- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 63,577
- Reaction score
- 28,946
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Over a decade passes...
People are still scared of global warming.
Over a decade passes...
People are still scared of global warming.
Some people just like being scared about something or other . I just dont like paying through the nose for thier fears
That's because the science is even stronger after the last decade outside the Fox News bubble.
You mean besides what has happened over the last ten years that basically makes you all look like a bunch of idiots. :lamo
What's happened in conservative media, you mean.
In the world of peer reviewed research, its pretty much settled.
:lamo I love that one. Get back to me when you can actually explain the last decade without excuses. I'll wait.
You mean the hottest decade ever recorded?
Global warming denial: Debunking misleading climate change claims by David Rose.
Biased crap is always crap.
Ah, yes. When data shows the opposite of what you want to believe, you dismiss it as 'crap'.
Must be easy to live in your world, where you just ignore anything that doesn't for your beliefs.
Given the minute that elapsed between my post and your response, I can see that prejudging things without looking at them also must make life easier.
Source..Links in source...Decision made.
When people are running around trying to get the government to restrict the rights of people over a certain issue I'm not that inclined to care what they have to say about it.
Ah. So easy.
Don't like the idea. It might cause inconvenience. Dismiss it out of hand!
We often call that lazy where I come from. But we are an independent, self-reliant folks.
So you support using government to resolve a problem that has nothing at all to do with your rights and you claim to be self-reliant? Exactly how does that work?
More importantly, how can you deny a problem exists because you can't accept the only logical solution?
Ah, yes. When data shows the opposite of what you want to believe, you dismiss it as 'crap'.
Must be easy to live in your world, where you just ignore anything that doesn't for your beliefs.
Given the minute that elapsed between my post and your response, I can see that prejudging things without looking at them also must make life easier.
You have no clue what the data shows. You've picked a side (the cult in this case) and you're sticking to it. Everything else doesn't fit your predjudice and thus you ignore. Educate yourself. Examine the stuff you've chosen to agree with with the same fervor you reflexively reject contrarian views.
And for goodness sake, at least consider studying plate tectonics.
Just got an email. It's a good thing.
Watch the right wingnuts go crazy next week. Should be entertaining.
/////////////////:/://///////////////
Threegoofs, this is huge news:
President Obama is set to announce his plan this week to address the growing threat of climate change.
We'll know more specifics on Tuesday, but it's expected he'll offer a bold, national approach to reducing carbon pollution -- and lay out a vision to lead global efforts to fight climate change.
The powerful, well-financed forces who still deny the science behind climate change aren't going to like this -- and they'll be fighting this progress every step of the way. In fact, before he's even seen the plan, House Speaker John Boehner is calling it "absolutely crazy."
That's why President Obama is calling on all of us -- anyone who believes that climate change is a threat -- to join him in taking action right now.
Thanks for helping hold climate deniers accountable -- join the President's call and add your name today:
http://my.barackobama.com/Stand-Up-Against-Climate-Change
Thanks -- more on this soon.
Jon
Jon Carson
Executive Director
Organizing for Action
----------------
So taxing people is going to stop a natural cycle how?
How do you explain the fact that my 'cult' includes virtually every important scientific organization on the planet and the vast majority of the scientists who study the issue?
Easy and you would see it if you hadn't just chosen a position from the marketing and rode with the crowd thereafter. First, those orgs decide their position statements at the board level. A handful of people (some not even scientists, and especially not climate scientists) decide endorsements. They do so for a variety of reasons, all non-scientific.
Second, of course the folks who are climate scientists are going to agree the condition exists - their field of study exists BECAUSE some are convinced the problem exists. Climatology is a modern field of study created specifically to study climate change, and specifically AGW.
Third is the eternal truism - follow the money.
Easy and you would see it if you hadn't just chosen a position from the marketing and rode with the crowd thereafter. First, those orgs decide their position statements at the board level. A handful of people (some not even scientists, and especially not climate scientists) decide endorsements. They do so for a variety of reasons, all non-scientific.
Third is the eternal truism - follow the money.
You just made that up.
Scientific organizations (AAAS, etc) are made up of only scientists, and position statements are issued by scientists.
And I agree, follow the money. Because the amount that has been poured into combating the science is huge. The fossil fuel industries have a lot of profit to protect.
.
Heh, you do understand the oil companies have all invested big money in the pro-AGM side as well, right? There's a reason for that, they follow the potential profit. They know, no matter what their oil is going to sell, and for a huge profit. In fact they know the the more it's use is restricted - the more profit they make. Catch a clue.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?