Beach Runner wrote:
The Evidence Mounts are MIT and NOA radical left wing organizations.

Strawman. You cannot deal with what I've actually written, can you.

You only respond to the radical right

Oxymoron. Radicalism refers to the far left, and you're the one calling
for RADICAL change in light of QUESTIONABLE data.

stick your head up your ass

I don't care to look like you.

and ignore reliable arguments brought by people like MIT and NOA,

You're appealing to authority. I sincerely question the reliability of
arguments made by your sources, particularly since the data are
admittedly flimsy. Too bad you're uncritical where it suits your leftist
agenda.

people without agendas except science,

Ipse dixit. I've shown you a poll of scientists and references to other
polls which show that scientists are evenly split on the issue of global
warming and whether human activity is causing it to escalate. Evenly
divided, you twit. The data do not make a convincing case for global
warming. We should NOT formulate policy on the basis of unanswered
questions. We should NOT abandon our way of life to practice your
austere brand of socialism simply because you pick and choose your sources.

Like the Republican Governor of Alaska.

Another strawman.

Global Change is very obvious to all but those in the oil business

Funny that, Boob. Oil exploration is a cornerstone of the Alaskan
economy.

Except when they see that global change is causing their homes to collapse!

It's not GLOBAL change, twit, it's LOCALIZED and I showed you why.

that will make a quick buck and sacrifice our futures.

Blowhard leftwing hyperbole. Why does your side routinely exaggerate
the nature of the "problem" and offer only solutions compatible with
your radical worldview?

Hardly.

No, you moron, that's precisely what's at stake here. The truth about
global warming hysteria can be summed up like this, "Capitalism is the
problem and socialism is the solution."

http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...0130-5881r.htm

I read your minotiry URL.

You can't spell to save your life.

It ignores

No, it includes data from the very sources you use and other sources to
show that the "problem" isn't as clear-cut as you suggest.

Beach Runner wrote:
Nissan & Hyundai: Just say "no" to Auto Alliance

Which is paid for by Mittsubishi

Oh, the horror!

You've gone to a leftwing website and produced an activism form letter
without understanding the real issue at hand. The Auto Alliance is not
anti-environment.

http://www.autoalliance.org/environment/

Automakers Nissan and Hyundai will be introducing their first hybrid
models in 2006, helping to expand this important emerging market.
However, just as these automakers are seeking to establish their
“green credentials” with hybrids, the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers (a.k.a. the Auto Alliance) is courting these two
companies. The Auto Alliance is the lobbyist group representing most
of the major automobile manufacturers. Its stated priorities include
blocking any increase in fuel economy standards, and overturning
California’s breakthrough global warming regulations on vehicles.
Please contact the CEOs of Nissan and Hyundai and let them know that
the reputation they are trying to develop with these hybrid vehicles
will be severely damaged by associating with the Auto Alliance, a
group pushing to keep American drivers out of the cleaner cars we
want and deserve.

They're not trying to keep anyone out of any cars: they favor allowing
freedom of choice, something you authoritarian leftists don't respect.

Personalize your letter: Increase the impact of your action by giving
it your own personal voice.

Hahaha. They know that most of you morons will just send what they've
written.

Here are some questions that may help you
quickly and easily increase your letter's resonance:

* Are you in the market for a new car? Will you be in 2006?
* Do you own, or have you owned, either a Nissan or Hyundai
vehicle?
* Are you a current hybrid vehicle owner?
* Were you one of the over 20,000 people who took action and
filed a false advertising complaint against the Auto Alliance for
their "virtually emission-free" ad?
* Do you live on the West Coast and are currently being denied a
"clean air corridor?" because of the Auto Alliance's activities?

Tell me more


Subject:

Dear Mr. Ghosn and Mr. Cosmai,

(Edit Letter Below)

I am writing to applaud your planned 2006 introductions of hybrid
vehicles. As a consumer interested in cleaner, more fuel-efficient
car options, I am pleased that the Altima and Accent hybrids will
help push forward this emerging clean vehicle market. The fact that
the Altima hybrid will be assembled in the United States, and the
Accent hybrid may help make hybrid technology affordable to a larger
segment of the driving public are both very exciting developments.

I have also read, however, that the DC-based lobbyist group for many
of the major automakers, the Auto Alliance, is courting both of you
to join its ranks. The Auto Alliance has continually used fear and
deception to prevent any meaningful improvements in vehicle
pollution, safety, and fuel economy standards.

Bullshit.

For example, the Auto
Alliance recently ran advertisements calling today's autos "virtually
emission-free" -- deceptive language that resulted in over 20,000
false advertising complaints.

None of which has resulted in adverse actions against them.

Now the Alliance is purportedly focused
on preventing higher fuel economy standards and overturning
California's breakthrough regulations on global warming pollution
from autos among its top agenda items.

Your association with this group would severely undermine whatever
environmentally-friendly reputation you hope to develop through your
hybrid models, not to mention my interest as a potential customer. A
clear, public "no thank you" to this lobbyist group would, in turn,
give an indication that your hybrid models are not merely
"greenwashing," but a genuine step toward addressing the
environmental, public health, and gas saving needs of the American
consumer.

I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,
[Your name]

Just sign it "another mindnumb activist following marching orders."

BTW, note that you failed to address any points I made below.

usual suspect wrote:

Beach Runner wrote:


Yes I have,

No, you ignored every ****ing point. You can't stick to one issue at a
time, and I've patiently dealt with every lie you've posted. You said
hybrids don't get better mileage, I showed you that you're full of shit.
You whine that this is a vegan group and then post bullshit about global
warming, and whine even louder when shown that your beliefs are
predicated on the POLITICS of the issue rather than the SCIENCE of it.

I've pointed out your "non profit organization" is paid for
by Mittsubisi and friends,

Big ****ing deal. Auto Alliance aren't out to pollute. Go look at their
website, dipshit. Take a look at what they have to say about "global
climate change" and see if you can honestly object to what they have to
say. Your activist form letter above is from a group which wants
government to micromanage every ****ing aspect of our lives and thereby
minimize the choices consumers have. Why do you support and work with
authoritarian zealots?

http://www.autoalliance.org/environm...balclimate.php

and you ignore the responsible organizations
such as MIT and NOA amongst other's.

I don't ignore them; I disagree with conclusions reached from ambiguous
results (at best) or results which don't even support the conclusions,
predictions, or proposed solutions.

You find a fringe scientist that
supports your contention.

Not fringe. As I've patiently shown your sorry ass too many times now,
scientists are EVENLY DIVIDED over global warming. That's because the
data are very unconvincing. The question then is, Why should we make
radical changes if the "problem" isn't even clear-cut?

Big deal.

It's a big deal to advocate "radical change" as you have, you dumb ass.
You need to be a lot more convincing than you have been by merely
parroting activist groups or by simply saying:

Global warming is real.

That's an *unproven* assertion, and I've provided you with sufficient
sources.

http://www.commondreams....





From their "about us" page:

Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization
working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote
*progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we
are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet
as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for
internet *activism*.

IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists.

There is nothing wrong with being a liberal.

There's something wrong about advocating RADICAL CHANGE, you
authoritarian zealot, without good reason.

Ben Franklin would be considered a liberal for example.

Not in today's terminology. Don't compare apples to oranges, dumb ass.

When change is needed, then you need it.

WTF?! You've yet to establish that ANY change is needed.

Or do you favor a nation that only allows conservative views to be
expressed?

Look who's talking -- the bumbling twit who objects to anyone countering
his distortions, lies, and vegan flim-flam. I've never told YOU to go
away or to shut up; I've only told you to tell the truth or I'll correct
you. And that's just what I've done, you benighted piece of shit.


...





hat is correct. If IF the many models





SOME models...

that say global warming are correct,





There's no indication that they are.

and there is no doubt there are many models,





SOME models.

than radical chance is necessary.





Radical chance? You twit, you mean radical change. And it is NOT
necessary.

If things were business as usual, it wouldn't matter, but of
course, they
are not business as usual except to the really blind conservative
people as yourself.





Spoken as the elite leftist snob you really are. You want "radical
change" on the basis of inconclusive evidence. Why? Because the
"radical change" you advocate is consistent with your POLITICS. Such
change is unwarranted by the SCIENCE, which doesn't show a clear-cut
problem (and certainly not of the magnitude that would necessitate
RADICAL change).

We are in the midst of a global change and you can't even see it.





Neither can most studies.

http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html
http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...2/seedsci.html

Etc.

So you can correct some spelling or typos when I take medication

Your Prozac should make you more coherent. Tell your doctor to increase
your dosage.

Your drug abuse is your own problem, not mine.

You've still ignored





No, you ****. I've addressed the substance of your "radical" claims
which you claim necessitate radical change. I don't think other
human beings should be subjected to your radical politics on the
basis of your irrational concerns which aren't substantiated by
scientific discovery. And at the end of the day, that's precisely
what you want to do: require every human being to adopt your
political worldview. That's ALL this is about. You're an
authoritarian zealot. You've been exposed.

Beach Runner wrote:
...
We may need to sacrifice some performance for the greater good.

You're a Marxist authoritarian zealot who has the audacity to say Ben
Franklin would be on your side. **** you and your version of the greater
good -- notions which our Founders would've strenuously objected and
resisted to their deaths, just as I shall. You make your own sacrifices.
I refuse to sacrifice for your good.

Beach Runner wrote:
...
Yes, the VEGAN movement is a liberal movement by and large.

It is entirely *RADICAL* -- far beyond being merely "liberal."

Beach Runner wrote:



usual suspect wrote:

Beach Runner wrote:

The Evidence Mounts are MIT and NOA radical left wing organizations.



Strawman. You cannot deal with what I've actually written, can you.


You only respond to the radical right stick your head up your ass and
ignore reliable arguments brought by people like MIT and NOA, people
without agendas except science,

Like the Republican Governor of Alaska.



Another strawman.

Global Change is very obvious to all but those in the oil business



Funny that, Boob. Oil exploration is a cornerstone of the Alaskan
economy.


Except when they see that global change is causing their homes to collapse!


that will make a quick buck and sacrifice our futures.



Blowhard leftwing hyperbole. Why does your side routinely exaggerate
the nature of the "problem" and offer only solutions compatible with
your radical worldview?

Hardly.


http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...0130-5881r.htm



Oh, MR. Mann's opinion, not that he denies global warming, simply we
should do more research is less valid than MIT or NOA? Hardly.
I read your minotiry URL. It ignores the expert opinions of NOA and
MIT and other expert organizations. What are their agendas?

usual suspect wrote:

Beach Runner wrote:
...

We may need to sacrifice some performance for the greater good.


You're a Marxist authoritarian zealot who has the audacity to say Ben
Franklin would be on your side. **** you and your version of the greater
good -- notions which our Founders would've strenuously objected and
resisted to their deaths, just as I shall. You make your own sacrifices.
I refuse to sacrifice for your good.

I'm not a Marxist, MANY believe we must take strong action against
greenhouse gasses. I went to funded by corporate source web sites so
what do you expect? They will support their corporate sponsors.

I make a few typos. Insult me for it. NASA, NOA, MIT, the Union of
Concerned Scientists.

Go to
http://www.climatehotmap.org/

which so clear early warning signs.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environ...ming/index.cfm

well documented,

or
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/default.asp
http://www.envirolink.org/

Or the US government site,
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html


Go to right wing sponsored by car companies with vested interests and
you think they are right? Give me a break.

Go join a radical right wing organization where you belong.

Beach Runner wrote:
We may need to sacrifice some performance for the greater good.

You're a Marxist authoritarian zealot who has the audacity to say Ben
Franklin would be on your side. **** you and your version of the
greater good -- notions which our Founders would've strenuously
objected and resisted to their deaths, just as I shall. You make your
own sacrifices. I refuse to sacrifice for your good.

I'm not a Marxist,

You're a Marxist and a liar.

MANY believe we must take strong action

Logical fallacy of appealing to popularity.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm

I make a few typos. Insult me for it.

Gladly. Dickhead. Moron. Loser. ****. Happy now?

Even if the few scientists, most of which are subsidized by groups with
a stake in the ground, Like Mitsubishi, the very real number of
independent scientists warn we must take strong action. That's Marxist?
Hardly. We stand a strong change of terrible consequences. Many
independent scientists, MIT, NOA, NASA all agree on Global warming.


You pull a site funded by Mitsubishi and say big deal. I'd rather have
independent sites.


Insult me some more if it makes you happy. It doesn't change the reality.

usual suspect wrote:

Beach Runner wrote:

We may need to sacrifice some performance for the greater good.


You're a Marxist authoritarian zealot who has the audacity to say Ben
Franklin would be on your side. **** you and your version of the
greater good -- notions which our Founders would've strenuously
objected and resisted to their deaths, just as I shall. You make your
own sacrifices. I refuse to sacrifice for your good.


I'm not a Marxist,


You're a Marxist and a liar.

MANY believe we must take strong action


Logical fallacy of appealing to popularity.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm

I make a few typos. Insult me for it.


Gladly. Dickhead. Moron. Loser. ****. Happy now?

Beach Runner wrote:
Even if the few scientists, most of which are subsidized by groups

Ipse dixit and unproven. I showed you, dumb ass, that scientists are
EVENLY DIVIDED on the notion of global warming being a result of human
activities. What part of EVENLY DIVIDED do you not comprehend?

...the very real number of independent scientists warn we must
take strong action. That's Marxist?

Yes -- and you're both overestimating the number of scientists who
believe humans are responsible for global warming and overstating the
number of those who "warn we must take strong action." Scientists are
evenly divided on whether humans have even caused a problem. The number
of scientists who believe we should make radical change is a percentage
of those who believe it's a human problem -- or a smaller percentage of
all scientists.

The fact remains: this is an issue at which you leftists want to take
radical *POLITICAL* action before clear *SCIENTIFIC* assessments are
made. You leftist nutjobs want to replace FREE ENTERPRISE with your
pathetic version of a Marxist Utopia. You would eliminate freedom for
what YOU (and YOU ALONE) call "the greater good."

Hardly.

You ARE a Marxist. You're an authoritarian leftist.

We stand a strong change of terrible consequences.

Strong chance? That's entirely UNPROVEN. There are many data which
contradict your claims of cataclysm. I just disagree with your position
that we need to act before knowing (a) IF there is really a problem --
and remember, scientists are EVENLY SPLIT on the issue of whether human
activity is to blame for global warming -- and (b) the extent to which
human activity plays a role in global warming or the extent to which
changing our behavior will reverse global warming. You have predictions,
prophecy. I demand SCIENCE before I'll consent that there's a problem or
that altering my behavior will have any affect on it. Until science has
clear answers, go **** yourself.

Many independent scientists,

About half of them, and the other half disagrees with them.

MIT, NOA, NASA all agree on Global warming.

NOAA. They do not all agree, nor do all their scientists.

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=901

You pull a site funded by Mitsubishi

No, funded by a cross-section of car makers.

and say big deal.

I say "big deal" on the basis of what a variety of sources have to say
about the issue.

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=67
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=887
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=851

Etc.

Insult me some more

Sure. Scatterbrains. Dipshit. ****. Asshole. Is that better?


We may need to sacrifice some performance for the greater good.



You're a Marxist authoritarian zealot who has the audacity to say
Ben Franklin would be on your side. **** you and your version of the
greater good -- notions which our Founders would've strenuously
objected and resisted to their deaths, just as I shall. You make
your own sacrifices. I refuse to sacrifice for your good.



I'm not a Marxist,



You're a Marxist and a liar.

MANY believe we must take strong action



Logical fallacy of appealing to popularity.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm

I make a few typos. Insult me for it.



Gladly. Dickhead. Moron. Loser. ****. Happy now?

usual suspect wrote:
Beach Runner wrote:

Even if the few scientists, most of which are subsidized by groups


Ipse dixit and unproven. I showed you, dumb ass, that scientists are
EVENLY DIVIDED on the notion of global warming being a result of human
activities. What part of EVENLY DIVIDED do you not comprehend?

...the very real number of independent scientists warn we must
take strong action. That's Marxist?


Yes -- and you're both overestimating the number of scientists who
believe humans are responsible for global warming and overstating the
number of those who "warn we must take strong action." Scientists are
evenly divided on whether humans have even caused a problem. The number
of scientists who believe we should make radical change is a percentage
of those who believe it's a human problem -- or a smaller percentage of
all scientists.

The fact remains: this is an issue at which you leftists want to take
radical *POLITICAL* action before clear *SCIENTIFIC* assessments are
made. You leftist nutjobs want to replace FREE ENTERPRISE with your
pathetic version of a Marxist Utopia. You would eliminate freedom for
what YOU (and YOU ALONE) call "the greater good."

Hardly.


You ARE a Marxist. You're an authoritarian leftist.

We stand a strong change of terrible consequences.


Strong chance? That's entirely UNPROVEN. There are many data which
contradict your claims of cataclysm. I just disagree with your position
that we need to act before knowing (a) IF there is really a problem --
and remember, scientists are EVENLY SPLIT on the issue of whether human
activity is to blame for global warming -- and (b) the extent to which
human activity plays a role in global warming or the extent to which
changing our behavior will reverse global warming. You have predictions,
prophecy. I demand SCIENCE before I'll consent that there's a problem or
that altering my behavior will have any affect on it. Until science has
clear answers, go **** yourself.

Many independent scientists,


About half of them, and the other half disagrees with them.

MIT, NOA, NASA all agree on Global warming.


NOAA. They do not all agree, nor do all their scientists.

As a statement they do.

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=901

You pull a site funded by Mitsubishi


No, funded by a cross-section of car makers.


With a Mittsubishi emblem. They are the car makers. Hardly free minded.
and say big deal.


I say "big deal" on the basis of what a variety of sources have to say
about the issue.

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=67
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=887
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=851

Etc.

Insult me some more


Sure. Scatterbrains. Dipshit. ****. Asshole. Is that better?


We may need to sacrifice some performance for the greater good.




You're a Marxist authoritarian zealot who has the audacity to say
Ben Franklin would be on your side. **** you and your version of
the greater good -- notions which our Founders would've strenuously
objected and resisted to their deaths, just as I shall. You make
your own sacrifices. I refuse to sacrifice for your good.



Many sites predict horrendous consequences. And you won't even consider
them. You're closed minded.

You're more influenced by groups funded by special interests. That's
stupid. Chose INDEPENDENT groups.




I'm not a Marxist,




You're a Marxist and a liar.

MANY believe we must take strong action




Logical fallacy of appealing to popularity.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm

I make a few typos. Insult me for it.




Gladly. Dickhead. Moron. Loser. ****. Happy now?


Marx know knothing about global warming. In fact, the former Communist
nations have horrendous polutions. But still the US produces the most
greenhouse gasses.

An anology is wrong.

Beach Runner wrote:
Even if the few scientists, most of which are subsidized by groups

Ipse dixit and unproven. I showed you, dumb ass, that scientists are
EVENLY DIVIDED on the notion of global warming being a result of human
activities. What part of EVENLY DIVIDED do you not comprehend?

...the very real number of independent scientists warn we must
take strong action. That's Marxist?

Yes -- and you're both overestimating the number of scientists who
believe humans are responsible for global warming and overstating the
number of those who "warn we must take strong action." Scientists are
evenly divided on whether humans have even caused a problem. The
number of scientists who believe we should make radical change is a
percentage of those who believe it's a human problem -- or a smaller
percentage of all scientists.

The fact remains: this is an issue at which you leftists want to take
radical *POLITICAL* action before clear *SCIENTIFIC* assessments are
made. You leftist nutjobs want to replace FREE ENTERPRISE with your
pathetic version of a Marxist Utopia. You would eliminate freedom for
what YOU (and YOU ALONE) call "the greater good."

Hardly.

You ARE a Marxist. You're an authoritarian leftist.

We stand a strong change of terrible consequences.

Strong chance? That's entirely UNPROVEN. There are many data which
contradict your claims of cataclysm. I just disagree with your
position that we need to act before knowing (a) IF there is really a
problem -- and remember, scientists are EVENLY SPLIT on the issue of
whether human activity is to blame for global warming -- and (b) the
extent to which human activity plays a role in global warming or the
extent to which changing our behavior will reverse global warming. You
have predictions, prophecy. I demand SCIENCE before I'll consent that
there's a problem or that altering my behavior will have any affect on
it. Until science has clear answers, go **** yourself.

Many independent scientists,

About half of them, and the other half disagrees with them.

MIT, NOA, NASA all agree on Global warming.

NOAA. They do not all agree, nor do all their scientists.

As a statement they do.

No, you bumbling twit. Read the link below. It's from a NOAA scientist
who withdrew from a conference because of the same kind of
politicization of the issue you find so appealing.

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=901

You pull a site funded by Mitsubishi

No, funded by a cross-section of car makers.

With a Mittsubishi emblem.

Cool. So the **** what?

They are the car makers.

So the **** what? They breathe the same air you do, drink the same water
you do, and have to live on the same planet you do. They've taken
responsible actions to reduce emissions. They also don't want YOU to
tell them what to make because YOUR ideas aren't what OTHER CONSUMERS want.

Hardly free minded.

You're an elitist asshole, Boob. You're the one who's not free-minded.
You object to the choices consumers have because you think you know
better than the market and the suppliers in at least this instance (and
I'm pretty sure you'd deny others any choices in the other areas of
their lives).

and say big deal.

I say "big deal" on the basis of what a variety of sources have to say
about the issue.

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=67
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=887
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=851

Etc.

Insult me some more

Sure. Scatterbrains. Dipshit. ****. Asshole. Is that better?

We may need to sacrifice some performance for the greater good.


You're a Marxist authoritarian zealot who has the audacity to say
Ben Franklin would be on your side. **** you and your version of
the greater good -- notions which our Founders would've
strenuously objected and resisted to their deaths, just as I
shall. You make your own sacrifices. I refuse to sacrifice for
your good.

Many sites predict horrendous consequences.

Many more don't. The objective ones tell us that science has NOT reached
a consensus on the nature of the problem, or even if there is one. YOU
want to make radical change despite that fact. I refuse to without more
evidence.

And you won't even consider them.

I have considered them. The science isn't established that there is a
problem, or that human activities are the reason. There's no evidence,
either, that altering human activity will "fix" the problem (if one
exists). I object to radical change on the basis of what you feel.

You're closed minded.

No, bumbling twit, I'm open-minded. I'm waiting for scientists to reach
a consensus before I advocate people make expensive, radical changes
that may not even fix the problem. You want people to adopt your leftist
ideology (i.e., that there is a problem which needs to be fixed) and
embrace leftist policies (i.e., give up their capitalism for your
socialism). Scientists are EVENLY SPLIT -- a point which seems to go
right over your FLAT HEAD -- on the issue of whether human activity
plays any role in global warming. You're the one with the closed mind on
this issue.

You're more influenced by groups funded by special interests.

I'm influenced by the *science*. Scientists are NOT in accord that human
activity plays a role, or that altering human activity will "solve"
anything.

That's stupid.

YOU are stupid, bumbling twit.

Chose INDEPENDENT groups.

Choose, moron. And I'm already being independent in my assessment of the
situation. That's why I observe the fact that scientists are split and
choose to wait for consensus on the issue. You, otoh, have made up your
lone flickering braincell and have decided that your politics supercede
the science and everyone's freedom. I say, **** you!

I'm not a Marxist,

You're a Marxist and a liar.

MANY believe we must take strong action

Logical fallacy of appealing to popularity.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm

I make a few typos. Insult me for it.

Gladly. Dickhead. Moron. Loser. ****. Happy now?

Marx know knothing about global warming.

He was full of hot air, and so are you.

In fact, the former Communist
nations have horrendous polutions.

Then why are you pushing their politics upon everyone?

But still the US produces the most
greenhouse gasses.

So what?

An anology is wrong.

Only when you try to make one, twit.