31 total posts
The debate is over !
Shut up! Just do as we say and no one will get hurt.
But, in fact the debate is far from over. Maybe there's climate change; maybe not. Maybe it's caused by humans;, maybe not. If there's climate change it may be a bad thing; maybe not.
Maybe Kyoto is a good idea; probably not.
RE: Shut up! Just do as we say and no one will get hurt.
Shut up! Just do as YOU say and no one will get hurt.
as amusing as
"in the pockets of BIG OIL" !!!!!!
Looks like the skeptics won the arguments!
Good link to show had desperate the global warming conspirators are to try and discredit those with more common sense than they obviously have. LOL, it's a page full of Chicken Little histrionics.
Actually, I hope the globe is warming up, that we will return to the tropical paradise it once was. I see global warming as a return to a better time which will furnish more farmland and thereby more food for the world's growing population. Unlike many "population bomb" believers who have also tossed onto the next fear movement aka "global warming", I welcome the larger world population and hope to soon welcome a better, warmer earth.
Palm trees in Maryland, may it happen sooner than later. Amen.
Of course Kyoto is good !!!
the only facts we need to know
fact: pollution is bad
fact: a reduction in pollution will be good
fact: the "man in the street" doesn't know (and probably doesn't care) if pollution causes global warming
fact: he knows that clean air is healthier than dirty
feel free to add to the list of 'facts'
You seem to be one of the
simpletons who confuse pollution with "climate change"
simpletons believe in global warming because...
...they have cast aside the most basic concepts of common sense. Many have turned their back on God's promise that seasons would continue as always, and by Biblical standards that even classifies them as "fools". "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God".
and you seem to be one of the
simpletons who has learned to read, but not understand
nowhere did i mention "climate change", nor did i imply any
connection between pollution and "global warming/climate change"
That's not what this is about.
No one likes pollution. Any claims that Global Warming skeptics do is totally bogus.
The reality is this....
For most of the Earth's life the average global temperature has been 22
Are you in stage 1,2, or 3
He's in stage one of common sense.
Where all those who have it remain at all times.
The climate is warming, there's no denying it. There's also no denying the fact that the Earth has not had polar ice caps for more of its life than it has had them. There Earth is normally a lot warmer than it is now. The habitable zone of our own sun runs from about .95au to 1.37au which means that 1.0au, our location, is on the warm side of that zone. At .95au water would barely be able to condense. Take away all the life on the whole planet and guess what, the Earth will still be 1au from the Sun. The only ones in denial are those that refuse to look at the global climate history of the planet.
The clammier of the minority is pathetic, sad actually.
You lost long ago.
Your word for today is:
Denial (also called abnegation) is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.
I'm not a big Freud fan be it appears he got this one right. See post here on Speakeasy forums regarding Global Warming as evidence that Freud was indeed correct.
This thread untracked.
Yes, minority opinions MUST be crushed!
Of course it would be easier if you actually had <i>"overwhelming evidence".</i> or evidence that was consistent or that made predictions that actually came true.
But, what the heck. Dissent MUST be suppressed at all costs. There are grants and junkets at stake!
Your word for the day is...
And in the 1970s same people predicted the coming Ice Age.
Another agreer not denier
"Denier" is one of those words...
that is calculated to offend, because it brings up images of the Holocaust. It is offensive the same way the "N-word" is offensive. And it is used with the same intent, IMHO.
McCain is a politician, not a scientist. I don't care very much whether he "agrees" with Global Warming or not. It is irrelevant.
"our current energy needs require immediate action." Who doesn't agree with that? It is a completely separate issue. Unfortunately there are many who don't want to actually DO anything about it.
Ungodly Worshippers of Global Warming
LOL, sounds about as slurring as calling people "deniers" of global warming beliefs. After all God did say,
Genesis 8:22 - "While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."
Interestingly, back in Moses day, snow fell in places where it hasn't for centuries in our modern age. It was probably a lot cooler in the Holy Land then too.
No, I never have.
You can make light of it all you want, but the Gorists use "denier" in the same way as it refers to those who deny the Holocaust ever happened. In fact some "Greens" have suggested that warming skeptics face Nuremberg type trials for "crimes against humanity"!
Very rational and scientific!
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
It may have started...
The use of that word with the case at hand may have started with Senator Barbara Boxer in February 2007. She had been chair of the Senate's Environment Committee for less than a month and made a statement that included "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered."
Newsweek Magazine published a story by Sharon Begley titled Global Warming The Truth About Denial in the magazine issue dated Aug 13, 2007. That story used Boxer's word "deniers'" at the start and the use of the word denier by others followed.
Pretty sure I heard it long before 2007....