al gores global warming mentor...

[SpidermanTuba]

Seriously .... you know so little about what you are so religiously following that this is just sad. The fight against CFC's was what started the environut movement, due to the fact that CFC chemically interacts with O3 (Ozone for the dolts). Ozone is what absorbs most of the solar radiation preventing us from turning into dried up husks on the ground or piles of ash. Not even sure where you got this gem from, but yeah, even us who are not envirnuts know that CFC's are a bad thing, because well, we like being able to enjoy the sun and so we were all for it. It's chemically proven, scientifically supported, and we know that we were using them far more than we needed. The switch from them actually proved to be cost effective even, those products which now use compressed air are cheaper to make and cheaper on the shelves. It was a wise move all around and cost the taxpayers a whopping total of: $0.

You said "All work done to "help" the planet, which costs taxpayers a fortune every year, has done NOTHING to help the environment but has caused more damage than ever before."

So does this mean you lied?

 

[KittenKoder]

Seriously .... you know so little about what you are so religiously following that this is just sad. The fight against CFC's was what started the environut movement, due to the fact that CFC chemically interacts with O3 (Ozone for the dolts). Ozone is what absorbs most of the solar radiation preventing us from turning into dried up husks on the ground or piles of ash. Not even sure where you got this gem from, but yeah, even us who are not envirnuts know that CFC's are a bad thing, because well, we like being able to enjoy the sun and so we were all for it. It's chemically proven, scientifically supported, and we know that we were using them far more than we needed. The switch from them actually proved to be cost effective even, those products which now use compressed air are cheaper to make and cheaper on the shelves. It was a wise move all around and cost the taxpayers a whopping total of: $0.

You said "All work done to "help" the planet, which costs taxpayers a fortune every year, has done NOTHING to help the environment but has caused more damage than ever before."

So does this mean you lied?

The ban wasn't work done by the environuts it was just what they all latched onto. The scientific communities now making the global warming claims actually did not support (either through lack of caring or even some opposing it) the ban on CFC's to begin with. Recycling is the "baby" project of the environuts, and thus why I use it more than all the others, it is the perfect example of why environuts are about nothing but profits for their few Gorean companies. Recycling puts out more pollution and costs the cities more than coal power plants, but still only produces 10% of the products we need, thus helping with nothing, and does nothing to curtail the scary "filling of land fills" (barely even the size of a city total space used in the US). Instead of sugar coated this "impending doom" crap by blaming every human, why not look at the fact that no matter what the cause is, the more important aspect is the survival of our species. You can't kill the planet, and no matter what humans do, life will continue to exist here. There is a possible threat to our species and all you environuts want to do is bury your heads in the sand and mumble "we did what we could" instead of actually doing something to protect our species. Darwin would have said we are an evolutionary dead end because of this, we failed to evolve because too many are environuts with no instinct for survival.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The ban wasn't work done by the environuts it was just what they all latched onto.

Yes, but you said "All work done to 'help' the planet, which costs taxpayers a fortune every year, has done NOTHING to help the environment but has caused more damage than ever before."

Were you using a different definition for the word "all" than the rest of us do, or were you lying?

The scientific communities now making the global warming claims actually did not support (either through lack of caring or even some opposing it) the ban on CFC's to begin with.

That's not even true.

 

[KittenKoder]

The ban wasn't work done by the environuts it was just what they all latched onto.

Yes, but you said "All work done to 'help' the planet, which costs taxpayers a fortune every year, has done NOTHING to help the environment but has caused more damage than ever before."

Were you using a different definition for the word "all" than the rest of us do, or were you lying?

The scientific communities now making the global warming claims actually did not support (either through lack of caring or even some opposing it) the ban on CFC's to begin with.

That's not even true.

Your comprehension is still lacking, let's try rewording it to a slightly lower brow version: All work that has cost the taxpayers a fortune, has done nothing to help but instead has done more damage.

Also, yes it is true, the last fact I posted. Just because the facts are not on the internet doesn't make them false.

 

[DiveCon]

The ban wasn't work done by the environuts it was just what they all latched onto.

Yes, but you said "All work done to 'help' the planet, which costs taxpayers a fortune every year, has done NOTHING to help the environment but has caused more damage than ever before."

Were you using a different definition for the word "all" than the rest of us do, or were you lying?

The scientific communities now making the global warming claims actually did not support (either through lack of caring or even some opposing it) the ban on CFC's to begin with.

That's not even true.

Your comprehension is still lacking, let's try rewording it to a slightly lower brow version: All work that has cost the taxpayers a fortune, has done nothing to help but instead has done more damage.

Also, yes it is true, the last fact I posted. Just because the facts are not on the internet doesn't make them false.

no no no, come on KK, you know that if its NOT on the internet, it DIDNT happen

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The ban wasn't work done by the environuts it was just what they all latched onto.

Yes, but you said "All work done to 'help' the planet, which costs taxpayers a fortune every year, has done NOTHING to help the environment but has caused more damage than ever before."

Were you using a different definition for the word "all" than the rest of us do, or were you lying?

The scientific communities now making the global warming claims actually did not support (either through lack of caring or even some opposing it) the ban on CFC's to begin with.

That's not even true.

Your comprehension is still lacking, let's try rewording it to a slightly lower brow version: All work that has cost the taxpayers a fortune, has done nothing to help but instead has done more damage.

Also, yes it is true, the last fact I posted. Just because the facts are not on the internet doesn't make them false.

You didn't say "all work that has cost the taxpayers a fortune"

You said ""All work done to 'help' the planet, which costs taxpayers a fortune every year,..."

I think its you who have trouble with the English language.
Now that you've clarified your statement by correctly your grammatical error - please quantify, using numbers, the amount of money that banning CFC's cost the taxpayer vs. the amount of money that something which falls into your "all" category has cost us.


"Also, yes it is true, the last fact I posted. Just because the facts are not on the internet doesn't make them false."

Ok. I don't think I ever said anything like that. Where is this "fact" ? In your head? Does it exist anywhere outside of your head, and where may I find it? I have access to a university library, so I'm sure its in there. Where?

 

[KittenKoder]

Yes, but you said "All work done to 'help' the planet, which costs taxpayers a fortune every year, has done NOTHING to help the environment but has caused more damage than ever before."

Were you using a different definition for the word "all" than the rest of us do, or were you lying?






That's not even true.

Your comprehension is still lacking, let's try rewording it to a slightly lower brow version: All work that has cost the taxpayers a fortune, has done nothing to help but instead has done more damage.

Also, yes it is true, the last fact I posted. Just because the facts are not on the internet doesn't make them false.

You didn't say "all work that has cost the taxpayers a fortune"

You said ""All work done to 'help' the planet, which costs taxpayers a fortune every year,..."

I think its you who have trouble with the English language.
Now that you've clarified your statement by correctly your grammatical error - please quantify, using numbers, the amount of money that banning CFC's cost the taxpayer vs. the amount of money that something which falls into your "all" category has cost us.


"Also, yes it is true, the last fact I posted. Just because the facts are not on the internet doesn't make them false."

Ok. I don't think I ever said anything like that. Where is this "fact" ? In your head? Does it exist anywhere outside of your head, and where may I find it? I have access to a university library, so I'm sure its in there. Where?

*eye roll* Baiting never works on me.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Your comprehension is still lacking, let's try rewording it to a slightly lower brow version: All work that has cost the taxpayers a fortune, has done nothing to help but instead has done more damage.

Also, yes it is true, the last fact I posted. Just because the facts are not on the internet doesn't make them false.

You didn't say "all work that has cost the taxpayers a fortune"

You said ""All work done to 'help' the planet, which costs taxpayers a fortune every year,..."

I think its you who have trouble with the English language.
Now that you've clarified your statement by correctly your grammatical error - please quantify, using numbers, the amount of money that banning CFC's cost the taxpayer vs. the amount of money that something which falls into your "all" category has cost us.


"Also, yes it is true, the last fact I posted. Just because the facts are not on the internet doesn't make them false."

Ok. I don't think I ever said anything like that. Where is this "fact" ? In your head? Does it exist anywhere outside of your head, and where may I find it? I have access to a university library, so I'm sure its in there. Where?

*eye roll* Baiting never works on me.

Baiting you how? By asking you for evidence of your assertions? You mean baiting you into admitting THERE IS NONE?

 

[KittenKoder]

You didn't say "all work that has cost the taxpayers a fortune"

You said ""All work done to 'help' the planet, which costs taxpayers a fortune every year,..."

I think its you who have trouble with the English language.
Now that you've clarified your statement by correctly your grammatical error - please quantify, using numbers, the amount of money that banning CFC's cost the taxpayer vs. the amount of money that something which falls into your "all" category has cost us.


"Also, yes it is true, the last fact I posted. Just because the facts are not on the internet doesn't make them false."

Ok. I don't think I ever said anything like that. Where is this "fact" ? In your head? Does it exist anywhere outside of your head, and where may I find it? I have access to a university library, so I'm sure its in there. Where?

*eye roll* Baiting never works on me.

Baiting you how? By asking you for evidence of your assertions? You mean baiting you into admitting THERE IS NONE?

No, by not comprehending what I type on purpose. The "evidence" you ask for I already addressed but if you were truly knowledgeable you wouldn't need to ask for "what to look for" and if you were truly wanting to actually look you wouldn't have asked. So, you are baiting and demonstrating an inability to even look up any information that may contradict your hoax, this is why we can see that it is a hoax so easily and why more people are realizing it as well.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

*eye roll* Baiting never works on me.

Baiting you how? By asking you for evidence of your assertions? You mean baiting you into admitting THERE IS NONE?

No, by not comprehending what I type on purpose. The "evidence" you ask for I already addressed but if you were truly knowledgeable you wouldn't need to ask for "what to look for" and if you were truly wanting to actually look you wouldn't have asked. So, you are baiting and demonstrating an inability to even look up any information that may contradict your hoax, this is why we can see that it is a hoax so easily and why more people are realizing it as well.

I'm not the one who is supposed to gather evidence to support your assertions, you are. You have so far provided none.

I think you lack some very basic debate skills.

 

[Old Rocks]

interesting article......

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner

By John Coleman
January 28, 2009

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

So, with your fantastic grasp of science, you think that you know better than all the
Scientific Societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world.

There is flat out an overwhelming consensus of scientists on this subject. The atmosphere is warming, the glaciers and ice caps are melting, and we are seeing droughts and flooding in the places where it was predicted.