Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

More global warming goodies


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
69 replies to this topic

#25 Htar

Htar

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,599
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 28 December 2008 - 06:50 PM

^ NICE! conservatives are so delusional they look past accumulated scientific knowledge to believe a tabloid writer whose last claim was that asbestos is just talcum powder!


Here, start your reading assignment with this nugget. I reposted it for you.

http://epw.senate.go...f0-274616db87e6

#26 MyDrunkardNC

MyDrunkardNC

    Nervous Farter

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 572
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 31 December 2008 - 12:18 AM

Here, start your reading assignment with this nugget. I reposted it for you.

http://epw.senate.go...f0-274616db87e6


Please, do not rely on Marc Morano as the source for any "education" about this issue . . . If everyone so easily dismisses Gore's research as partisan, then why believe this hack who oil companies used to pay to write articles denying global warming?

A good place to learn more about global warming -- or "climate change" -- would be the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's website, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/. As you can learn from our very own government, the science behind man-made "climate change" is strong. And dates back to the 1800s. :thumbsup:

#27 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,860
  • Reputation: 2,553
SUPPORTER

Posted 31 December 2008 - 08:40 AM

Htar would rather listen to the oil companies. He's also thankful that the tobacco companies had their own people to counter the evil liberal media that was trying to tell you smoking was bad, when Ronald Reagan himself was telling you that it was relaxing and tasty!

#28 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • Joined: 12-December 08
  • posts: 9,323
  • Reputation: 1,504
SUPPORTER

Posted 31 December 2008 - 11:33 AM

I would assume that climate change has been going on long before 1900, about the time that humans came up with the internal combustion engine...


But lets not use logic........

#29 Htar

Htar

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,599
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 31 December 2008 - 12:43 PM

Htar would rather listen to the oil companies. He's also thankful that the tobacco companies had their own people to counter the evil liberal media that was trying to tell you smoking was bad, when Ronald Reagan himself was telling you that it was relaxing and tasty!



Obama would probably agree.

#30 Htar

Htar

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,599
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 31 December 2008 - 12:48 PM

Please, do not rely on Marc Morano as the source for any "education" about this issue . . . If everyone so easily dismisses Gore's research as partisan, then why believe this hack who oil companies used to pay to write articles denying global warming?

A good place to learn more about global warming -- or "climate change" -- would be the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's website, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/. As you can learn from our very own government, the science behind man-made "climate change" is strong. And dates back to the 1800s. :thumbsup:


The earth ( a think way bigger than us) and the Sun (which is the biggest factor on our weather) do much more, and are capable of way more than us humans. On a local level, we definitely can affect a negative change in our environment, but globally...I don't think we can.

The entire enviro movement is nothing more than a psuedo religion for some, and a way to destroy business for others.

#31 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,860
  • Reputation: 2,553
SUPPORTER

Posted 31 December 2008 - 12:59 PM

[/B]

Obama would probably agree.


So you are saying the evil liberal media is incapable of influencing even an evil liberal? Does that mean Hannity and O Reilly can chill out now?

#32 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,801
  • Reputation: 548
HUDDLER

Posted 31 December 2008 - 01:07 PM

The earth ( a think way bigger than us) and the Sun (which is the biggest factor on our weather) do much more, and are capable of way more than us humans. On a local level, we definitely can affect a negative change in our environment, but globally...I don't think we can.

The entire enviro movement is nothing more than a psuedo religion for some, and a way to destroy business for others.


Who are you to make that assumption though? Of course there are some scientists that agree, but I'd be willing to bet far more disagree. You seem to only side with those that support your political views when this is not a political issue. Gore made a huge blunder by giving people a reason to inject liberal/conservative arguments into an issue that doesn't warrant it.

The bottom line is that fossil fuels are dirty and not sustainable. As advanced as human technology has come, everything is still being powered by dead plants. New energy sources are needed and if climate change can be a force by which that happens, then I'll support it 100%.

#33 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,790
  • Reputation: 2,492
Moderators

Posted 31 December 2008 - 01:22 PM

Uh oh. Htar's figured out the Sun creates heat. He's finally figured out "science."

He and others are using the old tricks that tobacco companies used back in the 20th century. Find a few scientific and medical naysayers and then say, "Look! They can't agree on anything! It's all bogus!"

The conservative Christian movement does the exact same thing with evolution.

Edited by Delhommey, 31 December 2008 - 01:25 PM.


#34 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • Joined: 12-December 08
  • posts: 9,323
  • Reputation: 1,504
SUPPORTER

Posted 31 December 2008 - 01:22 PM

Who are you to make that assumption though? Of course there are some scientists that agree, but I'd be willing to bet far more disagree. You seem to only side with those that support your political views when this is not a political issue. Gore made a huge blunder by giving people a reason to inject liberal/conservative arguments into an issue that doesn't warrant it.

The bottom line is that fossil fuels are dirty and not sustainable. As advanced as human technology has come, everything is still being powered by dead plants. New energy sources are needed and if climate change can be a force by which that happens, then I'll support it 100%.


Do you think that politics/government should be on the forefront of that movement?

#35 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,801
  • Reputation: 548
HUDDLER

Posted 31 December 2008 - 01:37 PM

Do you think that politics/government should be on the forefront of that movement?


Good question. I generally think government should not be involved if possible, but I'm honestly not sure if this can. I think the government should heavily support r&d for a energy source that can be as profitable as oil.

I don't think it should have this liberal/conservative divide though and I don't get why it is.

#36 Carolina Husker

Carolina Husker

    I hate football

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 10,538
  • Reputation: 394
HUDDLER

Posted 31 December 2008 - 05:21 PM

http://epw.senate.go...f0-274616db87e6


If you don't think what we do as humans has any effect on the environment, go run your car in your garage for a few hours with the door closed and tell us how you feel afterwards.