jump to last post 1-26 of 26 discussions (108 posts)

CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY

  1. sannyasinman profile image60
    sannyasinmanposted 7 years ago

    Global Warming is not man-made.

    http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Not that the Daily Express earns ALL its money selling cars/advertising/houses/plastic crap from China or anything.

      The Daily Express? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOL I wouldn't trust the Daily Express to tell me what the weather was yesterday unless they checked with their advertisers to see if it was OK. wink

      1. sannyasinman profile image60
        sannyasinmanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Go ahead. Shoot the messenger before you look at the message.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          And what do they say?

          "CAMPAIGNERS yesterday attempted to pour scorn on “tenuous” global warming theories by issuing a dossier detailing 100 reasons why climate change is natural and not man-made."

          Talk about wishywashy.

          1. sannyasinman profile image60
            sannyasinmanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            First you shoot the messenger without looking at the message, then you throw away the message because you don't like the packaging.
            You took the time to comment in the forum, so please at least read the message.

            http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I have read the message.

              It was bought to you by an uninformed, heavily biased newspaper with a vested interest in promoting the fact that there is no human effect going on in the climate.

              Exactly what is this message I am missing here? 100 reasons why the newspapers want to keep the status quo?

              The Daily Express is a worthless piece of crap - as are all the newspapers. There is so much misinformation and angry rhetoric floating around I doubt anyone can make an informed decision.

              That is how the system works.

              You have your "beliefs" - I have mine. Neither of us is in a position either to make an informed decision or do anything about it anyway.

              That is how the system works.

              LDT will angrily point a finger at me  as though I can have some effect when I cannot and we will all spend our time pissing around not making any changes because we are powerless.

              That is how the system works.

              You think you are going to convince me to jump on your belief wagon when I have my own preconceptions that if it is possible for the big guy to crap on the little guy he will?

              That is how the system works.

              We need to start killing people if we are going to change it. You ready to do that? No? Not until your family drowns when the sea level rises or they all die from "mysterious" cancers? or it costs you a weeks wages to get to work... wink

              1. ledefensetech profile image69
                ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Time will tell Mark.  While I hope to avoid the killing people scenario, I really think it'll be the only one left open after a while.  Of course, as Alvin Toffler noted in "The Third Wave" all the revolutions of the 20th century only substituted one group of elites for another.  That's not really a change.

                I do hold out hope that people will start taking a good hard look around them and see how they're being manipulated.  You never did really answer my question about how your worldview takes the declining mileage of Americans into account without looking at the price situation.

                You do realize that one of the reasons Europe assesses so much tax on gasoline is to force people to seek alternative modes of transport, right?  That sort of thing goes against the grain in the US.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                  Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  As I already explained - the "system" will screw as much as possible from you. If that means less gas at a higher price, then so be it.

                  Does it really make any difference? No. Not in the slightest. 100 miles at $4 a gallon or 200 miles at $2?

                  Of course you will use less if you cannot afford it. Why do you think the price bounces around so much? So "they" can ascertain the best price/mileage combo at that time.

                  We are stupid and lazy and will pay the price we deserve to pay for our laziness and stupidity.

                  1. ledefensetech profile image69
                    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I am very disappointed in you Mark.  As someone who claims to be a rationalist, you have ascribed power to "they" (oil companies?) to perfectly and accurately predict to how best screw people over.  You've given them more prognosticative powers than the commissars of the failed Soviet Union ever claimed.

                    Back on Planet Reality, we realize that nobody can accurately predict much of anything when you're talking about the something the size and scope of a national economy, much less the global one.  About the only thing you can say is that people will buy and sell according to their own internal value system.

              2. JWestCattle profile image60
                JWestCattleposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Your perception or take on the issue of climate change, or Global Warming, is mine as well, the immense human population changes forecast are the greatest future contributor to any climate change; if changes are not made in the cropping practices of vegetables and grains, we will irreparably pollute our oceans and deplete our land in the process.  Becoming a Vegan will not prevent this from occurring.

                1. ledefensetech profile image69
                  ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  When you consider the history of lies that the IPCC has perpetuated...well they do seem to have an agenda and it probably isn't in the best interests of people as a whole.  If it were, why the lies?

                  http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image … _stick.pdf

    2. falcon64 profile image61
      falcon64posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I do swear some is man made. The Polluted environment is one of big reason why?

    3. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I don't understand how anyone who is not a climatologist can have an honest opinion about this matter (though I am well aware how people can have politically-motivated "opinions").

      Pointing out that there are dissenting scientists only proves my point: if the professional scientists don't agree, who in the hell among the general public has a chance of understanding this stuff.

      Climate skeptics do not know (unless they are climatologists), and diehard pro-global warmers do not know (unless they are climatologists). Climatologists themselves at least know how to read the data. Do YOU? Beccause I sure as hell don't.

      Everyone has an opinion, but 99 percent of people have no expertise on the subject. It's a joke

      1. sannyasinman profile image60
        sannyasinmanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        At the end of the day, we all choose what and who we want to believe. I agree that there is much dissent amongst scientists about the cause of climate change.

        However, it is far from being a joke. The global warming alarmists are speeding ahead, ridiculing and attacking any dissenters, and nations around the world are being asked to cede sovereignty to an unelected World Government, who will impose crippling taxes and destroy the already fragile development of African and other countries.

        Plus, under the guise of protecting the planet, this same government will remove more and more of our personal choice and freedoms, and try to control more, and tax more, of our everyday lives.

        This is what the global warming hoax is really about. The World Government wants to control our lives, AND get us to pay for it, whilst the greedy global elite get richer and richer.

        And when, in 10 years time we see that the planet has not warmed at all, they will say what they said about the WDM's in Iraq, that "based on the evidence available at the time", etc. but it will be too late. They will have achieved their objectives.

        Of course, this is only my opinion, and I can't prove any of this, but I do believe that I know when I am being deceived and lied to. Do you?

    4. profile image0
      cosetteposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      well, nature does have some sort of weather patterns, that's true, but to suggest that Man has no impact on climate changes is absurd.

      1. Misha profile image74
        Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        And to suggest that Man be a major contributor is arrogant smile

      2. sannyasinman profile image60
        sannyasinmanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        There are more and more scientists prepared to speak out now, (despite being ridiculed and threatened by global warming alarmists), to say that global warming is not caused by CO2 at all, and therefore is not man-made. These people have nothing to gain other than seeing the truth prevail. The alarmists on the other hand, led by AG have an enormous amount to gain by perpetuating the scam.

        It is an enormous swindle, the mother of all hoaxes, on the back of which citizens and governments the world over will be subjected to massive increases in taxation, loss of sovereignty (see the Copenhagen Treaty), and ever increasing erosion of their freedoms and civil rights.

        Plus developing countries will be prevented from burning fossil fuels which will kill their progress and lead to even more poverty and death.

        Don't you get suspicious when the leading proponents of global warming have been seen to make sensational false claims (sea levels rising by 20 feet, himalayan glaciers melting, polar bears dying , and more, all false), when they try to silence all opposition and refuse to answer questions on the real cost of cap and trade, refuse to debate the issues with independent experts, and when one of the principal advisers to the IPCC has been seen to falsify the data (Climategate) on which the predictions are based, plus refusing to provide the raw data for independent analysis. When AG dismisses these emails on national TV saying that they are "a few emails 10 years old", when in fact there are many hundreds, and they run up to 12 November 2009, oh and AG personally stands to make BILLIONS from this swindle.

        Doesn't it make you suspicious?

  2. profile image0
    zampanoposted 7 years ago

    Everything is natural.
    Afterall it's only molecules shaking faster...
    Nothing more natural than that.
    We do it everyday in our kitchen, with our car's engines, our factories, etc.
    It's just... natural.

  3. ledefensetech profile image69
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    So you'd trust Al "I invented the Internet" Gore, Mark?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No - he is a politician therefore I do not trust him to do anything than make a buck out of whatever seems the hot issue today. 

      But - I am quite capable of using my common sense and reasoning facilities and making my own mind up as to whether or not burning every single fossil fuel we can lay our grubby hands on is having an impact.

      And whether or not Al Gore is trying to screw some money out of it really has no bearing on that whatsoever.

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The same Al Gore with the Occidental Petroleum connections?

  4. tantrum profile image61
    tantrumposted 7 years ago

    I really don't know if it's man made or if it's not. But if you read about Haarp and Scalar techniques...
    Anyway....We'll have to cope with it, one way or another.
    it's a shame some people are profiting with it.

    1. profile image0
      LegendaryHeroposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      What's the Scalar technique?

  5. profile image0
    A Texanposted 7 years ago

    The hype is certainly man made, the rest not so much

    1. Petra Vlah profile image61
      Petra Vlahposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Could not agree more

  6. ledefensetech profile image69
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    Sure it does.  The very fact that he stands to make billions from the adoption of so-called "green" technology compromises his integrity.  Add that to the falsification of data by so-called scientists only further destroys the credibility of people connected with the theory that humans cause global warming.

    You also fail to take prices into account.  As fossil fuels become more and more scarce the price will go up.  Sooner or later it will not become economical to use gasoline as fuel for cars, nor will oil be such a good choice to run electricity generating plants.  At that point, people will begin a serious search for alternatives because the market itself will demand a cheap source of energy, not some empty headed lying politician.

    Are you really sure you know as much about the issue as you think you do?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Al Gore is a politician and therefore has no "integrity."

      You have no clue. None. The price of fossil fuels has always been whatever they could screw out of you and always will be until we start fighting over the dregs. We will not stop using it until it is all gone.

      No I am not sure I know as much as I would like - I am being fed misinformation the same as you are and your ridiculous ranting is not adding to the conversation one whit.

      But - that doe snot mean I am not capable of sorting through the obvious garbage and making a decision. You have apparently decided that we are not changing the climate because a few scumbags see an opportunity.

      Good for you. I have developed a healthy disrespect for your opinions on just about everything. The market will do as it always does - pay the politicians to make decisions that favor the wealthy few and screw the consumer.

      What planet do you live on?

      1. Misha profile image74
        Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Actually I probably live on the same planet with LDT. smile

  7. ledefensetech profile image69
    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

    Mark, your beliefs don't match with observed data.  If what you believe is true, why did Americans drive fewer miles when gasoline hit almost $5 a gallon.  Our city started a bus line when that happened, as a way to alleviate the pain caused by high gas prices.  That bus service is still in operation today and doing very well not that gasoline is not hovering at $5 a gallon.

    I'd suggest it's your theory and the assumptions you make that need revision, not those of us who live on Planet Reality.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image61
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      LOL - You think America is the only market? You think it is just cars driving? You think the oil companies that are screwing $9 a gallon in Europe are bothered by you driving less?

      You think the scumbags are not running around right now trying to find a way to increase demand?  We will use all the fossil fuels before we come up with an alternative.

      Planet reality here. wink

      1. Misha profile image74
        Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Mark, what part of this price is tax, in one or another form?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Massive amounts of it. Much of which is handed back under the table or never gets where it was supposed to because of the "enormous costs," involved in producing the gas.  wink

          Oil company/government - joined at the hip and working together to ensure they screw as much as possible over a long a period of time as possible.

          1. Misha profile image74
            Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Then let's place the blame when it belongs - to government. Which is supposed to act in peoples interest - as opposed to the private companies, that are not. When you or me spam the internet to feed our families, we act in our own interest, not in a public one. smile

            Brb, have to pic my kid from school smile

        2. ledefensetech profile image69
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Mark, Europeans pay that much for gasoline because of the taxes enacted by their socialist governments.  That has nothing to do with oil companies "screwing" people out of anything, that's a political problem of your own making.

          The enormous costs of producing gasoline are due to idiot environmentalists.  One of the reasons our gas prices shot up so much is because there is no slack in the refining industry.  Katrina shut down a lot of our refining capacity and that led to the price of gas going up.  What limited our refining industry?  Idiot environmental laws that date back to the 1970's and in no way, shape or form take current issues into consideration.

          So yes, I live on planet reality, where do you live?

          1. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
            AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Yeh. Maggie Thatcher the socialist roll

            1. ledefensetech profile image69
              ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              After two decades of people like Brown in the UK and people like Clinton, Bush and Obama here, yeah we are far more socialist than we were two decades ago.  In fact wasn't Thacher elected because Britons were fed up with failed socialist policies.  After all, sooner or later you run out of other people's money to spend.

              1. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
                AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Mrs Thatcher taxed the richest people in Britain at a rate of 50%. Tony Blair at 40%

    2. shazwellyn profile image82
      shazwellynposted 7 years ago

      Like everything... life and the earth is evolving and changing - just as it has done billions of years ago, it is true today x

    3. ledefensetech profile image69
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

      Uncommonly wise of him.  What has Brown done?  Also what was the rate prior to Thacher?

      1. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
        AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        How is a 50 percent tax rate not "socialism"?

    4. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago

      How many times have I read that foreigners posting here should keep their opinions to themselves about America, but seen this sort of twaddle about Europe, written by Americans?
      Go spend some time there. And I don't mean two weeks.

      1. ledefensetech profile image69
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You'll notice that I'm asking questions.  I'm sorry those questions seem to make you uncomfortable.  You'll also notice, I hope, that my questions are aimed at dispelling my ignorance.  Something I have not noticed form various foreigners and their assumptions made about the US.

        1. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
          AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It just gets old. "Europe" is a huge variety of countries. We have various forms of social democratic systems, as do you... who pays for your roads? Your public schools? Your postal service? Today someone salted the public path I walk on every morning... who paid for that -- taxes paid for it.

          Europeans, Canadians, Americans, we all have a hybrid system, a mix of capitalism and socialism. And thank God, because try running a profitable business when there are no tax-funded public services providing you infrastructure.

          1. ledefensetech profile image69
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Sure those are paid for by "public" institutions, but my argument has always been that private companies could do it at less cost and more efficiently than the government can.  Our first mail carrier services in this nation were private and they were able to deliver mail to remote settlements in the Old West.

            1. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
              AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              My view on this matter is that both government and the private sector have the potential to be rife with corruption, inefficiency, or waste. What I don't like is the assumption that *all* things should be done by government (extreme left) on the one hand, and that none of it should (extreme right) on the other. These are complex topics. Why not take things case by case instead of singing slogans and overgeneralized platitudes (not you, people at either extreme end of the spectrum)

              1. profile image0
                A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Government should fix the potholes and provide a police force to enforce the laws they created, private industry should do the rest!

                1. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
                  AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  ok,maybe, but why do you trust private industry so much. Forgotten Enron? Forgotten AIG? I'm not saying all corporations are corrupt, but come on.... look at the US airline industry.
                  I don't understand why you would put your faith in an organization whose leaders you cannot vote for

                  1. profile image0
                    A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    But we can vote for them! We vote with our money, if a CEO cannot turn a profit the shareholders examine why.

                    1. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
                      AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                      No, this is a mismatch. I can be Chinese or Finnish or Californian and own shares in a road construction company in Texas. I care about profits.... dividends. I don't care about roads. I don't care about Texans

                  2. ledefensetech profile image69
                    ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Enron and AIG would never have happened had certain regulatory steps by the government not been taken.  I can get into it if your really want me to.

                    1. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
                      AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                      They were just examples... maybe bad examples, what do I know. The point is that it is hardly beyond the bounds of imagination to imagine a company doing every bit as bad a job as a government

      2. profile image0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The difference is you bring up Europe as a beacon of all things good and America should be more like it! We have no interest in being like Europe or at least a majority of us don't!

        1. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
          AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          What are you talking about? You think Europeans all go around singing the praises of their governments???? HAHAHAHAHAHA

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, they are on hubpages everyday saying how great their systems are compared to ours. Did you miss that?

            1. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
              AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Then they're ignorant too

              1. profile image0
                A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                roll

          2. ledefensetech profile image69
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            To be fair, there are many from Europe on Hubpages who do sing the praises of their "socialist utopia".

    5. ledefensetech profile image69
      ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

      I get the feeling she did what Reagan did.  Our highest bracket was something like 70% during Carter's administration.  Reagan could only get the political support to cut it to around 35%.  Presidents and Prime Ministers are not, after all, absolute monarchs.  It was a start and it would seem like Blair attempted to continue the trend. 

      You never did answer my questions, by the way.

      1. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
        AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know. But I do know that taxing the rich at 50 percent is redistribution of wealth under any commonsensical definition of the term. And in Britain, when you have a majority govt (which Thatcher did), then you don't have to make the same kind of compromises you do under the American system. In other words, this was her policy and hers alone, and no compromise with the left (which was damn weak throughout most of her time in office)

        1. ledefensetech profile image69
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          How very interesting.  I've always been intrigued by the differences in our parliamentary systems and confess a weakness on how the UK style of representation works.  I do think that the UK systems allows for more fragmentation of power and can amplify the power or radical parties.  I'm thinking in this case of Israel and Likud. 

          Also I'll admit to some confusion between the Conservative, Liberal and Labor parties, especially as they seem to swap platforms relatively often.  I still think Thacher did what Reagan did and cut the tax rate as far as she dared.  It just happened that our economy, which depended less on state funding than that of the UK, could better afford the tax cuts.

    6. Arthur Fontes profile image88
      Arthur Fontesposted 7 years ago

      If Europe is so advanced why do they not take responsibility for their own military protection?

      Why have billions been poured into European security by the US since WWII?

      1. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
        AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        And *during* world war two, not just since then. And Europeans who forget this are idiots. That doesn't however automatically mean that the American system is better. In truth, of the thirty or forty countries in Europe, I am only familiar with the systems of a couple. So I, as a European, can tell you little more about "Europe" than I can give an opinion about "America." So, there you are: who really knows what it is like to live somewhere other than their own country.

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          At least you are appreciative for what the US has done, more than I can say for most of the clowns posting from Europe.

          1. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
            AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Short memories, unfortunately?

        2. falcon64 profile image61
          falcon64posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Just because US and European are in one blood.

      2. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
        AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago

        ...And anyway not all companies are share-based.

        1. ledefensetech profile image69
          ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          No but they all depend on their customers for their profit.  Piss off your customers...

          1. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
            AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            ...what, and they will stop using the road you built?

            1. profile image0
              A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Yep, why would a company operate a road? For the toll! Don't keep up the road you lose money!

              1. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
                AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                It's not a bad argument. As I said above, my issue is with the idea that it should ALL be state run or ALL private. I think that it should be decided case by case.

                OK, I'm a gonna smile

        2. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I know that, its one example of how we can vote. Wal-Mart stays in Business because they offer something at a lower price, when they become as expensive as Nieman Marcus they will see fewer profits, fewer profits result in a correction of their market!

      3. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
        AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago

        Anyway, think I'm outta here for now. For the record (I guess ATexan knows this) I actually live in Canada. This does not give me unlimited access to the US, but we do get all of your tv channels, which at least puts me slightly at the advantage of most Europeans, I guess.

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          "Blame Canada" Song from South Park the movie

      4. ledefensetech profile image69
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

        We did do it that way once, turns out it's just a slippery slope to Communism.  Oops.  Have a good one.

      5. tantrum profile image61
        tantrumposted 7 years ago

        I'm so disappointed with all of you guys !!! sad

        lol lol lol

      6. ledefensetech profile image69
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

        Sure you do.  When you argue on the religious forums you attempt to come across as a supreme rationalist and continually bait people for their beliefs.  When it comes to being rational in other endeavors, you fall short.

        Still we all seem to be in agreement that we're getting screwed, we even agree on some of the mechanisms.  What we don't agree on is the inability to find a solution.

        The solution is really simple, you want to bring sanity back to the world, do two things.  1 kill the Fed, 2 repeal the 16th Amendment.

        At a stroke you'd decapitate the methods big business uses to get concessions from the government and you'd end the government's ability to redistribute wealth.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image61
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Piece of piss. Why are you not doing it?

          What exactly is not rational about anything I have said? You even agreed with most of it.

          Kill the fed? lol

          Sure - ask John F. Kennedy how that worked out.... wink

          1. ledefensetech profile image69
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I'd like to avoid violence if at all possible.  Plus most people are ignorant about how and why the Fed and that Amendment were passed in the first place.  People still listen to Helicopter Brenake.

            Kennedy wasn't killed by the Fed, he was killed by the military.  Something about him being high when talking to the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Kind of hard to blame them, really.

      7. marinealways24 profile image61
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago

        You dirty little humans are melting the world.

      8. ledefensetech profile image69
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

        Um you are aware that certain scientists have been fiddling with the data on temperatures aren't you?  Not to mention the fact that the UN has had to recently recant their assertion that the Himalaya glaciers would be gone in 25 years.

        http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2009/12 … t-melting/

        Human induced global warming is a hoax.

        1. marinealways24 profile image61
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          No, you are wrong. Global warming is my religious belief and that makes it true. I have faith that you are killing the planet and that I am saving it.

          1. ledefensetech profile image69
            ledefensetechposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, forgive me then.  How can I redress this great evil my kind and I have perpetuated.  Should we fling ourselves off the nearest cliff or would mere flogging suffice?

            1. marinealways24 profile image61
              marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I recommend recycling and holding breath for intervals to stop breathing out so much carbon dioxide and melting the planet.

              1. profile image0
                A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Seems reasonable.

                1. marinealways24 profile image61
                  marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  lol

      9. profile image0
        chasingcarsposted 7 years ago

        Oh please get off of your high horses about global warming, climate change.  Any dope can see that the weather is going crazy, and anyone driving around Greece, Mexico, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, etc. can cut the air with a knife--not a natural phenomena.  Then we have the people who discount oil spills, sewage pollution of the seas and fresh water, atomic "incidents", and the problem of where to stash the trash, including the nuclear waste caused by your beloved atomic fuel, batteries, electronic toys, etc. ad nauseum. (All man made). Who in the hell has the nerve to say that pollution does not affect the climate?  The people in Africa, and we, have been in a long drought caused by abnorminally hot summers.  This is the year that broke the nation-wide drought for the US.  Africa, not so lucky.  The ice bergs are melting because of the heat; islands are being threatened with the rising water table, the extremely hot summers draw in too much water from the ocean, then dump hurricanes, freakish winter precipitation on the US. Aside from the fact you don't know what you are talking about but have to have some trash to talk, scientists can duke the problems of their communication skills out among themselves.  Birthers, deathers, Holocaust deniers, how arrogant of you to question what everyone can see for themselves.  You are, indeed, a pitiful lot.

        1. Sab Oh profile image57
          Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          "Any dope can see that the weather is going crazy"


          And here we see what the 'irrefutable scientific evidence' has been reduced to.





          Just more politics and emotion

        2. JWestCattle profile image60
          JWestCattleposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I highly doubt anyone questions the human caused air and water pollution that make it literally a health risk to call a major population center home.  You have made an arrogant, across the board assumption, that anyone who questions any of the FAO and the IPCC scientific data, assumptions, and policy recommendations...is a Dope.  Have you actually read any of the FAO's reports?  I highly doubt it.

          As you so graphically pointed out, it is in the air and water of our cities that human caused pollution is so apparent.  Why then, is the FAO going after the Livestock industry in the rural USA and across the world?  It is certainly not because of their methane emissions, they are minuscule in the long term picture of a warming climate caused by CO2 emissions, despite the liberal propaganda that would have the world believe otherwise. Liberal propaganda based on the FAO's own deliberate negative, so-called scientific, spin on livestock, particularly cows. 

          If you are worried about rising sea levels and the pollution of our seas, then you should be asking just why we continue as a nation to put our highly fertile human waste in hazardous landfills and in waterways - rather than recycling that 'fertilizer' back to the soils of rural areas that created that carbon stock containing human food.  Instead, we spend vast sums of money figuring out how to reduce the nitrous oxide emissions from handling human waste and tucking it away somewhere; while at the same time we spend vast sums of money on man-made Nitrogen fertilizers for human food crops, and vast sums of money on figuring out how to reduce the run-off of that 'unnatural' nitrogen fertilizer.  The FAO is a 'pitiful' lot, and the main 'dope' is our very own EPA that blindly follows.

      10. qwark profile image60
        qwarkposted 7 years ago

        There is no doubt that man is polluting the thin atmosphere within which we exist.
        If "global warming" is a fact, there is no doubt that we are adding to a very natural and expected change in climate.
        The earth leans from N to S at about 23+ degrees. As it circles the sun seasons are created because of this lean.
        The earth also "wobbles" on it's axis.
        Every 26k years or so, it makes a complete "wobble" that can be compared to the "wobble" of a slowing down spinning top. It's called "precession."
        That "wobble" has had a significant effect on atmospheric temperatures for untold thousands of yrs.
        If you are truly interested and just not "blowing smoke," study the past effects of "precession" on this planet.

      11. TheGlassSpider profile image75
        TheGlassSpiderposted 7 years ago

        Would someone PLEASE explain to me why the fact that people are taking advantage of the situation (i.e., making money of off "Green" stuff) automatically means that Global Warming is "just made up"?

        Haven't people ever heard of being opportunistic?? You make the most out of a situation...that doesn't mean the situation isn't there...it just means that some scum-sucker figures it's his meal ticket.

      12. ledefensetech profile image69
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

        There's a difference between taking advantage of an opportunity and faking data to influence policymakers to force people to use your products.  That's why Al Gore stands to make billions off of this.  He's not taking advantage, he's trying to stifle debate.  Did you see what he did to that kid who called him on the supposed "imminent extinction" of polar bears?

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_Hfndttkt8

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOLT8ECko6g

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITc0YjRuYiI

        Are these the actions of someone who has your best interests in mind or just his own best interests in mind.

      13. ddsurfsca profile image68
        ddsurfscaposted 7 years ago

        OK, let me put my two cents worth in, for I think when you sum it all up, nobody will say that we have NOTHING to do with it, so let's be democratic for a minute and say that it is a 50/50 fault, half mother nature and half us. 
           Let's think about this, our children and then their children will be left with whatever is left by the time we, and mother nature leaves them.  I would hate to think that it will be a radiation burn to leave the house, or that by then the second ice age has begun, or whatever it may end up to be.  Maybe for their sake we should take responsibility for as much as we can for their sake.

        1. Sab Oh profile image57
          Sab Ohposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          " I think when you sum it all up, nobody will say that we have NOTHING to do with it"


          nothing to do with what?

      14. ddsurfsca profile image68
        ddsurfscaposted 7 years ago

        Besides, even if someone does make a buck or a billion, whatever happens is bound to stimulate our sagging economy and maybe not only put some much needed cash into some empty pockets as well as make our planet a home we will still be able to be comfortable in, whosever fault it all is.

      15. ledefensetech profile image69
        ledefensetechposted 7 years ago

        I'm saying we have nothing to do with the fact that temperatures are going up.  You might be correct if you said that nobody really argues that temperatures change, but I'd even argue the fact that they're continuing to go up. 

        http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor … 92,00.html

        So the beginning assumption you made is false.  Since your initial position is false, the rest of your reasoning doesn't matter because your position doesn't reflect reality.

       
      working