1) I don't believe anything the media says.
2) I don't feel the need to believe something just because ExxonMobil claims it.
3) I can see for myself that the climate has not changed over the last 100 years in spite of the fact that fossil fuel consumption has increased many, many times over. My own independent observation of the facts overrules anything else.
dfadfafda wrote:
1) I don't believe anything the media says.
2) I don't feel the need to believe something just because ExxonMobil claims it.
3) I can see for myself that the climate has not changed over the last 100 years in spite of the fact that fossil fuel consumption has increased many, many times over. My own independent observation of the facts overrules anything else.
You're 100 years old? Congratulations. Keep it up.
dfadfafda wrote:
1) I don't believe anything the media says.
2) I don't feel the need to believe something just because ExxonMobil claims it.
3) I can see for myself that the climate has not changed over the last 100 years in spite of the fact that fossil fuel consumption has increased many, many times over. My own independent observation of the facts overrules anything else.
100 year old poster does not live at either one of the poles.
Look up the story of once-inhabited Easter Island and get back to us.
TheGreatPlantini wrote:
Many Republicans (in the USA) believe in climate change and think we should do something about it. Most elected Republicans don't.
This could be because oil/coal companies give huge amounts of money to Republican politicians but not to regular Republican people.
Or people like Warren Buffett give huge amounts to Democrat politicians to ensure that oil is transported on his railroads. I can play that game too, libtards.
Libtards unite! wrote:
TheGreatPlantini wrote:Many Republicans (in the USA) believe in climate change and think we should do something about it. Most elected Republicans don't.
This could be because oil/coal companies give huge amounts of money to Republican politicians but not to regular Republican people.
Or people like Warren Buffett give huge amounts to Democrat politicians to ensure that oil is transported on his railroads. I can play that game too, libtards.
You're not helping your cause by pointing out that people have money to make by ignoring the problem.
pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:
100 year old poster does not live at either one of the poles.
Look up the story of once-inhabited Easter Island and get back to us.
1. The South Pole ice is expanding every year.
2. Easter Island's population has GROWN throughout the Industrial Revolution.
But thank you for representing the left wing of the intelligence bell curve.
Not a fact wrote:
People Missing wrote:For vast majority of the age of the world conditions were not viable for human's to evolve.
False
Even during the small time humans have been around it has fluctuated much more than all the 'global warming' we will cause.
We will never know because global warming will kill us all.
Liberalism = a mental disorder wrote:
pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:100 year old poster does not live at either one of the poles.
Look up the story of once-inhabited Easter Island and get back to us.
1. The South Pole ice is expanding every year.
2. Easter Island's population has GROWN throughout the Industrial Revolution.
But thank you for representing the left wing of the intelligence bell curve.
Don't let facts get in the way.
Although our results did not fit with the accepted settlement date for Rapa Nui, they did match the chronology for deforestation that Orliac, Mann, and Mieth and Bork had worked out.You merely have to abandon the idea that a small or transient population endured for centuries. Instead, we posit that from the start the environmental impact was widespread.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/rethinking-the-fall-of-easter-island/3http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/noaa-report-arctic-ice-climate-changeQuick! Post another personal attack! That will fix everything.
pop_pop!_v2.1.1 wrote:
Liberalism = a mental disorder wrote:2. Easter Island's population has GROWN throughout the Industrial Revolution.
Don't let facts get in the way.
Quick! Post another personal attack! That will fix everything.
Rapa Nui's (Easter Island) demise was caused by their overuse use of primary resource. They used every tree on the Rapa Nui. Infighting began as a result, and they destroyed their society. There were only a few thousand emaciated people left when Europeans "discovered" the island.
dfadfafda wrote:
3) I can see for myself that the climate has not changed over the last 100 years in spite of the fact that fossil fuel consumption has increased many, many times over. My own independent observation of the facts overrules anything else.
Ugh, I know you're trolling, BUT, consider:
3-4 degrees warming is assumed to cause serious disruption. Take the weather from some "typical" year in the 80s. Now assume the exact same thing happened every day, except at each second it was exactly 4 degrees warmer. No one would notice without comparing monthly and annual averages to historical norms, right?
Massive glaciers in the Great Lakes region melted long, long before the ICE was invented. There was some major climate change going on back then.
No Way wrote:
Smoked a doob once wrote:Fact number one. 98% of computer models and prognosticators' predictions have been proven wrong. Climate science is the only area in"science" where you can be wrong with all your real world predictions, and still claim to be brilliant.
Fact number two: You can't back up the statement you just made.
Fact number three. The '98%' number above was made up on the spot.
Red squirrel wrote:
Massive glaciers in the Great Lakes region melted long, long before the ICE was invented. There was some major climate change going on back then.
This has to be possibly be one of the stupidest arguments so routinely bandied around by the deniers .. and that's a darn big deal, because they bandy about some pretty f**kin stupid arguments.
This one is like suggesting smoking doesn't cause cancer because people were dying of cancer for thousands of years before William Morris came along.
Kiju wrote:
Off balance wrote:No, even if you were to compare MSNBC to Fox, there is still no liberal equivalent to the constant whining and moaning on AM radio.
We didn't say constant whining and moaning. We said knee jerk reactions and echo chambers. How can your reading be that poor?
Ooh, you really got me. How about knee jerk whining and moaning in the reactionary echo chamber that is AM radio?
wtfunny wrote:
Red squirrel wrote:Massive glaciers in the Great Lakes region melted long, long before the ICE was invented. There was some major climate change going on back then.
This has to be possibly be one of the stupidest arguments so routinely bandied around by the deniers .. and that's a darn big deal, because they bandy about some pretty f**kin stupid arguments.
This one is like suggesting smoking doesn't cause cancer because people were dying of cancer for thousands of years before William Morris came along.
It's not like that at all. The fact that you don't see the difference is "the big deal." Youre looking at that example backwards.
Smoking causing cancer in the lungs (direct inhalation from a cigarette to the lungs) is a faaaaaaar more simple (exponentially) system to diagnose than the constantly changing climate on planet Earth. But yes, in your example, since "people have been dying for thousands of years", we would acknowledge that humans smoking isn't the main cause of cancer, yes? That is the difference that you fanatics won't acknowledge. Thank you for proving my point.
Anyway, you don't feel that a large portion of the northern hemisphere being covered in ice/glaciers, which then melted down to just the North Pole long before the ICE was even invented, isn't relevant? You don't think showing receding glaciers in GW propaganda videos is a touch disingenuous? Just a tad? That literally happened for thousands of years on a much, much larger scale... It continues to happen... And now we're to blame (which of course you Libs twist into just "Conservatives are to blame")?
Grow up, man.
I don't understand why we can't tax people for the CO2 they emit? Every breath be like 1 cent. No biggie. Should solve the problem pretty quick
Red squirrel wrote:
It's not like that at all. The fact that you don't see the difference is "the big deal." Youre looking at that example backwards.
Smoking causing cancer in the lungs (direct inhalation from a cigarette to the lungs) is a faaaaaaar more simple (exponentially) system to diagnose than the constantly changing climate on planet Earth. But yes, in your example, since "people have been dying for thousands of years", we would acknowledge that humans smoking isn't the main cause of cancer, yes? That is the difference that you fanatics won't acknowledge. Thank you for proving my point.
Anyway, you don't feel that a large portion of the northern hemisphere being covered in ice/glaciers, which then melted down to just the North Pole long before the ICE was even invented, isn't relevant? You don't think showing receding glaciers in GW propaganda videos is a touch disingenuous? Just a tad? That literally happened for thousands of years on a much, much larger scale... It continues to happen... And now we're to blame (which of course you Libs twist into just "Conservatives are to blame")?
Grow up, man.
Take a physics class.
Off Balance wrote:
Kiju wrote:We didn't say constant whining and moaning. We said knee jerk reactions and echo chambers. How can your reading be that poor?
Ooh, you really got me. How about knee jerk whining and moaning in the reactionary echo chamber that is AM radio?
I'm not trying to "get you". For some reason you can't read and respond with relevant statements. Once again, we did say anything about whining and moaning. We also didn't say anything about AM radio.
What The F? wrote:
Take a physics class.
What does taking a physics class have to do with this? And why would any physics class be ok? Shouldn't it be a physics class relavent to why we are talking about? Some of you post one really unthoughtful things.
Kiju wrote:
What The F? wrote:Take a physics class.
What does taking a physics class have to do with this? And why would any physics class be ok? Shouldn't it be a physics class relavent to why we are talking about? Some of you post one really unthoughtful things.
In the case of the poster I was responding to, taking ANY physics class should be helpful.