Spring Break
Global warming skepticism fraught with misinformation
Abstract:
Last Saturday was the International Day of Climate Action, a day designated by the group 350.org to raise awareness about what some say is the biggest hoax to have ever perpetrated our culture, global warming. I can understand where these non-believers of climate change (or global warming, or global obliteration, call it what you will) are initially coming from....
- Displaying 1 - 15 of 15
jimmy
posted 10/29/09 @ 8:44 AM MST
" So what would scientists gain from claiming humans are causing global warming?"
Their livelihoods, what is the likelihood that a scientist would receive a climate grant for research if they did not go along with the "global warming" scare tactic? Highly unlikely...
"Even Al Gore doesn't seem to gain much more than name recognition from his film "An Inconvenient Truth."
Try tens of millions of dollars, while at the same time flying in private jets and using 22 times what the average citizen of Tennessee uses to heat and power their house. While at the same time saying it is all okay because he buys carbon credits, from the company he owns, to offset his carbon use.
Again M. Alex Stephens is ignorant to the real debate. YES THE GLOBE IS APPROXIMATELY 1 DEGREE WARMER THAN FIFTY YEARS AGO, THIS HAS BEEN WIDELY ACCEPTED AS FACT.
THE DEBATE IS CONCERNING THE SOURCE OF THE WARMING. IS IT JUST HUMAN ACTIVITY CAUSING THIS WARMING? IF SO COULD WE CHANGE THAT IF WE WANTED? IS THIS A NATURAL PROCESS LIKE WE HAVE SEEN BEFORE?
OR
IS IT JUST THE CASE THAT PEOPLE WILLING TO USE THEIR BRAINPOWER UNDERSTAND THAT A MERE HUNDRED YEARS AFTER THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION COULD NOT CHANGE GLOBAL PROCESSES THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS. THAT SOME OF US REALIZE THAT OUR HUNDRED YEAR EXISTENCE RELATIVE TO THE EXISTENCE OF OUR PLANET IS SO ERRONEOUS THAT IT WOULD BE EXTREME IGNORANCE, AND EXTREME ARROGANCE TO SUGGEST THAT "WE" HAVE THE ABILITY TO ALTER THE NATURAL PROCESSES THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS.
Before we bring down the US economy, we might want to ponder this topic relative to our life and its erroneous contribution to the life of the planet...
Their livelihoods, what is the likelihood that a scientist would receive a climate grant for research if they did not go along with the "global warming" scare tactic? Highly unlikely...
"Even Al Gore doesn't seem to gain much more than name recognition from his film "An Inconvenient Truth."
Try tens of millions of dollars, while at the same time flying in private jets and using 22 times what the average citizen of Tennessee uses to heat and power their house. While at the same time saying it is all okay because he buys carbon credits, from the company he owns, to offset his carbon use.
Again M. Alex Stephens is ignorant to the real debate. YES THE GLOBE IS APPROXIMATELY 1 DEGREE WARMER THAN FIFTY YEARS AGO, THIS HAS BEEN WIDELY ACCEPTED AS FACT.
THE DEBATE IS CONCERNING THE SOURCE OF THE WARMING. IS IT JUST HUMAN ACTIVITY CAUSING THIS WARMING? IF SO COULD WE CHANGE THAT IF WE WANTED? IS THIS A NATURAL PROCESS LIKE WE HAVE SEEN BEFORE?
OR
IS IT JUST THE CASE THAT PEOPLE WILLING TO USE THEIR BRAINPOWER UNDERSTAND THAT A MERE HUNDRED YEARS AFTER THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION COULD NOT CHANGE GLOBAL PROCESSES THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS. THAT SOME OF US REALIZE THAT OUR HUNDRED YEAR EXISTENCE RELATIVE TO THE EXISTENCE OF OUR PLANET IS SO ERRONEOUS THAT IT WOULD BE EXTREME IGNORANCE, AND EXTREME ARROGANCE TO SUGGEST THAT "WE" HAVE THE ABILITY TO ALTER THE NATURAL PROCESSES THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS.
Before we bring down the US economy, we might want to ponder this topic relative to our life and its erroneous contribution to the life of the planet...
AAGW
posted 10/29/09 @ 10:55 AM MST
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&em
Registered Independent
posted 10/29/09 @ 12:42 PM MST
Here's an "unflimsy" fact for you Mr. Stephens; this past summer was the coolest summer on record in New York since the year 1917.
So it would be "irrational" of you to discount this newest data proving "global cooling".
So it would be "irrational" of you to discount this newest data proving "global cooling".
Julia Weichselbaum
posted 10/29/09 @ 1:35 PM MST
Originally posted byjimmy
" So what would scientists gain from claiming humans are causing global warming?"
Their livelihoods, what is the likelihood that a scientist would receive a climate grant for research if they did not go along with the "global warming" scare tactic? Highly unlikely...
"Even Al Gore doesn't seem to gain much more than name recognition from his film "An Inconvenient Truth."
Try tens of millions of dollars, while at the same time flying in private jets and using 22 times what the average citizen of Tennessee uses to heat and power their house. While at the same time saying it is all okay because he buys carbon credits, from the company he owns, to offset his carbon use.
Again M. Alex Stephens is ignorant to the real debate. YES THE GLOBE IS APPROXIMATELY 1 DEGREE WARMER THAN FIFTY YEARS AGO, THIS HAS BEEN WIDELY ACCEPTED AS FACT.
THE DEBATE IS CONCERNING THE SOURCE OF THE WARMING. IS IT JUST HUMAN ACTIVITY CAUSING THIS WARMING? IF SO COULD WE CHANGE THAT IF WE WANTED? IS THIS A NATURAL PROCESS LIKE WE HAVE SEEN BEFORE?
OR
IS IT JUST THE CASE THAT PEOPLE WILLING TO USE THEIR BRAINPOWER UNDERSTAND THAT A MERE HUNDRED YEARS AFTER THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION COULD NOT CHANGE GLOBAL PROCESSES THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS. THAT SOME OF US REALIZE THAT OUR HUNDRED YEAR EXISTENCE RELATIVE TO THE EXISTENCE OF OUR PLANET IS SO ERRONEOUS THAT IT WOULD BE EXTREME IGNORANCE, AND EXTREME ARROGANCE TO SUGGEST THAT "WE" HAVE THE ABILITY TO ALTER THE NATURAL PROCESSES THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS.
Before we bring down the US economy, we might want to ponder this topic relative to our life and its erroneous contribution to the life of the planet...
Jimmy, you are not worth arguing with, but let me just say...
Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. An increase in greenhouse gases exaggerate the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms the planet.
Even if the earth were warming on its own, the CO2 added into the atmosphere by human activity is perpetuating that warming. It doesn't matter if the earth is warming on its own or not- it's the amount of CO2 that WE ARE ADDING that is a significant problem.... unfortunately, probably an irreversible problem. Your reasoning is absolutely ridiculous, and FOX news, Rush Limbaugh-based... that is apparent.
I have never wanted to be wrong so badly about anything... I hope you are right, Jimmy!!
jimmy
posted 10/29/09 @ 3:12 PM MST
Originally posted byJulia Weichselbaum
Jimmy, you are not worth arguing with, but let me just say...
Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. An increase in greenhouse gases exaggerate the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms the planet.
Even if the earth were warming on its own, the CO2 added into the atmosphere by human activity is perpetuating that warming. It doesn't matter if the earth is warming on its own or not- it's the amount of CO2 that WE ARE ADDING that is a significant problem.... unfortunately, probably an irreversible problem. Your reasoning is absolutely ridiculous, and FOX news, Rush Limbaugh-based... that is apparent.
I have never wanted to be wrong so badly about anything... I hope you are right, Jimmy!!
First of all I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh...
Furthermore you highlight the very point I am talking about. You claim it doesn't matter if the globe is warming on its own, because it is the CO2 that we are adding that matters.... Well if the globe is warming on its own, would that not alter the results of greenhouse gas experiments?
Here is your simple categorical syllogism...
"Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. An increase in greenhouse gases exaggerate the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms the planet." [therefore, CO2 warms the planet]
How can you assert that CO2 emitted solely by humans is the cause of "global warming" if you cannot measure the actual effect CO2 has on temperatures; because as you claim it doesn't matter if the globe is warming on its own? How can you measure how we are perpetuating a natural process, if the way to measure the perpetuation is clouded by that very natural process itself?
You cannot tangibly measure either and directly correlate the rise of 1 degree from fifty years ago, to solely the activities of humans, most notably our emissions of CO2.
I love it how the proponents of the "global warming" theory assert that they are right based off such simplistic, hasty, and insufficient information. On the other hand the critics who ask tough questions are attacked for who they supposedly listen to on radio or who they watch on TV. Superb logic! lol!
Zach
posted 10/29/09 @ 2:10 PM MST
Again this author simply spouts his agenda, which is obviously pitted against anything oil, coal, livestock industry, or anything conservative whatsoever. There has been so much evidence against global warming that you NEVER hear about. How about the continued growth of glaciers in the south pole? Did anyone ever tell you about that? Or the fact that it was hotter in 1900 than it is now. How about how we only have 100 years of weather reports to compare, that is a VERY insignificant amount of time compared to how long the world has been around, don't you think? And citing a movie made by Al Gore, which half of it was him whining about losing the election, just shows how ignorant you are. That movie completely and utterly misinformed people. It has been proven that there are at least nine inconsistencies in "An Inconvenient Truth". Which is why it wasn't allowed to be shown in British schools. There's also a great book by the late author Michael Crichton called "State of Fear" that just completely blows the theory of global warming out of the water. In this book Crichton uses countless sources, some of them even being scientists who believe in it but fail to see that they have actually included evidence against global warming.
As for what everyone has to gain from global warming, do you realize that Al Gore will soon become a billionaire, mainly because of his work on global warming? That sounds like enough reason to keep lying to the people.
Now I challenge you Stephens, in a future column why don't you tell us what YOU have done to slow this supposed global warming? In your last few articles you keep telling us all what we need to do, but I wonder if you've done any of it. If you truly believed in global warming, you would not eat any beef, you would never fly, you would burn any dead leaves you see (since they give off more CO2 if they're left alone), you would never use an air conditioner, you should turn off your refridgerator as well, and you would never, EVER drive a car. I highly doubt you have done any of this, so until then you should keep your foolish thoughts and opinions to yourself.
As for what everyone has to gain from global warming, do you realize that Al Gore will soon become a billionaire, mainly because of his work on global warming? That sounds like enough reason to keep lying to the people.
Now I challenge you Stephens, in a future column why don't you tell us what YOU have done to slow this supposed global warming? In your last few articles you keep telling us all what we need to do, but I wonder if you've done any of it. If you truly believed in global warming, you would not eat any beef, you would never fly, you would burn any dead leaves you see (since they give off more CO2 if they're left alone), you would never use an air conditioner, you should turn off your refridgerator as well, and you would never, EVER drive a car. I highly doubt you have done any of this, so until then you should keep your foolish thoughts and opinions to yourself.
Jimmy McEntyre
posted 10/29/09 @ 8:08 PM MST
Originally posted byZach
Again this author simply spouts his agenda, which is obviously pitted against anything oil, coal, livestock industry, or anything conservative whatsoever. There has been so much evidence against global warming that you NEVER hear about. How about the continued growth of glaciers in the south pole? Did anyone ever tell you about that? Or the fact that it was hotter in 1900 than it is now. How about how we only have 100 years of weather reports to compare, that is a VERY insignificant amount of time compared to how long the world has been around, don't you think? And citing a movie made by Al Gore, which half of it was him whining about losing the election, just shows how ignorant you are. That movie completely and utterly misinformed people. It has been proven that there are at least nine inconsistencies in "An Inconvenient Truth". Which is why it wasn't allowed to be shown in British schools. There's also a great book by the late author Michael Crichton called "State of Fear" that just completely blows the theory of global warming out of the water. In this book Crichton uses countless sources, some of them even being scientists who believe in it but fail to see that they have actually included evidence against global warming.
As for what everyone has to gain from global warming, do you realize that Al Gore will soon become a billionaire, mainly because of his work on global warming? That sounds like enough reason to keep lying to the people.
Now I challenge you Stephens, in a future column why don't you tell us what YOU have done to slow this supposed global warming? In your last few articles you keep telling us all what we need to do, but I wonder if you've done any of it. If you truly believed in global warming, you would not eat any beef, you would never fly, you would burn any dead leaves you see (since they give off more CO2 if they're left alone), you would never use an air conditioner, you should turn off your refridgerator as well, and you would never, EVER drive a car. I highly doubt you have done any of this, so until then you should keep your foolish thoughts and opinions to yourself.
Okay--
A couple of things... Michael Crichton-- not credible. He is an author of fiction. I am not the world's biggest Al Gore fan, but come on. Michael Crichton?! You might as well tell me that Big Bird wrote a book about global warming...
Some schools aren't allowed to teach evolution...but it sure as hell doesn't mean it is a "theory!" Evolution is fact, unless you are one of the people who believes the Earth was formed 5,000 years ago... which you probably are...
By the way, I know Alex Stephens relatively well... and I know for a fact that he does not eat any meat. No beef, no chicken, no pork... nothing. He didn't write an article telling you to stop eating meat, he simply suggested everyone cut back a little. Also, he has never written an article telling people to stop driving or to unplug their refrigerators. Agricultural pollution is far worse for the planet than driving cars.
To the other Jimmy-- I like your name... but I don't like what you have to say.
Zach
posted 10/30/09 @ 12:51 PM MST
Jimmy M.
First of all, I have no idea how long the world has been around. I don't get why anyone gets into that debate because honestly, no one has a clue. None of us were there when the Earth was created, or when it and everything else accidentally came to be (which sounds like horse sh*t to me...). You believe in evolution and that's fine, but it is still considered a theory and should not be the only thing taught in schools. It is not yet *fact* because there are still many holes in it that have yet to be filled, but we'll stick with global warming for now.
As for "An Inconvenient Truth" not being shown in British schools, this happened because it went to court and was proven that there were at least nine inconsistencies. I didn't say they didn't teach about global warming, just that they have proved that Gore's movie is a fraud.
As for Michael Crichton. He had a scientific background and graduated from Harvard in biological studies. In the book, and you would realize this if you read all my post and took it into account, he cited scientists who had studied the climate extensively. Just because someone is a writer doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about. I could say that Stephens is a writer of fiction as well, and since he studies political science instead of actual science then he has NO idea what he's talking about. So why are you defending him when he spews this garbage out but not Crichton when he based his entire book off of scientific research?
I never said Stephens wrote an article about how we all should unplug our refridgerators. Again, reread the post I made and it will make sense if you have an education above the fourth grade level. I wrote that if Stephens were actually worried about global warming he would not do those things, and challenged him to tell us about all the things he has done to stop global warming. I also find it funny that you say "Agricultural pollution is far worse for the planet than driving cars". Statements like these just prove that people with your thought process only think something is bad as long as it doesn't inconvenience you. In other words, agricultural pollution bothers you because it is someone else doing it, but when it is you who are driving a car it CAN'T be as bad. If cars aren't that bad why is the government pushing hybrids? Which if you look at the facts they don't stop very many emissions anyway.
P.S. Big Bird knows as much about global warming as Al Gore.
First of all, I have no idea how long the world has been around. I don't get why anyone gets into that debate because honestly, no one has a clue. None of us were there when the Earth was created, or when it and everything else accidentally came to be (which sounds like horse sh*t to me...). You believe in evolution and that's fine, but it is still considered a theory and should not be the only thing taught in schools. It is not yet *fact* because there are still many holes in it that have yet to be filled, but we'll stick with global warming for now.
As for "An Inconvenient Truth" not being shown in British schools, this happened because it went to court and was proven that there were at least nine inconsistencies. I didn't say they didn't teach about global warming, just that they have proved that Gore's movie is a fraud.
As for Michael Crichton. He had a scientific background and graduated from Harvard in biological studies. In the book, and you would realize this if you read all my post and took it into account, he cited scientists who had studied the climate extensively. Just because someone is a writer doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about. I could say that Stephens is a writer of fiction as well, and since he studies political science instead of actual science then he has NO idea what he's talking about. So why are you defending him when he spews this garbage out but not Crichton when he based his entire book off of scientific research?
I never said Stephens wrote an article about how we all should unplug our refridgerators. Again, reread the post I made and it will make sense if you have an education above the fourth grade level. I wrote that if Stephens were actually worried about global warming he would not do those things, and challenged him to tell us about all the things he has done to stop global warming. I also find it funny that you say "Agricultural pollution is far worse for the planet than driving cars". Statements like these just prove that people with your thought process only think something is bad as long as it doesn't inconvenience you. In other words, agricultural pollution bothers you because it is someone else doing it, but when it is you who are driving a car it CAN'T be as bad. If cars aren't that bad why is the government pushing hybrids? Which if you look at the facts they don't stop very many emissions anyway.
P.S. Big Bird knows as much about global warming as Al Gore.
Arvensis
posted 10/29/09 @ 2:18 PM MST
Once again, another article proving how brainwashed you are and how well you fit into your major; keep spewing the BS.
Initially, I bought into the idea of anthropogenic global warming. I care about the planet and hate to see it raped and abused. Naturally, I took the bait because I have a kinship with mother nature and wanted to take a stand to protect her. Then, I really started to investigate the issue and realized that it is all BS. I have some training in chemistry and biology (far from an expert), so I started to put some of the pieces together.
What I found most ironic was that all the 'scientists' and IPCC documents neglected THE primary energy force in our solar system - the Sun!! Looking at the sun cycles and solar events, they are highly correlated with the heating and cooling of Earth and the weather events we experience here. FYI - I was researching this before the media heads started talking about it; so no, I am not arguing 'right wing talking points'.
In response to previous 'global warming' articles, I have tried to draw attention to correlations between C02 and heat retention. Fat Al's graph is may show the trends, but he fails to tell you that they lines are reversed. The C02 trend is following the heating trend. It is admitted by the hacks at the EPA that H20 is the primary greenhouse gas. So understand that when there is more heat to evaporate water (covering at least 70% of the earths surface) there is going to be more water vapor in the atmosphere, which is going to hold in more heat than the robust composition of 0.03% C02. When things heat up, there is more metabolism. Metabolism breaks down carbon compounds for energy and releases a deadly poisonous bi-product called C02... When temperatures are colder, metabolism slows down, there is less combustion, and less C02.
Bla, bla, bla. Keep going along with the lies and bend over for the UN as they steal 2% of GDP to save the planet. Why do the people enjoy being raped and plundered? The elite have stolen trillions from us and our great grandchildren already. This crap is not going to ever stop unless we stand up!
Initially, I bought into the idea of anthropogenic global warming. I care about the planet and hate to see it raped and abused. Naturally, I took the bait because I have a kinship with mother nature and wanted to take a stand to protect her. Then, I really started to investigate the issue and realized that it is all BS. I have some training in chemistry and biology (far from an expert), so I started to put some of the pieces together.
What I found most ironic was that all the 'scientists' and IPCC documents neglected THE primary energy force in our solar system - the Sun!! Looking at the sun cycles and solar events, they are highly correlated with the heating and cooling of Earth and the weather events we experience here. FYI - I was researching this before the media heads started talking about it; so no, I am not arguing 'right wing talking points'.
In response to previous 'global warming' articles, I have tried to draw attention to correlations between C02 and heat retention. Fat Al's graph is may show the trends, but he fails to tell you that they lines are reversed. The C02 trend is following the heating trend. It is admitted by the hacks at the EPA that H20 is the primary greenhouse gas. So understand that when there is more heat to evaporate water (covering at least 70% of the earths surface) there is going to be more water vapor in the atmosphere, which is going to hold in more heat than the robust composition of 0.03% C02. When things heat up, there is more metabolism. Metabolism breaks down carbon compounds for energy and releases a deadly poisonous bi-product called C02... When temperatures are colder, metabolism slows down, there is less combustion, and less C02.
Bla, bla, bla. Keep going along with the lies and bend over for the UN as they steal 2% of GDP to save the planet. Why do the people enjoy being raped and plundered? The elite have stolen trillions from us and our great grandchildren already. This crap is not going to ever stop unless we stand up!
The Devil's Advocate
posted 10/29/09 @ 4:20 PM MST
While there is copious evidence that greenhouse gas does lead to overall temperature increase, there are equally numerous authorities that proclaim that the earth's temperature naturally fluctuates. One thing that I took out of my high school Earth science class is that the earth has undergone several warming and cooling cycles. One caveat, however: I took that class eight years ago now. Still, the history channel has since aired programs that parallel my Earth Science teachings. For example in the 1600's there was a mini ice-age where the growing season was cut short and many people died as a result of starvation. Am I to believe that carbon emissions were lower than they had been for hundreds or thousands of years? Yes, the earth is warming. Yes, there is a greenhouse effect. However, is the greenhouse effect materially affecting the increase in the Earth's temperature or is it merely supplemental. Finally, I'd like to point out that these hippies like Alex (I can call him a hippie because I used to live with him before he turned into a green freak) aren't actually saving the world they're actually entirely selfish. The world will survive beyond humans. Once humans kill ourselves off with pollutants and global warming (according to global warming theorists) the Earth will begin to heal itself. Eventually, pressure and heat will breakdown Aquifina bottles, which allegedly last forever in a landfill. Eventually, plants will grow and the air will filter itself. The Earth, in the long run will be better off. Yet, these hippies and green freaks want to end global warming and save the environment. I contest that this notion is not to save the Earth, but to save themselves. Altruistic or Selfishness?
Julia Weichselbaum
posted 10/29/09 @ 8:12 PM MST
To all of you who don't believe that agricultural waste is a serious environmental threat...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/poisonedwaters/view/
Not that any of you would actually want to watch something educational that might challenge your narrow, baseless views...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/poisonedwaters/view/
Not that any of you would actually want to watch something educational that might challenge your narrow, baseless views...
Zach
posted 10/30/09 @ 1:00 PM MST
Originally posted byJulia Weichselbaum
To all of you who don't believe that agricultural waste is a serious environmental threat...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/poisonedwaters/view/
Not that any of you would actually want to watch something educational that might challenge your narrow, baseless views...
Ah of course, the continued arrogance of the left is beginning to show itself through your post Julia. I love how you all are so "open minded" until someone disagrees with you. There have been facts brought forth to you that you have simply decided to ignore because you *must* be right. That's what they told you in school, that's what your Messiah Obama says, so it must be true, right? They obviously don't have an agenda, only right-wingers do, those horrible evil Christians!!!
The fact is, there is plenty of evidence showing that global warming is a lie, but every time it is presented the people who present it are attacked, are called misinformed, or are discredited. How is it we are the narrow and baseless ones when it is we who are taking the evidence from both sides and using the correct side to completely dominate the incorrect theory of global warming? Al Gore is the most well-known speaker for global warming, and also the richest off of it, and claims that he is an expert on the topic, yet he won't debate anyone who says global warming is false. Why not? Could it possibly be true that he doesn't want to be proven a fraud?
Arvensis
posted 10/30/09 @ 2:02 PM MST
Originally posted byJulia Weichselbaum
To all of you who don't believe that agricultural waste is a serious environmental threat...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/poisonedwaters/view/
Not that any of you would actually want to watch something educational that might challenge your narrow, baseless views...
Hmmm...I thought we were talking about the fraud that is global warming on this thread.
Thank the heavens that we have such informed people like you, with such broad, well based views.
I don't know anybody who hates this planet and gets pleasure from polluting it. There are certainly many problems with industry and too often the dollar comes before nature. This is wrong. We need to make steps to preserve mother nature and take care of this bountiful planet, but that doesn't come from a program that steals from the people.
Do you know where the carbon tax funds will go? It all ends up with the International Monetary Fund. What do they credits pay for? In what way do they offset pollution? Nobody bothers to follow the money...
john
posted 10/30/09 @ 9:02 PM MST
I am so happy that normal people are finally standing up to the enviro-hippi wackos point of view! I am so tired of hearing the Al Goobs of the world spew their crap of saving the world. I have a degree in Environmental Science, meaning I listened to the professors left wing agenda on how us humans are ruining the planet. What I actually learned was that the earth has a natural warming and cooling cycle and that volcanoes can spew out more pollutants in a month than we can in a hundred years of driving our demon cars. Come on hippy people, wake the hell up, you just want something to complain about that makes you important. Obviously you can't make a name for yourself in the real world because you don't know how to work and live in the real world.
- Displaying 1 - 15 of 15
codehead
posted 10/29/09 @ 8:28 AM MST
As for Exxon spending millions, why shouldn't they protect their business from a sketchy AGW claims? $100 billion has been spent on proving AGW. Most of Exxon's spending was done in the past--it's recognized as bad PR.