what do global warming people want ??

[washamericom]

this has become a most divisive political hot potato in America, and the world.

a couple of quick question please.

1. what do the global activists want to happen ? (specifically)

2. have people signed on to this without knowing anything about it ?


WASHINGTON — A majority of Republicans — including 54 percent of self-described conservative Republicans — believe the world’s climate is changing and that mankind plays some role in the change, according to anew survey conducted by three prominent Republican pollsters.



Democrats, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, have sought to paint Republicans who question climate change as deniers of science who are out of touch with the mainstream.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/u...-majority-believe-in-climate-change.html?_r=0

 

[CrusaderFrank]

this has become a most divisive political hot potato in America, and the world.

a couple of quick question please.

1. what do the global activists want to happen ? (specifically)

2. have people signed on to this without knowing anything about it ?


WASHINGTON — A majority of Republicans — including 54 percent of self-described conservative Republicans — believe the world’s climate is changing and that mankind plays some role in the change, according to anew survey conducted by three prominent Republican pollsters.



Democrats, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, have sought to paint Republicans who question climate change as deniers of science who are out of touch with the mainstream.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/u...-majority-believe-in-climate-change.html?_r=0

It's EnviroMarxism, they want CONTROL!!!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why does the OP ask a stupid question as though he has a real interest in the answer?

If he has researched the matter.....which is what he is suggesting.....he should know what it is that scientists suggest be done. It's not a mystery.

This is a troll thread.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Continuity of life on this planet.

 

[cnm]

That's quite an amusing poll question. Just about every scientific association in the US agrees there is a consensus that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change. Perhaps the geological engineers differ, but they're heavily engaged with the petroleum industry. Even Exxon agrees with the consensus, not to mention the DoD and other US government agencies and just about all the other world governments.

To then put the few crackpots against that and [question whether there is a] consensus because of a scattering of flat earthers is a tribute to the denial industry.

 

[washamericom]

Why does the OP ask a stupid question as though he has a real interest in the answer?

If he has researched the matter.....which is what he is suggesting.....he should know what it is that scientists suggest be done. It's not a mystery.

This is a troll thread.

sorry you don't like it bozo, but you can't control the conversation here. consider the language

tags assingned by your people. what's the fist thing you think about when you hear the word denier.

what about use of the word cult ? there is political vehemence exibited, an alinsky effort to isolate and ridicule anyone who questions.

let's see if you are right, if everyone here agrees with your stance.

 

[Davros]

We want CO2 emissions to slow down so that climate change is limited in extent.

 

[Wildman]

This is a troll thread.

THIS IS A TROLL POST!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

We want CO2 emissions to slow down so that climate change is limited in extent.

Stop exhaling.

 

[Davros]

Why does the OP ask a stupid question as though he has a real interest in the answer?

If he has researched the matter.....which is what he is suggesting.....he should know what it is that scientists suggest be done. It's not a mystery.

This is a troll thread.

sorry you don't like it bozo, but you can't control the conversation here. consider the language tags assingned by your people. what's the fist thing you think about when you hear the word denier.
what about use of the word cult ?

A denier of global warming is a denier of facts and sound science. If you guys were right that data was being faked, then we would not have the melt age of glaciers and polar ice. We would not have the northward migration if insect pests and tropical disease. You guys are denying reality.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Why does the OP ask a stupid question as though he has a real interest in the answer?

If he has researched the matter.....which is what he is suggesting.....he should know what it is that scientists suggest be done. It's not a mystery.

This is a troll thread.

sorry you don't like it bozo, but you can't control the conversation here. consider the language tags assingned by your people. what's the fist thing you think about when you hear the word denier.
what about use of the word cult ? there is political vehemence exibited, an alinsky effort to isolate and ridicule anyone who questions. let's see if you are right, and see everyone here agrees with your stance.

Awww. You seem upset. I wonder why you are so sensitive? Could it be because you are so transparent?

My people? You mean climate scientists?

 

[washamericom]

That's quite an amusing poll question. Just about every scientific association in the US agrees there is a consensus that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change. Perhaps the geological engineers differ, but they're heavily engaged with the petroleum industry. Even Exxon agrees with the consensus, not to mention the DoD and other US government agencies and just about all the other world governments.

To then put the few crackpots against that and say their is no consensus because of a scattering of flat earthers is a tribute to the denial industry.

what about the cooked science behind it ? i think you would be a great person to tell me/us, what do you want to happen? this topic seems to have wandering and nebulous enthusiasm, like occupy wall street.

i'm glad you like the poll question.

 

[Davros]

We want CO2 emissions to slow down so that climate change is limited in extent.

Stop exhaling.

Hey dumbass, the difference between fossil fuel emission and exhalation is that exhalation is of carbon that was already part of the short term carbon cycle, where's fossil fuel emission unlocks carbon that was trapped for hundreds of millions of years
Or are you a young earth creationist too? Often that goes hand in hand with global warming denial.

 

[Wildman]

...and say their is no consensus...

typical stupid liberfool who does not know the differnce between "their" and " THERE!!

you need to start over in the second grade and learn English.

 

[Davros]

...and say their is no consensus...

typical stupid liberfool who does not know the differnce between "their" and " THERE!!

you need to start over in the second grade and learn English.

Hey, look! It's a grammar nazi! Cool, bro.

 

[washamericom]

Why does the OP ask a stupid question as though he has a real interest in the answer?

If he has researched the matter.....which is what he is suggesting.....he should know what it is that scientists suggest be done. It's not a mystery.

This is a troll thread.

sorry you don't like it bozo, but you can't control the conversation here. consider the language tags assingned by your people. what's the fist thing you think about when you hear the word denier.
what about use of the word cult ? there is political vehemence exibited, an alinsky effort to isolate and ridicule anyone who questions. let's see if you are right, and see everyone here agrees with your stance.

Awww. You seem upset. I wonder why you are so sensitive? Could it be because you are so transparent?

My people? You mean climate scientists?

no, i'm fine. yes, your cult, what do they want the outcome to be, and what has to happen. something like carbon credits ?

A carbon credit (often called a carbon offset) is a financial instrument that represents a tonne of CO2(carbon dioxide) or CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent gases) removed or reduced from the atmosphere from an emission reduction project, which can be used, by governments, industry or private individuals to offset ...

 

[Wildman]

We want CO2 emissions to slow down so that climate change is limited in extent.

convince China, India, Pakistan and many other countries to limit and control their Co2 emissions first and we might agree.

O fucking K??

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why does the OP ask a stupid question as though he has a real interest in the answer?

If he has researched the matter.....which is what he is suggesting.....he should know what it is that scientists suggest be done. It's not a mystery.

This is a troll thread.

sorry you don't like it bozo, but you can't control the conversation here. consider the language tags assingned by your people. what's the fist thing you think about when you hear the word denier.
what about use of the word cult ?

A denier of global warming is a denier of facts and sound science. If you guys were right that data was being faked, then we would not have the melt age of glaciers and polar ice. We would not have the northward migration if insect pests and tropical disease. You guys are denying reality.

No one denies climate change. It is constantly changing. What is in question is the degree, if any, of anthropogenic cause and effect, and the fact that the "consensus" is largely another facet of the ambitions of globalist interests to implement global control by increments.

 

[Freewill]

1. I believe the fear is based mostly on hubris. The scientific community, at least what appears to be the majority, have a lot vested in CC/GW/CD or whatever they call it today. Until they answer the question, what should the temperature be I am thinking they are guessing that cooler is better. Everyone wants to be relevant. Everyone wants to contribute. Those pushing for CC, Gore, want those things too. They have invested much of their life to the belief that CC is bad. I personally believe their ego and hubris will never allow them to say, "we were wrong" or "we exaggerated the threat."

2. My opinion is yes, the majority of peer reviews have signed off on the data provided to them. Is the data necessarily wrong? Who is to know? They are tight fisted with the information but there are those who report having access and report their is gross fudging of the numbers. For example, the melting of the Arctic. The GW advocates place their sole reasoning on GW for what they say is a loss of ice coverage. But are there other more plausible reasons? One offered is that the atmosphere is actually getting cleaner thus allowing more of the Sun's radiation onto the exposed ice, thus melting it. Another is that pollution, not CO2, is laying on the ice causing the Sun to melt the ice. Neither of the latter do you hear of in the discussion concering CC.

 

[washamericom]

...and say their is no consensus...

typical stupid liberfool who does not know the differnce between "their" and " THERE!!

you need to start over in the second grade and learn English.

Hey, look! It's a grammar nazi! Cool, bro.

Continuity of life on this planet.

for how long ?