Comments by "Simon Harris" (@simonharris4873) on "Forbes Breaking News" channel.

  1.  @KlausBarbi-qe6ix  And selling those secrets to Australian businessmen. Hmmmm.
    6
  2. You might wonna try opening your eyes and taking your fingers out of your ears. There's plenty of proof for those who aren't opposed to accept it.
    6
  3.  @jeremyreevessicg2218  Pointing out spelling errors for $200 What people do when they have no valid points.
    4
  4. You're right, Trump thought there would never be a backlash. He was wrong.
    3
  5. @Carl Eddison  No, an ice age is defined as a period where water that falls from the sky does not return to the oceans because it's frozen. We are not in an ice age.
    3
  6. Democrats are at least smart enough to know that an increase from 300 too 400 PPM over such a short time is not a small increase, as LaMalfa describes it, that's a massive increase.
    2
  7. LOL. As if there would be a doctor in that house.
    2
  8. If Trump really put America first, he wouldn't have acted like such a cry baby when America fired him in 2020.
    2
  9.  @painlesstragedy  Yes, but republicans think they get a free pass because the turn up to a building every Sunday and sing some god-awful songs. They'll be the first to go.
    2
  10. Either your book is wrong, or you're lying. You're obvious a science denier, so I'll go with the latter.
    2
  11. @P. Alex  Marginally? You must be kidding. It was stable at 275 PPM for many 1000s of years, then rose to over 400 PPM since the start of the industrial age. That's a 50 percent increase. That's not "marginal", it's "substantial".
    2
  12.  @Kakarot64.  That offset statement is only true if you assume there is zero carbon footprint in the production of ICE cars, which makes it grossly misleading.
    2
  13.  @carleddison7479  Yes, and their definition requires an increase in alpine glaciers. Alpine glaciers are decreasing, so no, we're not in an ice age.
    2
  14. @Cody Ramos  No, human activity has caused an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 50 percent. Where in earth do you get those numbers from? Tony Heller?
    2
  15.  @phantomJK  No, a very small number of scientists said that was one possible outcome. Today, a very large number of climate scientists are saying climate change is a given. Can you see the difference?
    2
  16.  @finfrog3237  Please be more specific. What is it you think the government agencies and pharmaceutical companies claim they do?
    2
  17. How stoopid would you have to be to think that being charged with a crime is a good thing when you're running for president?
    1
  18. She could go on and on and on? Well I find that hard to believe.
    1
  19. "Climate alarmism" - Good to see our politicians keeping an open mind.
    1
  20. Tucker just cost them $787m with his reporting of lies.
    1
  21. Notice how none of the examples she gives contain any actual threats? "Considering our options" is not a threat.
    1
  22. Can someone tell this guy the taxation does not equal punishment?
    1
  23.  @CrunchyFeet  Grow u, child.
    1
  24.  @pistonburner6448  One that you're intelligent to believe? Probably not.
    1
  25. @MJ T  Plant growth was never a problem during the many 1000s of years when we were at 275 PPM.
    1
  26. You're right, people shouldn't believe the election was stolen just because Trump tells them to.
    1
  27.  @btaos1625  Has he? He was wrong about CV19. He was wrong about winning the 2020 election. He was wrong about the election being stolen. Those are 3 of the most important, and he was wing on every occasion.
    1
  28. @Ecy Smith  I dunno about Orwell, but this woman certainly isn't. Keeps talking about threats but can't provide a single example.
    1
  29. Oh the irony of Rand Paul accusing anyone else of being dishonest.
    1
  30. Yeah, ignoring the problem and worrying about the cost of doing that later, that's a much better idea. What could go wrong with that? It's funny how the people who are telling us today that the problem is too expensive to resolve are the some ones who were telling us years ago that there was no problem. Years ago, when it would have cost much less.
    1
  31. LlAR LlAR, PANTS ON FIRE!!!
    1
  32.  @evilangel8194  "I'm not a scientist" - That's why you're wrong.
    1
  33.  lesliethatsmeINFJ  That's makes as much sense as saying people who want to prevent floods and drownings want to erase water. None what-so-ever.
    1
  34.  @randywl8925  So you're saying you're not an adult? That would explain all your childish posts.
    1
  35. Does the guy who sold nuclear secrets to an Australian businessman, who incited a riot on Jan 6, who stole God only knows how many classified documents, and who fraudulently lied about the value of his properties, honestly expect any rational person to believe he "didn' do nuffin'"?
    1
  36. @SABRETOOTH1679  Brandon; every time I hear that, it reminds me how much republicans act like children.
    1
  37.  @johnbonner5284  Maybe not first, but I'd be ahead of any republicans, that's for sure.
    1
  38.  @cliff8417  Ok Flat Earther, whatever you say.
    1
  39. LOL at Green calling anyone a liar. Pot, kettle, etc.
    1
  40. The question is irrelevant. If it were plutonium in drinking water, 400 PPM would be so obviously unacceptable. An increase from 300 to 400 PPM is not a small increase, that's a massive increase. I really wish republicans would stop spreading disinformation like that.
    1
  41.  @pistonburner6448  So what? They're politicians, not scientists. The entire video is meaningless.
    1
  42.  @pistonburner6448  I agree, judging a panel like this based on their detailed knowledge of the chemical composition of the atmosphere is not a valid argument. It's as pointless as judging a bus driver's ability to drive a bus based on his knowledge of the chemical composition of the fuel the bus runs on; entirely pointless.
    1
  43. @Pistonburner  LOL. You can't even explain why this panel needs to know the atmospheric makeup. Fact, they don't. All they need to know is that we produce far too much carbon, and need to reduce it, which is a fact, verified by people who do know what the atmospheric CO2 content is.
    1
  44.  @stevestephens8969  Evidence for what?
    1
  45.  @Glenrok  Nature overall CO2 output is zero. It sinks a much CO2 as it sources.
    1
  46.  @Glenrok  What do you think I meant by the term "overall"? It seems like we're saying that same thing, yet you're still telling me I'm wrong.
    1
  47.  @Glenrok  There's nothing to correct. I said overall zero, you said net zero. They mean the same thing.
    1
  48.  @danielgriff2659  The contradictions in the bible disprove God.
    1
  49.  @danielgriff2659  You're gonna have to provide more details sonny, I'm not stretching anything. What do you think I'm stretching, and why? Without that, your comment is meaningless.
    1
  50.  @peterjones7562  4/10000 not 4/1000, 4 ten thousandths, not 4 thousandths.
    1