Add a comment

omgowned.

the attack was a media scare. but they indeed have spread. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b2/Killerbees_ani.gif

on a more retarded flame war level, your other comments give you away. seems you're a cut and paste Ron Paulie. appropriate. Paulie wanna cracker?

were you even paying attention? yes, the earths temp fluctuated, the earth 'breathes' and every climate change graph shows this, especially Mann's 'hockey stick' that Al Gore uses to make his point. Do I have to reiterate? Its about studying the difference between older patterns of warming and cooling vs how they behave after industrialization. How do I debate science when you can't grasp this basic point, and how do I get you to read anything that doesnt come from libertarian rags Religiously devoted to attacking anything that threatens their economic beliefs?

Funny, all the things that you say about me are what I was thinking about you. I really don't appreciate you spreading lies about my candidate, especially not when Ron Paul has a variety of Jewish, Black and female supporters. They are smart enough to not listen to Michael Medved. Compared to the people who I was addressing on other threads, I was a perfect gentleman. Passive aggressive racist? Why because I have different political views from you? You are the left wing equivalent of Joseph McCarthy.

"Antarctica's ice sheets have actually been expanding" - whats ironic and proves your lack of understanding of global warming is that because of warmer temperatures, there is more moisture in the Antarctic and thus greater snowfalls. There is an increase in ice, and as it melts and then as it snows again and melts, etc, etc, this is partially where the increase in sea levels come from. but of course you took the base statement to make a point that doesnt actually exist.

"Al Gore's whole point was that the ice sheets were THINNING, not expanding. Already, you are now deviating from what he said in the movie." Am I supposed to be debating the movie as an absolute authority? But to answer your question, one wall of the Antarctic gets snow and expands, and the other breaks off. You might think that causes a balance, but the way things currently are, its more like compounding a problem. Its a little complex to completely go through in a ytmnd post.

the US Geological Study figures that 2/3 of the worlds population of polar bears will be gone by 2050. The ONLY study that shows increase comes from the NCPA conservative think tank. if you choose to believe them instead of actual polar bear scientists and conservationists, well thats your choice now isnt it?

"I am also saying that the impact of mankind on the overall climate is greatly overstated" - further up in the thread to kmalley I stated that since the CFC ban came into place, the Ozone problem has slowed to the point we barely talk about it anymore. If these CFCs were actually to blame for the Ozone, I'd say right there you have proof that we can do a heap of damage. Whats funny to me though is its also been shows in studies that cows methane farts do damage to our atmosphere. Many global warming Deniers/skeptics love that piece of info and purport it to be true. A cow can ruin the world, but us? Never?

There's a world of difference between 'overstated' and 'nonexistent'. 'Overstated' means that there is SOME impact, but the implication is that the impact is exaggerated. Just like when someone screams that some killer dog is coming after them, but it turns out to be some Chihuahua. 'Nonexistent', by contrast, means that there is no impact whatsoever. To be more specific, active volcano emissions and ocean emissions dwarf everything that mankind spews: http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

Well, I'm not going to side with the oil companies on this one. They have done me no favors. I frankly don't care if they go out of business (so long as they are not bullied by some hysterical bureaucrats). I am also not a good friend of any auto company, especially not in the USA. They have produced mediocre cars for years. Mainly because they have the state watching their backs should they run into financial trouble. I look forward to new entrepreneurs, like Tesla in California.

Demonizing comes from both ends, but I'm obviously more inclined to forgive it from the people I think are researched and right, who have genuine reason to be frustrated. Do I think the 'solutions' are draconian? Well, maybe. We're so far along that everything does seem pretty damned drastic. Ultimately I think I respect the "I dont care, f*ck the future" rebuttal more than the "lalalalala this is not happening lalalala" wilfully ignorant. I'm not saying they're ALL that way, but theres many.

In other words, instead of using the stick on industry, just take away their unearned carrots.

"I think that increasing the price of gasoline would hurt the poor people most of all" - well friend, what it comes down to is those who look at the short term harm both environmentally and economically vs the long term. It would be nice if we were all self sacrificial and thought more about what we're doing to future generations, but thats not the world we live in.

Although to really improve pollution output, and not merely offset it from gasoline to coal emissions, the American power grid will have to increasingly become more nuclear. Right now, the percentage is roughly 20% of the current nationwide grid. Another positive thing about nuclear power is that electricity becomes so cheap, that distilling ocean water becomes reasonably affordable. Right now, converted fresh water is used in places like Israel and Saudi Arabia, but is fairly expensive.

^ Uh, no. Both he and I have presented some valid pieces of evidence. But your point does have some similarities to mine. Which is why I am quite skeptical of all this talk of all these regulations, not to mention the potential economic unintended consequences of them.

^ F.AGGOT!

I think the debate over global warming can be resolved with a frame of bowling.