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.
The global warming issue continues to fall off the doom n gloom radar.
Watch for $millions to be spent in advertising by the Green Machine to try and offset this continued downtrend...
Rasmussen Reports: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere
Looks like the multi-million dollar Green Machine campaign has already begun...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXrc1XZayp4
Who or what do you work for and lobby for on the internet?
No one is FOR polution except you of course..a little odd?
From that site:
Just one-out-of-three voters (34%) now believe global warming is caused by human activity, the lowest finding yet in Rasmussen Reports national surveying. However, a plurality (48%) of the Political Class believes humans are to blame.
It's funny though that the lib media makes it out to be a universal truth, however.
It is a universal truth.
CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.
In addition, a paper published in the premier scientific journal Science describes a survey of peer review journals from 1993-2003 containing the words global climate change. Of the 928 papers surveyed not a single paper disagreed with the scientific consensus. Naomi Oreskes describes her paper via an op-ed in the Washington Post.
We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
..
Not THAT again. As I've posted before, when that came out, I had no problem finding papers published in peer reviewed journals during that time frame that disagreed with the "consensus" position. If she didn't find any, she wasn't looking very hard. I guess if you make me I'll go ahead and do it again and give you some links. But, please, when you've got people like Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer out there you're going to have articles published in peer reviewed articles that disagree with the "consensus" opinion.
And the point isn't whether or not you can engage in ad hominem attacks about how people like that get funding from Exxon or whether or not you think they were wrong. The point here is that they publish papers in peer reviewed journals that are contrary to the "global warming" consensus and this woman could only have missed them if she tried as hard as she could to do so.
You presented two, to your credit. But the others that you posted were from political think tanks, not peer reviewed scientific journals.
When a scientist gets a research grant, he gets paid for research, irregardless of the conclusion. When Exxon puts out money, they pay for a conclusion favoring their interests. That is why they pay whores like Singer and Lindzen.
His stellar education at carpentry school is showing.Not THAT again. As I've posted before, when that came out, I had no problem finding papers published in peer reviewed journals during that time frame that disagreed with the "consensus" position. If she didn't find any, she wasn't looking very hard. I guess if you make me I'll go ahead and do it again and give you some links. But, please, when you've got people like Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer out there you're going to have articles published in peer reviewed articles that disagree with the "consensus" opinion.
And the point isn't whether or not you can engage in ad hominem attacks about how people like that get funding from Exxon or whether or not you think they were wrong. The point here is that they publish papers in peer reviewed journals that are contrary to the "global warming" consensus and this woman could only have missed them if she tried as hard as she could to do so.
You presented two, to your credit. But the others that you posted were from political think tanks, not peer reviewed scientific journals.
When a scientist gets a research grant, he gets paid for research, irregardless of the conclusion. When Exxon puts out money, they pay for a conclusion favoring their interests. That is why they pay whores like Singer and Lindzen.
You're a moron!!!! Bwhahahahahaha!!!! You said irregardless. hahahahahahhahaha
The global warming issue continues to fall of the doom n gloom radar.
Watch for $millions to be spent in advertising by the Green Machine to try and offset this continued downtrend...
Rasmussen Reports: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere
These people should pay more in taxes to prevent global warming.
The global warming issue continues to fall off the doom n gloom radar.
Watch for $millions to be spent in advertising by the Green Machine to try and offset this continued downtrend...
Rasmussen Reports: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere
Looks like the multi-million dollar Green Machine campaign has already begun...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXrc1XZayp4
There is no question global warming is real.
Atmospheric CO2 causes the earth to warm. This was proven experimentally in 1859.
The fact the some people don't believe it is a function of ignorance and the power of myth.
There is no question global warming is real.
Atmospheric CO2 causes the earth to warm. This was proven experimentally in 1859.
The fact the some people don't believe it is a function of ignorance and the power of myth.
Another flat-earth moron!
There is no question global warming is real.
Atmospheric CO2 causes the earth to warm. This was proven experimentally in 1859.
The fact the some people don't believe it is a function of ignorance and the power of myth.
Another flat-earth moron!
Your post is another great example of what happens when myth believers are confronted with irrefutable truth.
What is a result? A childish insult!
Does atmospheric CO2 cause the earth to retain heat?
Another flat-earth moron!
Your post is another great example of what happens when myth believers are confronted with irrefutable truth.
What is a result? A childish insult!
Does atmospheric CO2 cause the earth to retain heat?
I'm just returning what we all usually get from you. I figure you deserve a little back.
Nope, you're wrong. CO2 is a lagging indicator of global warming. It doesn't CAUSE the warmth. It is caused BY the warmth. You are suffering a case of POST HOC ERGO PROCTOR HOC. Fallacious....have a nice day!
Your post is another great example of what happens when myth believers are confronted with irrefutable truth.
What is a result? A childish insult!
Does atmospheric CO2 cause the earth to retain heat?
I'm just returning what we all usually get from you. I figure you deserve a little back.
Nope, you're wrong. CO2 is a lagging indicator of global warming. It doesn't CAUSE the warmth. It is caused BY the warmth. You are suffering a case of POST HOC ERGO PROCTOR HOC. Fallacious....have a nice day!
Sorry, 600,000 years of Antarctic ice cores prove you wrong.
I'm just returning what we all usually get from you. I figure you deserve a little back.
Nope, you're wrong. CO2 is a lagging indicator of global warming. It doesn't CAUSE the warmth. It is caused BY the warmth. You are suffering a case of POST HOC ERGO PROCTOR HOC. Fallacious....have a nice day!
Sorry, 600,000 years of Antarctic ice cores prove you wrong.
Actually, no you're wrong, that's where my information comes from. The study of the ice cores has revealed that the warming and cooling cycles only line up with the CO2 increases if CO2 is a lagging indicator of warming. This is assuming almost 800 years of lagging. Without the lag factored in, there would be almost no relationship between warming and CO2.
No, Hansen recieved the wrong data. He did not use it knowing it was wrong. In fact, he immediatly changed the data base when he recieved the corrected data. And it changed that month from the hottest to the second hottest.
Very nicely done article. So what peer reviewed scientific journal was it first published in?
Unfortunetly, the physicists that make up the American Institute of Physics seem to have come up with a much differant conclusion. The same for every other Scientific Society in the world.
Your post is another great example of what happens when myth believers are confronted with irrefutable truth.
What is a result? A childish insult!
Does atmospheric CO2 cause the earth to retain heat?
I'm just returning what we all usually get from you. I figure you deserve a little back.
Nope, you're wrong. CO2 is a lagging indicator of global warming. It doesn't CAUSE the warmth. It is caused BY the warmth. You are suffering a case of POST HOC ERGO PROCTOR HOC. Fallacious....have a nice day!
Sorry, 600,000 years of Antarctic ice cores prove you wrong.
I'm just returning what we all usually get from you. I figure you deserve a little back.
Nope, you're wrong. CO2 is a lagging indicator of global warming. It doesn't CAUSE the warmth. It is caused BY the warmth. You are suffering a case of POST HOC ERGO PROCTOR HOC. Fallacious....have a nice day!
Sorry, 600,000 years of Antarctic ice cores prove you wrong.
do you have 600,000 years of antarctic ice cores on record, cuntface?
Sorry, 600,000 years of Antarctic ice cores prove you wrong.
do you have 600,000 years of antarctic ice cores on record, cuntface?
You cant seriously be replying to chris, every one of his posts is a troll, nothing more, in every thread no matter the topic chris posts a false premise or statement followed by, "this is a fact", "irrefutable truth"
Here try this one, a solid mass of CO2 that weighs one pound can be bought at the grocery store, its called dry ice, this is a irrefutable truth
If you put a block of dry ice in the oven the solid block of CO2 or dry ice will keep the oven hot for 47 hours, this is a irrefutable truth. Just kidding, the dry ice turns to gas, the oven gets a bit cooler seeing how CO2's characteristics are such that under certain pressures its cold. You dont need to freeze CO2 to make dry ice, you change the atmospheric pressure.
So when you see CO2 in mass, that is as dry ice, dont touch it thinking its hot, its naturally cool. If the earth gets too hot the best way to cool it will be to make dry ice from CO2.
do you have 600,000 years of antarctic ice cores on record, cuntface?
You cant seriously be replying to chris, every one of his posts is a troll, nothing more, in every thread no matter the topic chris posts a false premise or statement followed by, "this is a fact", "irrefutable truth"
Here try this one, a solid mass of CO2 that weighs one pound can be bought at the grocery store, its called dry ice, this is a irrefutable truth
If you put a block of dry ice in the oven the solid block of CO2 or dry ice will keep the oven hot for 47 hours, this is a irrefutable truth. Just kidding, the dry ice turns to gas, the oven gets a bit cooler seeing how CO2's characteristics are such that under certain pressures its cold. You dont need to freeze CO2 to make dry ice, you change the atmospheric pressure.
So when you see CO2 in mass, that is as dry ice, dont touch it thinking its hot, its naturally cool. If the earth gets too hot the best way to cool it will be to make dry ice from CO2.
No, a troll only posts silly insults like Elivis.
Atmospheric CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859. We are adding billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. Therefore, we are causing the earth to warm.
