washamericom
Gold Member
- Jun 19, 2010
- 13,703
- 1,908
- 245
- Banned
- #1
since it's greenhouse week in paris, and i'm glad they are going ahead with it, despite the attacks. the terrorists lose on that point.
apparently now the religion of climate change is diverging. i'm digging into it more and more. the assertions and modeling put forth by the global heat community. and though so much if it has been disproven, the liberals continue on as if it's real, without impunity.
al gore is the town crier (unprecedented alarm), but he is so wrong. (the arctic ice could be gone in seven years).
the science is contrived. the co2 thing is just plain silly. these are the facts, the glossing over of this for political gain is apparent and obvious. to label this a scientific consensus is a disservice to the American voter, insulting intellectually too.
obama: "the debate is settled, climate change is a fact"
well, at least i can see where you guys are getting this stuff.
what are we supposed to do in a few years ? i would like if a supporter of this to start with these two questions. how much CO2 is optimal. what optimal earth temperature would you have the world dial in.
carbon credits is just like "cash for clunkers" and my investment in solyndra.
be specific please, those of you defend this nonsense, i really want to know why the mainstream media is blackouting the subject. i see climate change being used as a political recruiting tool for democrat party elites. i'll know for sure when only democrats are issue carbon credits. this ties directly in to wealth redistribution, and the march toward global socialism.
lord monkton is also a birther, awesome. "climate justice" sounds a little scary....
passing this off as fact or settled science is dogmatic, and totalitarian. if money is involved, to me, crosses the red line of swindling the taxpayer. that's what gore is, blaming hurricanes on this, say we will be under water soon, he is a wealthy swindler.
incidentally the 1930's was by far the warmest decade, before al gore was born...
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?
apparently now the religion of climate change is diverging. i'm digging into it more and more. the assertions and modeling put forth by the global heat community. and though so much if it has been disproven, the liberals continue on as if it's real, without impunity.
al gore is the town crier (unprecedented alarm), but he is so wrong. (the arctic ice could be gone in seven years).
the science is contrived. the co2 thing is just plain silly. these are the facts, the glossing over of this for political gain is apparent and obvious. to label this a scientific consensus is a disservice to the American voter, insulting intellectually too.
obama: "the debate is settled, climate change is a fact"
well, at least i can see where you guys are getting this stuff.
what are we supposed to do in a few years ? i would like if a supporter of this to start with these two questions. how much CO2 is optimal. what optimal earth temperature would you have the world dial in.
carbon credits is just like "cash for clunkers" and my investment in solyndra.
be specific please, those of you defend this nonsense, i really want to know why the mainstream media is blackouting the subject. i see climate change being used as a political recruiting tool for democrat party elites. i'll know for sure when only democrats are issue carbon credits. this ties directly in to wealth redistribution, and the march toward global socialism.
lord monkton is also a birther, awesome. "climate justice" sounds a little scary....
passing this off as fact or settled science is dogmatic, and totalitarian. if money is involved, to me, crosses the red line of swindling the taxpayer. that's what gore is, blaming hurricanes on this, say we will be under water soon, he is a wealthy swindler.
incidentally the 1930's was by far the warmest decade, before al gore was born...
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?
Last edited: