Why do cons believe the weather service?

[hangover]

Just about everybody believes the meteorologists when they say that there's going to be a snow storm coming, or a hurricane, or a heat wave. But when those same meteorologists say "global warming", the cons try to make everyone believe that those weather forecasters don't know what they're talking about.
It should be obvious that the cons are just parrots for the polluter industries. Kind of like when they tried to make everyone believe that smoking cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Back then they were subsidizing the tobacco industry. They still do today. No cure for stupid.

 

[Darkwind]

Just about everybody believes the meteorologists when they say that there's going to be a snow storm coming, or a hurricane, or a heat wave. But when those same meteorologists say "global warming", the cons try to make everyone believe that those weather forecasters don't know what they're talking about.
It should be obvious that the cons are just parrots for the polluter industries. Kind of like when they tried to make everyone believe that smoking cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Back then they were subsidizing the tobacco industry. They still do today. No cure for stupid.

On Valentines day, 2007, our local forecast called for 3 to 5 inches of snow. Twenty hours later, we were at 24 inches.

This happened when they had radar tracking a storm that was moving eastward at a constant velocity, producing a steady stream of moisture at a specific rate.

This was a 24 hour forecast.

Now, you want to use a daily forecast of weather that is only 80% accurate and then project that to say that in 20 to 100 years from now, they can predict the temperature of the planet......

And you want to ridicule republicans?

Too funny....

 

[KNB]

Getting rid of the EPA will provide jobs because corporations will be able to save money by dumping toxic sludge in our drinking water. The money that the corporations save will trickle down to the workers, just like Reagan promised. Right now, big government regulations make it illegal for corporations to dump toxic sludge in our drinking water, which costs America jobs.

Conservatives only make sense if you don't think about it.

 

[occupied]

Getting rid of the EPA will provide jobs because corporations will be able to save money by dumping toxic sludge in our drinking water. The money that the corporations save will trickle down to the workers, just like Reagan promised. Right now, big government regulations make it illegal for corporations to dump toxic sludge in our drinking water, which costs America jobs.

Conservatives only make sense if you don't think about it.

They have projected their own personal wishes into infinity thinking that big government is to be abolished at all levels. I can see wanting to keep them out of your personal life, I agree with that, but at some point a person's ability to screw-up the lives of neighbors becomes so great that they must be subject to public scrutiny as in the case of companies that keep/produce large quantities of dangerous substances. In case of pollution the conservative way would be after-the-fact enforcement of simplistic pollution laws written by the polluters themselves, this is what we have in the case of the WV spill, and what do we have? Polluted water and no way to make the dumpers pay for it.

 

[Redfish]

Getting rid of the EPA will provide jobs because corporations will be able to save money by dumping toxic sludge in our drinking water. The money that the corporations save will trickle down to the workers, just like Reagan promised. Right now, big government regulations make it illegal for corporations to dump toxic sludge in our drinking water, which costs America jobs.

Conservatives only make sense if you don't think about it.

They have projected their own personal wishes into infinity thinking that big government is to be abolished at all levels. I can see wanting to keep them out of your personal life, I agree with that, but at some point a person's ability to screw-up the lives of neighbors becomes so great that they must be subject to public scrutiny as in the case of companies that keep/produce large quantities of dangerous substances. In case of pollution the conservative way would be after-the-fact enforcement of simplistic pollution laws written by the polluters themselves, this is what we have in the case of the WV spill, and what do we have? Polluted water and no way to make the dumpers pay for it.

When did anyone on the right come out in favor of pollution? please give us some citations or STFU.

 

[Indeependent]

Getting rid of the EPA will provide jobs because corporations will be able to save money by dumping toxic sludge in our drinking water. The money that the corporations save will trickle down to the workers, just like Reagan promised. Right now, big government regulations make it illegal for corporations to dump toxic sludge in our drinking water, which costs America jobs.

Conservatives only make sense if you don't think about it.

There is a sanitation industry.

 

[hazlnut]

Just about everybody believes the meteorologists when they say that there's going to be a snow storm coming, or a hurricane, or a heat wave. But when those same meteorologists say "global warming", the cons try to make everyone believe that those weather forecasters don't know what they're talking about.
It should be obvious that the cons are just parrots for the polluter industries. Kind of like when they tried to make everyone believe that smoking cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Back then they were subsidizing the tobacco industry. They still do today. No cure for stupid.

Interestingly some of the same fake scientists show up with both cigarettes and carbon emissions. Men willing to sell their souls for a few bucks.

 

[Katzndogz]

Why can't libtards know the difference between a meterologist and a climatologist? Why do they think they are the same.

Meterologists have not said anything about global warming. They said that we were entering a cycle of cooling which would result in fewer hurricanes and a drought on the west coast.

 

[Yurt]

1. telling the weather a few days out is vastly different than talking about climate change.

2. what makes you thinks "cons" believe weathermen? they are often wrong.

3. what katz said, meteorologist and climatologist study two different fields

what a bizarre thread.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why can't libtards know the difference between a meterologist and a climatologist? Why do they think they are the same.

Meterologists have not said anything about global warming. They said that we were entering a cycle of cooling which would result in fewer hurricanes and a drought on the west coast.

Libtards can't distinguish the difference between a traffic jam and people needlessly killed. What makes you think they could possibly recognize the difference between climate and weather??

 

[whitehall]

The weather service can't predict the path of a storm to any great accuracy nor can they predict the exact temperature for the next day. How the hell can they predict the earth's temperature in ten years plus or minus a degree? The big nuclear reactor in the sky is the source of life and carbon ain't your enemy no matter what Al Gore sez. In geological terms a ice age is much more likely and more devastating and in fact scientists argue that we might be emerging from one or going into one.

 

[occupied]

Getting rid of the EPA will provide jobs because corporations will be able to save money by dumping toxic sludge in our drinking water. The money that the corporations save will trickle down to the workers, just like Reagan promised. Right now, big government regulations make it illegal for corporations to dump toxic sludge in our drinking water, which costs America jobs.

Conservatives only make sense if you don't think about it.

They have projected their own personal wishes into infinity thinking that big government is to be abolished at all levels. I can see wanting to keep them out of your personal life, I agree with that, but at some point a person's ability to screw-up the lives of neighbors becomes so great that they must be subject to public scrutiny as in the case of companies that keep/produce large quantities of dangerous substances. In case of pollution the conservative way would be after-the-fact enforcement of simplistic pollution laws written by the polluters themselves, this is what we have in the case of the WV spill, and what do we have? Polluted water and no way to make the dumpers pay for it.

When did anyone on the right come out in favor of pollution? please give us some citations or STFU.

Was it my imagination of did several candidates suggest pulling the teeth or even abolishing the EPA? A quick google search shows at least two did call for it to be rendered powerless or abolished altogether. That may not be an explicit endorsement of pollution but telling the environment cops to go home is the same thing.

 

[FJO]

Getting rid of the EPA will provide jobs because corporations will be able to save money by dumping toxic sludge in our drinking water. The money that the corporations save will trickle down to the workers, just like Reagan promised. Right now, big government regulations make it illegal for corporations to dump toxic sludge in our drinking water, which costs America jobs.

Conservatives only make sense if you don't think about it.

I guess you don't know that EPA is actually the acronym for Employment Prevention Agency.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Just about everybody believes the meteorologists when they say that there's going to be a snow storm coming, or a hurricane, or a heat wave. But when those same meteorologists say "global warming", the cons try to make everyone believe that those weather forecasters don't know what they're talking about.
It should be obvious that the cons are just parrots for the polluter industries. Kind of like when they tried to make everyone believe that smoking cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Back then they were subsidizing the tobacco industry. They still do today. No cure for stupid.

Interestingly some of the same fake scientists show up with both cigarettes and carbon emissions. Men willing to sell their souls for a few bucks.

"You think $30MM is a 'few bucks', Bodecca? LOL"

 

[Redfish]

They have projected their own personal wishes into infinity thinking that big government is to be abolished at all levels. I can see wanting to keep them out of your personal life, I agree with that, but at some point a person's ability to screw-up the lives of neighbors becomes so great that they must be subject to public scrutiny as in the case of companies that keep/produce large quantities of dangerous substances. In case of pollution the conservative way would be after-the-fact enforcement of simplistic pollution laws written by the polluters themselves, this is what we have in the case of the WV spill, and what do we have? Polluted water and no way to make the dumpers pay for it.

When did anyone on the right come out in favor of pollution? please give us some citations or STFU.

Was it my imagination of did several candidates suggest pulling the teeth or even abolishing the EPA? A quick google search shows at least two did call for it to be rendered powerless or abolished altogether. That may not be an explicit endorsement of pollution but telling the environment cops to go home is the same thing.

being opposed to an overly large intrusive federal agency does not mean anyone favors polluting the earth. No one is advocating for eliminating laws against pollution, just looking for some reasonableness in it that does not destroy jobs and the economy.

How is the country helped by obama's desire to destroy the coal industry?

 

[occupied]

When did anyone on the right come out in favor of pollution? please give us some citations or STFU.

Was it my imagination of did several candidates suggest pulling the teeth or even abolishing the EPA? A quick google search shows at least two did call for it to be rendered powerless or abolished altogether. That may not be an explicit endorsement of pollution but telling the environment cops to go home is the same thing.

being opposed to an overly large intrusive federal agency does not mean anyone favors polluting the earth. No one is advocating for eliminating laws against pollution, just looking for some reasonableness in it that does not destroy jobs and the economy.

How is the country helped by obama's desire to destroy the coal industry?

In light of recent events it seems they do not have enough oversight, because it is clear they are incapable of policing themselves or abiding by incredibly loose state level regulation without the occasional permanently scarring environmental catastrophe. Just what are these jobs worth to you? A little cancer here a humongous fish-kill there a polluted countryside everywhere?

 

[The Rabbi]

Was it my imagination of did several candidates suggest pulling the teeth or even abolishing the EPA? A quick google search shows at least two did call for it to be rendered powerless or abolished altogether. That may not be an explicit endorsement of pollution but telling the environment cops to go home is the same thing.

being opposed to an overly large intrusive federal agency does not mean anyone favors polluting the earth. No one is advocating for eliminating laws against pollution, just looking for some reasonableness in it that does not destroy jobs and the economy.

How is the country helped by obama's desire to destroy the coal industry?

In light of recent events it seems they do not have enough oversight, because it is clear they are incapable of policing themselves or abiding by incredibly loose state level regulation without the occasional permanently scarring environmental catastrophe. Just what are these jobs worth to you? A little cancer here a humongous fish-kill there a polluted countryside everywhere?

The simple way to eliminate risk of industrial accident is to eliminate the industries. That is precisely what Obama is proposing.

 

[occupied]

being opposed to an overly large intrusive federal agency does not mean anyone favors polluting the earth. No one is advocating for eliminating laws against pollution, just looking for some reasonableness in it that does not destroy jobs and the economy.

How is the country helped by obama's desire to destroy the coal industry?

In light of recent events it seems they do not have enough oversight, because it is clear they are incapable of policing themselves or abiding by incredibly loose state level regulation without the occasional permanently scarring environmental catastrophe. Just what are these jobs worth to you? A little cancer here a humongous fish-kill there a polluted countryside everywhere?

The simple way to eliminate risk of industrial accident is to eliminate the industries. That is precisely what Obama is proposing.

So what are you proposing? There has to be some kind of balance here but all the coal industry has done to clean up their act is to buy lobbyists, slick PR and politicians. If it is impossible to use coal as energy without wrecking things then the question stands, how much long-term environmental damage is worth those jobs?

 

[Freewill]

Just about everybody believes the meteorologists when they say that there's going to be a snow storm coming, or a hurricane, or a heat wave. But when those same meteorologists say "global warming", the cons try to make everyone believe that those weather forecasters don't know what they're talking about.
It should be obvious that the cons are just parrots for the polluter industries. Kind of like when they tried to make everyone believe that smoking cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Back then they were subsidizing the tobacco industry. They still do today. No cure for stupid.

Hmmm according to GW proponents weather has nothing to do with the issue why now do you bring it up? And in reality it is the GW side that pooh pooh weathermen as not having the education to discuss GW.

 

[Publius1787]

Just about everybody believes the meteorologists when they say that there's going to be a snow storm coming, or a hurricane, or a heat wave. But when those same meteorologists say "global warming", the cons try to make everyone believe that those weather forecasters don't know what they're talking about.
It should be obvious that the cons are just parrots for the polluter industries. Kind of like when they tried to make everyone believe that smoking cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Back then they were subsidizing the tobacco industry. They still do today. No cure for stupid.

One has the scientific method, the other has no repeatable results.