If we accept the radical, environmental left's premise, what's wrong with global warming?

[Jackie S]

Where the fuck are all of the Trilobites?

[DSK]

Originally Posted by tonyvicksa

I am neutral on the issue. But I will never believe they can accurately measure temperatures or carbon dioxide 100 years ago let alone 400,000 years ago. I call bullshit!!

The projected temperature rise is within the margin of error unless they claim they can accurately ascribe temperature and carbon dioxide levels accurately from 100 years ago - hence their need to shout down dissent.

[JD Barleycorn]

I've always said that liberalism can't even agree with itself. Global warming (if you accept the premise) has given us warmer winters and milder summers....so....have you seen all those commercials about freezing animals in the winter. A better climate for stray animals is desirable don't you think? How about homeless vets or just regular homeless? Wouldn't warmer winters be good for them as well? By the way, my electric bill just arrived and it is a third of what it was for summer. So we use less energy in these global warming enhanced winters and less energy means less pollution right? So if you're an environmentalist then you should be supporting global warming right?

[Muscleup]

Global warming... wait a minute...ah...Climate change, yeah that's the ticket. This reminds me of "The Sky is Falling" liberal bullshit in the '70's. Remember, fluorocarbons in hairspray, deodorant, etc... were going to vaporize all of us due to ozone erosion. Then they figured out it was just normal fluctuation patterns.

[bambino]

I think farts are the problem.

[Muscleup]

Any time libtards start some weird panic where they suggest we need gov'ment to save us, just follow the money. It's pathetic. They sell bullshit now about something they predict will happen when we are all dead and in turn make a fortune in the process.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by Muscleup

Any time libtards start some weird panic where they suggest we need gov'ment to save us, just follow the money. It's pathetic. They sell bullshit now about something they predict will happen when we are all dead and in turn make a fortune in the process.

Follow the money to the " Internet Inventor ", Al Gore ! And his " investments " in company's that stand to make billions off of carbon taxes. The lying liberal POS.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Muscleup

Global warming... wait a minute...ah...Climate change, ......

I'm hoping for a "warm" winter ....

..... these extended freezing spells are tough on citrus trees.....

..... and the "pots" to keep them warm pollute the atmosphere.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by tonyvicksa

I am neutral on the issue. But I will never believe they can accurately measure temperatures or carbon dioxide 100 years ago let alone 400,000 years ago. I call bullshit!!

So because you don't understand something and are too lazy to research accepted scientific methods, processes, and procedures and because those answers will make you one of the j douche-bag brigade, you call bullshit.

Did you notice j douche doesn't include a single link to back up anything he says? Why should he? He "knows".

You believe the scientists who landed a space craft on a comet after a journey of billions of miles and their counterparts in other fields are bullshitting you.

And the few scientists who frequently use questionable methods and unproven conclusions to base their research and findings on are the group to be listened to?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/
Of course there are too many links to be pasted.

I took the bait and addressed the crowd of morons. Because it's simple. The atmosphere changes as the levels of gases increase and proportions of those gases change. How much is too much. I don't know.
But all of you dick heads claim to know. Without a shred of evidence to back you up. You attack the real scientists while you are without a credible position

There can be debate on the level of change. That there has been change is not so much of a debate.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

There can be debate on the level of change. That there has been change is not so much of a debate.

Deflection! Perhaps you should do a little "research" yourself.



I see you are "munching" on "hot air" again.



Keep up the "munching"!

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

So because you don't understand something and are too lazy to research accepted scientific methods, processes, and procedures and because those answers will make you one of the j douche-bag brigade, you call bullshit.

Did you notice j douche doesn't include a single link to back up anything he says? Why should he? He "knows".

You believe the scientists who landed a space craft on a comet after a journey of billions of miles and their counterparts in other fields are bullshitting you.

And the few scientists who frequently use questionable methods and unproven conclusions to base their research and findings on are the group to be listened to?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/
Of course there are too many links to be pasted.

I took the bait and addressed the crowd of morons. Because it's simple. The atmosphere changes as the levels of gases increase and proportions of those gases change. How much is too much. I don't know.
But all of you dick heads claim to know. Without a shred of evidence to back you up. You attack the real scientists while you are without a credible position

There can be debate on the level of change. That there has been change is not so much of a debate.

One little problem with everything you wrote; Historically CO2 has always LAGGED temperature change. This has been show going back thousands of years using trees and carbon dating. Now we're supposed to believe (as you do) that CO2 is now leading temperature change....? So the laws of climate have changed just for you.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by tonyvicksa

I am neutral on the issue. But I will never believe they can accurately measure temperatures or carbon dioxide 100 years ago let alone 400,000 years ago. I call bullshit!!

When you post "measure" you are making an accurate statement, but the reality is scientist look at changes in the chemical composition of substances from those periods of time and based on current measurements can determine what temperature would have been in existence at that time to generate those changes in the substances. Have you ever seen the cross section of an old tree "dated" and "marked" by events ... such as a forest fire?

Satellites can measure changing temperatures beneath the surface to locate various substances beneath the surface. Measurements can be made and determinations verified with changes in the "heat" of an object. That's what motion detectors do .... and night vision equipment. Additionally certain plants are indigenous to areas with certain temperature ranges. The same with animals and reptiles. Where did the dinosaurs go? How come they aren't around any longer?