So why isn't 100% of all scientists with expertise bearing directly on climate change not on your side? If there is 3% that disagree with you, how are you able to sleep at night? Just curious
Global Temperature Update through April...
- Thread starter gracetoyou
- Start date
Let me be clear....I am in no way, shape, or form qualified to either refute or support the existence / severity of anthropogenic global warming.
Neither is Crow, though...and his ******** list is like pulling out a ***** in a dick swinging contest.
Neither is Crow, though...and his ******** list is like pulling out a ***** in a dick swinging contest.
"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort
A Drexel University study finds that a large slice of donations to organizations that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder
The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to ananalysis released Friday afternoon.
The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.
It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.
In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.
"The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on global warming," Brulle said in a statement. "Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers."
"If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes."
Consistent funders
To uncover that, Brulle developed a list of 118 influential climate denial organizations in the United States. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center, a database of global philanthropy, with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service.
According to Brulle, the largest and most consistent funders where a number of conservative foundations promoting "ultra-free-market ideas" in many realms, among them the Searle Freedom Trust, the John Williams Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.
Another key finding: From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were "heavily involved" in funding climate change denial efforts. But Exxon hasn't made a publically traceable contribution since 2008, and Koch's efforts dramatically declined, Brulle said.
Coinciding with a decline in traceable funding, Brulle found a dramatic rise in the cash flowing to denial organizations from DonorsTrust, a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation, the assessment found, now accounts for 25 percent of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations promoting the systematic denial of climate change.
Jeffrey Zysik, chief financial officer for DonorsTrust, said in an email that neither DonorsTrust nor Donors Capital Fund "take positions with respect to any issue advocated by its grantees."
"As with all donor-advised fund programs, grant recommendations are received from account holders," he said. "DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund ensure that recommended grantees are IRS-approved public charities and also require that the grantee charities do not rely on significant amounts of revenue from government sources. DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund do not otherwise drive the selection of grantees, nor conduct in-depth analyses of projects or grantees unless an account holder specifically requests that service."
Matter of democracy
In the end, Brulle concluded public records identify only a fraction of the hundreds of millions of dollars supporting climate denial efforts. Some 75 percent of the income of those organizations, he said, comes via unidentifiable sources.
And for Brulle, that's a matter of democracy. "Without a free flow of accurate information, democratic politics and government accountability become impossible," he said. "Money amplifies certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public square."
Powerful funders, he added, are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise doubts about the "roots and remedies" of a threat on which the science is clear.
"At the very least, American voters deserve to know who is behind these efforts."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
Didn't it come out not to long ago that some of the biggest environmental whacko organizations in the US are actually funded by Russian oil oligarchs?
I am not getting enough likes for my posting in this thread. If you are interested in continuing to be entertained my irrefutable brilliance then I need to see a tangible display of your pleasure in the form of increased likes or I will move on to a more deserving subject and leave you idiots to yourselves.
Lord Crow or Z or whoever you are...
Congrats. The petition I listed may very well be a piece of garbage. But it does have a list of every person who has signed it. And spare me picking the first name on the list alphabetically...that guy is a loon. We can agree on that. And there are probably several loons on a list of 30,000+ people. And I'm not going to investigate all of the names. You can if you want.
But from the same site you linked...
Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.
(Only 39 "climatologists" but several fields that bear relevance in the topic at hand. Keep in mind that most all of the "studies" are based on computer modeling...especially the atmospheric ones. And that most all climatologists are funded by governments or organizations that would cut funding if they appeared on a list like this)
Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)
1. Atmosphere (579)
I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)
2. Earth (2,240)
I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)
3. Environment (986)
I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)
Computers & Math (935)
1. Computer Science (242)
2. Math (693)
I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)
Physics & Aerospace (5,812)
1. Physics (5,225)
I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)
2. Aerospace Engineering (587)
Chemistry (4,822)
1. Chemistry (3,129)
2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)
Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)
1. Biochemistry (744)
I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)
2. Biology (1,438)
I) Biology (1,049)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)
3. Agriculture (783)
I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)
Medicine (3,046)
1. Medical Science (719)
2. Medicine (2,327)
General Engineering & General Science (10,102)
1. General Engineering (9,833)
I) Engineering (7,280)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)
2. General Science (269)
So if there is any truth to the list at least they aren't a bunch of uneducated idiots. And many have degrees in related fields.
But let's say you are 100% right about the whole thing being falsified and none of the people on that list even exist. Fine. Chalk one up for Z. I don't care. You are right that I don't study this topic in depth. I am merely trying to find a voice for the other side. A voice not clouded by the main stream media or by political agendas or by government funding. Searching for the truth instead of just accepting what the alarmists are saying.
So let's say the list is a fraud...fine. Let's move on to the things you so conveniently glossed over in my last post...
Like the 97% number. OK, in response to my post you said you don't focus on that number...but then just a few posts up from this one you say that you have "97% of the scientists with expertise on my side". So which is it? Do you focus on the 97% or not?
Don't bother answering that question because nobody here gives a rats *** what you think or what I think. That's a given. But everyone else in the free world does focus on that 97% number. Why? Because it's all over the media and Obama quotes it religiously. There's been hearings in congress based on that number. Hell, our Federal budget has been shaped by that 97%. So that's what the public hears day in and day out...97%. Why? Because that is a huge number and it freaks people out. And yet...it is basically a fabricated number that doesn't focus on the main questions that are relevant.
That 97% only counts those in the field who think man-made carbon emissions have an effect (any effect) on the climate. But there are plenty among that 97% that don't think that effect is at the catastrophic levels that the alarmists claim. To be frank, I am surprised the number isn't 100%. It should be. I think any rational human being would say that man has some effect on the climate and more specifically in the form of man-made carbon emissions.
Soooo let's move on...The REAL questions that need to be answered then become: (1) How much of an effect? And (2) To what extent is that man-made contribution catastrophic to our existence?
There is no "settled science" or whatever you want to call it on these questions. There is no 97% agreement on these questions. And if you polled ALL of the scientists in the organizations from your lists then you would get a wide variety of answers. And that's the whole point. None of it is settled...not on the 2 questions listed above.
Also, you glossed over the Professor Robert Stavins incident by saying it was taken out of context. When he was directly quoted as saying that he was coerced by policy makers (i.e.. politicians) to rewrite the study's results to fit the agenda of the policy makers.
My question to you is how can you take a scientific report seriously if it is shaped and molded, drastically reduced and summarized, with some of the scientific conclusions being omitted at the request of the policy makers to fit their agenda?
That is very misleading and shameful. Especially when it is coming from what is considered to be a reliable scientific source world wide. And there is nothing "scientific" about the overall report if it has been comprised in that manner. It looses all credibility...just as Professor Robert Stavins (who is on your side) said it does. And he was one of the co-authors of the report.
Congrats. The petition I listed may very well be a piece of garbage. But it does have a list of every person who has signed it. And spare me picking the first name on the list alphabetically...that guy is a loon. We can agree on that. And there are probably several loons on a list of 30,000+ people. And I'm not going to investigate all of the names. You can if you want.
But from the same site you linked...
Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.
(Only 39 "climatologists" but several fields that bear relevance in the topic at hand. Keep in mind that most all of the "studies" are based on computer modeling...especially the atmospheric ones. And that most all climatologists are funded by governments or organizations that would cut funding if they appeared on a list like this)
Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,805)
1. Atmosphere (579)
I) Atmospheric Science (112)
II) Climatology (39)
III) Meteorology (343)
IV) Astronomy (59)
V) Astrophysics (26)
2. Earth (2,240)
I) Earth Science (94)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,684)
IV) Geophysics (341)
V) Geoscience (36)
VI) Hydrology (22)
3. Environment (986)
I) Environmental Engineering (487)
II) Environmental Science (253)
III) Forestry (163)
IV) Oceanography (83)
Computers & Math (935)
1. Computer Science (242)
2. Math (693)
I) Mathematics (581)
II) Statistics (112)
Physics & Aerospace (5,812)
1. Physics (5,225)
I) Physics (2,365)
II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)
2. Aerospace Engineering (587)
Chemistry (4,822)
1. Chemistry (3,129)
2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)
Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)
1. Biochemistry (744)
I) Biochemistry (676)
II) Biophysics (68)
2. Biology (1,438)
I) Biology (1,049)
II) Ecology (76)
III) Entomology (59)
IV) Zoology (149)
V) Animal Science (105)
3. Agriculture (783)
I) Agricultural Science (296)
II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (81)
Medicine (3,046)
1. Medical Science (719)
2. Medicine (2,327)
General Engineering & General Science (10,102)
1. General Engineering (9,833)
I) Engineering (7,280)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
III) Metallurgy (384)
2. General Science (269)
So if there is any truth to the list at least they aren't a bunch of uneducated idiots. And many have degrees in related fields.
But let's say you are 100% right about the whole thing being falsified and none of the people on that list even exist. Fine. Chalk one up for Z. I don't care. You are right that I don't study this topic in depth. I am merely trying to find a voice for the other side. A voice not clouded by the main stream media or by political agendas or by government funding. Searching for the truth instead of just accepting what the alarmists are saying.
So let's say the list is a fraud...fine. Let's move on to the things you so conveniently glossed over in my last post...
Like the 97% number. OK, in response to my post you said you don't focus on that number...but then just a few posts up from this one you say that you have "97% of the scientists with expertise on my side". So which is it? Do you focus on the 97% or not?
Don't bother answering that question because nobody here gives a rats *** what you think or what I think. That's a given. But everyone else in the free world does focus on that 97% number. Why? Because it's all over the media and Obama quotes it religiously. There's been hearings in congress based on that number. Hell, our Federal budget has been shaped by that 97%. So that's what the public hears day in and day out...97%. Why? Because that is a huge number and it freaks people out. And yet...it is basically a fabricated number that doesn't focus on the main questions that are relevant.
That 97% only counts those in the field who think man-made carbon emissions have an effect (any effect) on the climate. But there are plenty among that 97% that don't think that effect is at the catastrophic levels that the alarmists claim. To be frank, I am surprised the number isn't 100%. It should be. I think any rational human being would say that man has some effect on the climate and more specifically in the form of man-made carbon emissions.
Soooo let's move on...The REAL questions that need to be answered then become: (1) How much of an effect? And (2) To what extent is that man-made contribution catastrophic to our existence?
There is no "settled science" or whatever you want to call it on these questions. There is no 97% agreement on these questions. And if you polled ALL of the scientists in the organizations from your lists then you would get a wide variety of answers. And that's the whole point. None of it is settled...not on the 2 questions listed above.
Also, you glossed over the Professor Robert Stavins incident by saying it was taken out of context. When he was directly quoted as saying that he was coerced by policy makers (i.e.. politicians) to rewrite the study's results to fit the agenda of the policy makers.
My question to you is how can you take a scientific report seriously if it is shaped and molded, drastically reduced and summarized, with some of the scientific conclusions being omitted at the request of the policy makers to fit their agenda?
That is very misleading and shameful. Especially when it is coming from what is considered to be a reliable scientific source world wide. And there is nothing "scientific" about the overall report if it has been comprised in that manner. It looses all credibility...just as Professor Robert Stavins (who is on your side) said it does. And he was one of the co-authors of the report.
Who are you, Sally Fields? They like me....They really like me.
Last edited:
Boyle's Law
Boyle's Law, published in 1662, states that, at constant temperature, the product of the pressure and volume of a given mass of an OK gas in a closed permeable system could be constant. It can be verified with models using a combination of toothpicks and a variable volume salt shaker. It can also be derived from the kinetic theory of Nancy Pelosi: if a container, with a fixed number of molecules inside, is reduced in volume, maybe more molecules can strike a given area of the sides of the container per unit time? There is a 90% certainty this will cause a greater pressure most ot the time unless there is a hiatus.
Charles' Law
Charles' Law, or the notion of volumes, was created in 1787 by Jacques Charles. It sort of states that, for a given mass of an OK gas at a near constant pressure, the volume is somewhat proportional to its room temperature, assuming a closed system with few leaks.
Avogadro's Law
Avogadro's Law states that, probably, the volume occupied by an OK gas is somewhat proportional to the number of molecules of the gas present in the container. This gives rise to the molar volume of a gas, which at a certain pressure is 22.4 dm3 (or litres). The relation is given by a complicated math formula. Trust this.
Combined and OK Gas Laws
The Combined Gas Law or General Gas Stuff and Things, is obtained by taking random parts of the three preceding gas laws, and shows the relationship between the science, politics and money for a fixed mass (quantity) of gas:
/IPCC report on Gas Laws
Boyle's Law, published in 1662, states that, at constant temperature, the product of the pressure and volume of a given mass of an OK gas in a closed permeable system could be constant. It can be verified with models using a combination of toothpicks and a variable volume salt shaker. It can also be derived from the kinetic theory of Nancy Pelosi: if a container, with a fixed number of molecules inside, is reduced in volume, maybe more molecules can strike a given area of the sides of the container per unit time? There is a 90% certainty this will cause a greater pressure most ot the time unless there is a hiatus.
Charles' Law
Charles' Law, or the notion of volumes, was created in 1787 by Jacques Charles. It sort of states that, for a given mass of an OK gas at a near constant pressure, the volume is somewhat proportional to its room temperature, assuming a closed system with few leaks.
Avogadro's Law
Avogadro's Law states that, probably, the volume occupied by an OK gas is somewhat proportional to the number of molecules of the gas present in the container. This gives rise to the molar volume of a gas, which at a certain pressure is 22.4 dm3 (or litres). The relation is given by a complicated math formula. Trust this.
Combined and OK Gas Laws
The Combined Gas Law or General Gas Stuff and Things, is obtained by taking random parts of the three preceding gas laws, and shows the relationship between the science, politics and money for a fixed mass (quantity) of gas:
/IPCC report on Gas Laws
Also Z, I didn't read your links to about the "dark money funding" or whatever but I will later.
But what's wrong with the other side of the argument getting funding? How is that any different than your side getting government funding? Both sides have their own agenda. And not surprising...each side's scientists come up with different conclusions. Conclusions that support the entity's agenda that is funding them.
Which is my whole point. I'm not on either side. I am on the side of the truth. Not some scientist who focuses on false numbers or tricks to meet an agenda...on either side. I bring these questions into this thread seeking unbiased truth.
What we need are independent studies that aren't funded by agendas on either side. Do such studies exist? I have no idea. Enlighten me.
Again, I don't delve into this as much as you do but I do know of two scientists who appear to be independent and who testified in front of a congressional committee in 2013 that they are both among the 97% that believe man-made carbon emissions have some effect on the environment...but that they & no other scientist can know for certainty that the alarmists claims are scientific fact. Those scientists are Dr. Roy Spencer & Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. Both well respected in their fields of study.
I'll leave Spencer out of this because he believes in God and I'm sure that Z will immediately discredit him on that basis alone.
Soooo...what happened to Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. since speaking out in those congressional hearings and on his blog and in published papers all of which go against the main stream alarmists? He got attacked by the alarmists and specifically by a Congressman.
Link...
http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/...ach-probe-cu-boulders-roger-pielke?source=pkg
Now...nothing wrong with wanting to know where his funding comes from. And Dr. Pielke may wind up being funded by Big Oil...although it seems he is on the level. Even several scientists who disagree with some of his scientific stuff have spoken out against the harsh treatment he has received from politicians. But the question is...does the other side get the same scrutiny? No. Not even close.
And get this...Dr. Pielke testified in those congressional hearings that he does think man-made carbon emissions adversely affect the climate and that some measures should be taken to combat it. He just isn't an alarmist. He doesn't completely fit the agenda. So let's discredit him.
Also, like Dr. Pielke says in the link...
"That just goes to show, if all he wants is material that is already out there in the public record, the point of the letter was purely political," Pielke told the Daily Camera on Tuesday. "If you're a young academic, you see this kind of retaliation for giving testimony that one party or another doesn't like, and it provides a pretty strong disincentive."
"If he wants to have stronger conflict of interest requirements for witnesses, I'll be the first person to applaud that," Pielke said. "But if that's the goal, then he would not have gone about it this way.
"There's really only two reasons to do what he did," Pielke added. "You're a conspiracy theorist, tinfoil-hat type, or you have to believe that there are certain voices that have to be silenced or delegitimized by attacking their character.
"I can see no other reason."
And I will end with yet another quote from that article that sums up my opinion...
"I hope that there is some good that can come out of this, because it is not fun having your name dragged through the mud," Pielke said. "In politics, people don't always play nice, but if we do care about science and politics, science has to be able to rise above the partisan debate to protect the integrity of what we do."
But what's wrong with the other side of the argument getting funding? How is that any different than your side getting government funding? Both sides have their own agenda. And not surprising...each side's scientists come up with different conclusions. Conclusions that support the entity's agenda that is funding them.
Which is my whole point. I'm not on either side. I am on the side of the truth. Not some scientist who focuses on false numbers or tricks to meet an agenda...on either side. I bring these questions into this thread seeking unbiased truth.
What we need are independent studies that aren't funded by agendas on either side. Do such studies exist? I have no idea. Enlighten me.
Again, I don't delve into this as much as you do but I do know of two scientists who appear to be independent and who testified in front of a congressional committee in 2013 that they are both among the 97% that believe man-made carbon emissions have some effect on the environment...but that they & no other scientist can know for certainty that the alarmists claims are scientific fact. Those scientists are Dr. Roy Spencer & Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. Both well respected in their fields of study.
I'll leave Spencer out of this because he believes in God and I'm sure that Z will immediately discredit him on that basis alone.
Soooo...what happened to Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. since speaking out in those congressional hearings and on his blog and in published papers all of which go against the main stream alarmists? He got attacked by the alarmists and specifically by a Congressman.
Link...
http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/...ach-probe-cu-boulders-roger-pielke?source=pkg
Now...nothing wrong with wanting to know where his funding comes from. And Dr. Pielke may wind up being funded by Big Oil...although it seems he is on the level. Even several scientists who disagree with some of his scientific stuff have spoken out against the harsh treatment he has received from politicians. But the question is...does the other side get the same scrutiny? No. Not even close.
And get this...Dr. Pielke testified in those congressional hearings that he does think man-made carbon emissions adversely affect the climate and that some measures should be taken to combat it. He just isn't an alarmist. He doesn't completely fit the agenda. So let's discredit him.
Also, like Dr. Pielke says in the link...
"That just goes to show, if all he wants is material that is already out there in the public record, the point of the letter was purely political," Pielke told the Daily Camera on Tuesday. "If you're a young academic, you see this kind of retaliation for giving testimony that one party or another doesn't like, and it provides a pretty strong disincentive."
"If he wants to have stronger conflict of interest requirements for witnesses, I'll be the first person to applaud that," Pielke said. "But if that's the goal, then he would not have gone about it this way.
"There's really only two reasons to do what he did," Pielke added. "You're a conspiracy theorist, tinfoil-hat type, or you have to believe that there are certain voices that have to be silenced or delegitimized by attacking their character.
"I can see no other reason."
And I will end with yet another quote from that article that sums up my opinion...
"I hope that there is some good that can come out of this, because it is not fun having your name dragged through the mud," Pielke said. "In politics, people don't always play nice, but if we do care about science and politics, science has to be able to rise above the partisan debate to protect the integrity of what we do."
But the difference is he's relying on people that DO have the expertise, whereas you are not. However I still appreciate your honesty.
Last edited:
No, He's relying on people that do not study AGW. They read what is published and agree that if it is true, it is bad.
The warming hiatus is the inconvenient truth. The models that churn out unreliable data are the inconvenient truth. Natural variability is the inconvenient truth.
The models are, and have been, woefully lacking when compared to reality. It is too easy to look back at projections for 2015 and see they are greatly exaggerated toward the dire.
LEK isn't smart enough to understand, but Z is. His immense hatred of society is causing him to discard his common sense.
Mr. Crow, I'll say a prayer for you if you think it will help.
The warming hiatus is the inconvenient truth. The models that churn out unreliable data are the inconvenient truth. Natural variability is the inconvenient truth.
The models are, and have been, woefully lacking when compared to reality. It is too easy to look back at projections for 2015 and see they are greatly exaggerated toward the dire.
LEK isn't smart enough to understand, but Z is. His immense hatred of society is causing him to discard his common sense.
Mr. Crow, I'll say a prayer for you if you think it will help.
So far all I've learned from this thread is that some doctor looked up a toasted anus and discovered global warming.
Learn something new everyday I suppose.
Learn something new everyday I suppose.
Basically you are saying follow the money, which is always a good idea. However when you do, you discover that the alarmists have their hands out as well.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne
which would explain why certain scientist etc would cook the numbers to reach a certain result.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354
The science will never be settled when there is money involved.
I'm all for science, the more the better. I am against the misuse of science to control the population.
The science isn't settled when the scientists can't explain where the heat is going. Easy answer is, the models are for ****. Strategy? Double down on the calamity angle.
When is 90% certainty good enough to be called a scientific theory?
Crow, I know damn well that when you read the propaganda about global warming, you pick up on the language used and can see right through it. Probably pisses you off that it's so obvious.
The science isn't settled when the scientists can't explain where the heat is going. Easy answer is, the models are for ****. Strategy? Double down on the calamity angle.
When is 90% certainty good enough to be called a scientific theory?
Crow, I know damn well that when you read the propaganda about global warming, you pick up on the language used and can see right through it. Probably pisses you off that it's so obvious.
Excellent rebuttal. Looks like those multiple degrees have really paid off for you. Fraud. Your worst fear is being realized, the real you is on display. Insinuating I am gay is a weapon in your warped, third grade mentality.
The bigotry is strong with you. I'm not the only one that knows who and what you are.
Without reading through alL the " I KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THINGS I COULDN'T POSSIBLY KNOW THE ASNWERS TO! comments, can everyone actually agree that you will never control the majority of places on earth and make them stop the pollution? I mean, the answers to "global warming" are reductions in blah blah blah BLAH BLAH..........BLAHHH[poop]. But then if you dig into the facts just a bit deeper, the majority of ""scientist" also agree that we couldn't really do jack squat if we wanted to.
If/When the globe starts to cool down its going to be hilarious watching some of you tree huggers run to the next ice age theory just like you did under the Carter administration.
OMG! is that bigotry? [laughing]
If/When the globe starts to cool down its going to be hilarious watching some of you tree huggers run to the next ice age theory just like you did under the Carter administration.
OMG! is that bigotry? [laughing]
Last edited:
Like I said, if the world starts to cool itself (which it's done on and off since, ever) he will just look at the current data and make some kind of claim like he's a deity and knows the world that he created.
I would almost guarantee you if this was 1982 Lord Crow would be screaming about the upcoming Ice age. I would put some hella cash on it.
Still didn't get an answer from earlier in this thread.
What type of evidence is it going to take for both sides to agree?
What type of evidence is it going to take for both sides to agree?
Do you think there will be anything that they can agree on?
Just not sure why this country is reactive rather than preventative on anything.