No Need to Panic About Global Warming

FredHayek wrote: OK, what are you willing to do to lower your additions to the carbon monoxide levels? Pay $5 more per gallon of gas for your car? Pay $500 more for every vacation flight? How many poor people do you want to deny electricity and heat because they can't afford Al Gore's carbon credits?

Nigeria recently tried to get rid of their subsidies for petrol products and the poor rioted in the streets as food prices and fuel doubled in price.

Good luck with your crusade.

Oh...They got you with scare tactics again huh? I guess that answers my previous question on how they get you brain dead drones to argue against your own self interests..They scared you with gross exaggerations and outright bullsh** again..I should have known



It works everytime!

Vice Lord wrote:

FredHayek wrote: OK, what are you willing to do to lower your additions to the carbon monoxide levels? Pay $5 more per gallon of gas for your car? Pay $500 more for every vacation flight? How many poor people do you want to deny electricity and heat because they can't afford Al Gore's carbon credits?

Nigeria recently tried to get rid of their subsidies for petrol products and the poor rioted in the streets as food prices and fuel doubled in price.

Good luck with your crusade.

Oh...They got you with scare tactics again huh? I guess that answers my previous question on how they get you brain dead drones to argue against your own self interests..They scared you.

Works everytime!

I'll believe 16 international scientist before I listen to a has been poker player.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Vice Lord wrote:

FredHayek wrote: OK, what are you willing to do to lower your additions to the carbon monoxide levels? Pay $5 more per gallon of gas for your car? Pay $500 more for every vacation flight? How many poor people do you want to deny electricity and heat because they can't afford Al Gore's carbon credits?

Nigeria recently tried to get rid of their subsidies for petrol products and the poor rioted in the streets as food prices and fuel doubled in price.

Good luck with your crusade.

Oh...They got you with scare tactics again huh? I guess that answers my previous question on how they get you brain dead drones to argue against your own self interests..They scared you.

Works everytime!

I'll believe 16 international scientist before I listen to a has been poker player.

I'll believe my 1600 international scientist over your 16.....

Thanks for helping me keep this important subject at the top of the thread list.

If anyone else bothered to read the article you'd see that it does not deny that temperatures are increasing (though it says they haven't changed much in 10 yrs) and that humans contribute to it. It simply says there is no need to panic about it. But if you are really worried and want to reduce CO2 right now, it's pretty easy to help. Just don't exhale.

Humans were here during the last ice age and since that time temperatures have gone up about 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen close to 400 ft. World wide human population has sky rocketed despite the warming. Do any models predict anything even close to what we have alread experienced in temp and seal level increase?

pineinthegrass wrote: If anyone else bothered to read the article you'd see that it does not deny that temperatures are increasing (though it says they haven't changed much in 10 yrs) and that humans contribute to it. It simply says there is no need to panic about it. But if you are really worried and want to reduce CO2 right now, it's pretty easy to help. Just don't exhale.

Humans were here during the last ice age and since that time temperatures have gone up about 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen close to 400 ft. World wide human population has sky rocketed despite the warming. Do any models predict anything even close to what we have alread experienced in temp and seal level increase?

Liberals don't bother to read articles, they just trot out the talking points or just start flapping their mouths without trying to say anything coherent. Wait until Science Chic sees this article and we get the same link storm from her that she has been posting for years. These people need to get a new script.

Obnoxious Wind Bag wrote: Liberals don't bother to read articles, they just trot out the talking points or just start flapping their mouths without trying to say anything coherent.

Another broad brush trolling statement. But thanks for keeping this topic at the top of the list. rofllol rofllol rofllol

photo-fish wrote:

Obnoxious Wind Bag wrote: Liberals don't bother to read articles, they just trot out the talking points or just start flapping their mouths without trying to say anything coherent.

Another broad brush trolling statement. But thanks for keeping this topic at the top of the list. rofllol rofllol rofllol

Evidently you have no meaningful input, pro or con on the article. But your inane response put it back to the top for a while. Liberals are good for something, even if it's just to use them as a doorstop.

Vice Lord wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something The Dog Said wrote: It is time for the Republicans to listen to the American people, rather than continuing to be tools for the corporations and ultra-wealthy.

Well... if you read the article... this wasn't about Republicans. And if you read the list of scientist, this had nothing to do with corporations or the ultra-wealthy. This article was written and endorsed by the sixteen scientist, and the scientist were international in scope (so... can't blame this on the Republicans).

Sorry Sh*tforbrains, the "debates" are only in the popular media, not in the scientific literature. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view, though a few "organisations" hold non-committal positions

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something The Dog Said wrote: It is time for the Republicans to listen to the American people, rather than continuing to be tools for the corporations and ultra-wealthy.

Well... if you read the article... this wasn't about Republicans. And if you read the list of scientist, this had nothing to do with corporations or the ultra-wealthy. This article was written and endorsed by the sixteen scientist, and the scientist were international in scope (so... can't blame this on the Republicans).

Sorry Sh*tforbrains, the "debates" are only in the popular media, not in the scientific literature. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view, though a few "organisations" hold non-committal positions

If we are talking science then provide references for your assertions. You haven't a clue about the CO2 flux which involves land sea and the atmosphere interactively. They are not divorced from one another as you want to portray. Once again you have yourself involved in somehting you are totally ignorant about. Stick to pee wee football.

I find it incredibly interesting how so many with a political agenda are so ready to dismiss or deflect scientific opinion when it goes against the sacred cows you wish to create.

Rockdoc Franz wrote:
[snip]

If we are talking science then provide references for your assertions. You haven't a clue about the CO2 flux which involves land sea and the atmosphere interactively. They are not divorced from one another as you want to portray. Once again you have yourself involved in somehting you are totally ignorant about. Stick to pee wee football.

I find it incredibly interesting how so many with a political agenda are so ready to dismiss or deflect scientific opinion when it goes against the sacred cows you wish to create.

Good point Rock. Not one of the liberals that have commented on this thread has even made a feeble attempt to address the letter from the scientist, the science itself or the scientists themselves. The signatories of this letter are not science light-weights. They are not political animals and they represent a variety of nations and allied scientific regimens. This list of scientist would be a hard sell for Science Chic to go up against what more these armchair weatherman we have posting on this thread.

Typical liberal tactics. When you're into a topic way above your head... get snotty and punt. I'm still waiting for a good argument against the content of the letter from the scientists linked to in my first comment.