Talked to some relatives about global warming.....

[jmdrake]

I agree with your sarcasm. We have the ability to destroy on such a massive scale, and we also have the ability to harvest responsibly without permanent destruction. Animals don't have the capacity to think like that. So yes, I think it is immoral for humans to destroy the earth. Animals cannot be held to moral standards.

So the African savanah is the earth destroyed? Tell that to all of the animals that depend on it.

 

[jmdrake]

Did you read the article? The ice is acting this way due to "unusual wind patterns". IE, climate change.

Come on dude. You can't be that slow can you? Really? The scientists made a prediction. Their prediction was wrong. Now they are prevaricating to keep gullible people like you believing in their wrong theories that led to their wrong predictions. I used to believe the global warming BS back before global warming was "cool." The very first global warming documentary I saw was on PBS and it was called "After the Warming". That propaganda piece was a futuristic documentary (mockumentary?) where global warming had already happened and we had to have a one world government to save the planet. Gullible me thought "Let's hurry up and stop global warming. I don't want a one world government". I had no idea that I was being snookered by the very people pushing for the one world government I feared. You know what cured me of believing this crap? Among other things finding out the same people had pushed the need to curb CO2 emmissions TO STOP GLOBAL COOLING! Seriously, how can you believe this crap? The same CO2 that's supposedly causing global warming now couldn't have been causing global cooling in the 1970s. The damn theory just doesn't hold water (no pun intended).

Here's the PBS propaganda film "After the warming".



Acronies is clearly a troll. Brand new account and all he's talking about is "climage change".

 

[Acronies]

Come on dude. You can't be that slow can you? Really? The scientists made a prediction. Their prediction was wrong. Now they are prevaricating to keep gullible people like you believing in their wrong theories that led to their wrong predictions. I used to believe the global warming BS back before global warming was "cool." The very first global warming documentary I saw was on PBS and it was called "After the Warming". That propaganda piece was a futuristic documentary (mockumentary?) where global warming had already happened and we had to have a one world government to save the planet. Gullible me thought "Let's hurry up and stop global warming. I don't want a one world government". I had no idea that I was being snookered by the very people pushing for the one world government I feared. You know what cured me of believing this crap? Among other things finding out the same people had pushed the need to curb CO2 emmissions TO STOP GLOBAL COOLING! Seriously, how can you believe this crap? The same CO2 that's supposedly causing global warming now couldn't have been causing global cooling in the 1970s. The damn theory just doesn't hold water (no pun intended).

Here's the PBS propaganda film "After the warming".



Acronies is clearly a troll. Brand new account and all he's talking about is "climage change".

Back in the 70s most climate scientist predicted global warming. As time went on the number of climate scientist that agree on global warming increased.

 

[jmdrake]

Back in the 70s most climate scientist predicted global warming. As time went on the number of climate scientist that agree on global warming increased.

Somehow this information never made it to the MSM.

And FTR, I noticed that all of your stats come from skepticalscience dot com. I call bullshit. That's like posting information from Infowars.com to "prove" your case against global warming or pro 9/11 truth.

 

[Seraphim]

Man-made CO2 as the cause of global climate change is a hilariously retarded argument.

Three of the largest volcanoes in the world have produced more CO2 over the last few decades then all of the CO2 produced by humans is all of human history.

That figure does not even include all of the other CO2 spewing volcanoes and INNUMERABLE other NATURAL producers of CO2.

CO2= food for plant life.

Cellular respiration and photosynthesis run parallel to each other and are in constant rebalancing.

Clear cutting vast swaths of dense rainforest. NOW THERE"S A TANGIBLE PROBLEM.

 

[Acronies]

Somehow this information never made it to the MSM.

And FTR, I noticed that all of your stats come from skepticalscience dot com. I call bullshit. That's like posting information from Infowars.com to "prove" your case against global warming or pro 9/11 truth.

And you consider a time magazine evidence.

Man-made CO2 as the cause of global climate change is a hilariously retarded argument.

Three of the largest volcanoes in the world have produced more CO2 over the last few decades then all of the CO2 produced by humans is all of human history.

That figure does not even include all of the other CO2 spewing volcanoes and INNUMERABLE other NATURAL producers of CO2.

CO2= food for plant life.

Cellular respiration and photosynthesis run parallel to each other and are in constant rebalancing.

Clear cutting vast swaths of dense rainforest. NOW THERE"S A TANGIBLE PROBLEM.

Natural emmisions of Carbon in Nature is countered with Natural absortions. But Human emmisions are not balanced with Human absorption of Carbon, and we reduce natural absorption of carbon in nature by deforestation. This upsets the natural balance of nature.

 

[Zippyjuan]

One cannot say anything about global warming on either side based on what has happened in ten or twenty or even 50 years.
Climate having natural changes over time does not rule out activities of man also having impacts on it.

 

[DamianTV]

No... that's still the wrong argument. You're ignoring the elephant in the room.

Remember that the goal of the Global Warming alarmists is to pressure Government into even more regulation and taxation in order to "protect our environment".

Do I want to breath stinky air? No. I've been to cities like LA, and it's foul.
Do I want the gubmit to protect me from breathing "dirty" air? Heck no.

/discussion

End result of Govt Solution to any actual or percieved problem will that extra burdens will be placed on the Common Man, not on the ones that actually do the polluting.

For example: Permits.

Global Warming and the Govts actions to "protect us" would requre a Permit to have a Wood Burning Stove. It might cost an individual say $500 bucks per MONTH to burn wood. Thats enough to cause a significant financial burden for an individual, but for a Power Company, it doesnt even qualify as chump change. Power company scoffs at both the Fee for the Permit, as well as any Fines for violations. Individuals will be treated MUCH more harshly.

---

Im trying to avoid taking any sides of Global Warming is fact or fiction, because the Reactions to BOTH Facts and Fiction are where the consequences for the individual are at. The thing is, the same can be said for almost EVERY Hot Topic we come up with. GMO Food. Vaccines. Vitamins. Gun Control. Abortion. We stay divided on each issue by taking one side or another, but in each case, the consequences to the individual are what cause the most harm to society. Some by requiring Permits. Others force Compliance and Obedience. Some are Fined. Some are Protested. Some result in Prison. In each of those cases, the sources of the problems are allowed to continue their actions. They wont shut down Vitamin Manufacturers, but eventually, you'll be required to have a Prescription to get a Vitamin. Do you have a Permit to poison the enviornment? NO? Jail Time. Oh youre a corporation? Heres a hefty 25 cent Fine, now continue with your actions.