New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: The Cornered Rats of Climate Change
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://finance.townhall.com/columni ... s_of_climate_change/page/full/
Published: May 2, 2012
Author: Marita Noon
Post Date: 2012-05-02 01:11:46 by Mad Dog
Keywords: BUSTED, the watermelons are, FREAKING out
Views: 24202
Comments: 66
Public confidence in scientific “consensus” regarding the theory of manmade climate change is threatening the believing scientists’ confidence. While polls show that taking action to fight climate change is off the radar of most Americans, the behavior of the theory’s advocates is even more telling. They are behaving like "cornered rats"—taking extreme actions to protect their turf. On February 23, European Union officials are expected to vote on a draft law would assign a higher carbon-emissions value to bitumen-derived fuels, compared to more conventional crudes. The European Commission has proposed a Fuel Quality Directive that, if passed, will exclude fuel derived from Canada’s oil sands from European use. The premise is that the production of the oil in question produces more carbon emissions than conventional oil. While virtually none of the bitumen-derived fuels are currently shipped to Europe, supporters of the manmade climate change viewpoint have been using the pending vote in attempt to get the issue back on the public’s horizon. On February 21, two days before the scheduled vote, a half-page ad was placed in the Financial Times. The ad’s large print states: “Eight Nobel Peace Laureates—including Archbishop Desmond Tutu—want to keep dirty oil out of Europe. Support the European Commission’s Fuel Quality Directive.” The expensive ad then features a letter that the Nobel Laureates sent to “European Heads of State” in which they say, among other things: “Tar sands development is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, and threatens the health of the planet. As the tar sands have contributed to rising emissions, Canada recently stepped away from the Kyoto Protocol. Europe must not follow in Canada’s footsteps.” Therein lies the true purpose of the ad. The original letter is on stationary from the “Nobel Women’s Initiative” whose olive-branch logo includes this statement: “advocating for peace, justice, and equality.” The letterhead lists Laureates from many developing and/or under-developed countries. As I have previously posited, the Europeans’ support for the wealth-transferring Kyoto Protocol is that it would “equalize” energy costs between resource-rich North America and dependent Europe. The Kyoto Protocol would penalize the “wealthy” countries and financially reward the under- developed. The expensive ad seems to have been purchased out of fear that the “equalizing” Kyoto Protocol may be dropped by Europe—as it has been by Canada. It is, additionally, interesting to note that the Laureates mentioned in the ad are not Laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology, medicine, or even economic sciences—who might have some unique insight toward climate issues. They are Nobel “Peace” Laureates. The day before the Financial Times carried the “keep dirty oil out of Europe” ad, a story broke citing water scientist and climate analyst Peter Gleick’s admission that his “judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts—often anonymous, well-funded and coordinated—to attack climate science.” He apologized for his hoax that “tricked” The Heartland Institute into releasing confidential documents. Gleick, who has been active in defending the manmade climate change view, used a false name in his ruse. He acknowledges that his actions were the result of “a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics.” A UK Guardian news report about Gleick’s admission stated that his behavior “was seen by some as crossing a new line in the increasingly vitriolic debate.” In the New York Times, journalist Andrew Revkin describes what Gleick did as “an act that leaves his reputation in ruins.” What would cause these two well-reputed sources to go to such extremes—expensive advertising and reputation-ruining acts—to defend their manmade climate change positions? The rat is cornered. Anyone who follows the climate change debate knows that the Heartland Institute gives voice to scientists who do not ascribe to the theory of human-caused climate change. Their purpose is well known, and their strategies should not be a surprise. True scientists would welcome the debate—not seek to squash it. Gleick’s actions in tricking the Heartland Institute were aimed at discrediting it. If the science on the warmer’s side were solid, they wouldn’t need to resort to underhanded actions. But as more evidence, that began with the “Climategate” e-mails, comes out that shows that dissenters were silenced and that the predictions are being proven false, the scared promoters are taking extreme actions to protect their turf. While Gleick’s ruse supposedly exposed Heartland’s “skeptic” funding, their budget is a drop in the bucket compared to the massive amounts of money spent in support of the manmade climate change position. Years of steady funding in support of manmade climate change is being threatened. The cornered rats are taking extreme actions to protect their investment.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-26) not displayed.
.
.
.
#27. To: We The People (#22)
Yep, precession is the earth's 26,000 year cycle that I mentioned. I didn't mention the variation in the earth's orbital shape, which goes through a complete cycle every 413,000 years. There are huge astronomical variations at work here. Anything who thinks that banning SUVs is going to make any difference against these astronomical variations is just foolish.
The liberal mind is a crazy house wall paper of endless epicycles - subjective view points ! Einstein confessed ... unable to come up with a unified theory --- that relativity was a hoax !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
They really are fun to watch, as long as they have no power. IMO libTURDISM is best represented by that youTUBE of some african guy giving a chimp a fully automatic AK. THEN the fun really starts! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More CO2 means more warming. We have released large amounts of CO2 in the industrial age. Those are all well established facts.
You are a shallow, superficial, ignorant FOOL and a TOOL of tyrants. All you have is your POSE, FOOL. You can't even use grade school LOGIC. What is your highest level of formal edujumacation boy? Do they let you use anything but a big spoon at meals, (for your own safety of course)?
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
LOL! Let's try it this way. What percentage of ALL so called "greehouse gases" is CO2? What percentage of that total of CO2 is due to MANKIND? What is the historical trend of the production of CO2 due to MANKIND? I'd say that I'd wait for a SCIENTIFIC answer to those questions skunky, but WE have been waiting for over FOUR decades for an answer so far. So ... feel free to tell us ALL the SCIENTIFIC answers anytime genius. LMAO!!!
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
You are missing the entire point. The earth's climate has changed dramatically, numerous times in the past. Regardless of what humans do, the climate is going to change again. When the next asteroid slams into us, or when the super volcano under Wyoming erupts the next time, or when the 413,000 year orbital period puts us in a bad climate period, or when the 26,000 year rotational wobble changes the environment once again... IT WON'T MATTER WHETHER YOU ARE DRIVING A FORD EXPLORER OR A NISSAN LEAF. It won't matter at all. I am not going to stand by and let these socialist watermelon tyrants destroy our freedoms for nothing. That's the bottom line.
Fine. What is the contribution of CO2 to the global warming (which now doesn't exist)? Let's look at a picture: In other words, the CO2 issue is MOOT. REALLY? The Earth's orbital cycles trigger the initial warming (starting approximately 19,000 years ago), which is first reflected in the the Arctic. This Arctic warming caused large amounts of ice to melt, causing large amounts of fresh water to flood into the oceans. This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic Ocean circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres. The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. The warming Southern Ocean then released CO2 into the atmosphere starting around 17,500 years ago, which in turn caused the entire planet to warm via the increased greenhouse effect. LOL. You make it too easy. :)
LoonyMing: I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. 'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?' —Stephen Fry
. Well said and right F'ing on.
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
I SO love THAT! It's 100% OLD SCHOOL! It's so F'ing RIGHT ON! Even children USED to KNOW that, "sticks and stone may break my bones, BUT words can NEVER hurt me." You used to get a reason to whine if you whined for no reason. Btw eric, as I'm sure that you know, this man made glowbull climate cooling/warming/change mouth breather doesn't give a chit about actual FACTS or SCIENCE. "He" just wants to belong. "He" just wants to roll with "the consensus". They always seek the the comfort of the HERD. ALWAYS.
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
If its man and we can do something about it and move to renewable resources and in the process guarantee our energy future then why not do it?
No what matter what percentage of the atmosphere since it is a greenhouse gas then a large increase WILL have an effect on the climate period. In other words, CO2 LAGS temperature changes, so your conclusions are completely wrong. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/04/05/3471948.htm Carbon dioxide was the big driver that ended the last Ice Age, according to a new study of ice core data from around the world. About 10,000-20,000 years ago, Earth started to emerge from a quarter million years of deep freeze as the terrestrial ice sheet rolled back and warmer temperatures prevailed. What caused the end of this age, known as the Pleistocene, has long been debated. Until now, the main evidence has come from ice cores drilled in Antarctica whose air bubbles are a tiny time capsule of our climate past. Traces of CO2 in Antarctic ice show that carbon concentrations in the atmosphere rose after temperatures were on the rise. This timing has been used by sceptics as proof that man-made carbon gases either do not cause global warming or at least do not make it as bad as mainstream scientists say. But the new study, published in Nature , indicates that the Antarctic record doesn't reflect global temperature rise. The study is based on 80 ice cores and sedimentary samples taken from Greenland, lake bottoms and sea floors on every continent. The data suggests that while changes in CO2 concentration did not trigger deglaciation, they were either synchronous with, or led global warming during the various steps of deglaciation. "Putting all of these records together into a reconstruction of global temperatures shows a beautiful correlation with rising CO2 at the end of the Ice Age," says lead author Dr Jeremy Shakun of Harvard University.
Big deal. The question is whether the effect is significant. Since the answer is most definitely "no," your argument is still moot. Thanks for playing, "cornered rat."
LoonyMing: I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. 'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?' —Stephen Fry
If renewable energy was economically viable, then absolutely. Today, they are not economically viable. Instead of panicking and turning everything over to a bunch of central planners, who will only make things worse, need to let the market decide.
If its man It isn't. and we can do something about it We can't. and move to renewable resources LOL! and in the process guarantee our energy future then why not do it? Man, you've got it bad.
That's is a scientific question and the evidence points to the fact that it is significant.
The study is based on 80 ice cores and sedimentary samples taken from Greenland, lake bottoms and sea floors on every continent. The data suggests that while changes in CO2 concentration did not trigger deglaciation, they were either synchronous with, or led global warming during the various steps of deglaciation. Did you forget this part?
Got the evidence? Show it....
The study is based on 80 ice cores and sedimentary samples taken from Greenland, lake bottoms and sea floors on every continent. The data suggests that while changes in CO2 concentration did not trigger deglaciation, they were either synchronous with, or led global warming during the various steps of deglaciation. Did you forget this part? Did you even read that part? If you did, are you sure you want to use that to bolster your argument?
Really? You have hard, repeatable, empirical evidence which establishes a significant correlation? That is, you can PROVE that man-made CO2 is the cause of global warming? You also have hard, repeatable, empirical evidence that establishes a significant effect on temperatures, instead of CO2 levels actually being a result of temperature variation? Provide the raw data, as well as your methology for establishing that causality. Include all assumptions, null-hypotheses and statistical analyses used, as well as justifications for the different approaches. Also, be sure to include any multiple-regression analyses which would factor for water vapor and its effect on the results. In other words, you proclaim that "the evidence points to the fact that it is significant." My answer is simple: Post your "research" so that I can verify your "evidence."
LoonyMing: I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. 'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?' —Stephen Fry
Exactly what I said in the post above. But I want more. I don't want the self-serving pronouncements from global-warming "scientists" (who must make such pronouncements to keep getting funding)... I want ALL the raw data, ALL the assumptions, ALL the calculations and assumptions they made... And then I'll run the stats for myself, and we'll see what we see.
LoonyMing: I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. 'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?' —Stephen Fry
LOL! It's what dullards are told by government to believe. And they believe that until government tells them to believe something different. Then they believe that, until..... well, you get the point.
Since that is how we utilize and practice science it seems a reasonable request.
Got the evidence? Show it.... You mean objective, repeatable, public, transparent, valid, non-cherry picked, non-falsified, non made up out of whole cloth to get the results they want"proof" "proof"? No they most certainly DON'T have THAT, you flat earth DOUBTER! How DARE you question the CONSENSUS of our betters? Sniff ... Peasants. /S
Spoiled, stupid and ignorant, brain dead phuckwads, libTURD fools, tools, and idiots, are the real sickness; the messiah "king" obammy and his regime are only the symptoms.
Send it to me too, I need something to wipe my ass with!!!!
"If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you're not a racist, you'll need to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not an idiot."
lol Dang Mad Dog. I do admire your prose. : )))
What percentage of that total of CO2 is due to MANKIND? Why is it that these people always conveniently forget that if they do manage to get rid of as much CO2 as they want to they will probably have killed themselves and everybody else on this planet?????? I have a better idea, they just need to go jump off a cliff and put themselves our of our misery!!!!
"If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you're not a racist, you'll need to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not an idiot."
The one thing that hasn't been brought up is whether global warming is actually a bad thing. It is not. Life likes the warm weather. There is 10 times more bio-diversity at the equator than there is at the 45 parallel (the U.S. Canada border). Some warming would be good for life. It would be very good for Canada and Russia.
It is not. Life likes the warm weather. They don't seem to remember that when we have warm periods (Mother Nature having a hot flash) it enables crops to grow better which has caused/supported times of good population growth in man's history..... And conversely when the climate grows cold crops don't grow very well and man dies off.... Truthfully I think the Leftards prefer the later because they think they will be able to pick and choose who lives or dies......
"If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you're not a racist, you'll need to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not an idiot."
If renewable energy was economically viable, then absolutely. Today, they are not economically viable. Instead of panicking and turning everything over to a bunch of central planners, who will only make things worse, need to let the market decide. To my knowledge they still haven't figured out a way to get a 747 off the ground using wind or solar power!!!!! So until that happens the global warming loonies can just go "piss in the wind"!!!
"If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you're not a racist, you'll need to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not an idiot."
We get about 45% of our electricity from coal. Do you know what would happen if we replaced coal with wind and solar? We'd turn into a third world country with constant brown outs. Why? Because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow in a particular location. Solar and wind might have uses in splitting hydrogen from water, which can be stored, transported, and used at any time. But you can't put solar and wind directly on to the electrical grid in large volumes without dire consequences.
The Sixth Extinction thanx you and all you'r doin'....;} Not a word about the ice free Arctic. Like it happens all the time. Sure will be warm today. Lots of fungus. Lots of mold....
I completely agree. Unfortunately, history has shown that socialists do get to choose who lives or dies when they assume power. See Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot for evidence... We can't allow that again.
Do you know what would happen if we replaced coal with wind and solar? We'd turn into a third world country with constant brown outs. Even as we speak the regime is putting into place more regulations that will kill the coal fired power plants in this country, so the brownouts aren't as far off as some people think...... And the idiot Leftards have the audacity to call themselves Progressives when the truth is all they want to do is be Regressives!!!!!!!!!!
"If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you're not a racist, you'll need to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not an idiot."
CZ: Send it to me too... Hmmm... NewsDummy is strangely quiet about providing the data... Perhaps it's because he's just talking shit as usual? Thanks for playing, NewsDummy. CHECK-mate! 8^)
LoonyMing: I brandish my ignorance like a crucifix at vampires. 'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?' —Stephen Fry
Unfortunately, history has shown that socialists do get to choose who lives or dies when they assume power. See Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot for evidence... We can't allow that again. I would say that all of the people buying guns at a record pace agree with us.... It's the only way to protect ourselves from them and they know it!!!!! That's why they are signing foreign gun limitation treaties and then issueing Executive Orders to bypass the authority of Congress and the Constitution. They "THINK" this will allow them to "TRY" to confiscate all the weapons in this country..... (All I can say is "Good luck Leftards", you're gonna need more than a few gay military personnel to pull this one off)!!!
"If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you're not a racist, you'll need to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not an idiot."
I'm beginning to think he's related to Skippy!!! What strikes me as being curious is their fixation on CO2 "supposedly" being so bad for the planet when the Methane they exude everytime they talk has a worse effect on the atmosphere than CO2!!!!!
"If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you're not a racist, you'll need to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not an idiot."
They are starting next year. Obama is going to shut down 8% of the coal-fired electrical plants in the U.S. That's a little less than 4% of the electrical generation capacity of the country. A huge number of the plants that will be shut down are in Texas. Who will Obama blame when the brown outs start? "greedy" utility companies and Rick Perry. Combine this with amnesty and Texas turns from red to blue overnight. The left is playing for keeps. The brain dead GOP isn't even in the game.
That's a little less than 4% of the electrical generation capacity of the country. A huge number of the plants that will be shut down are in Texas. Leftardism/Liberalism: The chickenschitt way to deal with life’s problems by creating solutions to problems that don’t exist, thereby creating a problem where none existed before and then having to find a solution to that one…
jwpegler even touched on it in his post when he stated, "The earth is not a perfect sphere, it doesn't rotate on its axis perfectly".
Iran’s main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention -- Major General Zeevi Farkash, head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate
#28. To: Mad Dog (#0)
#29. To: BorisY (#28)
The liberal mind is a crazy house wall paper of endless epicycles - subjective view points !
#30. To: jwpegler (#25)
(Edited)
#31. To: NewsJunky, jwpegler (#30)
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More CO2 means more warming. We have released large amounts of CO2 in the industrial age. Those are all well established facts.
#32. To: NewsJunky (#30)
#33. To: NewsJunky (#30)
(Edited)
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More CO2 means more warming. We have released large amounts of CO2 in the industrial age. Those are all well established facts.
Iran’s main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention -- Major General Zeevi Farkash, head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate
#34. To: NewsJunky (#30)
(Edited)
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
More CO2 means more warming.
A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that:
In other words, CO2 LAGS temperature changes, so your conclusions are completely wrong. 
We have released large amounts of CO2 in the industrial age. Those are all well established facts.
The only thing you have firmly established is that your head is firmly up your ass. 
The economy is wonderful!
Re-elect Obama, he'll pay your rent!
A chicken in every pot!
-Baghdad Bri-bri-
Translation: IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
#35. To: jwpegler (#33)
#36. To: Capitalist Eric (#34)
'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?' —Stephen Fry
#37. To: jwpegler (#33)
the bottom line
#38. To: Capitalist Eric (#34)
In other words, the CO2 issue is MOOT.
#39. To: NewsJunky (#38)
No what matter what percentage of the atmosphere since it is a greenhouse gas then a large increase WILL have an effect on the climate period.
The economy is wonderful!
Re-elect Obama, he'll pay your rent!
A chicken in every pot!
-Baghdad Bri-bri-
Translation: IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
#40. To: NewsJunky (#37)
If its man and we can do something about it and move to renewable resources and in the process guarantee our energy future then why not do it?
Iran’s main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention -- Major General Zeevi Farkash, head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate
#41. To: NewsJunky (#37)
#42. To: NewsJunky, Capitalist Eric (#38)
Traces of CO2 in Antarctic ice show that carbon concentrations in the atmosphere rose after temperatures were on the rise.
#43. To: Capitalist Eric (#39)
The question is whether the effect is significant.
#44. To: We The People (#42)
But the new study, published in Nature , indicates that the Antarctic record doesn't reflect global temperature rise.
#45. To: NewsJunky (#43)
and the evidence points to
#46. To: NewsJunky (#44)
But the new study, published in Nature , indicates that the Antarctic record doesn't reflect global temperature rise.
#47. To: NewsJunky (#43)
That's is a scientific question and the evidence points to the fact that it is significant.
The economy is wonderful!
Re-elect Obama, he'll pay your rent!
A chicken in every pot!
-Baghdad Bri-bri-
Translation: IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
#48. To: SJN (#45)
Got the evidence? Show it....
The economy is wonderful!
Re-elect Obama, he'll pay your rent!
A chicken in every pot!
-Baghdad Bri-bri-
Translation: IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
#49. To: Thunderbird (#24)
(Edited)
Lol..what the fuck is scientific consensus?
#50. To: Capitalist Eric (#48)
I want ALL the raw data, ALL the assumptions, ALL the calculations and assumptions they made... And then I'll run the stats for myself, and we'll see what we see.
#51. To: SJN, NewsJunky (#45)
and the evidence points to
#52. To: Capitalist Eric, NewsJunky (#48)
I want ALL the raw data, ALL the assumptions, ALL the calculations and assumptions they made... And then I'll run the stats for myself, and we'll see what we see.
#53. To: Mad Dog (#51)
#54. To: Mad Dog, jwpegler, NewsJunky (#32)
What percentage of ALL so called "greehouse gases" is CO2?
#55. To: CZ82 (#54)
Iran’s main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention -- Major General Zeevi Farkash, head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate
#56. To: jwpegler (#55)
The one thing that hasn't been brought up is whether global warming is actually a bad thing.
#57. To: jwpegler, NewsJunky (#40)
If its man and we can do something about it and move to renewable resources and in the process guarantee our energy future then why not do it?
#58. To: CZ82, NewsJunky (#57)
To my knowledge they still haven't figured out a way to get a 747 off the ground using wind or solar power!!!!!
Iran’s main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention -- Major General Zeevi Farkash, head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate
#59. To: jwpegler (#55)
Life likes the warm weather. There is 10 times more bio-diversity at the equator than there is at the 45 parallel (the U.S. Canada border).
#60. To: CZ82 (#56)
Truthfully I think the Leftards prefer the later because they think they will be able to pick and choose who lives or dies......
Iran’s main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention -- Major General Zeevi Farkash, head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate
#61. To: jwpegler (#58)
We get about 45% of our electricity from coal.
#62. To: CZ82, NewsJunky (#52)
Capitalist Eric: I want ALL the raw data, ALL the assumptions, ALL the calculations and assumptions they made... And then I'll run the stats for myself, and we'll see what we see.
Dinformationalist Trait #6. Hit and Run.
In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain critical reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
The economy is wonderful!
Re-elect Obama, he'll pay your rent!
A chicken in every pot!
-Baghdad Bri-bri-
Translation: IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
#63. To: jwpegler (#60)
I completely agree.
#64. To: Capitalist Eric (#62)
Hmmm... NewsDummy is strangely quiet about providing the data...
#65. To: CZ82 (#61)
the brownouts aren't as far off as some people think......
Iran’s main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention -- Major General Zeevi Farkash, head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate
#66. To: jwpegler (#65)
Obama is going to shut down 8% of the coal-fired electrical plants in the U.S.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]