Jump to content
Posted 03 January 2009 - 04:12 PM
You don't think we can. Okay. And your evidence for your disagreement with climate change consist of partisan blogs and platitudes.
You completely ignore the U.S. government's own findings and regulations.
And your primary concern is business being destroyed. So man, to paraphrase Louis Armstrong, if you don't know, then nobody can tell you.
Posted 03 January 2009 - 05:03 PM
Posted 03 January 2009 - 07:31 PM
I'm sorry but didn't the Global Warming crowed start calling it Global Climate Change? I wonder why they felt like they had to do that???
Posted 04 January 2009 - 12:02 AM
Yeah, our government does everything so well...Come on man. there are hundreds of scientists around the world disputing man-made global warming...I've posted a ton of stuff from different sources and perspectives.
Again, I'm looking for proof...not some dogmatic, al gore, anti-business agenda driven drivel. All the little enviro wackos should stop driving vehicles and using their air conditioners while blogging on their electric powered laptops. The left is all about " DON'T TELL ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE" While they persist in telling the rest of the world how to live theirs.
Posted 04 January 2009 - 09:05 AM
Actually, the U.S. Government does a lot well. That's one reason why we're the best country in the world. Sure, they screw up (bailouts anyone?), but that doesn't mean our entire government can just be dismissed as idiotic. If the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (led by a Republican administration no less) recognizes "global climate change" as a legitimate threat to our safety, and is taking steps to fight it, then I say it is a serious problem.
You keep saying you're looking for proof, yet I doubt that. You're only interested in views that agree with yours. I mean, you're debunking the EPA's proven scientific evidence with a sarcastic comment meant to highlight the incompetence of our government.
Sure, I can see how there can be debates about the degree to which man has harmed the environment. And there are probably serious debates about the timetable for which we have to fix this problem. But to deny that man-made global climate change and/or global warming exists, and to claim that pumping chemicals into the atmosphere has no harmful impact (just like pumping harmful chemicals into our own bodies doesn't hurt us, right?), is just plain ignorant.
Posted 04 January 2009 - 09:09 AM
Posted 04 January 2009 - 10:57 AM
Posted 05 January 2009 - 02:55 PM
My big problem is that the same people who take this stuff that serious, and believe strongly that MOTHER EARTH is going to wipe us all out, are the same people who downgrade the threat of HUMANS (terrorists) to our global security.
Enviro = biggest threat...Terrorists = propaganda! I think the priorities are a bit askew.
Agree we need to get off fossil fuel, but not until it's as cost effiecient as oil.
I can't afford 50K electric cars whose batteries need to be replaced every 4 years at another 10K. Our technology isn't there yet. Hybrids may be the best short/long term solution.
Posted 05 January 2009 - 03:20 PM
Posted 21 January 2009 - 11:12 AM
Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.
Posted 21 January 2009 - 11:37 AM
Posted 21 January 2009 - 11:43 AM
Posted 21 January 2009 - 11:59 AM
Posted 21 January 2009 - 12:06 PM
Anyone can argue a non 100 percent agreement rate. 80-90 percent consensus, when including oil company "scientists" is quite good. With that percentage, the headline is pretty accurate.