LOL. Can't. Breathe. Global Warming and Asteroids?

Jump to Last Post 1-10 of 10 discussions (90 posts)

0
JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … bU7awpJctQ

"An asteroid. What's coming our way? Is this an effect of, perhaps, global warming...?"

I think the term 'WTF' applies here.
reply report
1. 61
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Global warming is bound to increase asteroid tourism to earth. What asteroid wouldn't want to visit a nice, warm planet?
  reply report
2. 60
  dspallinoposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  LOL! I saw this earlier.
  reply report
3. 93
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It left again without ever stopping. We must be too warm - always a good thing when looking at asteroidal visitation. Better crank up those CO2 generators.
  reply report
  0
  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Haha. Well heck, I don't blame it. Half of it is flying out there, unshielded from the sun. It's got to be burning up. And freezing, maybe that's why it can't make up its mind.
  
  I wonder what's next? We've already blamed murder rates on global warming. What about the weak dollar? Can we blame that on global warming?
  
  Also, I think the Big Bang was started by global warming too.
  reply report
  61
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I think I saw an interesting book on global warming being promoted in an infomercial on the Al Jazeera network by one large man accompanied by a guy in a polar bear suit.
  reply report
4. 66
  tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  
  umm... what does global warming have to do with A steroids?...or for that matter even B steroids. :-)
  reply report
  61
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What a tangled web we weave. I am sure we will find out pro athletes are involved.
  reply report
  66
  tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  lol... Yeah - they put the ball in global
  reply report
84
donotfearposted 11 years ago
Ah yes....
global warming; it's all George Bush's fault.
reply report
1. 61
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes it is. Had Gore been president we could have had a head start on raising taxes and dumping the country's money down the big green toilet. Al Jazeera could have been the new CNN, singing his praises while putting money in his pocket. At least the current administration is doing all they can to make up for lost time.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  hehe
  you two have it right!
  
  "the big green toilet"....
  good description.
  reply report
  86
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You'll wish money had gone into the big green toilet in about 50 years when we've exhausted the world's supply of commercial oil and coal, and we have no choice BUT to shift to other forms of energy.
  reply report
  61
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Even if the environmental issues were as dire as you imply, the money that goes in the big green toilet just pads the wallets of Obama supporters. It hasn't been helping any real or imagined crisis. He is all about redistributing wealth and the big green toilet is one of his favorite portals for it. So no, I will never wish more money went into the big green toilet. I would also like the rights and jobs that are being flushed in the name of the green religion back too, please. Turns out Green is the new Red.
  reply report
  86
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "Environmental issues"? Umm, try "we're freaking running out of the stuff, and when we do, there's going to be panic and bedlam and anarchy when people can't heat their houses or afford electricity anymore."
  reply report
  66
  tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "50 years when we've exhausted the world's supply of commercial oil and coal" where do you get that idea - there are hundreds of years of resources available. You'll be long dead and gone before there is any problem with the world's energy supplies..
  reply report
  86
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So it's okay to ignore the elephant in the room because it won't go on a thrashing rampage while I personally am alive? It's just fine and dandy to let my grandchildren be trampled into chunky salsa just because I didn't want to take any initiative to address it?
  reply report
  66
  tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Yes you can address it leave us sooner rather than later.
  reply report
  86
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Way to massively miss the point of the metaphor!
  
  Here, the elephant represents the looming threat of dwindling fossil fuel supplies, and by refusing to acknowledge it and pretending that everything will be great forever and ever, you're essentially wiping your ass on the future just because it's not here yet.
  reply report
  61
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I think your seeing elephants. Don't make me pay to battle your green elephant. Obamacare might cover it.
  reply report
  86
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  A healthcare reform isn't going to magically put more oil into the ground.
  reply report
  61
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No, I meant coping with you imaginary elephant.
  reply report
  86
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Ahhh, I get it. You're one of those people who think nonrenewable resources are infinite.
  
  That's so cute.
  reply report
  61
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No, the elephant is your buying into the hype that this is an emergency. Other technologies are being worked on, and there is more than plenty of time for that. Some in the government hype this to redirect dollars and you are falling for it, promoting the sky is falling message while the green industries rake in the dough and offer no significant solutions. Slow down, take a breath, develop technologies to better utilize the tried and true energy options, which buys even more time to properly develop others. Taking away peoples property, taxing them to death and taking their rights away is all about control, not defeating your elephant. Sounds like you bought it, hook line and sinker. I don't think that's cute. I do like elephants though.
  reply report
  86
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So your proposed solution to fighting the inevitable oil disappearance is...to find new ways to burn oil...?
  
  Uhh...okay. That's like saying you can fight nation-wide famine by building a convenience store.
  report
  61
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps if you reread my last post, rather than me reposting it you would see that is not at all what I said.
  report
  86
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "develop technologies to better utilize the tried and true energy options"
  
  And the other ways to interpret this are...?
  report
  61
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  By reading in context...the whole paragraph...slowly perhaps. I said there is plenty of time and that we should develop other technologies for energy. Don't force technologies that aren't ready, just to say you are doing things, and don't throw away tax money on foolish ventures that in reality were just schemes in the first place. Battery companies that never make batteries, solar panel companies that amount to nothing but a waste, etc. All in the name of fighting your elephant. We are worse off for the knee jerk efforts at best, and swindled at worst.
  report
  86
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well that's all fine and good, but we kinda need those new energy sources and new technologies, and we kinda need them yesterday if we're going to transition smoothly without bedlam and chaos and cats marrying dogs, etc.
  report
  61
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  That's the hype I was talking about. The only hurry is to get more dollars laundered from the taxpayer's wallets to the green toilet and the supporters of the green agenda, (which is really all about making money, restricting freedom and usurping power). Folks like you are most likely sincere, but being used as the front line to promote the agenda. Your sincerity adds an air of believability those who rake in the bucks love to exploit. Your not even realizing it makes it all the more convincing.
  report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You can repeat your Donors Trust talking points all you want. It doesn't change the fact that human activity has doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide and raised the average global temperature over the past two centuries.
  
  Yes, some people make money from green products. People also make money from fossil fuels. Yes, the environmental lobby has an agenda. So does the oil lobby. Oh, and the oil lobby also gets millions of dollars in subsidies laundered from taxpayer wallets into the oil toilet.
  
  So your entire argument is negated. There are lobbyists on both sides. There are people who stand to make money on both sides. And there are unscrupulous people on both sides.
  
  The science, however, is on only one side. And it's not the side of the oil industry.
  report
  93
  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  A good example here, I think, is gasohol. While the concept is actually feasible, in the US it requires more oil energy to produce that alcohol that it produces in alcohol energy. All to make a fuel that contains less energy and requires more fuel to run a car the same distance as gasoline.
  
  Revamp our entire agricultural and transportation systems to burn alcohol rather than gasoline and diesel and it can work. We might get a little hungry, but it can work. Until then it is a net loss of oil products but, hey, it keeps the politicians of farm states happy giving their constituents free money.
  report
  61
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  +1. There are many examples like that.
  report
  76
  Shanna11posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  chunky salsa? Omg the mental images here are horrifying....why on earth did you compare trampled grandchildren to chunky salsa? Urgghhh
  reply report
  86
  Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "Chunky salsa" is a funny term often used in gaming, meant to express the excessive force of an attack in a quick, easily-relatable visual metaphor.
  reply report
  76
  Shanna11posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hmm. Well you learn something every day...
  reply report
0
scottcgruberposted 11 years ago
Kudos to Bill Nye for deflecting that idiotic question with an intelligent answer. It took a lot of class to not respond with "no, Judy, you moron," and for that I salute him
reply report
78
Credence2posted 11 years ago
So you righties are having a party, more goober peas anti-intellectiual stimulation, I trust?

Of course, foreign objects striking the earth has nohing to do with climate conditions on this planet, but I as know that somehow you would drag Obama in on this as well.

I never know what ocean that you all spawn from, its really hard core
reply report
1. 61
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So you missed the part that we are mocking how the reporter thought global warming might be responsible. Also you may want to use spell and grammar check before planting your flag on the higher intellectual ground.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No kidding.
  It tickled me when he referred to goober peas.
  Goober peas.........oh I gotta go look that up if'n I wanna be intellectual.......
  reply report
2. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You refer to the wrong medium.
  Our oldest ancestor was made from the dust of the ground.
  reply report
  78
  Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No, Brenda, I refer to peanuts. While I too subscribe to your idea of the source of the human family, it is not universally observed.
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well, no. Our oldest ancestor was definitely water-based. We've only been on land for the last few hundred million years.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Tell me his name please.
  And did he never evolve into frothing at the mouth and barking?
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  LUCA. The Last Universal Common Ancestor.
  
  And it did evolve into frothing at the mouth and barking, as your existence demonstrates.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOL
  I just now read about LUCA
  and how some mad scientists are trying to make a "tree of life"!
  Those guys are nuts.
  Figuratively and mentally.
  And quite uneducated, it seems!
  All they'd have to do to find the "tree of life" would be to read the real history of mankind. That would be the Bible of course.
  If it wasn't so sad it would be hilarious to know that they're looking for a needle in a haystack while the evidence is all around them and in a Book already!
  reply report
  66
  tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  What's a few hundred million years here or there? No witnesses around to prove or disprove it are there?
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Our genes are the witnesses. They prove beyond a doubt our aquatic ancestry.
  
  Also, fossils. They're witnesses too.
  reply report
  66
  tsadjatkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Oh give me a break - they aren't eye witnesses and you know they are all subject to interpretation and therefore error. I refer you to this posted by DTMBro in a forum, one of a multitude of examples to consider when discussing the infallibility you seem to lend to science:
  "Funny isn't it ? For how many years were we told the appendix was a vestigial organ the human body did not need - even though they had no idea what it's original function could have been. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions. It is no longer routinely removed and discarded if it is healthy and the appendix now appears to have a reason to be – as a "safe house" for the beneficial bacteria living in the human gut. Beneficial bacteria in the appendix that aid digestion can ride out a bout of diarrhea that completely evacuates the intestines and emerge afterwards to repopulate the gut.
  
  If scientists weren't brainwashed to believe in evolution they would never have concluded the appendix was a worthless vestigial organ but because science didn't have all the answers back then they shoved their conclusions (based on nothing but belief in evolutionary theory) down our throats. And these same cynics would be the first to say people superstitiously turn to a belief in God for comfort in the face of the unexplained when they themselves invariably turn to their unsubstantiated but believed theory of evolution when their science has no other answer. It is the height of hipocracy and plain pathetic. Only when scientific advancement and discovery reveals an explanation are they forced to drop their false conclusions (based solely on faith in a theory) but life goes on as if they never tried to pull the wool over our eyes. I'd bet the majority of people still think the appendix is a vestigial organ."
  
  And you think genes and fossils are eye witnesses of what existed hundreds of millions of years ago - you have been brainwashed. The only thing these have in common with an eyewitness is they can lie.
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Scientists aren't brainwashed to believe in evolution. It is the theory that emerges from the evidence.
  
  And they haven't "concluded" the appendix to be a worthless vestigial organ. Vestigial doesn't mean worthless - it just means that an organ has lost most of its original function through evolution. It can even develop new ones and still be vestigial.
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  +++++++++++++++++++
  reply report
3. 0
  scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It's probably a mix of reality-based people like me making fun of Judy's awful segue and climate deniers who have been conditioned to froth at the mouth and bark talking points at the mere mention of climate change.
  
  Sadly ironic, really. The science-illiterate making fun of science-illiteracy.
  reply report
0
Brenda Durhamposted 11 years ago
yeah I looked it up

goober peas
boiled peanuts

Well, I gotta say I've never eaten boiled peanuts that I can remember.........
And I'm pretty sure that makes no difference in anyone's intellect.
I may not have known the definition of goober peas, but I do know that mankind didn't come from the ocean.

So...you were joking about what ocean we sprang from?
lol Okay I can handle that.
reply report
1. 78
  Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  'but I do know that mankind didn't come from the ocean.'
  
  Yes, we both know that, but how do you prove it? That is the problem between left and right, what you say is an established fact, is open to interpretation by others and their truth is just as valid as yours in this kind of debate. But that is for another thread as I drift from the topic
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Common sense proves it!
  
  So...you believe it and therefore to you it is an "established fact", yet you play into the other side, which has NO proof at all, not even common-sense proof!
  
  Are you just playin' devil's advocate or what?
  reply report
  78
  Credence2posted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Common sense is not an incontrovertible conclusion of proof. Your common sense ican be considered another person's nonsense. Not everyone subscribes to the Judeo-Christian viewpoint and they have the right to do so. Being a liberal means that Ihave to acknowledge Muslims, Mormons, etc all are just as adamant in their doctrines, what makes you right and they wrong.? You can only truly convince yourself. No devils advocate just recognizing that religion is touchy and we get into trouble trying to create a universal standard when there are more 'religions' with widely varied doctrines on this planet than any one of us can count.
  I know that conservatives dislike the concept of relativism put forth by liberals, they prefer absolutes but an absolute requires 2 plus 2 equal 4 kinds of support as proof
  reply report
0
Sooner28posted 11 years ago
I must say Jason, I expect a higher level of discourse from you. You are too intelligent to be engaging in the anti-intellectual game of who can be more incendiary about scientific findings. It is a futile attempt to justify your exaltation of the material over the personal.

Why would you lump in fear of being hit by an asteroid with the very real consequences of climate change that are thrusting themselves upon our culpably apathetic society? It's not only a false analogy, but something no serious thinker would even remotely suggest.

The sea levels are rising; the earth is warming; the floods are increasing; the storms are becoming more intense. You, and others like you, will have to answer your children and grandchildren when they ask you why engaged in the true generational theft, a theft which is robbing them of a habitable world! A cognitively depthless answer of, "Well, I wanted more stuff; or, I believed it was a conspiracy by climatologists the world around" will surely not suffice.
reply report
0
Brenda Durhamposted 11 years ago
Eh......I think it might be important to note that a meteor also hit Russia in 1908. And there have been others.
So....I don't think today's meteor strike was a sign of global warming at all. Stuff just happens, ya know?!
reply report
1. 0
  scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You're just figuring that out now?
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  This forum started because one of the illustrious...and always eager to appease the left....members of the press suggested that the two may have a connection.
  Go school them.
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Ohh, and here I was thinking Judy was either completely science illiterate or just making a clumsy segue.
  
  But yes, now I see what you mean. It's obviously a plot by CNN to appeal to the left by connecting everything with climate change -- even astronomical events that someone with a grade-school science education would know are not possibly connected.
  
  I'd ask if you right-wingers even think about the logic of your ridiculous conspiracy theories before you spout them, but I already know you don't.
  
  Your brains are not wired that way. You conservatives do much of your thinking with your right amygdalas - the fear center of the brain - which leads to you all thinking that everything is a conspiracy and anyone different from you is a threat.
  
  It explains your stances on foreign policy, gun policy, economic policy, and your hatred of science.
  
  But don't worry - we liberals won't discriminate against you because your brains are differently abled. We're not wired that way.
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You agree with what I said and then attack me for know reason after I made no statement regarding what you say I said.
  
  Right?
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You attack me for saying nothing about any of that but the blockhead on CNN is ok?
  Just made a mistake?
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for proving my point.
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't make a conspiracy theory here or any of those things you listed.
  Having a hate day are we?
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Hate day? No, I'm liberal. We don't have those.
  
  You did indeed state a conspiracy theory, however. Your reference to "one of the illustrious -- and always eager to please the left -- members of the press" is an unproven statement not based in fact. Therefore, it is a conspiracy theory.
  
  Moreover, with just one sentence you wrapped up your hatred for liberals and your contempt for science into a neat little package. All while demonstrating that you don't understand either.
  reply report
  61
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No need answering my last post...if I had read this first I wouldn't have bothered. Many liberals traffic in hate, promoting dissention between class, race and gender. If you don't see it but rather perpetuate it there is nothing your going to listen to, so why spin my wheels trying?
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Ah....glad to see they have you running their talking points like the rest.
  No wonder you don't think you were being hateful.
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I wasn't being hateful. I was simply explaining the difference in brain function between liberals and conservatives. This has been established by multiple neurological studies.
  
  I'm recognizing that you can't help thinking the way you do because your brains are wired that way.
  
  Nothing hateful about it. Just stating facts.
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  See.....you believe their " facts".
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  "Their" facts?
  
  There is no such thing. Facts are facts. They belong to nobody. And they exist whether you believe them or not.
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Would you know?
  i doubt it.
  report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  How does it feel to be a complete sycophant?
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Trying out some new vocabulary words, are we?
  
  Very good! I applaud your effort.
  
  The execution leaves a bit to be desired - sycophant describes nothing I've said anywhere in this discussion. But I'm proud of you for trying out some big girl words.
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Sure it does becasue you have demonstrated clearly you have no thoughts that are your own so you look to your leadership. Otherwise you have nothing.
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  My leadership?
  
  And who is that?
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You don't know?
  report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't even know I had a "leadership" to follow. But I'm very curious to know who you think it is.
  report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well if you don't know I'm sure not going to tell you.
  You were so much sharper than me I was sure you had it all figured out.
  report
  61
  bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You look at the propoganda on both sides from the last presidential election and come to the conclusion that the right is the one weilding fear as a tactic? Yes, both sides do to some degree, but this last election it was all the incumbent had...and it was masterfully promoted.
  reply report
65
innersmiffposted 11 years ago
I think the point is to demonstrate the severe lack of thought that goes into judgments on climate change, suggesting that our views may have become skewed due to the media's insistence that every time there's a storm, a flood or a blizzard that this is positive proof of global warming (yet the lack of statistically significant warming since 1996 is just 'natural variation' according to the MET office http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/10/h … g-stalled/).

Does anybody think that the issue of man-made climate change/global warming has ever been sensationalised? Or do you think the depiction of exploding children sceptical of climate change was humorous and necessary? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … E3g0i2rz4w

Perhaps it's time to analyse our own views?
reply report
61
bBereanposted 11 years ago
"Human activity has doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide and raised the average global temperature over the past two centuries," is far from a fact. Global warming? Perhaps. Conclusively attributed to human activity? No. Propaganda supporting that idea has been well funded and relentless though, as it has been one of the most lucrative agendas in history. Since that cash cow is far from dry, the promotion will continue until perhaps some day almost everyone will have been persuaded to drink the Kool-aid. This was not what I was addressing anyway. I am not familiar with "Donors Trust", but if you feel I am promoting their talking points, it sounds like they are worth looking into.

Thinking you negated my entire argument, tells me you totally missed what that was. Actually, in part you have supported it by acknowledging that the environmental movement is largely about money. It is not driven by some noble desire to improve anything. I never said the traditional energy companies weren't similarly motivated. I would say the environmental side is more disingenuous, but realize on the surface that appears to be subjective.

I do believe the urgency regarding the environment is blown out of proportion in the interest of garnering support and publicity, to be parlayed into generous grants, contracts, and salaries. I agree, we should always be looking for more efficient and effective sources and utilization of energy. We should not make bad decisions just so we can say we are doing something, however. We also should not ignore progress being made improving traditional resources, which can at least buy us time to properly develop alternatives.

Once again, not conclusive. "Science" is not as noble, pure or objective as those whose livelihoods are rooted in it, or whose agendas are potentially driven by it if "properly interpreted", would have us believe. Data can be spun to support whatever conclusion secures the grant, contract or recognition. This is why both sides of many issues seem to have compelling data to back them up. Often, in law, it is about who has the best team of lawyers, not who has the truth. So too, with scientists. How often do you hear of conclusions, (unless totally inescapable), that fly in the face of a study or project's funding or initiator's ideology? No point digging up data to throw back and forth, the proof is in the pudding and in a great many cases our money has been, and is being, flushed down that big green toilet while our rights and freedoms are eroded.
reply report
1. 0
  scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  You are accusing all climate scientists of scientific fraud. I hope you have some serious evidence to back that libelous statement up.
  
  Though I can think of an instance of a study's conclusions flying in the face of the funder's ideology. There was a recent climate change study funded in by the Koch brothers and other climate deniers and led by climate "skeptic" Richard Muller that concluded that global warming was real and at least 74% attributable to human activity.
  
  So yes, sometimes it happens.
  
  Right. But we liberals are the ones trafficking in fear.
  
  Remind me - what rights and freedoms have you lost as a result of the environmental movement and climate science?
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Fortunately none as they are both a steaming load of BS.
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  So you haven't lost any rights or freedoms as a result of the environmental movement or climate science. Good.
  
  Then why all the fear? What's the harm in letting the scientists and environmentalists do their jobs?
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Fear?
  What are you talking about?
  You know from your apparent veiwpoint we should just empty Congress and put your scientists and environmentalists in their place.
  reply report
0
JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago
Haha, I can't believe the way this thread derailed. Sorry, whoever it was who complained about Obama-bashing or some such nonsense, this thread had nothing to do with that.
reply report
1. 61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  No it was you stupid Conservatives from the guy who doesn't know who his leaders are.
  You know.....the fearless kind?
  reply report
  0
  scottcgruberposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  It's not nice to call people stupid, Fae. Even conservatives.
  reply report
  61
  Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this
  Well don't call people that then.......even as an implication.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

LOL. Can't. Breathe. Global Warming and Asteroids?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

LOL. Can't. Breathe. Global Warming and Asteroids?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies