to how they require 1 semester of art, health and music.

            Especially with history since I was being generic and didn’t want to single out a topic. But yes, history tends to repeat itself.

          • Peter Gordon

            Thinking that climate change is not real is just more proof that your IQ is below 70.

            Hint: You are not smarter than 97% of all scientists.

            Hint: You are not smarter than NASA.

            Get a 5th grader to explain climate change to you – slowly.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Thinking that climate change is not real is just more proof that your IQ is below 70. Hint: You are not smarter than 97% of all scientists.”

            Dumbass,

            There is no question that “climate change” is used to scare people. Even the promoters admit that. You can’t actually quote my position on climate change other than that.

            Second, the 97% figure you’re quoting don’t disagree with me. Whether or not I’m “smarter than NASA,” I am clearly a lot smarter than you.

            “Get a 5th grader to explain climate change to you – slowly.”

            What they teach 5th graders about “climate change” is: “Be afraid. Very afraid.”

          • Peter Gordon

            You just proved yourself massively stupid again.

            The scientists all say people should be frightened but like the idiot you are, you claim that is a bad thing.

            I might have been generous in saying your IQ was close to 70. LOL!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The scientists all say people should be frightened but like the idiot you are, you claim that is a bad thing.”

            Now we discover that you’re one of the 5th graders you had in mind to testify.

          • Peter Gordon

            Your idiocy seems to be deteriorating into complete incoherence, stupid loser. LOL!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The fifth grader gets confused again and tries to blame the adults. Hopefully one of your parents will come along and take away your Blackberry until you learn to behave nicely.

          • Peter Gordon

            You just keep digging yourself a deeper pit of stupid, loser. Keep it up. It’s very entertaining! LOL!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Peter Gordon objectivefactsmatter • 22 minutes ago: “You just keep digging yourself a deeper pit of stupid, loser. Keep it up. It’s very entertaining! LOL!”
            Pete,
            Did your parents put you up to this?
            Do they literally dress you in red diapers, or is that just an expression because they raised you as a Marxist?

          • Peter Gordon

            I love the way you freely admit that a child can make you look like a pathetic fool again and again.

            It would seem that this happens to you a lot, tiny brain. LOL!

            Keep humiliating yourself for my amusement my little puppet! Again! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You have nothing but memes and childish insults.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You sure put me in my place with that 97% meme.

          • Peter Gordon

            You need to learn the difference between a fact and a meme, idiot.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Peter Gordon objectivefactsmatter • 11 minutes ago: “You need to learn the difference between a fact and a meme, idiot.”

            State the “fact” again. And then explain what makes it factual.

          • Peter Gordon

            It is not my job to explain 4th grade english to you, idiot.

            Since you are still asking people to explain what a ‘fact’ is, it is clear you will never be smart enough to ever figure it out.

            All you’ve done is prove yourself droolingly stupid yet again.

            Here are some facts from NASA: 97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are due to human activities and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

            Now why don’t you entertain us all with that ever shrinking brain of yours and explain exactly how the above is not a fact, you pathetic dolt. LOL!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Peter Gordon objectivefactsmatter • 27 minutes ago: “It is not my job to explain 4th grade english to you, idiot.

            Since you are still asking people to explain what a ‘fact’ is, it is clear you will never be smart enough to ever figure it out.

            All you’ve done is prove yourself droolingly stupid yet again.

            Here are some facts from NASA: 97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are due to human activities and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.”

            BREAKING: THE “97 PERCENT CLIMATE CONSENSUS” CANARD

            http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/breaking-the-97-percent-climate-consensus-canard.php

            THE NEXT CLIMATE SCANDAL?

            http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/105856.php

          • Peter Gordon

            You are linking another oil company propaganda site, you pathetic brain-dead loser.

            Hint: They only work on the weakest minds who failed to make it to the 5th grade – which would be you, Village Idiot!

            NASA and the over 200 Scientific Organizations on their site are not trying to spread lies – you are, lying loser.

            But you are too stupid and incompetent to succeed. LOL!

            You need to apologize to everyone for your idiocy and admit you are the Village Fool.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Peter Gordon objectivefactsmatter • an hour ago: “It is not my job to explain 4th grade english to you, idiot.”
            Because when you go around calling people idiots and so forth, it’s really just psychological projection. All you have are memes and baby talk.

          • Peter Gordon

            That’s right- facts from NASA are ‘baby talk’! LOL!

            You can’t open your mouth without making a complete loser idiot out of yourself!

            I love my little Village Idiot puppet! Dance for me some more pathetic brain-dead loser! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s right- facts from NASA are ‘baby talk’! LOL!”

            How many times do I need to link to the dictionary for you?

            Memes are not necessarily factual. You have to show evidence.

          • Peter Gordon

            That’s my obedient doggie!

            But you are a very stupid doggie, no?

            All the evidence is on the NASA site as well as hundreds of others but you have to be smarter than a doggie to understand it and you aren’t – are you?

            But you are still useful to entertain me, stupid fool. LOL!

            Now speak for me again my little obedient dog – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You have nothing but a blocked comment stream and a potty mouth, and you occasionally mix in stupid leftist memes.

            You’re boring.

          • Peter Gordon

            Dumb, dumb, dog.

            I’m sure NASA and the vast majority of scientific organizations on earth seem boring to you.

            I’m sure you flunked any science test you ever took – along with ever other test. Facts! It’s all so boring. LOL!

            But don’t despair – you still make an excellent dog. LOL!

            Speak for me – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            objectivefactsmatter • an hour ago: “Dumb, dumb, dog. I’m sure NASA and the vast majority of scientific organizations on earth seem boring to you. I’m sure you flunked any science test you ever took – along with ever other test. Facts! It’s all so boring. LOL!”

            That word “fact” that you keep using does not mean what you think it does.

          • Peter Gordon

            Stupid dog!

            Time to prove you a lying idiot again.

            Direct from Webster – Definition of a Fact: something that has actual existence.

            Fact from NASA: “97% percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
            The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health will occur.”

            Fact: To claim the above is not a fact is to be a lying idiot.

            Fact: I just proved you are a lying idiot – again. LOL!

            Just be my good doggie. LOL! SPEAK! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Direct from Webster – Definition of a Fact: something that has actual existence.”

            It is a fact that your claim is a meme. Memes exist too, but that does not make any particular meme factual.

          • Peter Gordon

            You just proved yourself droolingly stupid again, lying loser doggie.

            Fact: What NASA and over 200 Scientific Organizations say is a fact backed up with centuries of evidence.

            Fact: You just lost again.

            Fact: I just proved you massively stupid again. LOL!

            Now be my good doggie. LOL! SPEAK! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Lying loser troll retails memes as “facts” and blocks comment stream. What’s new about that?

            Nothing.

          • Peter Gordon

            Good little wimp dog! LOL!

            Speak for me again my weak-minded wimp. NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Like the “fact” that “Bush did 911?”

          • Peter Gordon

            Every time I think you can’t deteriorate further into idiocy you delight me again.

            Dance for me some more my little Village Idiot! LOL!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            What is your position on Bush and 911? Super secret remote controlled explosives. Right?

          • Peter Gordon

            That’s my good little puppet!

            Yes Bush was in on that conspiracy just like NASA is on this one!

            I think your tinfoil hat is on a little tight, my little puppet.

            But I do love controlling you like this. LOL!

            Now dance for me some more – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Yes Bush was in on that conspiracy just like NASA is on this one!”

            Neither one are “conspiracies” as such. Just stupid people accepting dogma as “fact.”

            And demagogic politicians exploiting idiots like you.

          • Peter Gordon

            NASA and the over 200 Scientific Organizations around the world list facts and data – not dogma.

            But you a certainly an obedient dog. LOL!

            Speak for me again loser! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Peter Gordon objectivefactsmatter • an hour ago: “NASA and the over 200 Scientific Organizations around the world list facts and data – not dogma.”

            Yet what can you come up with? Memes. Where’s the science supporting your dogmatic assertions?

            “97% Really, 97% and all the smart people. You should be very scared!”

          • Peter Gordon

            Stupid, stupid, dog.

            You just keep lying. You have been told many times that all the evidence is on the NASA site.

            But you are too stupid to understand it.

            All you can do is blindly take orders from me, my obedient puppet! LOL!
            SPEAK for me again – NOW loser! LOL!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “You just keep lying. You have been told many times that all the evidence is on the NASA site.”

            I feel a lot better as a Muslim now that the 97% meme has been debunked. I wonder how much NASA had to spend for that?

          • Peter Gordon

            Fact: The 97% number has not been proved incorrect by any credible source.

            Fact: I just proved you a liar again.

            Fact: I just proved you droolingly stupid again because your incompetent lies are so easy to prove as lies. LOL!

            Now be my good, tiny brain obedient dog and SPEAK.

            NOW! LOL!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: The 97% number has not been proved incorrect by any credible source.”

            It was never proved correct in the first place. What has been clearly established is that the data has been protected by legal action as proprietary.

            Not scientific. You’re a moronic dupe.

          • Peter Gordon

            Saying that NASA and the vast majority of Scientific Organizations on the planet are not ‘scientific’ proves you are a delusional moron. LOL!

            You are also a weak-minded wimp that can’t help but do anything I tell you to do. LOL!

            Speak for me again wimp-dog! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Saying that NASA and the vast majority of Scientific Organizations on the planet are not ‘scientific’ proves you are a delusional moron. LOL!”

            Declaring something “scientific” is not some kind of blessing that they are pure or incorruptible, you brainless troll. They deal in “science,” some times. They also get abused by pols and psychopaths that don’t really understand what science is and what it is not.

          • Peter Gordon

            You just lied again, idiot wimp dog.

            The facts I posted come direct from the NASA site – from the scientists there and around the world, moron.

            Fact: I just proved you a lying delusional moron again.

            Now be my good, tiny brain obedient dog and SPEAK.

            NOW! LOL!

          • Peter Gordon

            Such a moronic wimp dog!

            Fact: NASA does not list facts on its website that are unproven, you pathetic brain-dead loser.

            Fact: I just proved you a lying loser idiot again. LOL!

            Now be my good, tiny brain obedient wimp and SPEAK for me.

            NOW! LOL!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: NASA does not list facts on its website that are unproven, you pathetic brain-dead loser.”

            Circular logic failure.

          • Peter Gordon

            No, but you’ve certainly had complete brain failure, my little wimp dog! LOL!

            Fact: You just lied again, claiming NASA puts unproven facts on its website.

            Fact: That is textbook delusional thinking.

            Fact: You are so delusional, you take orders from me, doing anything I say.

            For example – Speak again for me, my obedient wimp! NOW!

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            You have been listening too much to your bias media, and not the scientific literature at any credible source.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            I look at the data and the models. I have no problem with the science itself. I know where the lies originate.

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            Like the daily mail? Your bias comments?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I don’t think anyone has discussed the actual science on these pages. The closest I ever got was showing how statistics can be abused by biased individuals. Even when compiling statistics about “science.” You have to know how to read the data and put the hype in to perspective.

            Even people (scientists) that are “highly concerned” about “global warming” agree with me that the politics have corrupted the discourse. Start with that issue before you lecture me on “science.”

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            Case in point your denial of the science, and linking to propaganda oil pieces.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Biased. Comments are characterized as biased when they are claimed to display bias.

            Your biased comments?

            Your comments are biased.

            Your comments display your bias or biases.

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            Biased. Comments are characterized as biased when they are claimed to display bias.

            Your biased comments?

            Your comments are biased.

            Your comments display your bias or biases.

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            Ahem cherry picker. Judging from your posts you like pick things out to make yourself look good. People like you should know best.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            What is your first language? Where did you learn to speak English?

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            Its not mendacious like yours.

          • Daniel Lomeli

            Please lay off the crack pipe and the ultra negativism. The mandate is intended to achieve a clean air goal. It has nothing to do with climate change. I know you think that Californians have no right to clean air but I think you should consider that we have a lot of cars.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Good intentions. That’s all that counts. Only ultra-negative crack smokers think otherwise.

      • Daniel Lomeli

        Tesla repaid its DOE loan by selling stock, not cars. Do some reading.

      • Peter Gordon

        You just proved yourself both a liar and extremely dim – just like the author of this piece.

        Fact: Direct from Forbes: Tesla beat every number that mattered, reporting revenues of $713 million and earnings of $0.12 per share while delivering 6,457 vehicles — slightly more than its guidance.

        Fact: Direct from USA Today: Tesla earns $46 million in Q4 amid rosy outlook.

        Fact: Direct from Jalopnik: In yesterday’s earnings call from the fourth quarter of 2013, Tesla Motors announced that their net income of $46 million late last year came without selling any Zero Emissions Vehicle credits.

        Fact: Tesla is in profit and at 25% gross margin with no government help exactly as I said.

        Fact: It has a similar gross margin to Porsche, selling high end cars with great success for 80 years.

        Tesla will begin selling a mass market priced, 200 mile range car within 3 years. That was always the plan – if you were smart enough to read it. You should get someone to teach you how to read financial statements and business plans. Then you might have made over 1400% on Tesla stock like I did.

        Fact: I have just proved you both extremely ignorant and dishonest.

        You should apologize for your misleading statements the same way this dishonest author should apologize.

        I am waiting.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “You just proved yourself extremely dim – just like the author of this piece.”

          Idiot, all I did was put his source in front of your face.

          • Peter Gordon

            You just proved yourself massively stupid – again.

            You have to learn to actually ‘understand’ what you are posting or you will just keep making a drooling fool of yourself again and again just like you are doing, brain-dead loser.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Idiot, all I did was put his source in front of your face.

          • Peter Gordon

            You just proved yourself too droolingly stupid to even come up with a new thought. LOL!

            Get a 5th grader to explain to you how you just made an ignorant fool of yourself multiple times, idiot loser.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            New thoughts? You’re a moronic troll. New enough for you? It’s more like a revised statement of the obvious.

            Why don’t you give me the 5th grade or the adult explanation on “climate change.”

            All you have is “be afraid, be very afraid.”

          • Peter Gordon

            Hint: Trolls don’t post facts, stupid.

            Get a 5th grader to take you to the NASA site and then have him read and explain it to you, drooling idiot. LOL!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Get a 5th grader to take you to the NASA site and then have him read and explain it to you, drooling idiot. LOL!”

            But you can’t? Mr. fact can’t actually quote “the facts?” to show he knows the difference between a fact and a meme?

            I wouldn’t expect a fifth grade Marxist to know the difference but you keep claiming that you do.

            Or did I get it wrong? Are you waiting for your older fifth grade sister to come help you out?

          • Peter Gordon

            Fact: I have proven you droolingly stupid multiple times.

            Fact: It is about to happen again.

            Fact: Direct from the NASA site: 97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are due to human activities and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
            The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health will occur.

            Fact: I have just proved you an incompetent idiot, yet again.

            You should apologize to everyone for your rampant idiocy.

            We are all waiting, stupid loser.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: Direct from the NASA site: 97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are due to human activities and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”

            http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/where-did-97-percent-global-warming-consensus-figure-come-from/

            The University of Queensland in Australia is taking legal action to block the release of data used by one of its scientists to come up with the oft-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming.

            Since coming out with this figure last year, climate scientist John Cook of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute has been under fire for the methodology he used.

            “Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on [anthropogenic global warming] is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research,’’ Cook and his fellow authors wrote in their study which was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters last year.

            The university has told climate skeptic blogger Brandon Schollenberger that the data on the study he possesses was illegally obtained and they would take legal action against him if he published it.

            “UQ has therefore published all data relating to the paper that is of any scientific value to the wider community,” said Queensland’s acting pro-vice-­chancellor Alastair McEwan.

            “UQ withheld only data that could identify research participants who took part in the ­research on condition of anonymity,” McEwan added. “Such conditions are not uncommon in academic ­research, and any breach of confidentiality could deter people from participating in valuable research in the future.”

            McEwan said that all the data Cook used to come up with his “97 percent” consensus was published on his blog SkepticalScience.com. The school says it wants to protect the privacy of those surveyed in Cook’s research.

            “That’s right. The University of Queensland sent me a threatening letter which threatens me further if I show anyone that letter,” Schollenberger wrote on his blog Thursday. “Confusing, no? It gets stranger. Along with its threats, the University of Queensland included demands.”

            “According to it, I’m not just prevented from disclosing any of the ‘intellectual property’ (IP) I’ve gained access to,” Schollenberger added. “I’m prevented from even doing anything which involves using the data. That means I can’t discuss the data. I can’t perform analyses on it. I can’t share anything about it with you.”

            Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/where-did-97-percent-global-warming-consensus-figure-come-from/#ixzz32KCbol6u

          • Peter Gordon

            You just proved yourself massively stupid again.

            The fact that you would believe such an obvious incompetent oil company lie against the proof offered by NASA and the over 200 other accredited, respected Scientific Agencies and Organizations from all over the world listed on the NASA site proves you are a brain-dead, drooling Village Idiot. LOL!

            Your links have all be thoroughly debunked as oil company supported propaganda sites.

            I’m now positive you are also a member of the Flat Earth Society and believe Jesus rode dinosaurs. I can link to articles all about that too. Would that make your weak idiot brain happy? LOL!

            You might as well be standing on a roof yelling at the top of your lungs: “I’m a pathetic loser idiot!”

            Which is what all good Village Fools like you do. LOL!

            Thanks for proving to everyone exactly who and what you are. You’ve done more to yourself than I could ever do, stupid fool! LOL!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            The “research summary” aka “the 97% meme” that you quote is proprietary. It’s a dogmatic assertion used to manipulate idiots like you.

            http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/where-did-97-percent-global-warming-consensus-figure-come-from/

            The University of Queensland in Australia is taking legal action to block the release of data used by one of its scientists to come up with the oft-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming.

            Since coming out with this figure last year, climate scientist John Cook of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute has been under fire for the methodology he used.

            Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/where-did-97-percent-global-warming-consensus-figure-come-from/#ixzz32KKL3NA0

          • Peter Gordon

            Village Idiot, you are linking to a lie. A lie that only someone as droolingly stupid as you would believe.

            Fact: NASA is not wrong. Over 200 Scientific Organizations – the vast majority in the world – are not wrong.

            Fact: All the Scientific organizations are listed on the NASA site. Their statements saying climate change is real, manmade and devastating are on the site.

            Fact: You have completely failed to show a credible source that says the information from NASA isn’t true. You have only listed well known, thoroughly debunked oil company shill publications.

            Fact: NASA plus 200 other credible, respected Scientific Organizations beat one or two oil company shill lies every time, stupid loser.

            As I said, I could link to sites that say Jesus existed with dinosaurs. It doesn’t make it true, you brain-dead idiot.

            You need to apologize to everyone for trying to spread stupid, incompetent lies and admit you are just a pathetic Village Idiot.

            We are all waiting.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: NASA is not wrong. Over 200 Scientific Organizations – the vast majority in the world – are not wrong.”

            Certainly NASA are the premiere experts on Muslim self-esteem. I guess we should just trust them when they quote memes that help them get more funding.

            “Scientific organizations” can’t be biased or interested in things like funding. Scientific organizations are pure. Incorruptible. They’re like gods.

          • Peter Gordon

            All the numbers and science are there that prove what they say but someone with a proven IQ of below 70 will never understand them.

            But maybe you are right – the vast, vast majority of all Scientific Organizations in the entire world are all lying and the oil company backed websites happen to be the only ones telling the truth.

            That sounds right, huh Village Idiot?! LOL!

            Come on, humiliate yourself for me again loser – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Peter Gordon objectivefactsmatter : a few seconds ago “All the numbers and science are there that prove what they say but someone with a proven IQ of below 70 will never understand them.”
            I’m sorry you feel inadequate about your IQ. But really what you should do is link to your sources or shut your stupid pie hole.

          • Siddhartha

            Good Lord, I just skimmed through this thread, and the fact that this guy PeterGordon gets to vote is downright scary. You think he’s really this idiotic? or maybe he works for the White House brown shirt brigade?

            He fights like a girl

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The only explanation I can think of is that this troll is paid to attack people with talking points that are considered by the authors to be generally effective. They obviously need to update their memes. Especially that 97% consensus meme that has been completely destroyed.

          • elixer8062

            Wow, I’m surprised you went that long with Peter Gordon. You should ignore him. He also goes by the name Phil11 and posts the same “FACT: You’re a lying liar” stuff in every Tesla article. I think he’s the 10 year old child of a Tesla employee or something.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Guys like that imagine that if they have the last word that they’ve won and accomplished something.

            I’m helping him understand how counterproductive it is.

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            Imo Weaponzero’s comments are more intellectual and educational than yours.

            Your bickering is no different than Gordon’s.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Go team go.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But maybe you are right – the vast, vast majority of all Scientific Organizations in the entire world are all lying and the oil company backed websites happen to be the only ones telling the truth.”

            Liars are liars. Show me the data, not the memes.

          • Peter Gordon

            The data is all on the NASA site as well as many others.

            But you have proven many times, you won’t be smart enough to understand it, Village Idiot.

            That’s the problem with stupid people like you. You are too stupid to comprehend how incredibly stupid you are. LOL!

            But you do make a good puppet. Dance for me some more my little puppet fool. NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Peter Gordon objectivefactsmatter • 2 minutes ago: “The data is all on the NASA site as well as many others.
            But you have proven many times, you won’t be smart enough to understand it, Village Idiot. That’s the problem with stupid people like you. You are too stupid to comprehend how incredibly stupid you are. But you do make a good puppet. Dance for me some more my little puppet fool. NOW!”

            Right. So what children do when they want to manipulate adults is demand that something be done expecting the adults to do the opposite.

            You’re a stupid and tedious troll. If you had any confidence in your views you would not block your comment stream. You’re not worth spitting on.

          • Peter Gordon

            That’s my good puppet!

            Please me more, my little obedient doggie.

            More of your drivel – NOW! SPEAK!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Gutless moron,

            Unblock your comment stream. Or everyone will know what I’ve discovered about you. But that’s the catch, isn’t it? If you unblock it, everyone will know what you’ve revealed here on this page.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Little potty mouth peter can’t risk anyone reading what he wrote yesterday.

          • Peter Gordon

            Good doggie!

            You have pleased your owner again!

            But I want more. Speak for me again Village Idiot – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

            Good thing your comment stream is blocked. You can go pretend none of this ever happened while you look for other people to pester.

          • Peter Gordon

            Good doggie!

            Aw are you getting, pestered with facts, my stupid fool?

            You have no choice but to dance for me until I let you go. LOL!

            Now speak for me again, my obedient puppet! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Facts.” Leftist “facts” are not the same kind of facts that intelligent people use to form their views.

          • Peter Gordon

            Village Idiot doggie claims that the vast majority of Scientific Organizations are leftist! LOL!

            Keep amusing me, my little mutt. SPEAK! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Why are you hiding? How can I check in with you if your comment stream is blocked?

            You’ll just forget out our “relationship” once the sting wears off of your rear end.

          • Peter Gordon

            Such a good doggie!

            I’ll never forget my obedient dog.

            I never met someone that was so weak minded and easy to control. LOL!

            Speak for me gain, my pathetic puppy! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15624-cooking-climate-consensus-data-97-of-scientists-affirm-agw-debunked

            Wednesday, 05 June 2013 16:15

            Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW” DebunkedWritten by William F. Jasper

            The survey by Australian global-warming activist John Cook, released recently with a massive media sendoff, is rapidly melting, as scientists and statisticians subject it to analysis. And now it’s leaking out that Cook’s e-mails show he was scheming on this fraudulent survey to promote a leftist political agenda for well over a year. Cook made a big media splash in May with the publication of a study by him and several co-authors claiming to prove that climate scientists overwhelmingly support the theory that human activity is warming the planet to dangerous levels. Cook’s claims received their biggest boost on May 16, when President Barack Obama tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree:#climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

            The mainstream media and climate-alarmist blogosphere uncritically accepted the Cook study and trumpeted the consensus claims as gospel. We reported on May 21 (“Global Warming ‘Consensus’: Cooking the Books”) on the critiques of the Cook study by experts who show that Cook cooked the data. Out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That’s less than one percent, not 97 percent. Moreover, as we reported, the Cook study was flawed from the beginning, using selection parameters designed to weight the outcome in favor of the alarmist position.

            In a May 22 follow-up article (“Climate ‘Consensus’ Con Game: Desperate Effort Before Release of UN Report”) The New American reported on additional problems with the Cook study and cited a large and growing list of eminent climate scientists — including Nobel Prize recipients and scientists who served on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — who challenge the claim that there is any “scientific consensus” on climate change, or that “the science is settled” in favor of the Al Gore alarmist position.

          • Peter Gordon

            And the world is flat and Jesus rode dinosaurs!

            One tinfoil hat wearing idiot posting the words of another tinfoil hat wearing idiot. What a surprise!

            I guess NASA and over 200 Scientific Organizations around the world (the vast, vast majority) are all wrong or are in some sort of conspiracy! LOL!

            Keep making your owner laugh my little doggie!

            Speak for me again – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Gee, who should I believe, peter potty mouth or the many rational investigators that reveal all of the problems with the leftist climate memes?

            http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/debunking_the_97_consensus_on_global_warming.html

            February 4, 2014

            Debunking the 97% ‘consensus’ on global warming

            Thomas Lifson

            The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a “consensus” exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 – 3% of respondents “explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming,” and that there was “no agreement with a catastrophic view.”

            “These ‘consensus’ surveys appear to be used as a ‘social proof,’” says Ken Gregory, research director of Friends of Science. “Just because a science paper includes the words ‘global climate change’ this does not define the cause, impact or possible mitigation. The 97% claim is contrived in all cases.”

            The Oreskes (2004) study claimed 75% consensus and a “remarkable lack of disagreement” by the other 25% of the abstracts she reviewed. Peiser (2005) re-ran her survey and found major discrepancies. Only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) view that human activity is the main cause of global warming since 1950.

            Actually reviewing the sources cited by the Oreskes study discovered this distribution of views, for example:

            The conclusions of the report are rather shocking, and it deserves close attention. No doubt, the group, which is based in Calgary, will be attacked as an energy industry front, but itsexamination of the underlying reports on which the alleged consensus is based can be replicated. One wayt or another, a fraud is being committed – either the debunking is a fraud, or more likely, the consensus claim is fraudulent. Given that trillions of dollars are at stake, this report deserves the closest possible examination.

          • Peter Gordon

            Stupid doggie!

            Who to believe – NASA and the vast majority of scientific organizations around the world or some poorly written oil company shill drivel? LOL!

            You prove yourself more delusional with each post.

            All you can hope to be in life is my dog.

            Speak for your owner, loser! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Peter Gordon • 2 minutes ago : “Stupid doggie! Who to believe – NASA and the vast majority of scientific organizations around the world or some poorly written oil company shill drivel? LOL!”

            Thomas Lifson and everyone else who disagrees with you is an “oil company shill.”

            Of course. Those are “facts” to the left.

            Thanks for illustrating exactly what you mean when you talk about “facts.”

          • Peter Gordon

            NASA and the vast majority of scientific organizations around the world are not ‘the left’ stupid doggie.

            But Lifson is crazy to right like Limbaugh. He also has zero background in science or climate studies.

            Hmmm, who to believe? LOL!

            Stupid doggie loses again!

            Speak for me my little obdient mutt!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Peter Gordon • a few seconds ago: “NASA and the vast majority of scientific organizations around the world are not ‘the left’ stupid doggie. But Lifson is crazy to right like Limbaugh. He also has zero background in science or climate studies.”

            You really are quite stupid. If rational people are skeptical of Lifson (and I’m skeptical of everyone) why does that mean they must dismiss everything that he writes?

            Because…leftist agenda…violation of dogma…

            You’re a brainless dogmatic idiot of the left.

          • Peter Gordon

            Because he has no background in science and clearly has no idea what he is talking about.

            There is no arguing with scientific data and facts – only lying.

            Thew only people he can fool are brainless weak-minded dogs like you.

            Speak for your owner my obedient dog – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            All you can do is parrot talking points memes.

          • Peter Gordon

            You just lied again, my little doggie.

            Fact: NASA and over 200 Scientific Organizations worldwide, state provable scientific facts.

            Fact: I just proved you a lying idiot – again!

            You are only good as my dog. LOL!

            Now SPEAK, loser! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter
          • Peter Gordon

            Fact: The fact that you are too weak-willed and tiny minded to resist my commands is proof that you need mental help. LOL!

            Now SPEAK, for your owner, loser! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Inform your therapist it has been suggested that you might be a delusional sociopath.

          • Peter Gordon

            Fact: I post provable facts.

            Fact: I have proved you a liar many times.

            Fact: The fact that you keep coming back and let me completely control you proves you have serious mental problems in addition to being a weak minded wimp.

            I will demonstrate again. Watch this! Speak for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I will demonstrate again. Watch this! Speak for me again, wimp! NOW!”

            The fact that all you have are weak and childish games reveals a lot about you *and your movement.*

            Follow your gut. Do you what you want. There is no way for you to win.

          • Peter Gordon

            You just wrote: “Do you what you want” my little wimp dog. You are losing what little mind you have left. Very entertaining. LOL!

            Fact: I already won a long time ago and just keep proving you a lying Village Idiot again and again for my own amusement.

            You have become my little toy and plaything. When I become bored of you, I will let you go but until then you must dance for me whenever I snap my fingers!

            SPEAK lying loser wimp! NOW! LOL!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If it’s “win win” for you to show everyone how weak your arguments are and what kind of grade school mentality you bring to the debate, that’s OK with me.

          • Peter Gordon

            Let’s explore how stupid you are, moron wimp dog!

            Fact: My arguments come directly from NASA and over 200 Scientific Organizations worldwide which state provable scientific facts.

            Yeah, real weak! LOL!

            Fact: I just proved you a delusional moron again, Village Idiot.

            Fact: The fact that you keep coming back and let me completely control you proves you have serious mental problems in addition to being a weak minded wimp.

            I will demonstrate again. Watch this! Speak for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: My arguments come directly from NASA and over 200 Scientific Organizations worldwide which state provable scientific facts.”

            Yes, your weak arguments come from the the bullet points from the marketing front end of organizations that want to tax the crap out of everyone with anything of value to tax. You’re a moronic dupe.

          • Peter Gordon

            You just proved yourself a drooling idiot again, my little wimp dog.

            Fact: NASA and over 200 Scientific Organizations worldwide state provable scientific facts and are not involved in taxing anyone, you delusional, paranoid dolt.

            Fact: The fact that you keep coming back and let me completely control you proves you have serious mental problems in addition to being a weak minded wimp.

            I will demonstrate again. Speak for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Damn you are stupid.

          • Peter Gordon

            Wimp dog is talking to himself again. LOL!

            Fact: The fact that you keep coming back, letting me completely control you again and again proves you have serious mental problems in addition to being a weak minded wimp.

            I will demonstrate your sickness again. Speak for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You control everything. When are you going to fix the weather?

          • Peter Gordon

            Wimp dog showed sowed how stupid he is – again. LOL!

            I control YOU my little wimp dog! No one said anything about the weather.

            Fact: I just proved you would fail a 4th grade test in reading comprehension which explains why you can’t understand the NASA site. LOL!

            Fact: The fact that you keep coming back, letting me completely control you again and again proves you have serious mental problems in addition to being a weak minded wimp.

            I will demonstrate your sickness again. Speak for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I control YOU my little wimp dog! No one said anything about the weather.”

            Anyone can read your nonsense and see how you “control” people to follow your agenda. Which is not well at all. You’re blowing it for your stated cause.

            If your intention is to destroy the credibility of the pseudo-scientists, then we’re both on the same time. Win win.

          • Peter Gordon

            Wimp dog is too delusional to understand what is going on.

            Fact: To think NASA and over 200 Scientific Organizations worldwide, which state provable scientific facts are, in any way, dealing with pseudo-science is to be a delusional moron.

            Fact: Meanwhile you have only linked to people who claim to be scientists but are not. They are just lying about who they are as well as lying about their data.

            Fact: I just proved you a delusion moron again.

            Fact: The fact that you keep coming back, letting me completely control you again and again proves you have serious mental problems in addition to being a weak minded wimp.

            I will demonstrate your sickness again. Speak for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: To think NASA and over 200 Scientific Organizations worldwide, which state provable scientific facts are, in any way, dealing with pseudo-science is to be a delusional moron.”

            Any time scientific data is misrepresented as “pure” science, you’ve entered the realm of pseudo-science.

            One can perform valid research and then have it abused by pols. The pols are engaging in pseudo-science even if the underlying research is sound. That’s why they don’t quote the actual research. They paraphrase the findings.

            Paraphrasing science and presenting your paraphrase as “science” is entering the realm of pseudoscience.

            That’s all you deal in.

          • Peter Gordon

            Wimp dog is delusional!

            Fact: NASA’s facts are the same facts shown by the vast majority of the world’s scientific organizations.

            Fact: Each country has a different political agenda but the facts remain the same, proving your point delusional and brain-dead and you a lying loser.

            That’s why all you can be is my obedient wimp. You are not smart enough to be anything else.

            SPEAK for your owner! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.”
            ― Mark Twain

            You deal in memes derived from statistics compiled by organizations with political and social agendas. You don’t know what scientific facts are. This whole “science” thing obviously confuses you a great deal. It scares you to death. That’s why you want everyone to be afraid and sign up for UN socialist agendas.

          • Peter Gordon

            Wimp dog is lying.

            Fact: The data is collected by scientists all over the world and vetted by scientists all over the world. It is not political.

            Fact: No credible source anywhere is questioning the data – only delusional idiots or liars.

            Fact: I have proved you a liar.

            Fact: I have proved you massively stupid.

            Fact: I have proved you do not understand what a fact is.

            Fact: Your posts are proving you to be mentally ill.

            Fact: The fact that you keep coming back and let me completely control you also proves you have serious mental problems in addition to being a weak minded wimp.

            I will demonstrate your sickness again. Speak for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: The data is collected by scientists all over the world and vetted by scientists all over the world. It is not political.”

            OK, so if scientists gather data and publish it for vetting, nobody can go around mischaracterizing the data by saying things like “anyone with an IQ over 70 can see that we should be very afraid.”

            And “it” is not political! It can’t be – because scientists shared the data and had it vetted…

            …yet you don’t refer to that vetted data. How strange.

          • Peter Gordon

            Stupid lying wimp dog!

            I have said many times that the data is on the sites.

            The fact that you are too big of a moron to find it, proves you are also too big of a moron to understand it. LOL!

            Fact: Your posts are proving you to be mentally ill.

            Fact: The fact that you keep coming back and let me completely control you also proves you have serious mental problems in addition to being a weak minded wimp.

            I will demonstrate your sickness again. Speak for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter
          • Peter Gordon

            Wimp dog finds another brain-dead oil company shill site! What a surprise.LOL!

            But never a credible source like this:

            Fact: From the LA Times: The warming of Earth, with human consumption of fossil fuels as the main cause, will have severe consequences for every region of the United States, according to the Third National Climate Assessment.

            Fact: You just lost again, stupid, delusional wimp.

            Fact: The fact that you keep coming back, letting me completely control you again and again proves you have serious mental problems in addition to being a weak minded wimp.

            I will demonstrate your sickness again. Speak for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            “Sites” are not sources nor are they authoritative. You can refer to specific research hosted on a given site, you have never done that even once.

            You are a complete failure. You have no idea how far in over your head you are.

            “Fact: From the LA Times: The warming of Earth, with human consumption of fossil fuels as the main cause, will have severe consequences for every region of the United States, according to the Third National Climate Assessment.”

            It’s a fact that many organizations stand to profit from climate change fear mongering. I agree. It’s a fact that POTUS has a socialist agenda and “environmentalism” is the gift that keeps on giving in terms of controlling lemmings like you.

            But hey, do the victory dance again. It’s funny. And revealing.

          • Peter Gordon

            Stupid, lying, drooling, moron loser wimp dog just made a fool of himself again. LOL!

            Fact: The LA Times lists facts that agree 100% with facts listed and conformed by NASA and over 200 Scientific Organizations worldwide.

            Fact: All the data is available on many of their sites.

            Fact: Just because you are too stupid to understand it, does not make it wrong.

            Fact: You have failed to show a single credible source that says the data or facts listed are, in any way, incorrect.

            Fact: I just proved you a delusional Village Idiot again. LOL!

            Fact: You are the one dancing for me, my little wimp dog! LOL!

            Fact: The fact that you keep coming back, letting me completely control you again and again proves you have serious mental problems in addition to being a weak minded wimp.

            I will demonstrate your sickness again. Dance for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Pseudo science is all about bluff and bluster, like trying to imply that your publishers are more credible than the other guy’s.

            You’re a pseudo-scientific meme retailer.

            “Fact: You have failed to show a single credible source that says the data or facts listed are, in any way, incorrect.”

            Yeah, I did. All you could come up with was “oil shill.” How convenient coming from a shill of the UN.

            Anyone that actually reads the reports I linked to will just laugh at that meme for as long as they can remember it was used to frighten people around the world by the likes of you.

            And in the worst case, none of our sources are credible so we’re back to square one where none of the data is valid. Global warming has not been established in any objectively defined way other than with controversial data samples. The samples might represent a given temperature in a given time and place, that’s not in dispute. Where they fit in with all of the modeling, that’s what matters. That’s controversial. That’s why you need pseudo-science to get what you want. Objective scientists can’t deliver what you want. You want to frighten and manipulate people.

          • Peter Gordon

            Wimp dog just lost again.

            Fact: Saying that the vast majority of Scientific Organizations in the world are not credible proves you droolingly stupid and delusional.

            Fact: The fact that you keep coming back, letting me completely control you again and again proves you have serious mental problems in addition to being a weak minded wimp.

            I will demonstrate your sickness again. Dance for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: Saying that the vast majority of Scientific Organizations in the world are not credible proves you droolingly stupid and delusional.”

            When campaigning for social change, as soon as they add anything to their scientific research, they’re not credible. Or put another way, they’re not credible as you use them.

          • Peter Gordon

            Wimp dog just lied again.

            Fact: You are too stupid to understand that scientific data vetted by the majority of Scientific Organizations on the planet is completely credible to any intelligent, rational being.

            Fact: You have proven many times you are neither intelligent or rational, lying idiot loser.

            Fact: Saying that the vast majority of Scientific Organizations in the world are not credible proves you droolingly stupid and delusional.

            Fact: The fact that you keep coming back, letting me completely control you again and again proves you have serious mental problems in addition to being a weak minded wimp.

            I will demonstrate your sickness again. Dance for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: You are too stupid to understand that scientific data vetted by the majority of Scientific Organizations on the planet is completely credible to any intelligent, rational being.”

            And you can’t even read with functional comprehension. —> You are not credible. <—

            And politicians with hidden agendas are not credible. Bring out the science and cut the bullshit.

            But you're simply pure bluff and bluster. You have nothing but babyish talking points – and victory dances in spite of the fact that you have nothing to celebrate.

          • Peter Gordon

            My wimp dog’s brain is flatlining. LOL!

            Fact: NASA and the vast the vast majority of Scientific Organizations in the world list provable scientific facts and data about climate change.

            Fact: No credible source is questioning these facts.

            Fact: To think that the vast majority of Scientific Organizations in the world are somehow all listing lies proves you suffer from paranoid delusions.

            Fact: I have just proved you are mentally ill.

            Fact: I have also proved there is no difference between you and a drooling idiot who claims the world is flat.

            Fact: All your arguments/rants have totally failed and clearly show you as someone with an IQ below 70.

            Fact: I have proved that you are much too stupid to influence anyone with your impotent drivel and are basically just the Village Idiot.

            Because you have clearly shown that you can’t think intelligently or rationally, you are boring your owner. Bad wimp dog!

            You are just too easy to completely control, humiliate and beat again and again. Your pathetic, delusional rantings are just too incompetent to keep responding to.

            I have tired of my little wimp toy. I will allow you speak once more for my amusement and try to win me back but I just don’t think you have the intelligence to hold my attention any longer, you pathetic, mentally ill, loser idiot. LOL!

            SPEAK for your owner, my pathetic wimp boy loser!
            Try to please me! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If you had facts to back up your smack talk, you’d quote them. The few times you tried, you were roundly rebuked. That’s why you alter your course to stand on these fallacious appeals to authority without quoting the authoritative scientific data. Because it doesn’t agree with your dramatic claims.

            You’re a childish drama queen.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Fact facts facts facts facts facts facts facts.

            I got facts. My facts can beat your facts. I just can’t show them to you right now. But my daddy will.

          • Peter Gordon

            Wimp dog seems to be having another meltdown!

            Fact: To attempt to mock proven facts or facts in general proves you are a liar who is very threatened by them.

            Fact: You just lost again.

            Fact: You make it very, very easy to beat you.

            That’s my good wimp dog!

            SPEAK for your owner and let me make a fool of you again! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: To attempt to mock proven facts or facts in general proves you are a liar who is very threatened by them.”

            I’m mocking you over your hysterical claims about “facts.”

          • Peter Gordon

            Time to prove my wimp dog a stupid loser again.

            Fact: There is nothing hysterical the facts that I have listed from NASA and the vast majority of Scientific Organizations around the world.

            Fact: I just proved you a liar again.

            Fact: I just proved you an incompetent moron again.

            Fact: You just lost again.

            Fact: You make it very, very easy to beat you.

            That’s my good wimp dog!

            SPEAK for your owner and let me make a fool of you again! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: There is nothing hysterical the facts that I have listed from NASA and the vast majority of Scientific Organizations around the world.”

            The fact is that you hysterically claim to deal in “facts” but only offer hyperbolic nonsense.

            This is not a unique approach for leftists.

          • Peter Gordon

            My wimp dog just hit a new level of stupidity! LOL!

            Fact: NASA and the vast the vast majority of Scientific Organizations in the world list provable scientific facts and data about climate change – not ‘nonsense’.

            Fact: No credible source is questioning these facts.

            Fact: To think that the vast majority of Scientific Organizations in the world are somehow all listing lies or ‘nonsense’ proves you suffer from paranoid delusions.

            Fact: I have just proved you are mentally ill.

            Fact: I have also proved there is no difference between you and a drooling idiot who claims the world is flat.

            Fact: All your arguments/rants have totally failed and clearly show you as someone with an IQ below 70.

            Fact: I have proved that you are much too stupid to influence anyone with your impotent drivel and are basically just the Village Idiot.

            Because you have clearly shown that you can’t think intelligently or rationally, you are boring your owner. Bad wimp dog!

            You are just too easy to completely control, humiliate and beat again and again. Your pathetic, delusional rantings are just too incompetent to keep responding to.

            I have tired of my little wimp toy. I will allow you speak once more for my amusement and try, desperately, to win me back but I just don’t think you have the intelligence to hold my attention any longer, you pathetic, mentally ill, loser idiot. LOL!

            SPEAK for your owner, my pathetic wimp boy loser!
            Try to please me! Work hard! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The only thing that you’ve demonstrated is that you don’t know when to cut your losses.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “…over 200 Scientific Organizations worldwide which state provable scientific facts.”

            Show me “provable facts” that support your claims.

            You’re arguments are pure failure but you still do the victory dance every time you pull your hands out of your pants.

            That’s all you have is grade school leftist brat attitude.

          • Peter Gordon

            Brain-dead wimp dog just proved he is stupid again.

            Fact: All the data is on the NASA site and hundreds of others but you have proved you are much too stupid to understand it.

            Fact: You have proven your IQ is below 70 and you are mentally ill.

            Fact: The fact that you keep coming back and let me completely control you proves you have serious mental problems in addition to being a weak minded wimp.

            I will demonstrate your sickness. Speak for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: All the data is on the NASA site and hundreds of others but you have proved you are much too stupid to understand it.”

            All you do is quote memes. You don’t know the difference between a meme and a fact. I had to go and quote NASA for you, you infantile brain dead loser.

          • Peter Gordon

            My wimp dog just messed himself again!

            Fact: I listed facts direct form the NASA site, delusional Village Idiot.

            Fact: The fact that you keep coming back and let me completely control you proves you have serious mental problems in addition to being a weak minded wimp.

            I will demonstrate your sickness again. Speak for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You list memes and summary statements based on hidden data.

          • Peter Gordon

            My stupid wimp dog just lied again.

            Fact: All the data is on the NASA site. Nothing is hidden.

            Fact: The NASA site also lists the over 200 Scientific Organizations – the vast majority in world – that share the exact same position on climate change. They all have links to their sites many of which also clearly show the data.

            Fact: Your latest lie has been proven.

            Fact: I just proved you a stupid idiot liar again, wimp dog. LOL!

            Fact: The fact that you keep coming back and let me completely control you proves you have serious mental problems in addition to being a weak minded wimp.

            I will demonstrate your sickness again. Speak for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            NASA and other the other organizations you mention are duped by “social justice” uses of “science.”

            When you say that’s not possible, I only have to mention NASA’s “Muslim self-esteem” mission.

            You can’t win because in the end the facts are on my side. All you have are outdated and disproved memes.

          • Peter Gordon

            My little wimp dog keeps lying.

            Fact: There are no facts listed about Muslim self esteem on the NASA website but there are many facts listed about climate change.

            Fact: NASA was simply encouraging Muslim children to learn science a math – something you clearly never learned. LOL!

            Fact: I just proved that you would fail a 4th grade test in reading comprehension – again, stupid moron! LOL!

            Fact: You have failed to show a single fact on your side, you drooling dope. LOL!

            You need to apologize for all your lies and massive stupidity, my little wimp dog.

            Fact: The fact that you keep coming back and let me completely control you proves you have serious mental problems in addition to being a weak minded wimp.

            I will demonstrate your sickness again. Speak for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter
          • Peter Gordon

            You just proved yourself massively brain-dead again, my stupid wimp dog!

            Fact: Trying to connect anything else with simple provable scientific facts on the NASA site about climate change is just another impotent, delusional fail.

            Fact: The same provable scientific facts on climate change are repeated by the vast majority of scientific organizations in the word which have no connection to NASA.

            Fact: Your paranoid delusions seem to be growing and you are becoming even less coherent than before – which seems impossible. LOL!

            Fact: Your posts are proving you to be mentally ill.

            Fact: The fact that you keep coming back and let me completely control you also proves you have serious mental problems in addition to being a weak minded wimp.

            I will demonstrate your sickness again. Speak for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: Trying to connect anything else with simple provable scientific facts on the NASA site about climate change is just another impotent, delusional fail.”

            Fact: You repeat memes you take from NASA while insisting they there is some kind of separation between NASA and any political agenda. I simply proved that you are wrong. NASA’s marketing rhetoric is nothing more than hyperbole. There might be interesting science behind that, but you can’t go there for some reason.

            Focus on actual science or continue to whine like a baby with nothing but bluff, bluster and fallacies. Either way, we learn more about you and your movement every time you comment. It’s win win, since you’re apparently enjoying yourself so much here.

          • Peter Gordon

            Wimp dog’s brain has melted.

            Fact: I have proved you a liar.

            Fact: I have proved you massively stupid.

            Fact: I have proved you do not understand what a fact is.

            Fact: NASA posts facts about climate change that are the same facts agreed to by the vast majority of Scientific Organizations worldwide.

            Fact: The rest of the intelligent, credible think world recognizes this.

            Fact: You are too delusional to be part of this world.

            Fact: Your posts are proving you to be mentally ill.

            Fact: The fact that you keep coming back and let me completely control you also proves you have serious mental problems in addition to being a weak minded wimp.

            I will demonstrate your sickness again. Speak for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: NASA posts facts about climate change that are the same facts agreed to by the vast majority of Scientific Organizations worldwide.”

            Which facts? Where’s the “be very afraid” set of facts?

            In the same place as the 97% meme. Deflated after bluffs were called.

          • Peter Gordon

            You just proved yourself a lying fool again, my loser wimp dog.

            The only thing that was deflated is your tiny, tiny brain. LOL!

            Fact: Direct from the NASA site: The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health will occur.

            Fact: I just proved you a lying loser again.

            Fact: I just proved you a complete Village Idiot again.

            You are too stupid to be anything but my obedient wimp. LOL!
            Speak for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: There are no facts listed about Muslim self esteem on the NASA website but there are many facts listed about climate change.”

            There are a few mendacious assertions, and a few facts that you misrepresent. That’s why you only quote memes and make vague assertions about the zillions who support the basic premise of the debunked meme.

            Looks like NASA should be been a little more rigorous about their “science” and social engineering projects.

          • Peter Gordon

            Stupid moron wimp dog!

            Fact: No credible source is questioning NASA’s climate change facts which are the same facts agreed to and listed by the vast majority of the world’s scientific organizations.

            Fact: That fact that you can not comprehend this proves you stupid and delusional.

            Fact: The fact that you keep coming back and let me completely control you proves you have serious mental problems in addition to being a weak minded wimp.

            I will demonstrate your sickness again. Speak for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: No credible source is questioning NASA’s climate change facts which are the same facts agreed to and listed by the vast majority of the world’s scientific organizations.”

            Again, you’re confused about the difference between facts and assertions.

            You never show the smoking gun. The closest you got was your defamed meme about 97% consensus and 200 organizations that also trumpet the false claim about 97% consensus. Those are not scientific facts.

            Sure, you can find facts on NASA, but none of those facts do your cause any good because you’re a brainless moron that is spreading doom and gloom like a typical leftist robot.

            I believe I can quote you as saying that you have “facts” supporting the “be very afraid” narratives. Where are those facts?

            They don’t exist. Maybe http://www.chickenlittle.org has more updated climate scare info. Check it out.

          • Peter Gordon

            Wimp dog is a stupid liar.

            Fact: All the data and facts on the NASA site are a smoking gun to anyone with an IQ above 70.

            Fact: You will never understand this because there is no cure for stupid. LOL!

            Fact: I have proved you a liar.

            Fact: I have proved you massively stupid.

            Fact: I have proved you do not understand what a fact is.

            Fact: NASA posts facts about climate change that are the same facts agreed to by the vast majority of Scientific Organizations worldwide.

            Fact: The rest of the intelligent, credible think world recognizes this.

            Fact: You are too delusional to be part of this world.

            Fact: Your posts are proving you to be mentally ill.

            Fact: The fact that you keep coming back and let me completely control you also proves you have serious mental problems in addition to being a weak minded wimp.

            I will demonstrate your sickness again. Speak for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: All the data and facts on the NASA site are a smoking gun to anyone with an IQ above 70.”

            Yet you can’t find them and place them in front of us.

            We call that what?

          • Peter Gordon

            Time to prove my wimp dog a stupid loser again.

            Fact: You have proved yourself too stupid to understand simple sentences so putting any scientific data in front of you would be a waste of time because you would not be able to understand it.

            You have already stated you don’t believe the vast majority of Scientific Organizations around the world, so explain exactly to everyone why you would believe their data and not them?

            Hint: You wouldn’t because, as I have proved many times, you are a delusional, morally bankrupt, lying Village Idiot. LOL!

            Fact: If you had even 5th grade internet skills, you could find the data but you are proving to everyone you can not. LOL!

            Fact: Your posts are proving you to be mentally ill.

            Fact: The fact that you keep coming back and let me completely control you also proves you have serious mental problems in addition to being a weak minded wimp.

            I will demonstrate your sickness again. Speak for me again, wimp! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: You have proved yourself too stupid to understand simple sentences so putting any scientific data in front of you would be a waste of time because you would not be able to understand it.”

            I see. Great excuse.

            What’s that word we’re looking for? Was it bluff, or bluster? Maybe bullshit?

            Something like that.

          • Peter Gordon

            My wimp dog has proven to everyone he is too stupid to find any climate change data even though it is available on hundreds of sites! LOL!

            Fact: You just keep winning all my arguments for me. LOL!

            Let’s review how you’ve totally lost:

            Fact: NASA and the vast the vast majority of Scientific Organizations in the world list provable scientific facts and data about climate change.

            Fact: No credible source is questioning these facts.

            Fact: To think that the vast majority of Scientific Organizations in the world are somehow all listing lies proves you suffer from paranoid delusions.

            Fact: I have just proved you are mentally ill.

            Fact: I have also proved there is no difference between you and a drooling idiot who claims the world is flat.

            Fact: All your arguments/rants have totally failed and clearly identify you as someone with an IQ below 70.

            Fact: I have proved that you are much too stupid to influence anyone with your impotent drivel and are basically just the Village Idiot.

            Because you have clearly shown that you can’t think intelligently or rationally, you are boring your owner. Bad wimp dog!

            You are just too easy to completely control, humiliate and beat again and again. Your pathetic, delusional rantings are just too incompetent to keep responding to.

            I have tired of my little wimp toy. I will allow you speak once more for my amusement and try to win me back but I just don’t think you have the intelligence to hold my attention any longer, you pathetic, mentally ill, loser idiot. LOL!

            SPEAK for your owner, my pathetic wimp boy loser!
            Try to please me! Work real hard! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: NASA and the vast the vast majority of Scientific Organizations in the world list provable scientific facts and data about climate change.”

            Whether or not that’s true, you didn’t quote any of the science. You helped demonstrate that even “science”
            organizations can be corrupted by politics and failing to remain objective.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: To think that the vast majority of Scientific Organizations in the world are somehow all listing lies proves you suffer from paranoid delusions.”

            I didn’t claim that all were. But those that we examined who supported your 97% meme were in fact dealing in debunked claims.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: If you had even 5th grade internet skills, you could find the data but you are proving to everyone you can not. LOL!”

            That’s funny coming from the moron who can’t find his own data and needed me to go out and get it. How many times did I have to do that for you?

          • Peter Gordon

            My little wimp dog is lying again.

            Fact: You have never posted any credible data that has contradicted the data from NASA and the vast majority of Scientific Organizations worldwide.

            Fact: To say you did is just more proof that you are a delusional liar.

            Fact: To say I couldn’t find the data is just another one of your lies – which is why you have zero credibility with any thinking person.

            Fact: I have told you many times, there is a huge amount of data on the NASA site. Much more than would be practical to post. It is so vast, that it is even broken down into the following multiple links: Evidence; Causes and Effects.

            Fact: I have just proved the data is all there and I that I know exactly where it is and therefore have proved you a moron liar once again.

            Fact: Since you are too stupid and delusional to understand the simple facts that I already posted directly from NASA and the vast majority of Scientific Organizations worldwide, I correctly stated you will not be able to comprehend the more detailed data.

            Fact: I have proved you a liar many times.

            Fact: I have proved you delusional many times.

            Fact: I have proved you droolingly stupid many times.

            Fact: I have completely destroyed your credibility or influence with any rational thinking, intelligent human being.

            Fact: There is zero difference between you and a brain-dead moron that thinks the world is flat.

            Fact: It was effortless and fun to prove you to be nothing but the Village Idiot.

            Fact: The facts I already posted from NASA and the vast majority of Scientific Organizations worldwide is not being questioned by any credible source.

            Fact: You have totally failed in all your low IQ, idiot arguments and rants.

            Because you have clearly shown everyone that you are unable to think intelligently or rationally, you are boring, me, your owner. Bad wimp dog!

            You are just too easy to completely dominate, control, humiliate and beat again and again.

            I have tired of my little wimp toy.
            I give you permission to speak once more for my amusement to try and win me back, but I doubt you have the intelligence to hold my attention any longer, pathetic, lying loser, drooling fool, Village Idiot. LOL!

            SPEAK for your owner, my pathetic wimp boy loser!
            Try hard to please me fool! NOW

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: You have never posted any credible data that has contradicted the data from NASA and the vast majority of Scientific Organizations worldwide.”

            I proved that the 97% consensus meme was not supported by the facts.

            You never posted data at all. You made claims that all rested on the 97% meme directly or indirectly. And lots of childish projection.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I also want to thank you for spending so much energy without coming up with anything at all other than bluff, bluster and projection. It’s very persuasive in demonstrating just how much energy you lunatics will put in to persuading people of something you can’t even back up with scientific facts. That facts themselves are not persuasive.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/my-hundredth-post-cant-be-shown/

            MY HUNDREDTH POST CAN’T BE SHOWN

            Dear readers, I wanted to do something special for my hundredth post at this site. I picked out a great topic for discussion. I wrote a post with clever prose, jokes that’d make your stomach ache from laughter and even some insightful commentary. Unfortunately, I can’t post it because I’d get sued.

            You see, I wanted to talk about the Cook et al data I recently came into possession of. I wanted to talk about the reaction by Cook et al to me having this data. I can’t though. The University of Queensland has threatened to sue me if I do.

            I understand that may be difficult to believe. I’d like to provide you proof of what I say. I’m afraid I can’t do that either though. If I do, the University of Queensland will sue me. As they explained in their letter threatening me:

            That’s right. The University of Queensland sent me a threatening letter which threatens me further if I show anyone that letter.

            Confusing, no? It gets stranger. Along with its threats, the University of Queensland included demands. The first of these is:

            This demand is interesting. According to it, I’m not just prevented from disclosing any of the “intellectual property” (IP) I’ve gained access to. I’m prevented from even doing anything which involves using the data. That means I can’t discuss the data. I can’t perform analyses on it. I can’t share anything about it with you.

            But that’s not all I can’t do. The University of Queensland also demanded I cease and desist from:

            This fascinates me. I corresponded with John Cook to try to get him to assert any claims of confidentiality he might have regarding the data I now possess. I sent him multiple e-mails telling him if he felt the data was confidential, he should request I not disclose it. I said if people’s privacy needed to be protected, he should say so.

            He refused. Repeatedly.

            Apparently I badgered Cook too much. I tried too hard to get him to do his duty and try to protect his subjects’ privacy. The University of Queensland needs me to stop. If I don’t, they’ll sue me.

            So yeah, sorry guys. I wanted my hundredth post to be interesting, but I guess it won’t be. Anything interesting I might have to say will get me sued. And maybe not just sued. The University of Queensland apparently wants me arrested too:

            I don’t know what sort of hack they had investigate the supposed hacking, but this is silly. There was no hacking involved. The material was gathered in a perfectly legal way. I could easily prove that.

            Only, proving it would require using the data I’ll be sued for using…

          • Peter Gordon

            One tinfoil hat wearing idiot posting the words of another tinfoil hat wearing idiot. What a surprise!

            I guess NASA and over 200 Scientific Organizations around the world (the vast, vast majority) are all wrong or are in some sort of conspiracy! LOL!

            You never stop making us all laugh, Village Idiot!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I guess NASA and over 200 Scientific Organizations around the world (the vast, vast majority) are all wrong or are in some sort of conspiracy! LOL!”

            No new memes?

          • Peter Gordon

            No memes just facts my stupid little doggie.

            Now speak some stupid for me again, loser mutt – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/debunking_the_97_consensus_on_global_warming.html

            February 4, 2014

            Debunking the 97% ‘consensus’ on global warming

            Thomas Lifson

            The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a “consensus” exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 – 3% of respondents “explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming,” and that there was “no agreement with a catastrophic view.”

            “These ‘consensus’ surveys appear to be used as a ‘social proof,’” says Ken Gregory, research director of Friends of Science. “Just because a science paper includes the words ‘global climate change’ this does not define the cause, impact or possible mitigation. The 97% claim is contrived in all cases.”

            The Oreskes (2004) study claimed 75% consensus and a “remarkable lack of disagreement” by the other 25% of the abstracts she reviewed. Peiser (2005) re-ran her survey and found major discrepancies. Only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) view that human activity is the main cause of global warming since 1950.

            Actually reviewing the sources cited by the Oreskes study discovered this distribution of views, for example:

            The conclusions of the report are rather shocking, and it deserves close attention. No doubt, the group, which is based in Calgary, will be attacked as an energy industry front, but itsexamination of the underlying reports on which the alleged consensus is based can be replicated. One wayt or another, a fraud is being committed – either the debunking is a fraud, or more likely, the consensus claim is fraudulent. Given that trillions of dollars are at stake, this report deserves the closest possible examination.

          • Peter Gordon

            Stupid doggie can never catch up.

            He is so stupid, he can’t tell oil company lies from real science from NASA and over 200 credible Scientific Organizations. LOL!

            So stupid but entertaining.

            Dance fool dog! Work for me with more of your nonsense. NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Nobody here is dealing with “real science.”

            That’s the entire point. You claim to, but you’re an idiot quoting leftist memes.

          • Peter Gordon

            Stupid doggie.

            Fact: Science is not leftist – it is facts.

            Fact: 200+ Scientific Organizations are not leftist – they deal in facts.

            Fact: You’ve just been proven a brain-dead fool again. LOL!

            Dance fool dog! Entertain me with more of your self-humiliation nonsense. NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: Science is not leftist – it is facts.”

            Damn you are funny.

            Actual science is not leftist. Leftists can’t tell the difference between science and political exploitation of same. Actually few leftist scientists probably know the clear line between scientific evidence and inference. That seems to be where all of the subjectivity comes from that gets presented as “fact.”

            And then idiots like you get paid to harass authors that the leftist demagogues target. At least you’re not on food stamps. Or are you?

          • Peter Gordon

            Brain-dead doggie, thinking that the vast majority of Scientific Organizations in the world are leftist prove you a delusional idiot.

            But I will still use you as my dog since that is what you clearly want. LOL!

            Speak for your owner! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Come on, humiliate yourself for me again loser – NOW!”

            You need a new approach. No wonder losers like you block their comment history. Don’t worry, I’ve saved some of the choice statements you’ve made. I’ll remember your lame buttocks.

          • Peter Gordon

            Awww, little doggie has lost and has been humiliated.

            But I’m sure that’s a very familiar feeling for you. LOL!

            But you’re not going anywhere until I let you. LOL!

            Speak for me again little doggie! NOW

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Your game is so weak. All you have is potty mouth bluff and bluster.

            When the facts are NOT on your side, pretend that talking points are “facts,”

          • Peter Gordon

            Such a brain-dead doggie.

            Fact: You just lied.

            Fact: ALL the facts are on my side along with NASA and over 200 Scientific Organizations around the world.

            Fact: NASA and over 200 Scientific Organizations ALL have facts and you have none.

            Fact: I just proved you a liar, idiot.

            You have failed as you always fail and always will fail.

            But you can still be my doggie.

            Speak fro me my obedient loser dog – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter
          • Peter Gordon

            Stupid loser dog!

            Fact: The site you linked to has been proven to be full of lies.

            Fact: NASA and over 200 Scientific Organizations are not lying – you are.

            Fact: You have just been proven a lying idiot again.

            Fact: You are my obedient puppet/dog who must keep coming back at my command! LOL!

            SPEAK for me, little loser dog. NOW! LOL!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: The site you linked to has been proven to be full of lies.”

            By you. Sure.

          • Peter Gordon

            You are lying again, my bad dog.

            The site has been proven to lie by anyone with an IQ above 80.

            Here’s just one example of an intelligent reaction to the article you pathetically and idiotically cling to:

            “FIVE LEADING CLIMATOLOGISTS”?

            You’ve got to be kidding.

            1. Just to begin … the paper has only FOUR (4) authors.

            2a. “leading climatologist” LEGATES was directed by the Governor of Delaware to cease and desist his misleading (fraudulent, to be exact) labeling of himself as Delaware’s “State Climatologist” in publications and for speaking engagements.

            2b. “leading climatologist” LEGATES is a hireling of Exxon Mobile.

            3a. “leading climatologist” SOON is not a climatologist – he is an astrophysicist. He currently peddles a “solar warming” theory that has been rejected by his peers – repeatedly. Indeed, his most noteworthy contribution to the debate was publication of a paper in CLIMATE RESEARCH that led to a near-immediate comprehensive refutation by thirteen scientists (who actually are climatologists). This refutation fully detailed how Soon and his co-author misused data on moisture changes in place of data on temperature change, chose to represent regional data as hemispheric data, and used incomplete and mis-applied proxy data to construct a false and misleading picture of decadal changes in global and hemispherical temperature trends.

            In fact, in response to the failures of oversight and review that led to the publication of the paper, four members of the board of CLIMATE REVIEW resigned – and the managing director of CR’s parent company published a statement declaring that the publication of the paper in the un-edited form demonstrated a failure of the journal’s review and editing process.

            3b. “leading climatologist” SOON is a hireling of the petroleum industry and the Koch brothers, having received over $1,000,000 from such entities as Exxon Mobile, The Charles G. Koch Foundation, the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation, the Electric Power Research Institute and … the inferior/erroneous/fraudulent research they were cited for was funded in part by The American Petroleum Institute.

            4. “leading climatologist” ‘LORD’ Moncton is a notorious fraud and a serial con artist and nothing resembling a scientist of any stripe – much less an actual climatologist. Indeed, in July 2011 the House of Lords took the unprecedented step of publishing online a cease and desist letter to Monckton from the Clerk of the Parliaments, regarding his fraudulent claim of a title, that concluded by stating flatly: “I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.”

            5.”leading climatologist” BIGGS is nothing resembling a climatologist at all; he is a statistician in the employ of THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE, a propaganda mill for, among other speical-interewst sectors, the resources-extraction industries and a beneficiary of/dependency of largesse from the Koch brothers and their allies and front organizations.

            THIS is your evidence that there is no overwhelming scientific consensus regarding AGW? THESE are your “leading climatologists?

            You have access to the net, and thus, easy and immediate access to the relevant papers, to the relevant reports, to the relevant facts – and still you put this out?

            You lie.

            Fact: The info you linked to was written by proven liars and frauds.

            You need to apologize for all your lies my little doggie.

            SPEAK for your owner – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            The site is not an authority. The authors are not presented as authoritative. The site publishes arguments and links to their data. Deal with the arguments and the data.

            The burden of proof is on you. All you have are memes with a few common fallacies thrown in the mix out of desperation.

            You’re a robotic troll. Obviously you get paid to parrot talking points memes on behalf of leftist tyrants that want to extract trillions of dollars from wealthy nations.

          • Peter Gordon

            You are such a stupid, loser wimp! LOL!

            Fact: The site has been debunked.

            Fact: The burden of proof is on you to prove NASA and vast majority of scientific organizations on the planet wrong and you have completely failed to do so.

            But I am sure failure is a very familiar feeling for you, my obedient wimp. LOL!

            You are effortless to beat and totally dominate. LOL!

            Speak for me, loser wimp – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Leftists hate dealing with fact-based argument and rational analysis, and very often employ logical fallacies while repeating memes.

            “Fact: The burden of proof is on you to prove NASA and vast majority of scientific organizations on the planet wrong and you have completely failed to do so.”

            Already done.

          • Peter Gordon

            You just proved yourself a delusional liar again, wimp dog.

            Fact: You have totally failed to show a single credible source that shows the NASA facts incorrect.

            Fact: You just lost again. LOL!

            You make it too easy! LOL.

            Now speak for your owner, wimp. NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Catastrophic leftist meme failure still leads to victory dance every time. That’s just how their brains work.

            Because everyone that disagrees with leftist lunatic must have “false consciousness.” It’s science you know.

          • Peter Gordon

            My wimp dog’s brain is melting! LOL!

            NASA and vast majority of scientific organizations on the planet are not leftist lunatic, lying delusional moron.

            You are effortless to beat and totally dominate. LOL!

            Speak for me, loser wimp – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “NASA and vast majority of scientific organizations on the planet are not leftist lunatic, lying delusional moron.”

            No way could leftist politics interfere with NASA’s mission to improve Muslim self-esteem. It’s pure science.

          • Peter Gordon

            Wimp dog’s tiny mind is melting again. LOL!

            Fact: NASA and over 200 Scientific Organizations are not lying – you are.

            Fact: You just lost again, Village Idiot.

            You are effortless to beat and totally dominate. LOL!

            Speak for me, loser wimp – NOW!

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            You didn’t prove anything besides link to the daily mail which you like to call credible. And thats tells me you take college again, or highschool again.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dumbass,

            The URL is a map to find the arguments. Whether you can process the arguments and the data itself is not my problem. I accept that having dumbasses is just part of the human condition. I can only help those that want it.

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            The only dumbass you paranoid old fuck.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m paranoid about this illusion that there’s an institution called the UN that wants us to tax our entire GDP to pay out “climate reparations,” stop using fossil fuels while our enemies continue enjoy improved (by our lack of use) market conditions as our economy winds down and so forth. That’s paranoia. I guess the only other choice must be “myopic fool.”

            I’ll stay paranoid.

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            And an old fart.

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            You sound like a misinformer, and a mendacious person.

          • objectivefactsmatter
          • Peter Gordon

            You are definitely losing IQ points with each new post – and you don’t have any to spare, wimp dog! LOL!

            SPEAK for your owner – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You could have just ended with your habitual little dance. Anything else you say will just bury you even deeper.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AIRQZAgtaE

          • Peter Gordon

            Aww, wimp dog has lost so all he can do is post incoherent nonsense. LOL!

            A sure sign that you are losing you mind along with losing everything else. LOL!

            But you can still be my wimp.

            Speak for me my obedient loser wimp – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Nothing is coherent for you. That’s the POV of all low functioning brains.

          • Peter Gordon

            Stupid wimp dog doesn’t think NASA and over 200 Scientific Organizations are coherent. LOL!

            You tiny mind is definitely melting, Village Idiot.

            But you can still be my wimp.

            Speak for me my obedient loser wimp – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I don’t think you know what coherent means. Obviously you don’t.

          • Peter Gordon

            Definition of coherent: something my wimp dog has never been. LOL!

            But you can still be my wimp.

            Speak for me my obedient loser wimp – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            co·her·ent adjective kō-ˈhir-ənt, -ˈher-

            : logical and well-organized : easy to understand

            : able to talk or express yourself in a clear way that can be easily understood

            : working closely and well together

            Full Definition of COHERENT

            1a : logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated : consistent b : having clarity or intelligibility : understandable

            2: having the quality of holding together or cohering;especially : cohesive, coordinated

            3a : relating to or composed of waves having a constant difference in phase b : producing coherent light

            — co·her·ent·ly adverb

          • Peter Gordon

            That’s a good doggie! Thanks for confirming my definition, wimp dog!

            You are effortless to beat and totally dominate. LOL!

            Speak for me, loser wimp – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You are an incoherent meme retailer.

          • Peter Gordon

            Wimp dog just proved himself a drooling idiot – again!

            Fact: I list provable facts from NASA and over 200 Scientific Organizations.

            Fact: To think they are incoherent is proof that you are a delusional Village Idiot.

            Fact: You just lost again. LOL!

            Now you need to make it up to your owner. Speak for me again, my pathetic wimp puppet – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: I list provable facts from NASA and over 200 Scientific Organizations.”

            For all the time you spend here, anyone can see that your focus is on simplistic argument from authority positions even after I’ve proved your sources are not reliable. Therefore you’ve got to go a step further and demonstrate why anyone would believe these assertions.

            You can’t. Just more argument from authority.

            “But…NASA…facts…NASA!” And silly victory dances.

          • Peter Gordon

            Wimp dog is droolingly stupid.

            Fact: No one has to go a step further than to say: “The vast majority of Scientific Organizations in the entire world agree with me and call you a liar.”

            Fact: If you can’t see you have lost after that, you are delusional.

            You are effortless to beat and totally dominate. LOL!

            Speak for me, loser wimp – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: No one has to go a step further than to say: “The vast majority of Scientific Organizations in the entire world agree with me and call you a liar.””

            Wrong. The only thing that you and they agree about are discredited memes regarding supposed 97% consensus. The rest of your “doom and gloom” or “be very afraid” assertions are not supported by any consensus, which is what you claimed at the outset of your flurry of tantrums.

          • Peter Gordon

            You just lied again my wimp dog.

            Fact: Direct from the NASA site: The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health will occur.

            Fact: There are no credible sources disagreeing with the above statement direct from the NASA site.

            Fact: I just proved you a liar again.

            Fact: I just proved you droolingly stupid again.

            You are effortless to beat and totally dominate. LOL!

            Speak for me, loser wimp – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter
          • Peter Gordon

            My wimp dog is reading is reading his children’s comic books again – and can’t understand them. LOL!

            Fact: NASA and the vast the vast majority of Scientific Organizations in the world list provable scientific facts and data about climate change.

            Fact: No credible source is questioning these facts.

            Fact: To think that the vast majority of Scientific Organizations in the world are somehow all listing lies proves you suffer from paranoid delusions.

            Fact: I have just proved you are mentally ill.

            Fact: I have also proved there is no difference between you and a drooling idiot who claims the world is flat.

            Fact: All your arguments/rants have totally failed and clearly show you as someone with an IQ below 70.

            Fact: I have proved that you are much too stupid to influence anyone with your impotent drivel and are basically just the Village Idiot.

            Because you have clearly shown that you can’t think intelligently or rationally, you are boring your owner. Bad wimp dog!

            You are just too easy to completely control, humiliate and beat again and again. Your pathetic, delusional rantings are just too incompetent to keep responding to.

            I have tired of my little wimp toy. I will allow you speak once more for my amusement and try to win me back but I just don’t think you have the intelligence to hold my attention any longer, you pathetic, mentally ill, loser idiot. LOL!

            SPEAK for your owner, my pathetic wimp boy loser!
            Try to please me! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Dramatic bluff and bluster? Check. Fallacious logic? Check.

            Links to actual scientific data or vetted scientific statements to support your dramatic claims? Catastrophic troll failure.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: Direct from the NASA site: The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health will occur.”

            That’s from here: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus :

            American Physical Society

            “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” (2007)8

            8 APS National Policy 07.1 Climate Change (2007)

            http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ssi/american-physical-society.pdf

            Sorry, the page you requested could not be found.

            ——————-

            Show the data, not the drama.

            I can save you the trouble. Every time they give you odds, they’re using your corrupted “consensus” memes.

          • Peter Gordon

            My wimp dog’s brain is flatlining again!

            Fact: You just proved that the statement is from the NASA site – - exactly as I said.

            Thanks for wining my argument for me, you drooling idiot. LOL!

            Fact: NASA and the vast the vast majority of Scientific Organizations in the world list provable scientific facts and data about climate change.

            Fact: No credible source is questioning these facts.

            Fact: To think that the vast majority of Scientific Organizations in the world are somehow all listing lies proves you suffer from paranoid delusions.

            Fact: I have just proved you are mentally ill.

            Fact: I have also proved there is no difference between you and a drooling idiot who claims the world is flat. LOL!

            Fact: All your arguments/rants have totally failed and clearly show you as someone with an IQ below 70.

            Fact: I have proved that you are much too stupid to influence anyone with your impotent drivel and are basically just the Village Idiot.

            Because you have clearly shown that you can’t think intelligently or rationally, you are boring your owner. Bad wimp dog!

            You are just too easy to completely control, humiliate and beat again and again. Your pathetic, delusional rantings are just too incompetent to keep responding to.

            I have tired of my little wimp toy. I will allow you speak once more for my amusement and try to win me back but I just don’t think you have the intelligence to hold my attention any longer, you pathetic, mentally ill, loser idiot. LOL!

            SPEAK for your owner, my pathetic wimp boy loser!
            Try to please me! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: You just proved that the statement is from the NASA site – - exactly as I said.”

            And that statement doesn’t support your dramatic claims scientifically.

            The facts as revealed (actual verifiable facts) support my positions and not yours.

            Some of the idiots involved in running these organizations got duped in to making hyperbolic claims about consensus.

            It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat the meme or quote other dupes. It’s still not supported scientifically.

            You’re making political statements pointing to falsified or unverified data about an alleged consensus.

            That’s not how science works. That’s sort of how political science and other quasi-scientific disciplines work. But that’s not enough.

            And as you use it, it’s mendacious. Or perhaps you really are that stupid and can’t learn from your own losses.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

            The 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming is frequently cited as the justification for the imposition of carbon taxes and extreme climate change or greenhouse gas reduction targets “…to stop dangerous climate change” (Pembina Institute, City of Calgary GHG Reduction Plan 2011)

            i

            .

            At least 5 separate surveys since 2004 claim a 97% consensus, or in the case of Oreskes (2004) – a 75% consensus saying “Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”

            This seemed to be a statistical coincidence that so many surveys could arrive at exactly the same result. Upon closer examination, this seemed an even more impressive claim since there are no common scientific constants in any of these studies. These 97% consensus studies also claim an enormous pool of 1,000 or 10,000+ scientists surveyed. It is important to understand of those numbers, how many responded, which were selected, what criteria, and where they lie on a spectrum of “consensus” about the percentage of human impact on climate…which could be anything from 5% to 100%. In fact, Friends of Science deconstruction of these surveys reveals there is no such consensus. [continued online]

            http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

          • Peter Gordon

            Moron wimp dog.

            Fact: Friends of Science has already been completely debunked.

            Fact: You just proved yourself stupid, again. LOL!

            You make it too easy! LOL.

            Now speak for your owner, wimp. NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Your links have all be thoroughly debunked as oil company supported propaganda sites.”

            Dumbass, the burden of proof is on you. All you have are memes and childish remarks.

            Show me the actual 97% claim and source data. You can’t.

            And that my idiotic troll, is what a meme is. Something that you hear and repeat without knowing one way or the other if it’s true.

            You’re a meme retailer.

          • Peter Gordon

            Village Idiot, I have proved it with NASA and over 200 other credible, respected Scientific organizations.

            You, meanwhile, have failed to show a single credible source for anything. LOL!

            The only thing you are good for is to entertain me with your drooling idiocy, my little fool.

            Now be a good boy and dance for me some more my pathetic puppet – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Peter Gordon objectivefactsmatter • a few seconds ago

            “Village Idiot, I have proved it with NASA and over 200 other Scientific organizations. You, meanwhile, have failed to show a single credible source for anything. LOL! The only thing you are good for is to entertain me with your drooling idiocy, my little fool. Now be a good boy and dance for me some more my pathetic puppet – NOW!””

            Meme retailer thinks he’s dealing in “facts” without knowing what a fact is.

          • Peter Gordon

            That’s my good obedient puppet doggie!

            The info from the NASA site are facts. Not comprehending this proves you would fail a 4ht grade test in english.

            Bad stupid doggie!

            Now speak for me again my obedient dog – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The info from the NASA site are facts.”

            The info on “Muslim self-esteem” is fact-based? That’s fascinating.

            Stupid freak troll.

          • Peter Gordon

            Good obedient doggie!

            But still a stupid doggie.

            I posted nothing but facts from the NASA site, stupid loser.

            Bad, stupid doggie!

            Now speak for me again my Village Idiot – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The info on “Muslim self-esteem” is fact-based? That’s fascinating.

          • Peter Gordon

            Aww my little doggie just proved himself droolingly stupid again.

            He just proved he would fail a 4th grade reading test.

            Show us all where I posted anything about self esteem, brain-dead dog.

            Hint: You can’t because I didn’t.

            Fact: You just lost again. LOL!

            Now you need to make it up to your owner. Speak for me again, my pathetic puppet – NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Show us all where I posted anything about self esteem, brain-dead dog.”

            You claimed you posted “facts” but you did not.

          • Peter Gordon

            Aww stupid dog just lied again.

            Fact: The information posted from NASA and the 200 other Scientific organizations are facts.

            Fact: You cannot comprehend the above so you have just proved yourself massively stupid.

            The only thing you can do right (sometimes) is be my obedient dog. LOL!

            Speak for me again, doggie! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Show the “facts” in quotes, dumbass.

            All you have are memes and childish potty mouth games.

          • Peter Gordon

            Stupid doggie!

            NASA and the 200 Scientific Organization listed facts – not memes.

            The fact that you cannot comprehend this proves you never made it out of the 4th grade.

            All you are good for is being my obedient doggie.

            Speak for me again, stupid dog! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Peter Gordon • 2 minutes ago: “Stupid doggie! NASA and the 200 Scientific Organization listed facts – not memes.

            The fact that you cannot comprehend this proves you never made it out of the 4th grade. All you are good for is being my obedient doggie. Speak for me again, stupid dog! NOW!”

            Peter the Idiot keep repeating memes while adding “not memes” to his declarations. Oh, OK.

          • Peter Gordon

            Good doggie!

            You MUST respond to you owner even though you are too stupid to know what a fact is. LOL!

            Speak for me loser dog! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Losers like you always hide after they get spanked. That’s why you block your comment stream. It must happen every day to you.

          • Peter Gordon

            Fact: You have failed to win a single point, lying loser.

            Fact: The vast majority of Scientific Organizations are not lying – you are.

            Fact: You just lost again. LOL!

            All you are is my little obedient doggie. SPEAK! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

            Friends of Science Society, Calgary

            2/17/2014 REV

            © 2014 Friends of Science Society

            97% CONSENSUS? NO!

            GLOBAL WARMING MATH

            MYTHS & SOCIAL PROOFS.

            The “Science” of Statisticulation

            To gain public acceptance for carbon taxes and renewable energy subsidies, several studies claim a 97% scientific consensus on global warming, implying that the human causes are all about carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases; but a closer look reveals a lot of mathematical manipulation goes into arriving at 97% – a psychological ploy that plays on our primal emotions, ‘herd mentality’ and fear of being the odd man out. Few people know that the Dutch government has called for the IPCC to be overhauled stating:

            “..limiting the scope of the IPCC to human-induced climate change is undesirable, especially because natural climate change is a crucial part of the total understanding of the climate system..” Not only is the 97% claim faulty, the climate predictions of the IPCC exclude an estimated 65% natural factor influence.

          • Peter Gordon

            Stupid, weak-minded wimp doggie.

            You need to RESEARCH who you quote before you quote them or you will wind up making a drooling, loser fool of yourself – like you just did. LOL!

            Fact: The “Friends of Science” are not climate scientists – they are the oil industry, you moron.

            Fact: In 2002 Eric Loughead, former editor of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin and his fellow members of the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists created the Friends of Science Society.

            Fact: Friends of Science is funded by big oil.

            Fact: Your latest brain-dead link has been debunked.

            Fact: I just proved you a lying idiot again.

            You need to apologize for all your lies and also for being so massively stupid. LOL!

            You are just a weak minded wimp, who does whatever I tell him to do.
            SPEAK WIMP! NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Deal with the data analysis, dumbass.

          • Peter Gordon

            Stupid doggie, all the data is on the NASA site but you have proven again and again that you are too brain-dead to understand it.

            Fact: Anyone that would spend a minute on data funded by big oil would be a drooling fool because the raw data itself has been proven to be a lie.

            You have proved that you are too stupid to be anything but my obedient wimp. SPEAK loser. NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Stupid doggie, all the data is on the NASA site but you have proven again and again that you are too brain-dead to understand it.”

            I just proved that you’re projecting your own insecurities when you constantly accuse others of stupidity.

            What’s “incontrovertible” is the plausibility of the theory… according to those factual declarations.

            Of course, that still won’t clarify anything for you. Anything that you believe is a “fact.” To you.

          • Peter Gordon

            Aww, moron wimp dog can’t understand the big words on the NASA site.

            Get a 5th grader to explain it to you, Village Idiot. LOL!

            You have proved that you are too stupid to be anything but my obedient wimp. SPEAK loser. NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            And I’m right again.

            A bit predictable.

          • Peter Gordon

            My wimp dog is delusional.

            Fact: You have not been right a single time, idiot! LOL!

            You get a zero – which I’m sure is a very familiar score for you. LOL!

            You have proved that you are too stupid to be anything but my obedient wimp. SPEAK loser. NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Peter Gordon objectivefactsmatter • a minute ago: “Fact: You have not been right a single time, idiot! LOL!”

            “Peter” after logging in to harass intelligent people:

            http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/kid-with-finger.jpg

          • Peter Gordon

            Aww, wimp dog put up a picture of someone that is exactly twice as smart as him LOL!

            You seem to be having another mental breakdown loser wimp dog. LOL!

            I have proved that you are too stupid to be anything but my obedient wimp. SPEAK loser. NOW!

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=desmog%20friends%20of%20science

            Friends” of Science (FoS) is a global warming denialist pressure group based in Calgary, Canada.

            What a load of bullshit.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Oh shut up.

            F you and “denialist group” bullshit. Anyone who uses that to defend “science” is an idiot. Or a communist. Or both.

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            You’re only paying attention to the politics. Denialist with an agenda.

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

            How is the 97% consensus a meme? Is does not make any sense, to make a joke of people’s scientific careers.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Another dumbass comes along—>>> MarcDaniel Erasmo 11 minutes ago

            “How is the 97% consensus a meme? Is does not make any sense, to make a joke of people’s scientific careers.”

            I point out when people are mendacious. Like you.

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            Again you didn’t prove anything but your denial.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I deny that you have any clue about science. I’m a denialist. You got me.

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            MENDACIOUS as well.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I absolutely deny that you know a thing about science.

            I AM a denialist!

            I’m Naughty By Nature!

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            Judging by your sources like the daily mail and oil propaganda sites, you are an intellectually dishonest person. Such Mendacious nature.

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            Like yourself.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Search:

            97% consensus criticism

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            Search global climate change in google, or climate denial myths. You just said you agreed with the science yet your thinking doesn’t reflect that.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You don’t have the first clue what I think about the science. You’re only paying attention to the politics.

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            That’s ironic coming from your posts.

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            Fact is the scientific evidence from the consensus is valid and credible.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

            Certain facts about Earth’s climate are not in dispute:

            The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2

            Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

            Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

            Where does it say “it’s a fact that we need to be very, very afraid?”

          • Peter Gordon

            Right here stupid lying wimp dog: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health will occur.”

            I had already posted that, idiot.

            Get a 5th grader to explain it to you, lying loser. LOL!

            Now dance for me some more Village Idiot – Now!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Right here stupid lying wimp dog: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health will occur.””

            Tha’ts on “consensus” page:

            http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

            and comes from this source:

            International academies: Joint statement

            “Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001).” (2005, 11 international science academies)10

            Which I already debunked for you. Rather, for those that can read well enough.

            Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

            “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

            “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

            *IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.

            http://www.ipcc.ch/home_disclaimer.shtml

            This site is operated, administered and maintained by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

            All content included on this site is for informative purposes only. Unless otherwise specified, materials contained on this Website are covered by intellectual and industrial property rights, and their reproduction or adaptation is in all cases subject to permission (go toCopyright 2010).

            IPCC endeavors to ensure, but cannot and does not guarantee the accuracy, accessibility, integrity and timeliness of the information available on its Website. IPCC may make changes to the content of this Website at any time without notice.

            The designations employed in this Website are in conformity with United Nations practice. The presentation of material therein does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IPCC concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its borders.

            The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, publications, studies and other contributions rests solely with their authors, and their posting on this Website does not constitute an endorsement by IPCC of the opinion expressed in them.

            Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by IPCC, and any failure to mention a firm, commercial product or process is not a sign of disapproval.

            Hyperlinks, services, or e-tools to other Websites are provided as a convenience only. IPCC offers no guarantees on the reliability of third party services that you might use on-line. They imply neither responsibility for, nor approval of, the information contained in those other Websites on the part of IPCC.

            IPCC shall not be liable for any damages incurred as a result of the use of its Website. Please do not misuse our Website.

            The IPCC website requires Javascript to be enabled to operate and has only been tested on the following browsers (please use one of the browsers below for the full functionality of the website):

          • Peter Gordon

            Fact: You just lied again, stupid wimp dog.

            Fact: Nothing on the NASA site has been debunked by any credible source.

            Fact: Every source you cited has been debunked and traced to big oil interests.

            Fact: I have proven you are too stupid to ever catch up. LOL!

            But you can still be my obedient wimp. SPEAK wimp. NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: Nothing on the NASA site has been debunked by any credible source.”

            The information refereed to in the 97% meme is now protected by lawsuit. Only the meme survives in the public space. The data is proprietary.

            NASA gets part of its funding depending on how important its “missions” are. The IPCC gets funded according to how well it establishes that “global warming is a thing to be afraid of.”

            Few people have weighed in that don’t have a stake in the inferences that are made.

            Returning to your meme, it’s your job to show the data supporting this “fact” (your declaration). Where is it? Nobody links to it. Nobody is sharing.

            There is a lot more money at stake to “compensate” for “climate change” than all of the oil consumed in the history of man. The UN is asking to tax our entire GDP.

            You’re just a robotic leftist troll. And not very good.

          • Peter Gordon

            You just lost again, moron wimp dog.

            Fact: You have still totally failed to show any credible source. All your sources have been proven oil company shills.

            Fact: To think that the vast majority of all Scientific Organizations in the world are lying is to be a paranoid, delusional moron – which is what you are.

            Now SPEAK for your owner, wimp. NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re just a robotic leftist troll. And not very good.

          • Peter Gordon

            Good wimp!

            You’re right. I’m a bot that owns you and I will keep making you jump through hoops for my pleasure. LOL!

            You are such a fun toy for me!

            SPEAK, stupid moron lying loser wimp. NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: To think that the vast majority of all Scientific Organizations in the world are lying is to be a paranoid, delusional moron – which is what you are.”

            Politicians might lie, marketing people might lie, but only saints and perfect people can become officials for “science organizations” that get together to decide how much socialism the world really needs and how big their salaries should be.

            Good thing we can trust those people. At least they’re not genetically inferior “oil companies shills.” I mean are those guys even human? Not really.

          • Peter Gordon

            Aww, wimp dog is losing again! LOL!

            Fact: To think that over 200 Scientific Organizations involving thousands of scientists are all lying is to be extremely paranoid, extremely delusional and extremely stupid since all the data is available on many different sites, including NASA.

            Fact: You just proved yourself brain-dead again. LOL!

            Now SPEAK for your owner, wimp. NOW!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Fact: To think that over 200 Scientific Organizations involving thousands of scientists are all lying is to be extremely paranoid, extremely delusional and extremely stupid since all the data is available on many different sites, including NASA.”

            OK, so now that the 97% meme has failed and two days later you realize it, you focus on “200 scientific organizations” that again, say what? Where is the official press release or statement you refer to that is characterized by you as “be very afraid?”

            Yeah, a lot of them are just as bad as the IPCC.

            What we won’t hear from you ever is source data and scientific declarations backed up by the actual scientists.

            You’re just a dumb troll paid to shill for international socialism.

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            Dailycaller is not a credible source and you know it. You attempt to spin a conspiracy is not evidence against the scientific literature.

      • Calvinius

        Canada Free Press is a conspiracy theorist tabloid. If that’s your only source, you’ve got less than nothing.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          I’m simply pointing out where it came from. Instead of calling the author a liar or whatever, reference his source and carry on from there. I guess attacking his source is an improvement…

          • Peter Gordon

            The magic word for you is ‘simply’, you simple idiot. LOL!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Tee hee. The fifth grader sure put me in my place.

          • Peter Gordon

            The drooling idiot finally got something (almost) right!

            You are correct. Any 5th grader could easily prove you a brain-dead fool. LOL!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Fifth graders are often known for vivid imaginations as well.

          • Peter Gordon

            True. They are superior to you in every way.

            Thanks for admitting what a loser idiot you are – again. LOL!

  • melanie faulkner

    I want my car now that my money is going to pay for them!!

    • WeaponZero

      Considering that you paid 0$, how much of that 0$ would you like back? The bigger half or the smaller half?

      • melanie faulkner

        Everyone who pays taxes paid for those cars and Gm to. So pull your head out of your butt.

        • WeaponZero

          How so?

          And Ford too?

    • Peter Gordon

      I want all my money back from you that you took from me for your filthy gasoline – $52 billion in taxpayer dollars to keep the price of gas artificially low.

      You are the biggest welfare queen here.

      I am waiting for my money.

  • Daniel Lomeli

    Tesla actually makes money. This counters the grossly inaccurate statement, “Tesla doesn’t actually make money, it resells California’s mandated energy credits”. The author is obviously a standard net troll with little or possibly no financial background and not even able to parse someone else’s financial analysis.

    I’ll do my best to break it down.

    First, Tesla sells ZEV credits and not “resells”. The term “resells” assumes prior purchase which is not the case.

    Second, there was special attention given to quoting all financial credits independent of ZEV credits. I’m assuming the purpose of all this was to quell the inevitable naysayers that would make statements like Tesla was not viable without California mandated credits. Although, simply ignoring the figures because they run counter to your narrative seems to be standard practice in so called, “journalism” so the author takes his inspiration from conservative talk radio giants like Glenn Beck.

    Third, any auto manufacturer that exceeds California’s mandated EV requirement will earn ZEV credits. Some manufacturers purposely opted not to build a single EV. Others built only enough vehicles to meet the requirement. These vehicles are termed, “compliance cars” and makeshift assembly and quality are questionable. A small minority of manufacturers made a serious effort to build EVs and earned credits to sell. Tesla is an exception to all the above because they only build EVs so they have no requirement to meet to receive credits. Every vehicle produced by Tesla is credit worthy. The manufacturers that opted entirely are waiting to see where the market is going before making a serious investment. Purchasing ZEV credits just financial sense. Keeping in mind that the market credit by the California mandate is extremely volatile and there are no guarantees on price or availability of ZEV credits but some manufacturers decided it was a risk worth taking.

    A hand full of auto manufacturers have decided not to build electric vehicles and instead wait to see where the market heads and to avoid heavy penalties from California opted to enter into a newly formed ZEV credit market. Any manufacturer that manages to exceed California’s ZEV requirement earned credits that were auctioned off to other manufacturers. Since Tesla only produces electric, all vehicles sold translate into ZEV credits. The ZEV requirement was developed to accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles which is vital to California meeting its clean air goals.

    So statement, “So if you’re buying a regular car, you’re basically paying rich people to drive a Tesla” is whole heartily incorrect.

    Since GM is the largest purchaser of ZEV credits and Tesla is the largest seller. Next time you buy a GM vehicle that wont kill you, remember to thank all those rich people that bought into Tesla so GM can save money not meetings its obligation to sell in California.

    Finally, your statement “Tesla makes unprofitable mandated cars that it subsidizes by selling the mandate credits to companies that make affordable cars” follows the same pattern of incorrect statements.

    First, Tesla does not make “mandated” cars. They only make EVs and the mandate requires a percentage of all vehicles delivered to California from a manufacturer to be an EV. How could they be “mandated” cars when that’s all Tesla builds? Is it the negative connotation of “mandated” that you are attempting to connect to Tesla or a gross misunderstanding of term?

    Second, Tesla’s actual gross profit margin minus ZEV credits is approaching 25%. To provide some context to that figure. GM and Ford respectively are at 13% and 15%. That puts Tesla at twice the profitability of GM. You would know this if you know anything about what you were talking about. Now that I have enlightened you to that fact. I will expect with your disingenuous nature that your next piece will read, “Tesla, price gouging Americans!!!”. All while sitting comfortably behind your fleet of Apple based products with the out-of-this world profit margins of 60-70%. Apple, the brand choice of the pseudo intellectual.

    Here’s what you’re failing to see because you choose to not do your own research. You are not even fact checking your source which I thought was important to journalistic integrity. Earnings or net income are calculated by taking revenues and adjusting for the cost of doing business, depreciation, interest, taxes and other expenses. Tesla makes a nice profit per vehicle ;however, they produce no where near the volumes to keep their R&D cost from overshadowing their current sales.

    In such a situation since you have practically zero business sense, their choices are to delay their next model so that their balance sheets remain in the black or press on through the red to keep on track. Since Tesla has 1 billion in cash reserves it seems the former just made absolutely no sense.

    Tesla has been given a reputation of being a rich elitist brand by some of the most dimwitted people on earth. Tesla’s goal is to produce a sedan for $35k but a layman seems to think that cars just builds itself. To the layman there seems to be no obvious engineering, tooling, raw material, and supplier cost.

    It takes GM over a billion dollars to produce a new ICE vehicle and they have been doing it for over century. Tesla was established in 2003 and they are the first manufacturer to build a comparable alternative to ICE. If you thought the first ever commercial cell phone could fit in your pocket, cost less than a night out on the town, and had unlimited data plans then you are sorely disillusion. All revolutionary technologies need early adopters to foot the cost of R&D and low volume production costs.

    In closing, the mentioning of Department of Energy loan is just further insight into your disingenuous nature. The loan has already been paid off 9 years ahead of schedule. Of course you purposely neglect to mention such an important detail. I know you hate all things government subsidizes like food, housing, education, healthcare, and the creation of the internet which made your post possible but you need to realize that phrases like “crony capitalism” are the result of over reaching government policies instituted by progressives.

    Just a heads up in case you skipped most of what I said, I did compare you journalism style to Glenn Beck.

  • Daniel Lomeli

    Tesla actually makes money. This counters the grossly inaccurate statement, “Tesla doesn’t actually make money, it resells California’s mandated energy credits”. The author is obviously a standard net troll with little or possibly no financial background and not even able to parse someone else’s financial analysis.

    I’ll do my best to break it down.

    First, Tesla sells ZEV credits and not “resells”. The term “resells” assumes prior purchase of ZEV credits. This absolutely makes no sense.

    Second, there was special attention given to quoting all financials independent of ZEV credits. I’m assuming the purpose of all this was to quell the inevitable naysayers that would make statements like, “Tesla is not viable without ZEV credits”. Although, you can simply ignore those figures since they do not fit your narrative. I would like to think journalist would pride themselves on having more credibility than Glenn Beck, who routinely ignores facts that do not fit his narrative, but not this author.

    Third, any auto manufacturer can receive ZEV credits. It’s not exclusive to Tesla or specifically design to give Tesla the edge. Some manufacturers purposely opted completely out of building EVs. Others built only enough vehicles to meet the requirement known as “compliance vehicles”. A few minority manufacturers have made serious efforts to build EVs. Tesla is not the only name in the game when it comes to purchasing ZEV credits however they sell the most. Tesla is unique since it sells no ICE vehicles every vehicle produced by Tesla is credit worthy since the mandate requires a percentage. Those manufacturers that opted out are free to purchase credits for manufacturers that have them available to sell. For those manufacturers buying credits significantly cheaper than the alternative and they can watch where the industry heads.

    So statement, “So if you’re buying a regular car, you’re basically paying rich people to drive a Tesla” is another completely incorrect statement.

    Its cheaper to buy credits than to try and assemble enough vehicles to meet the mandate. If anything, you can thank rich people for keeping your car manufacturer from having to comply with California’s mandate. I doubt they pass the saving to their customers so there is no effect on your purchase price.

    Finally, your statement “Tesla makes unprofitable mandated cars that it subsidizes by selling the mandate credits to companies that make affordable cars” follows the same pattern of incorrect statements.

    First, Tesla does not make “mandated” cars. They only make EVs and the mandate requires a percentage of all vehicles delivered to California from a manufacturer to be an EV. How could they be “mandated” cars when that’s all Tesla builds? Are you confused by the term “mandate” like you were with “resells”?

    Second, Tesla’s actual gross profit margin minus ZEV credits is approaching 25%. To provide some context to that figure. GM and Ford respectively are at 13% and 15% gross profit. That puts Tesla at twice the profitability of GM. If you did any original research you would know this. Since now you know this, I’m sure your tune will change to “Tesla, price gouging Americans!!!” because you hate Tesla no matter what they do. Further context should help you that Apple makes something on the order of 60% gross profit margin on it’s products. I’ll pause while you count how many Apple products you own.

    You have no experience analyzing finances. Here’s what you’re failing to see in the numbers. Earnings or net incomes are calculated by taking revenues and adjusting for the cost of doing business, depreciation, interest, taxes and other expenses. Tesla makes a very nice profit on each vehicle. Unfortunately, there volumes are not significant enough to overshadow their R&D budget for their future vehicles. They can either wait and stay in the black or push forward into the red and stay on schedule. Considering Tesla has a billion on hand it makes absolute sense to press on to the Model X and Gen 3.

    Finally, this elitist branding needs to end. Tesla is working extremely hard to produce their Gen 3 vehicle at $35k which requires building a battery plant that will produce more batteries than all the worlds battery factories combined. There are also limited by the volume they can produce and that drives up the per car cost. Any idiot should be able to understand that. GM has been building cars for over a century so making comparisons to volume makes absolutely no sense. No company is going to start up in 2003 like Tesla did and make half a billion cars a decade later. You people have no common sense what-so-ever if you’re not able to understand this. Tesla would need every battery manufactured today multiplied by 2 to produce those volumes.

    Why do people defend Tesla so fearlessly? What they have done so far is beyond incredible. They need people to defend against the disinformation campaign by all these Glenn Beck wannabees.

  • http://greencorruption.blogspot.com/ Christine Lakatos

    This is insane!!

  • Elon Lee

    Is the author working for oil company?

    • Calvinius

      If so, the oil companies aren’t getting their money’s worth since the author actually cited Canada Free Press as a source. Might as well cite Infowars.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “If so, the oil companies aren’t getting their money’s worth since the author actually cited Canada Free Press as a source. Might as well cite Infowars.”

        Troll.

        • MarcDaniel Erasmo

          I consider climate deniers, and propagandists trolls and liars.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I know you do. I consider people like you to be practically nonsentient.

          • MarcDaniel Erasmo

            I consider people like you selfish and ignorant, and MENDACIOUS.

  • Chris Boylan

    George Clooney doesn’t own a Tesla. He hated his Roadster because it seemed to always leave him stranded by the side of the road. Facts matter.

    • Peter Gordon

      Clooney was talking the very first generation Roadster. It actually very quickly became an amazing, reliable car.

      Listing information from over 6 years ago is not really competent.

      But still the Model S is not a Roadster and the Model S received the highest quality rating in the history of Consumer Reports.
      It also received the highest Customer Satisfaction rating in Consumer Reports history.

      Facts matter. Try and catch up.

      • Chris Boylan

        Hey, bub. Don’t shoot the messenger. I never said I hated Tesla, I said George Clooney did (FACT). I’ve already pre-ordered a Model X. My point was that George Clooney doesn’t own a Tesla any longer (FACT) and hasn’t for quite some time (FACT). If this simple fact is incorrect in the article, then how credible can the rest of it be? Answer? Not very credible.

  • Tesla_X

    Pretty funny how tesla gets all that free carb money then looks out of state to build his next tesla factory.

    Will we get all those millions of non-existent battery swap station derived ZEV credit money back?