LetemEatCake
Champion Author
Oklahoma City
Posts:5,671
Points:1,230,030
Joined:Mar 2008
|
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2012 11:09:14 PM
Just thought I would share....it is 10:08p. central time and it is 109 degrees here.
The highest temp we have has since 1936.
[Edited by: LetemEatCake at 8/1/2012 11:10:12 PM EST]
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:14,874
Points:2,120,555
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2012 9:48:03 PM
It's the UN - you can't even get the US congress to agree on a fiscal budget, and you think 120 nations are going to agree to allow the UN to re-order the world?
Strong is like 90 years old, in no governmental position of power, and from Canada. He can do nothing more than the Kochs - use their money to buy influence, and even then would face steep opposition from Canadian PM Harper.
And again. The UN does not conduct research, it does not provide grant money for research. It does not doesn't collect research data, analyze research data, nor publish research data.
From wiki (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change):
"The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[4] an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change....
... Its mission is to provide comprehensive scientific assessments of current scientific, technical and socio-economic information worldwide about the risk of climate change caused by human activity, its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences, and possible options for adapting to these consequences or mitigating the effects.[4] It is chaired by Rajendra K. Pachauri.
Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC) to writing and reviewing reports, which are reviewed by representatives from all the governments, with summaries for policy makers being subject to line-by-line approval by all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.[5]"
-----
Do you really think you will EVER get 120 nations to agree on anything, much less the absurd accusations you post?
Why is it you continue to post deliberate misrepresentations of the facts?
And "eco-terrorists"?
Dude, you haven't dyed your hair orange, have you?
Green?
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:9,165
Points:779,850
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2012 8:45:16 PM
Martin says "Here is her reply, a Letter to the Editor response in reference to an article on Freeman Dyson"
======================
Curiously you repost the same link I gave below.
I'm enjoying you're regurgitations of those eco-socialists that have had to scramble and lurch to spin defenses of these quotes displaying the real reasons for the UN and their tool of using the paid for 'science' of the IPCC!
Here's one more, I look forward to more of your musings:
“Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?” - Quote by Maurice Strong, founding director of the UN Environment Program.
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:14,874
Points:2,120,555
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2012 7:40:59 PM
Again, its obvious that you neither read the article, defining the context in which her reply was made, nor the Letters to the Editor where it was published.
Here is her reply, a Letter to the Editor response in reference to an article on Freeman Dyson (A fasinating read, for those of you who don't know who he is) titled, "The Civil Heretic" (March 2009, New York Times Magazine).
The letter is published in the April 12th, 2009 edition. At the time she was attending Harvard, as a PhD student. She later went on to a Post-doctoral research assistant position at Princeton University, working in their department of Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy (hence "STEP").
The quote (also taken out of context) originally appeared in the Google-Groups "alt.global-warming" forum, as shown here - Quote o' the day, Nov 20 2009.
And as you will note, it [then] still lists her at "School of Engineering and Applied Science, Harvard University".
You've done little more than simply cut-and-paste a "quote" you found on an anti-Global Warming blogsite, where someone has posted a compiled list of similar "quotes":
anti-Global Warming Trolling for Dumbies
Yet again, you blindly posted something that is incorrect, misleading, and wrong.
Oh, and I guess because you were too clueless to figure this out, its okay to justify it with a sexest comment:
"... Because she flits around from place to place,..."
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:9,165
Points:779,850
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2012 2:44:39 PM
In order to understand the IPCC report you need to understand the thought process behind Agenda 21.
"The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope." David Brower, one of Sierra Club founders and Friends of the Earth. You know 'Agenda 21', "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."
[Edited by: drpepperTX at 8/1/2012 2:47:21 PM EST]
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:9,165
Points:779,850
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2012 2:20:23 PM
?The Civil Heretic? was a perfect example of what Freeman Dyson disagrees with: blatant and unfounded exaggeration. Dyson is not a ?global-warming heretic?; he does not dispute the science. He simply says, and rightfully so, that the science is both uncertain and very much exaggerated. It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians? ? and readers? ? attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today?s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.
Because she flits around from place to place, Kopacz was at Princeton Monica Kopacz (STEP 2009-2011) the same year she wrote the above mentioned letter to the editor.
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:14,874
Points:2,120,555
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2012 1:27:41 PM
AH haha ha ha ha...
Now we're quoting Research Associates and Assistants... well, maybe.
Here, let me make this easy for you (and everyone else):
Btw, you better tell the anti-Global Warming people she doesn't work at Princeton any more... hasn't in a while...
[L=http://provident.org.uk/text deleted Warming Trolling for Dumbies[/L]
(if the above link keeps getting deleted due to the 100-character length limit, simply Google the following: "why are environmental followers so gullible Provident")
Oh, and when did she purportedly make said statements? And again, any proof or actual links (other than "Trolling for Dumbies")...? I can guarantee you she did not make such a statement while at Princeton, or as a Post-doctoral Research Assistant.
That is an outright lie.
Then again, its nothing new...
[Edited by: Martinman at 8/1/2012 1:37:38 PM EST]
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:14,874
Points:2,120,555
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2012 1:15:37 PM
AH haha ha ha ha...
Now we're quoting Research Associates and Assistants... well, maybe.
Here, let me make this easy for you (and everyone else):
Btw, you better tell the anti-Global Warming people she doesn't work at Princeton any more... hasn't in a while...
Oh, and when did she purportedly make said statements? And again, any proof or actual links (other than "Trolling for Dumbies")...? I can guarantee you she did not make such a statement while at Princeton, or as a Post-doctoral Research Assistant.
That is an outright lie.
Then again, its nothing new...
[Edited by: Martinman at 8/1/2012 1:23:13 PM EST]
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:9,165
Points:779,850
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2012 12:36:30 PM
"It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians' and readers' attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today's world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty." - Monika Kopacz, Postdoctoral Research Associate at Princeton
[Edited by: drpepperTX at 8/1/2012 12:37:30 PM EST]
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:14,874
Points:2,120,555
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2012 12:08:30 PM
"More on the fear and paronoia tactics as proven...?
Really ?
The quotes posted below are by Mr. Bast - the Heartland Institute's President. They are the direct word-for-word quotes, taken from a verifiable source (Popular Science), with links to that source.
-----
"... from those in support of AGW..."
Ah, what about the actual science?
All you're posting, are unsubstantiated quotes, with no reference to the actual text. And even then, quotes by a few environmentalists and policy makers - you know, those list of quotes that are commonly circulated in the anti-Global Warming blogs?
Even then, such quotes affects the science how? They affect whether Global Warming is or isn't occurring how?
Its nothing more than diversionary tactics, designed to create doubt, take people's minds off the actual science, get them arguing about semantics versus addressing the actual issue. Which after all is *all* you have posted - you've contributed nothing here but false, misleading, unfounded statements on the science.
Its easy to try and paint the picture you want, by selecting partial quotes, much less when they're taken out of the broader contact of the statement that was made - which you have also repeatedly done.
So, do you even have ONE link to an actual quote that does not come from one of the anti-Global Warming blogs or websites.
One?
O-N-E ?
[Edited by: Martinman at 8/1/2012 12:17:52 PM EST]
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:9,165
Points:779,850
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2012 11:08:04 AM
More on the fear and paronoia tactics as proven through quotations from those in support of AGW...
"We ROUTINELY wrote SCARE stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to WHIP the public into a FRENZY about the environment." - Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, once a public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency.
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:14,874
Points:2,120,555
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2012 9:29:59 AM
The only hoax here, is the constant distort of truth by those attempting to discredit the science and scientists behind Global Warming research.
What drives a person, group, or organization to do some of the things that have been done to climate research scientists (read the Popular Science article, it's shocking) - anthrax scares, hate mail, threaten family members, and repeatedly harrass the researchers with repeatitive FOA (Freedom of Information Act) requests. Or even this...
"... a few weeks later, Heartland [Institute] would launch a new advertising campaign. As drivers crawled along Chicago’s busy Eisenhower Expressway, they were confronted with a large billboard that compared believers in global warming with Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. The text on the billboard read, “I still believe in global warming. Do you?” The advertisement was meant to be the first in a series. Others would liken climate-science advocates to mass murderers, including Charles Manson and Osama bin Laden. Bast did not respond for comment following the launch of the campaign, but Heartland issued a press release: “The people who believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”..."
-----
I mean really? Who's terrorizing whom here?
Billboards with picture of Ted Kaczynski, Charles Manson, Osama Bin Laden.
Are you really that desparate to try to prove the scientists and their science wrong?
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:9,165
Points:779,850
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2012 8:36:06 AM
I'd like to thank the one who would have us eat cake for coming forward with the honest truth as to what is behind the man made global warming hoax!
Here is a quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, one of high level UN-IPCC officials: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
This real reason for the United Nations creating the IPCC is to PROMOTE the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Don't agree?
Then explain this quote from Timothy Wirth , a close associate to Al Gore, a liberal extremist ex senator from Colorado said in 1990 "“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing …”
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:14,874
Points:2,120,555
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2012 1:42:36 AM
To give you an idea of the extent that the lobbyists for the petroleum industry have gone, in their efforts to discredit the science and scientists behind Global Warming; to their tactics used in turning this into a politically devisive issue that will prevent it from being address until it's likely too late.
Read this from last month's Popular Science:
The Battle Over Climate Science (June 2012)
|
LetemEatCake
Champion Author
Oklahoma City
Posts:5,671
Points:1,230,030
Joined:Mar 2008
|
Message Posted: Aug 1, 2012 12:23:02 AM
Sounds like Pop from Tx. must be one of the !%. No way working people could have these attitudes and ideas!
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:14,874
Points:2,120,555
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Jul 31, 2012 6:32:54 PM
Is there a point of continuing to troll this thread (and others), by talking in circles? By taking select quotes from sections of text out-of-context, for something you most likely can't even explain to begin with?
Either you're just throwing things out because you have no understand of it, or you're throwing it out to deliberately mislead others here that you know won't understand.
Is that why you picked a reference this time, for which 99.9% of the people here have no access to the peer reviewed article text or graphs?
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:9,165
Points:779,850
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Jul 31, 2012 4:34:44 PM
hmmm....Since only one of these reconstructions extends back to the early part of the previous millennia, results are more tentative, but suggest the recent warming could be unprecedented in nearly 2000 years. Says
M. E. Mann and P. D. Jones
|
Rehorsehay
All-Star Author
California
Posts:871
Points:45,925
Joined:Feb 2012
|
Message Posted: Jul 31, 2012 1:43:47 PM
Great article. I will continue to follow Richard Muller.
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:14,874
Points:2,120,555
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Jul 31, 2012 12:23:45 PM
And just for the record - since I can see you trying to further twist the term "unprecedented" - no one is making the claim that the current climate, nor temperatures are 'unprecedented'.
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:14,874
Points:2,120,555
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Jul 31, 2012 11:50:04 AM
drpeppertx from texas posted...
"The precedented temperature record"
-----
The actual title of the blog's webpage is: "Global Warming Science Facts: Canada's Baffin Island Ice Core Proves Current Temperatures Not 'Unprecedented'."
You're using information posted on a conservative, anti-Global Warming blog over the professional peer reviewed science, as the basis for your claims?
I'm just curious how many more times you are going to post this same failure in fundamental logic?
The prior climate patterns (much less temperature records) have NO bearing on the CAUSE for the current climatic warming trend. Their pertience is in how those higher temperatures IMPACTED the planet then, as an proxy (indicator) of the impact higher temperatures will have on the planet in the future.
The fact that there are periods in the planet's past climatology that were warmer has never been disputed. That fact is plastered throughout the professional literature, college text books, college courses.
The issue is NOT whether current climate trends are warmer than any time in the past.
The issue is:
1. what is CAUSING the current climatic warming trend;
2. what the effects will be of a continuing climatic warming trend;
It doesn't matter that previously the Global climate was warmer than present, whether that was hundreds of millions of years ago during the Cambrian, Jurassic, or Cretaceous periods - much less 6,000 years ago or even 2,000 years ago.
It doesn't matter that the Gulf coast (Houston, New Orleans, Pensacola), Florida, or the Eastern seaboard had higher sea levels then. It doesn't matter if the Midwest was a semi-arid dust bowl then. It doesn't matter if mosquito species that are vectors for malaria were present when tropical climates existed further north then. The Earth's population was significantly smaller then, and millions of people did not live there then.
It does matter now.
-----
The fact of the matter is, you continue to troll articles such as this, posting unfounded and outlandish claims.
[Edited by: Martinman at 7/31/2012 11:54:04 AM EST]
|
alterman156
Champion Author
New York
Posts:7,630
Points:1,585,225
Joined:Dec 2008
|
Message Posted: Jul 31, 2012 2:27:36 AM
They're probably correct in that statement.
|
52MPG
Champion Author
Dayton
Posts:7,407
Points:1,770,380
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Jul 31, 2012 12:19:20 AM
Was there a pay off? Follow the money.
|
LetemEatCake
Champion Author
Oklahoma City
Posts:5,671
Points:1,230,030
Joined:Mar 2008
|
Message Posted: Jul 31, 2012 12:11:01 AM
Well said PDQ and Martin!
|
clpassenubye
Champion Author
Los Angeles
Posts:3,374
Points:776,930
Joined:Mar 2011
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 9:56:03 PM
not! what about all the other climate changes in the history of the world?
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:9,165
Points:779,850
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 9:48:59 PM
The precedented temperature record
|
PDQBlues
Champion Author
San Diego
Posts:7,214
Points:1,476,025
Joined:Jan 2009
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 9:41:18 PM
The science deniers do practice, "If you tell a lie often enough, long enough, the people will believe it," to deceive the population (usually for financial gains). But the universe doesn't care about these lies. Fracking poisons drinking water, cigarettes are carcinogenic, and global warming is real and due (in large part) to human activities that include burning fossil fuels. Science will deliver the truth that will set you free.
|
drpepperTX
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:9,165
Points:779,850
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 3:48:27 PM
The IPCC likes to push the "hockey stick" graph as proof that late 20th century and end the first decade of the 21st century of unprecedented global warming. And they will then add that only man can be the cause.
There are many research studies on temperature data of relative recent history (the last 10,000) years showing that it's quite a leap in faith to attribute this current warming period to mankind.
Such as:
[L=http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/04/text deleted climate changes over the last 10,000 years.[/L]
|
BlueberryFocus
All-Star Author
Rochester
Posts:553
Points:130,285
Joined:Feb 2012
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 1:42:02 PM
Eventually we will realize and act - we can't eat and drink money.
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:14,874
Points:2,120,555
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 12:06:28 PM
languageman1 from tampa posted...
"No, we're not "...almost entirely..." to blame for it as it's part of a cycle we're going through."
-----
cheapchickKY from lexington posted...
"Cyclical..."
-----
car253 from ohio posted...
"50 years is not a long time in span of the earth's climate, how many warming and cooling cycles have there been in the past 50000 years?"
-----
Climate Cycles ("warming and cooling cycles") don't just randonly occur. They are well documented, widely recognized, and understood.
I'm curious. Since you believe it is 'just another warming cycle' - which 'natural' cycle is triggering this?
Can any of you explain even one, much less which one is to blame?
And please explain "which" natural cycle has recently changed, that would account for the current climate warming trend?
Can any of you explain how each of these *were* trending, before the last change?
[Church Lady]
... Could it be that the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit has 'changed' ?
... Could it be that the precession in the Earth's orbit has 'changed' ?
... Could it be that the tilt of the Earth's axis has 'changed' ?
... Could it be plate tectonics/Continental Drift has 'changed' ?
... Could it be,... SATAN !?
[/Church Lady]
Each of the Earth's well established cyclical events that "drive" the Earth's climate (also referred to as 'forcing'), are extremely long-term events, which are well documented and pretty well understood. These occur in the tens-of-thousands (21,000 / 26,000 / 41,000), and hundreds-of-thousands (100,000 /400,000) year cycles. Cycles that are not readily changed, nor that simply reverse themselves even on the order of decades. Not to mention that we pretty well know where the Earth is currently at in each of these Milankovich cycles.
So again. What 'natural cycle' is responsible for this...?
languageman1 ?
cheapchickky ?
car253 ?
Anyone?
Btw, when you decide the bless the rest of us, please call NASA. They'll extremely interested if any of the following have occurred:
- major change in plate tectonic movement that's created a new super-continent;
- major change in eccentricity of the Earth's current orbit;
- major change in precession of the Earth's current orbit;
- major change in tilt of the Earth's axis;
There's a few others, but those are 'the biggies'.
I'm sure that if NASA had discovered any of these changes, it would have hit the press with another "unprecedented" news release.
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:14,874
Points:2,120,555
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 11:45:26 AM
drpeppertx from texas posted...
"LOL, sure they are, as has been the overall trend for the last 25,000 years or so since the end of the last ice age. At the peak of the last glacial period ice sheets covered much of North America and Europe. Today's glaciers are remnants of that period."
-----
Close.
Kinda...
The last glacial period 'maxima' was ~21,000 YA (years ago), and most suggest it ended 10,000 to 11,000 YA. The time since then is called the Holocene period (Epoch).
And at their peak glaciers covered most of Canada and portions of the northern U.S. (upper Midwest, New England, parts of Montana and Washington), Northern Europe and small areas of Asia and the Himalayas.
The Ohio River marks the southern-most extent of the laurentine (sp?) glacial sheet into what is now the Midwestern U.S. Most of Alaska was not was covered, as the glaciation was restricted to the southern coastal region and the aleusian island chain.
The Missouri River marks the southern-extent of the earlier Kansan Glaciation period.
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:14,874
Points:2,120,555
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 10:59:39 AM
fjcruiserca from california posted...
"The earth has been hotter and colder in ancient times than it is now."
-----
car253 from ohio posted...
"50 years is not a long time in span of the earth's climate, how many warming and cooling cycles have there been in the past 50000 years?"
-----
Prior climate cycles are irrelevant for determining the *cause* of the current Climate trend. They can only be used to infer the effects of warming temperatures long-term on things like sea-level, climate patterns, crop regions, and pest species distribution.
You cannot infer a cause, from prior effects. It is faulty logic.
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:14,874
Points:2,120,555
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 10:47:23 AM
REPOST !
REPOST !
REPOST !
Converted Skeptic_Humans Driving_Recent Warming
This Huffington Post story is nothing more than a repeat of the New York Times Op-Ed with a few brief opening comments by the Huffington Post "reporter" (like 90% of their 'news').
|
Cakes77
Champion Author
Harrisburg
Posts:5,296
Points:1,679,245
Joined:Aug 2006
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 9:20:02 AM
Thanks for your nice comments folks on this article. Keep them coming!
|
Rich1430
All-Star Author
Indiana
Posts:764
Points:279,000
Joined:Mar 2012
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 5:56:21 AM
Agree with Jeff4U. HuffPo cannot tell the truth in any story.
|
NedW
Champion Author
Indianapolis
Posts:5,755
Points:1,168,970
Joined:Mar 2008
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 4:50:57 AM
You got that right, Jeff4U.
|
granitestater
Champion Author
New Hampshire
Posts:8,987
Points:1,459,425
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 2:46:56 AM
This guy has had a mental meltdown. Or he's been paid off...
|
MrLefty0706
Champion Author
Chicago
Posts:1,590
Points:379,760
Joined:Apr 2012
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 1:45:47 AM
We need more of this type of research.
|
Jeff4U
Champion Author
Atlanta
Posts:8,895
Points:1,879,930
Joined:Nov 2004
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 1:26:12 AM
More typical hogwash from the Huffington Rag.
|
kkimes
Champion Author
Illinois
Posts:1,673
Points:1,531,800
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 12:51:48 AM
Of course most people on this board won't believe but read the July issue of Popular Science if you want to know more.
|
cheapchickKY
Champion Author
Lexington
Posts:4,164
Points:824,965
Joined:Jan 2011
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 12:33:30 AM
Cyclical...
|
FlyNFool
Champion Author
South Carolina
Posts:8,384
Points:1,712,900
Joined:Aug 2008
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 12:19:13 AM
I thought it was cows farting.
|
fullcirclethink
Champion Author
Washington
Posts:2,010
Points:159,905
Joined:Jun 2009
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 12:11:51 AM
Real or imagined makes no difference when considering that this level of "the sky is falling" mentality is all about redistributing more wealth than Hussein and Co. could only dream of!! Especially when Algore buys ocean front property while claiming that the ocean level will dramatically rise. Follow the money.....
|
LanguageMan1
Champion Author
Tampa
Posts:11,866
Points:1,689,490
Joined:Apr 2008
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 12:10:24 AM
No, we're not "...almost entirely..." to blame for it as it's part of a cycle we're going through.
|
JohnofGB
Champion Author
Flint
Posts:5,566
Points:1,124,870
Joined:Feb 2010
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 12:09:50 AM
Yeah, right , uhuh.......
|
carpenter4u
Champion Author
Virginia
Posts:2,476
Points:639,520
Joined:Jul 2011
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 12:07:36 AM
What a fairy tale they tell. Huffington Post is wrong most of the time
|
dwh724
Champion Author
Pittsburgh
Posts:1,676
Points:662,850
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Jul 30, 2012 12:05:16 AM
Okay
|
TripleHs
Champion Author
Austin
Posts:3,440
Points:941,065
Joined:Oct 2009
|
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2012 11:55:39 PM
made up and biased
|
jrsva
Champion Author
Virginia
Posts:10,004
Points:1,641,675
Joined:Jan 2006
|
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2012 11:52:50 PM
“everything will be ok if we elect Romney and put our heads back in the sand.”
How deep in the sand some GB heads are. Recent news that the Greenland ice sheet has melted more and faster than ever before and some actually think this is not real?!!!
|
qwerty17
Champion Author
New Jersey
Posts:3,765
Points:1,145,000
Joined:Oct 2009
|
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2012 11:45:51 PM
yikes.
|
HorizonChaser
Champion Author
Montgomery
Posts:2,120
Points:482,885
Joined:Dec 2011
|
Message Posted: Jul 29, 2012 11:39:12 PM
wrong
|