it's official... we're out of oil.

[jon_berzerk]

Satellites have been parked over the Arctic since 1979. What do the photo's say?

Actually since 1970. They show that the ice level was lower in 1970, then got higher, then got lower and is now beginning to build again....

yes it is convenient to chop off the time lines

that does not support the the theory

--LOL

 

[soonerthunder22]

This old rock we call home has sustained untold incidents, catastrophic in nature and intensity, for billions of years. Earthquakes, spewing volcanos, and even direct strikes by hurtling asteroids that certainly must have covered the earth and sky with debris so thick it blotted out the sun for months.

The unique nature of the earth to self heal is why this global warming gibberish is so irritating to those of us who realize that it is a poorly thought out theory, fueled by fearmongers who see a golden opportunity to cash in on the ignorance of others. Shame on you.

 

[Inevitable]

Satellites have been parked over the Arctic since 1979. What do the photo's say?

They say that ice melt and freeze is erratic.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Satellites have been parked over the Arctic since 1979. What do the photo's say?

The photos say that rdean has not left his parent's basement since 1979?

 

[JoeB131]

This old rock we call home has sustained untold incidents, catastrophic in nature and intensity, for billions of years. Earthquakes, spewing volcanos, and even direct strikes by hurtling asteroids that certainly must have covered the earth and sky with debris so thick it blotted out the sun for months.

The unique nature of the earth to self heal is why this global warming gibberish is so irritating to those of us who realize that it is a poorly thought out theory, fueled by fearmongers who see a golden opportunity to cash in on the ignorance of others. Shame on you.

Yes, but often in that "healing', it's eliminated hundreds of thousands of species that couldn't cope.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, it has an effect...an effect equivalent to a mouse fart at NRG Stadium.

99.72% of greenhouse gasses are produced by natural sources.


Now, I'm sure you will go off on some tangent, but the fact remains, 0.28% is man's contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions.

And that's overall...burning fossil fuels emissions is a smaller amount still.

That's like saying a small pinch of arsenic would still only be .28% of your body if you ingest it...

But it will still kill you.

But, heck, you know more about this than 95% of climate scientists, right?

If your body was producing 95% of the total arsenic, that .28% wouldn't even make the balance sheet.

95% of climate scientists have been wrong 95% of the time.

And then they lie about it.

Here you go...peer reviewed paper...

Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements



It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change.

This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare.

From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.

Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements

​

What's the upshot?

That they know you, they and the media are full of shit...but it "enhances global welfare" so that makes it ok.

Or they are trying to put the information out in such a way that it's easier to understand.

But when you got people whose understanding of science is that the world was made 6000 years ago and the dinosaurs died out because Noah didn't have room for them on the Ark, and they are easily manipulated by rich people who are making a profit off the status quo, fighting ignorance is a losing battle.

Again, I'll take the word of 95% of Climate Scientists that this is a problem, and not worry about the 1% who are arguing over how serious the problem is.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Not to worry. We'll destroy the planet with climate change long before we run out of oil.

Happy now?

We have a far greater danger of people like you reproducing first.

So you can't argue the point, so you want to name-call?

Okay.

do you really think we can be burning 90 million barrels of oil every year, along with billions of tons of coal and it doesn't have an effect?

Really?

Better talk to other countries about THEIR coal emissions.

The U.S. only burns low sulfur coal and U.S. coal power plants have the lowest emissions in the WORLD.

Blame your junk science "global warming" or "climate change" garbage on TURD world countries, which is where the blame belongs.

Go visit China some time, then get back to us.

 

[Peach]

Nah, the planet will be here; life on the planet is a separate issue.

 

[JoeB131]

We have a far greater danger of people like you reproducing first.

So you can't argue the point, so you want to name-call?

Okay.

do you really think we can be burning 90 million barrels of oil every year, along with billions of tons of coal and it doesn't have an effect?

Really?

Better talk to other countries about THEIR coal emissions.

The U.S. only burns low sulfur coal and U.S. coal power plants have the lowest emissions in the WORLD.

Blame your junk science "global warming" or "climate change" garbage on TURD world countries, which is where the blame belongs.

Go visit China some time, then get back to us.

China is only horrible because a lot of big corporations moved manufacturing over there.

You know, like Mitt Romney, who thought it was wonderful he had Chinese babes behind barbed wire making him money.

 

[mal]

So you can't argue the point, so you want to name-call?

Okay.

do you really think we can be burning 90 million barrels of oil every year, along with billions of tons of coal and it doesn't have an effect?

Really?

Better talk to other countries about THEIR coal emissions.

The U.S. only burns low sulfur coal and U.S. coal power plants have the lowest emissions in the WORLD.

Blame your junk science "global warming" or "climate change" garbage on TURD world countries, which is where the blame belongs.

Go visit China some time, then get back to us.

China is only horrible because a lot of big corporations moved manufacturing over there.

You know, like Mitt Romney, who thought it was wonderful he had Chinese babes behind barbed wire making him money.

With people like JoeB it's always our fault.



peace...

 

[JoeB131]

[

With people like JoeB it's always our fault.



peace...

No, guy, it's not "our" fault.

the 1%ers aren't "us".

They aren't America.

They'd incorporate in some other country to save a few tax bucks, do their manufacturing in a third world shithole that has no safety or environmental rules.

Because they have no humanity.

And dumbasses like you praise them.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not to worry. We'll destroy the planet with climate change long before we run out of oil.

Happy now?

We have a far greater danger of people like you reproducing first.

So you can't argue the point, so you want to name-call?

Okay.

do you really think we can be burning 90 million barrels of oil every year, along with billions of tons of coal and it doesn't have an effect?

Really?

Totally. That has no effect on climate.

The AGWCult cannot show one single experiment that demonstrates how even an instantaneous 120ppm increase in a closed system can raise temperature

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Not to worry. We'll destroy the planet with climate change long before we run out of oil.

Happy now?

We have a far greater danger of people like you reproducing first.

So you can't argue the point, so you want to name-call?

Okay.

do you really think we can be burning 90 million barrels of oil every year, along with billions of tons of coal and it doesn't have an effect?

Really?

"90 million barrels of oil every year" ? The U.S. ? Your town probably uses more than that.

In 2013, the U.S. consumed a total of 6.89 billion barrels of petroleum products. Out of that, I'm certain much more than 90 million barrels were used that ended up going out the tailpipe.

 

[FJO]

What this joke of a president does not realize is that his putrid and stinking breath (and that of his wife) does far more damage to the environment than any Republican lack of regulation ever could.

 

[mal]

[

With people like JoeB it's always our fault.



peace...

No, guy, it's not "our" fault.

the 1%ers aren't "us".

They aren't America.

They'd incorporate in some other country to save a few tax bucks, do their manufacturing in a third world shithole that has no safety or environmental rules.

Because they have no humanity.

And dumbasses like you praise them.

I do no such thing... And is Obama a 1%?



peace...

 

[Delta4Embassy]

How much oil do we have left?

Well... That's what the expert's said back in 1981.

There is also no ice at the caps... Ask algore.



peace...

Actually, 'proven oil reserves' have been going up about 100 billion barrels a year the last several years world-wide.

International Energy Statistics - EIA

 

[mal]

We don't have an oil shortage issue... at all.

The Left Lies about many things and that is one of them.



peace...