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.
You lie by omission. Anyone who follows politics knows the Republican Party of today has no resemblance to the Republican Party before Ronald Reagan.
You said, not to mention the Clean Air and Water Act, this is why:
Red, Green, and Blue | Patriotism that loves our country, our land, and our planet
You may, if you're not willfully ignorant, review this data too:
Direct Observations of Recent Climate Change - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers
BTW, check your 'facts', a quick look at the Wilderness act of 1964 was not signed by a Republican President; LBJ signed that law. And the Clean Air & Water Act was signed by Nixon (who today would be a RINO ).
Sooo Nixon was a liberal. You take credit for everything republicans did for the environment. I know you love to just ignore what Teddy did with the military, and yet you love to call him a bleeding heart liberal.
You have no clue about the Blue Water Legacy. Bush took Theodore Roosevelts Antiquities Act precedent much further than any of his predecessors by establishing marine preserves that cover nearly 215 million acres, big enough to swallow Bushs home state of Texas, plus Oklahoma.
Every republican prior to Reagan were liberals? LOL at these fucking pieces of shit.
Oh, and btw John Saylor republican congressman crusaded for protecting wild rivers and expanding national parks. And, he was the Republican co-sponsor of the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Oh, but he was before Reagan, and so therefore was a liberal.
Such fucking annoying morons. Still waiting for you to tell me all the things you do for the environment. I guess you not telling me, is your way of telling me that you do not do shit.
I have been making donations, 50 per month, to this organization for close to 20 years.
You can make a difference - become a monthly donor // Monthly Giving // Be a Champion for our planet! // The Nature Conservancy
LOL, a Republican was a co-sponsor of the Wilderness Act of 1964. I told you the Republican Party before Reagan has no resemblance to the Republican Party of today; and, being a co-sponsor means n o t h I n g, as everyone who follows politics knows. What it does prove is you're dishonest.
What I do for the environment, is to ask a question in the form of a Red Herring. But I'll respond. I recycle, my adult kids and their SO's recycle and the car we bought last year is a hybrid. I also donate to the local PBS/NPR station in San Francisco, one of the few true resources of information since Turner started CNN. The rest are corporations, with Stock Holders.
They transitioned into "climate change" gradually. I started hearing it used regularly a couple years back, and they made the swithceroo because they knew how retarded the claims of warming were becoming.
Fact- Climtae Change exists
Fact- It always has
Fact- It is statistically impossible for man to have a significant effect versus the solar system and natural occurrences (erupting volcanos etc.)
They transitioned into "climate change" gradually. I started hearing it used regularly a couple years back, and they made the swithceroo because they knew how retarded the claims of warming were becoming.
Fact- Climtae Change exists
Fact- It always has
Fact- It is statistically impossible for man to have a significant effect versus the solar system and natural occurrences (erupting volcanos etc.)
They transitioned into "climate change" gradually. I started hearing it used regularly a couple years back, and they made the swithceroo because they knew how retarded the claims of warming were becoming.
Fact- Climtae Change exists
Fact- It always has
Fact- It is statistically impossible for man to have a significant effect versus the solar system and natural occurrences (erupting volcanos etc.)
The change was because of psycholinguistics. "Warm" = Good. Global warming then wasn't seen as a bad thing. Since most non-scientists thoughts a few degrees rise would only be good not understanding the cataclysmic effects of such a change.
"Change" = Bad. Nobody likes when things change so the change was made to put the necessary fear into people's minds.
They transitioned into "climate change" gradually. I started hearing it used regularly a couple years back, and they made the swithceroo because they knew how retarded the claims of warming were becoming.
Fact- Climtae Change exists
Fact- It always has
Fact- It is statistically impossible for man to have a significant effect versus the solar system and natural occurrences (erupting volcanos etc.)
one major volcano eruption will spew more pollutants into the atmosphere than 20 years worth of human caused pollution, the Iceland Eyjafjallajökull volcano eruption sent billows of ash 12 miles into the atmosphere and went on for several weeks.
They transitioned into "climate change" gradually. I started hearing it used regularly a couple years back, and they made the swithceroo because they knew how retarded the claims of warming were becoming.
Fact- Climtae Change exists
Fact- It always has
Fact- It is statistically impossible for man to have a significant effect versus the solar system and natural occurrences (erupting volcanos etc.)
The change was because of psycholinguistics. "Warm" = Good. Global warming then wasn't seen as a bad thing. Since most non-scientists thoughts a few degrees rise would only be good not understanding the cataclysmic effects of such a change.
"Change" = Bad. Nobody likes when things change so the change was made to put the necessary fear into people's minds.
So they do mean the same thing.
The change was because of psycholinguistics. "Warm" = Good. Global warming then wasn't seen as a bad thing. Since most non-scientists thoughts a few degrees rise would only be good not understanding the cataclysmic effects of such a change.
"Change" = Bad. Nobody likes when things change so the change was made to put the necessary fear into people's minds.
So they do mean the same thing.
Sorta. They're about the same thing more accurately stated. But globalw arming is just warming, whereas climate change is more inclusive to any changing weather pattern with a decidely negative impact on us.
Climate changes will result in more frequent, and more severe hurricanes and tornadoes each year, change the balance of ocean salinity (plot behind the movie "The Day After Tomorrow,") and reduce the amount of ice at the poles which we need to reflect solar radiation back into space instead of it being absorbed into the Earth's surface adding to temp-rise. More solar radiation we retain, more the ice melts, sea levels rise and swamp low-lying areas like New Orleans and Florida.
There's so many things temperature effects and much of them are chain-reactionary (change one and everything along the chain changes too.) Difference in temps between Winter months and Summer is the result of just the Earth tilting closer or farther away from the Sun as we orbit it. That's probably the best illustration of how just a tiny change can make a huge difference.
What I don't understand is why many are passionately opposed to proposed methods of combatting globalwarming or climate change? Assuming they don't have a lot of stock in an oil company (who would loose revenues from alt fuels and other things,) isn't anything that improves the Earth benefitting them as well? Are they so cursed by political tunnel vision than anything their opposition wants to do going to be fought against even when it benefits everyone? How fucking stupid are you if you'd be against not screwing up the planet?
What I don't understand is why many are passionately opposed to proposed methods of combatting globalwarming or climate change? Assuming they don't have a lot of stock in an oil company (who would loose revenues from alt fuels and other things,) isn't anything that improves the Earth benefitting them as well? Are they so cursed by political tunnel vision than anything their opposition wants to do going to be fought against even when it benefits everyone? How fucking stupid are you if you'd be against not screwing up the planet?
What I don't understand is why many are passionately opposed to proposed methods of combatting globalwarming or climate change? Assuming they don't have a lot of stock in an oil company (who would loose revenues from alt fuels and other things,) isn't anything that improves the Earth benefitting them as well? Are they so cursed by political tunnel vision than anything their opposition wants to do going to be fought against even when it benefits everyone? How fucking stupid are you if you'd be against not screwing up the planet?
Republican are gonna ride the horse that insists man has no ability to change climate. Then when it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that man is changing climate, they (Republican) will say they never said man wan't changing the climate.
In other words, Repubs will lie through their teeth as to what their position is/was on climate change.
Lying and ignorance are very typical for a Republican.
So, when Obama says climate change is a fact.....
.......... it means he listens to the best minds on the planet.
Thats why they have peer reviewed science so you can find out what they agree on instead of taking a quote from this guy and that individual.
I notice you never touch the peer reviewed stuff just random quotes and following with "Aha!" Dont look at a Nat Geo article. Or what Time mag said in the 70's. Tell me why the peer reviewed data is wrong.
Yeah, the problem with your assertion is they corrupted that process to where, in one now infamous case, the "peer reviewer" was the mans wife. With a record like they have, it's hard to take any of their "pal" reviewed papers seriously...don't you think?
So, the list gets longer:
You cant cite the facts that are wrong you just know they are wrong.
You cant refute the peer reviewed paper you just know its not right
And the paper was peer reviewed by hundreds of scientists but that doesnt matter because you know someones wife was a "peer" but apparently someone cant be a wife and a scientist.
You have no link showing any bias even if someones wife reviewed the paper and dont forget all the other scientist too
But you just know that you're right.
That bubble is air fucking tight. Is there anything that you can prove that shows Global Warming is fake? Or did the liberals "burn all the evidence" for that too?
Fucking hilarious.
Liberals in this thread finally admitted that climate change is not the same thing as MAN MADE global warming.
However, they all insist that it is the same thing.
In this very fucking thread, they have both sides of the debate covered.
So, the reason for the concerted effort to say climate change, instead of MAN MADE global warming, is because pollution has caused greenhouse gases which has caused MAN MADE global warming.
How ironic, considering every liberal has rejected every site that shows not only the cooling trend over the last 17 years (hence the real reason for the change in terminology), but any site that shows the notion that man has been the biggest reason for the rise in temperature is grossly exaggerated.
Here is another site, and I will watch you become the hypocrite before our eyes, as you reject it.
31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence". ? OSS Foundation
31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence".
31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming? But polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century; and 97% think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
While polls of scientists actively working in the filed of climate science indicate strong general agreement that the earth is warming and human activity is a significant factor, the internet is buzzing with blog posts that say 31,000 scientists say there is "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause "catastrophic" heating of the atmosphere.
This claim originates from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has an online petition (petitionproject.org) that states:
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
The petition form itself lends a clue as to the nature of the petition. Judging by the form below, one notes that one only needs to mark a check box to show that one has a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree, and then fill in the fields.
Global Warming?The Big Picture: A Review of Brian Sussman?s ?Climategate? | Center for Vision and Values - A conservative think tank promoting truth and liberty through a vision of faith and freedom.
Global Warming—The Big Picture: A Review of Brian Sussman’s “Climategate”
August 6, 2010 | by Mark W. Hendrickson | Topic: The Path to FreedomPrint Print
28 0 1SIGN UP FOR EDITORIALS
& EMAIL ALERTS >
“Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam” By Brian Sussman
Climategate is thorough, knowledgeable, timely, and very well written. I have been reading about global warming for 20 years, yet this book included important information and details that were new to me.
The title of the book requires clarification. Climategate is not a book-length dissection of the “climategate” scandal that erupted last November when a huge bunch of incriminating e-mails between key global warming advocates came to light. Instead, it gives a big-picture treatment of the science, politics, economics, ideological underpinnings, and personal agendas behind the global warming issue.
The author of Climategate, Brian Sussman, is a trained meteorologist who was a TV weatherman in California for many years. He currently hosts radio station KFSO’s top-rated morning talk show in the San Francisco Bay area.
For most of his book, Sussman writes in a breezy, folksy, upbeat style that makes learning important information enjoyable. The tone shifts to earnest eloquence toward the end, when he warns us about the great dangers to liberty and prosperity posed by the ruthlessly ambitious elitists behind the global warming scam.
The most prominent of these elitists is, of course, Al Gore, who—according to Sussman—is well on his way to becoming the world’s first anti-carbon billionaire. Gore’s elitism is encapsulated in his statement, “There are times when a small group has to make difficult decisions that will affect the future of everybody.” Gore is all too happy to accept his self-appointed responsibility to restructure our lives.
Sussman provides plenty of evidence that Gore and other global warming activists bend, if not mutilate, truth and science in pursuit of money, power, and prestige. For example, in Gore’s Oscar-winning horror film, An Inconvenient Truth, the graph showing an apparent correlation between global temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere is shown briefly, so that viewers won’t have time to notice that increases in CO2 occurred after increases in temperature, thereby demolishing the assertion that CO2 causes global warming.
Sussman also recounts how an English court found that Gore’s “film contains nine scientific errors” in the context of “alarmist” and “exaggerated” content. That court ruled that An Inconvenient Truth amounted to “political brainwashing” for partisan, nonscientific objectives, and further ordered that the movie could not be shown to British schoolchildren without being accompanied by a 56-page instruction guide which points out where Gore’s claims “do not accord with mainstream scientific opinion.”
Climategate is a wide-ranging exposé of characters and special-interest groups that have exploited the global warming scare for self-serving purposes. For example, Sussman reports that the grandstanding dictator of the Maldives has demanded billions of dollars from the developed world on the grounds that human-caused global warming threatens to cause his low-lying chain of islands to disappear. In fact, the sea level there is falling.
LOL
describes almost every right-winger here.
How ironic, considering every liberal has rejected every site that shows not only the cooling trend over the last 17 years (hence the real reason for the change in terminology), but any site that shows the notion that man has been the biggest reason for the rise in temperature is grossly exaggerated.
Here is another site, and I will watch you become the hypocrite before our eyes, as you reject it.
31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence". ? OSS Foundation
31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence".
31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming? But polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century; and 97% think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
While polls of scientists actively working in the filed of climate science indicate strong general agreement that the earth is warming and human activity is a significant factor, the internet is buzzing with blog posts that say 31,000 scientists say there is "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause "catastrophic" heating of the atmosphere.
This claim originates from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has an online petition (petitionproject.org) that states:
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
The petition form itself lends a clue as to the nature of the petition. Judging by the form below, one notes that one only needs to mark a check box to show that one has a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree, and then fill in the fields.
Global Warming?The Big Picture: A Review of Brian Sussman?s ?Climategate? | Center for Vision and Values - A conservative think tank promoting truth and liberty through a vision of faith and freedom.
Global Warming—The Big Picture: A Review of Brian Sussman’s “Climategate”
August 6, 2010 | by Mark W. Hendrickson | Topic: The Path to FreedomPrint Print
28 0 1SIGN UP FOR EDITORIALS
& EMAIL ALERTS >
“Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam” By Brian Sussman
Climategate is thorough, knowledgeable, timely, and very well written. I have been reading about global warming for 20 years, yet this book included important information and details that were new to me.
The title of the book requires clarification. Climategate is not a book-length dissection of the “climategate” scandal that erupted last November when a huge bunch of incriminating e-mails between key global warming advocates came to light. Instead, it gives a big-picture treatment of the science, politics, economics, ideological underpinnings, and personal agendas behind the global warming issue.
The author of Climategate, Brian Sussman, is a trained meteorologist who was a TV weatherman in California for many years. He currently hosts radio station KFSO’s top-rated morning talk show in the San Francisco Bay area.
For most of his book, Sussman writes in a breezy, folksy, upbeat style that makes learning important information enjoyable. The tone shifts to earnest eloquence toward the end, when he warns us about the great dangers to liberty and prosperity posed by the ruthlessly ambitious elitists behind the global warming scam.
The most prominent of these elitists is, of course, Al Gore, who—according to Sussman—is well on his way to becoming the world’s first anti-carbon billionaire. Gore’s elitism is encapsulated in his statement, “There are times when a small group has to make difficult decisions that will affect the future of everybody.” Gore is all too happy to accept his self-appointed responsibility to restructure our lives.
Sussman provides plenty of evidence that Gore and other global warming activists bend, if not mutilate, truth and science in pursuit of money, power, and prestige. For example, in Gore’s Oscar-winning horror film, An Inconvenient Truth, the graph showing an apparent correlation between global temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere is shown briefly, so that viewers won’t have time to notice that increases in CO2 occurred after increases in temperature, thereby demolishing the assertion that CO2 causes global warming.
Sussman also recounts how an English court found that Gore’s “film contains nine scientific errors” in the context of “alarmist” and “exaggerated” content. That court ruled that An Inconvenient Truth amounted to “political brainwashing” for partisan, nonscientific objectives, and further ordered that the movie could not be shown to British schoolchildren without being accompanied by a 56-page instruction guide which points out where Gore’s claims “do not accord with mainstream scientific opinion.”
Climategate is a wide-ranging exposé of characters and special-interest groups that have exploited the global warming scare for self-serving purposes. For example, Sussman reports that the grandstanding dictator of the Maldives has demanded billions of dollars from the developed world on the grounds that human-caused global warming threatens to cause his low-lying chain of islands to disappear. In fact, the sea level there is falling.
Brain Sussman is a thin Rush Limbaugh. He was a weatherman but found his calling on right wing radio. Sadly, KSFO has a long history in the Bay Area, once carried Giants and A's Baseball and 49er Football and well known DJ's like Don Sherwood, Gene Nelson, Carter D. Smith. On Sunday evening Scott Beach would narrate Tales of The City; San Francisco History. Now it is right wing talk all day and all night and no longer is the first 'button' on my car radios.
Is that his way of admitting man made global warming isn't?
Why then the change in terminology among these left wing piles of shit?
Make your explanations brief if possible.
Oh and btw. Everyone knows climate change is a fact.
Hey! Water is wet everyone!
Lol at liberals and their bullshit.
Fucking hilarious.
Liberals in this thread finally admitted that climate change is not the same thing as MAN MADE global warming.
However, they all insist that it is the same thing.
In this very fucking thread, they have both sides of the debate covered.
So, the reason for the concerted effort to say climate change, instead of MAN MADE global warming, is because pollution has caused greenhouse gases which has caused MAN MADE global warming.
When building a straw person, it is best not to use wet straw. Your dishonesty is so obvious, you appear ridiculous.
