Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
On a side note, I think we're hedging our bets as a country and purposely not pumping oil as fast as we could for military purposes. Imagine if we pumped ours dry, even subsidized it to get oil prices to $10 a barrel. Then something comes up and we need a bunch of stinky essentially oil powered F-22's and Abrams Tanks to go blow up in the desert. We'd be at the mercy of our allies and folks who at best tolerate us, for that oil.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
time for a pity post
That was super interesting Liability...thanks for posting
Translation: "I ain't smart enough to address the numbered points therefore I have to go after the OP..."
Translation: Lame posts don't deserve a response
Thyanks for playing
The majority of scientists still consider GW to be a fact.
Those who argue it is myth have no real proof as time is the primary determinant.
Why is a topic as serious as GW debated by people with no knowledge of climate?
Those who argue GW is wrong argue from a purely adversarial position.
If GW is exaggerated the effort to control and clean up the air remains a positive endeavor.
Green technology's benefits far out weigh pollution and is required because most resources used today are limited anyway.
If we do nothing and GW is serious we will not care, we will be dead, so the argument loses immediacy.
Listen closely to this fellow if you have an open mind and are not a corporate tool as demonstrated by the circle jerk of 'experts' above.
The 400,000 year view global warming
James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com
Pay closer attention to current event and you save yourself further embarrassment.
The point is that there is no evidence of any recent warming, none! So the idea that we're supposed to control release of a trace element that has no effect on anything is beyond stupid.
In any event, are we never supposed to gain or lose so much as an ice cubes worth of ice anywhere? What could we possibly do about it in any event?
I'll take a SWAG at it...Nothing. The EARTH is subject to larger forces than MAN could ever be. We are but parasites on an elephant's back with ZERO control.
If we were to disappear from the Face of the Earth tomorrow? The Earth would never know that we left.
-That, is the IMPACT- of man. Too many confuse pollution with Weather. And YES we have the propensity to destroy ourselves, but in grand fashion? The Earth would recover none the less, as she has LONG before we ever were here, and I think REAL Science has shown that too?
There is a lot of confusion about climate science. Science is not to be conflated with policy - ever. Scientists, when doing science, value scientific integrity above all else - above ideology, above policy, above activism, etc. Environmentalists are not scientists; they are activists. Dilettantes of science are not scientists. Etc.Pay closer attention to current event and you save yourself further embarrassment.
The point is that there is no evidence of any recent warming, none! So the idea that we're supposed to control release of a trace element that has no effect on anything is beyond stupid.
In any event, are we never supposed to gain or lose so much as an ice cubes worth of ice anywhere? What could we possibly do about it in any event?
I'll take a SWAG at it...Nothing. The EARTH is subject to larger forces than MAN could ever be. We are but parasites on an elephant's back with ZERO control.
If we were to disappear from the Face of the Earth tomorrow? The Earth would never know that we left.
-That, is the IMPACT- of man. Too many confuse pollution with Weather. And YES we have the propensity to destroy ourselves, but in grand fashion? The Earth would recover none the less, as she has LONG before we ever were here, and I think REAL Science has shown that too?
Too many confuse pollution with Weather.
Too many on the left.
They use this ploy by choice.
They like to muddy the watgers.
If a conservative expressses doubt about AGW, they pretend that conservatives favor pollution. Two utterly different matters, but not when they engage in deliberately false rhetoric.
I now speak for ALL Conservatives: I favor drinking clean water and breathing clean air and I like eating foods which are not contaminated by poisons. I thus FAVOR appropriate legislation to control, reduce and eradicate pollution to the extent reasonably possible consistent with our needs and actual scientific knowledge.
I do NOT, on that basis, favor pretending that we have any measurable impact on climate: and I oppose taking "measures" based on falsified science to "do" something pointless about climate at the expense of economic growth and our actual human needs. I absolutely oppose the misuse of science to obtain an ECONOMIC result -- especially one I deem purely socialist in nature.
The majority of scientists still consider GW to be a fact.
Those who argue it is myth have no real proof as time is the primary determinant.
Why is a topic as serious as GW debated by people with no knowledge of climate?
Those who argue GW is wrong argue from a purely adversarial position.
If GW is exaggerated the effort to control and clean up the air remains a positive endeavor.
Green technology's benefits far out weigh pollution and is required because most resources used today are limited anyway.
If we do nothing and GW is serious we will not care, we will be dead, so the argument loses immediacy.
Listen closely to this fellow if you have an open mind and are not a corporate tool as demonstrated by the circle jerk of 'experts' above.
The 400,000 year view global warming
James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com
What 'majority' was that again?
What does a poll of 'adults' have to do with your lame attempt at a rebuttal about scientists? What does a poll of the public, done before the apparent scandal was exposed, have to do with your lame attempt at a rebuttal?The majority of scientists still consider GW to be a fact.
Those who argue it is myth have no real proof as time is the primary determinant.
Why is a topic as serious as GW debated by people with no knowledge of climate?
Those who argue GW is wrong argue from a purely adversarial position.
If GW is exaggerated the effort to control and clean up the air remains a positive endeavor.
Green technology's benefits far out weigh pollution and is required because most resources used today are limited anyway.
If we do nothing and GW is serious we will not care, we will be dead, so the argument loses immediacy.
Listen closely to this fellow if you have an open mind and are not a corporate tool as demonstrated by the circle jerk of 'experts' above.
The 400,000 year view global warming
James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com
What 'majority' was that again?
Here's polling data:
Environment
Unfortunately, even THIS issue is becoming split solely along party lines, with Al Gore being the focal point for blame from the right (although he simply wrote the book, not the science). I still maintain that it would be better to get out front of the problem than to be proactive, even while scientists debate what the extent of global warming actually is. Why would at least containing the problem to its natural cyclical import ever be considered "foolish"??
The majority of scientists still consider GW to be a fact.
Those who argue it is myth have no real proof as time is the primary determinant.
Why is a topic as serious as GW debated by people with no knowledge of climate?
Those who argue GW is wrong argue from a purely adversarial position.
If GW is exaggerated the effort to control and clean up the air remains a positive endeavor.
Green technology's benefits far out weigh pollution and is required because most resources used today are limited anyway.
If we do nothing and GW is serious we will not care, we will be dead, so the argument loses immediacy.
Listen closely to this fellow if you have an open mind and are not a corporate tool as demonstrated by the circle jerk of 'experts' above.
The 400,000 year view global warming
James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com
Pay closer attention to current event and you save yourself further embarrassment.
The point is that there is no evidence of any recent warming, none! So the idea that we're supposed to control release of a trace element that has no effect on anything is beyond stupid.
In any event, are we never supposed to gain or lose so much as an ice cubes worth of ice anywhere? What could we possibly do about it in any event?
Generally, the measures proposed as a response to global warming are measures that make sense and have merit even if there were no such thing as global warming,
so the point is moot.
It may be a good thing that the earth is warming (if it indeed is). Longer growing seasons and greater range to grow certain crops may increase the food supply and create plants that can correct the cardon dioxide levels. The presumption that only bad things can happen is both alarmist and incorrect.
Conservation, cleaner energy sources, ending dependence on oil, etc., are all good ideas even if there is absolutely no global warming, hell, even if the earth is cooling they're good ideas.
What are the motives of the global warming deniers? To promote disinterest in environmentally responsible, energy-wise initiatives? Apparently. What else could be their motives.
Environmentalism was around long before global warming was even a topic. And our country is better for its successes. Conservatives only want to stand in the way of further successes.
Wow....You must've got an "A" in Chrissy's Platitudes, Truisms, Cliches and Brain-dead Talking Points 101 class!!The majority of scientists still consider GW to be a fact.
Those who argue it is myth have no real proof as time is the primary determinant.
Why is a topic as serious as GW debated by people with no knowledge of climate?
Those who argue GW is wrong argue from a purely adversarial position.
If GW is exaggerated the effort to control and clean up the air remains a positive endeavor.
Green technology's benefits far out weigh pollution and is required because most resources used today are limited anyway.
If we do nothing and GW is serious we will not care, we will be dead, so the argument loses immediacy.
Listen closely to this fellow if you have an open mind and are not a corporate tool as demonstrated by the circle jerk of 'experts' above.
The 400,000 year view global warming
James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com
It may be a good thing that the earth is warming (if it indeed is). Longer growing seasons and greater range to grow certain crops may increase the food supply and create plants that can correct the cardon dioxide levels. The presumption that only bad things can happen is both alarmist and incorrect.
Conservation, cleaner energy sources, ending dependence on oil, etc., are all good ideas even if there is absolutely no global warming, hell, even if the earth is cooling they're good ideas.
What are the motives of the global warming deniers? To promote disinterest in environmentally responsible, energy-wise initiatives? Apparently. What else could be their motives.
Environmentalism was around long before global warming was even a topic. And our country is better for its successes. Conservatives only want to stand in the way of further successes.
But the work of the "Enviromentalists" was militant before it became fashionable...
They're NUTJOB Out of work Communists with nothing on their MINDS but Control of the masses. THAT constant hasn't changed.
And NO. WE Conservatives will NOT give up our liberties to save some dumbass bird or FISH that hasn't the ability to adapt.
But then We Conservatives KNOW that we have to be good stewards as well. Your post here portends that we just want to destroy the ecosystem willy-nilly which is FAR from the truth, carbonated. *ADMIT IT*
But you keep on LYING, and NOT addressing the fuckin' OP...
YOU haven't the GUTS to address it line item, by Line item, because quite frankly? Go to post #1 if you have the GUTS...
*You Cannot*
Because the premise that man can do so is foolish on its face....That's what makes it so irresistible to libs to begin with.Unfortunately, even THIS issue is becoming split solely along party lines, with Al Gore being the focal point for blame from the right (although he simply wrote the book, not the science). I still maintain that it would be better to get out front of the problem than to be proactive, even while scientists debate what the extent of global warming actually is. Why would at least containing the problem to its natural cyclical import ever be considered "foolish"??
On a side note, I think we're hedging our bets as a country and purposely not pumping oil as fast as we could for military purposes. Imagine if we pumped ours dry, even subsidized it to get oil prices to $10 a barrel. Then something comes up and we need a bunch of stinky essentially oil powered F-22's and Abrams Tanks to go blow up in the desert. We'd be at the mercy of our allies and folks who at best tolerate us, for that oil.
Liability said:Too many on the left.
They use this ploy by choice.
They like to muddy the waters.
If a conservative expressses doubt about AGW, they pretend that conservatives favor pollution. Two utterly different matters, but not when they engage in deliberately false rhetoric.
I now speak for ALL Conservatives: I favor drinking clean water and breathing clean air and I like eating foods which are not contaminated by poisons. I thus FAVOR appropriate legislation to control, reduce and eradicate pollution to the extent reasonably possible consistent with our needs and actual scientific knowledge.
I do NOT, on that basis, favor pretending that we have any measurable impact on climate: and I oppose taking "measures" based on falsified science to "do" something pointless about climate at the expense of economic growth and our actual human needs. I absolutely oppose the misuse of science to obtain an ECONOMIC result -- especially one I deem purely socialist in nature.
Irrespective of political ideology, scientists do not take kindly to a lack of scientific integrity, as the emails indicate (if the emails are genuine, as apparently they are according to the CRU). Partisans have trouble grasping that, though; so I understand your confusion.Liability said:Too many on the left.
They use this ploy by choice.
They like to muddy the waters.
If a conservative expressses doubt about AGW, they pretend that conservatives favor pollution. Two utterly different matters, but not when they engage in deliberately false rhetoric.
I now speak for ALL Conservatives: I favor drinking clean water and breathing clean air and I like eating foods which are not contaminated by poisons. I thus FAVOR appropriate legislation to control, reduce and eradicate pollution to the extent reasonably possible consistent with our needs and actual scientific knowledge.
I do NOT, on that basis, favor pretending that we have any measurable impact on climate: and I oppose taking "measures" based on falsified science to "do" something pointless about climate at the expense of economic growth and our actual human needs. I absolutely oppose the misuse of science to obtain an ECONOMIC result -- especially one I deem purely socialist in nature.
Oh bull. Frankly, it's too many on the right who are attempting to muddy the waters. It's almost laughable that the political right accepts the fact that a series of e-mails seriously debunks scientific data accumulated over the decades, volumes of peer-reviewed publications on the topic, and the findings of thousands of scientists working independently within several different scientific bodies.
Hey!!...You're horning in on Ravi's naïve-on-purpose racket!Oh bull. Frankly, it's too many on the right who are attempting to muddy the waters. It's almost laughable that the political right accepts the fact that a series of e-mails seriously debunks scientific data accumulated over the decades, volumes of peer-reviewed publications on the topic, and the findings of thousands of scientists working independently within several different scientific bodies.
Oh bull. Frankly, it's too many on the right who are attempting to muddy the waters.
Generally, the measures proposed as a response to global warming are measures that make sense and have merit even if there were no such thing as global warming,
so the point is moot.
It may be a good thing that the earth is warming (if it indeed is). Longer growing seasons and greater range to grow certain crops may increase the food supply and create plants that can correct the cardon dioxide levels. The presumption that only bad things can happen is both alarmist and incorrect.
Conservation, cleaner energy sources, ending dependence on oil, etc., are all good ideas even if there is absolutely no global warming, hell, even if the earth is cooling they're good ideas.
What are the motives of the global warming deniers? To promote disinterest in environmentally responsible, energy-wise initiatives? Apparently. What else could be their motives.
Environmentalism was around long before global warming was even a topic. And our country is better for its successes. Conservatives only want to stand in the way of further successes.
