24 Sep 2008, 7:47 pm
24 Sep 2008, 7:48 pm
24 Sep 2008, 7:53 pm
24 Sep 2008, 8:00 pm
24 Sep 2008, 8:03 pm
Mage wrote:
ShawnWilliam wrote:
silentbob15 wrote:
Where North America or Australia, both continents get extremes in weather. I do love sh***y weather, and go storm chasing every summer, and nearly been hit by a tornado, lot s fun. 
All over the world, it is an Illuminati/Government agenda to cause fear in people.. and other things of course. It's largely a disraction tool, and also a tool to starve people, farms will die..
I would strongly recommend seeing a psychiatrist about this paranoid schizophrenia of yours, it can be controlled with the right medications.
No, actualy, the reason you DON'T see, is because you are the one who is afraid.. when you know the truth, the fear leaves you.. each time you reach a higher knowledge, the fear goes away.. why? because we are only afraid of what we don't understand.. you people are afraid about global warming and you're telling me I'M paranoid!.. Hah!.. look in the mirror missy. . wake up and smell the coffee, global warming is propaganda, and I fear not the enemy.
24 Sep 2008, 8:12 pm
24 Sep 2008, 8:24 pm
24 Sep 2008, 8:36 pm
24 Sep 2008, 8:46 pm
It's actually out of our control... 
so what is this 'we need to do something' talk..?.. for once I actually agree with twoshots.. but only because I know most people don't know the truth, therefore you must accept whatever happens, but quit worrying about it.. If you want to make the weather 'go back to normal', then put a stop to the freakin weather control agenda.
24 Sep 2008, 9:02 pm
sartresue
Veteran
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 69
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism
24 Sep 2008, 10:28 pm
Quatermass wrote:
Ishmael wrote:
Quatermass wrote:
silentbob15 wrote:
P.S Doctor Who Sucks
Sod you, Yank. I detest Ishmael's stance on global warming, but you do NOT attack Doctor Who and get away with it! The fact that you use a character from another of my favourite British programs is also abhorrent.
Okay, that does it. Detest my "views"? They happen to be the "views" of the greater scientific community!! What is wrong with you people?! Here I am saying that a climactic shift is a real and present economic risk; but because it doesn't sing with human ego - that "carbon footprint" crap, you dismiss it?
Sorry, I thought you were saying earlier that climate change was BS.
But can we get this topic back on track? It's been horribly derailed.
Polarized views topic
Meanwhile, as we go grizzly on each other, polar bears are resorting to cannibalism as the Arctic ice shrinks!
I knew there was concern when polar-grizzly hybrid bears started showing up here and there.
Strange days, indeed. We do not want our polar bears to end up like Knut in the Berlin Zoo.
25 Sep 2008, 11:26 am
twoshots wrote:
I see nothing there particularly substantial. Again, I don't get my science from the "media", so some hand wavy "No no..." isn't particularly cogent in my eyes. The existence of disagreement does not imply terribly much.
And before you pull some I'm a doom monger crap, I've heard enough economists say it's better just to deal with it more level-headedly than butt-f**k the economy that I'm not exactly the kind of person you think you can just pigenhole me as.
And before you pull some I'm a doom monger crap, I've heard enough economists say it's better just to deal with it more level-headedly than butt-f**k the economy that I'm not exactly the kind of person you think you can just pigenhole me as.
The economy can benefit from going green, the fact is people like you are greedy and don't want to face the facts that it is our responsibility to protect the planet for future generations.
Ahh I see a Palin clone
Do the math you silly person. The earth is not just heating up because of greenhouse gasses it is also heating up because of motor vehicles, electronics, factories, war, concrete cities and environmental factors like smog and deforestation especially deforestation of the rainforest.
25 Sep 2008, 11:47 am
philosopherBoi wrote:
twoshots wrote:
I see nothing there particularly substantial. Again, I don't get my science from the "media", so some hand wavy "No no..." isn't particularly cogent in my eyes. The existence of disagreement does not imply terribly much.
And before you pull some I'm a doom monger crap, I've heard enough economists say it's better just to deal with it more level-headedly than butt-f**k the economy that I'm not exactly the kind of person you think you can just pigenhole me as.
And before you pull some I'm a doom monger crap, I've heard enough economists say it's better just to deal with it more level-headedly than butt-f**k the economy that I'm not exactly the kind of person you think you can just pigenhole me as.
The economy can benefit from going green, the fact is people like you are greedy and don't want to face the facts that it is our responsibility to protect the planet for future generations.
Ahh I see a Palin clone
Do the math you silly person. The earth is not just heating up because of greenhouse gasses it is also heating up because of motor vehicles, electronics, factories, war, concrete cities and environmental factors like smog and deforestation especially deforestation of the rainforest.If anything deforestation would be likely, but no.. It's weather control.. People are soo silly. Getting all worked up over nothing.
25 Sep 2008, 2:00 pm
25 Sep 2008, 3:26 pm
25 Sep 2008, 3:33 pm
Oggleleus wrote:
People use emotion for various things. Advertisers and politicians (They) use emotional response to further their cause. When a commercial comes on TV getting you to donate $$ to a charity trying to feed the poor of Africa, do they show people playing volleyball and smiling? No, they show people living in dirt? They elicit the emotional response they want to get you to feel obligated to do something about it.
Polar bears are cute and cuddly on TV but are not something I would want to really be around. They are vicious and very territorial. The media, politicians along with several lobbying groups are using polar bears to get an emotional response out of its viewers. Did anyone ask the polar bear why he was eating his friend or enemy? Nope. Did they test the polar bear's stomach contents to find out if the bear has been only eating other polar bears? Nope. So, how on earth (pun intended again) do they really know that "man-made global warming" is the culprit? They don't. They are merely suggesting it to elicit an emotional response.
There are some people that get more emotional about seeing animals in pain compared to seeing people in pain. They know this and are using it. Does it make since to humanity to burn our food for energy, while people are still starving around the world, in an effort to prevent the polar bears from eating each other, which they do anyway? Nope.
Sometimes, solving a problem or figuring something out is best done backwards. In this case, who benefits the most if all of the Global Warming people out there get their way? And, are these the same people pushing the agenda?
Where I live, we had the coolest August I can remember. Today, thanks to politicians and their green lobbyists, the local GM dealer went under. It was only the second largest dealer in the nation. Lost jobs, lost tax revenue are just an example of how the local economy is "benefiting" from the Green's agenda. Hmm, maybe that shouting match on Capital Hill between the auto industry and Democrat greenies back around 2004 or 2005 was not a good idea for US car makers.
Maybe, re-read the posts here and try to identify people typing with emotion and those that are not. Then look at which side is being supported.
Peace
Polar bears are cute and cuddly on TV but are not something I would want to really be around. They are vicious and very territorial. The media, politicians along with several lobbying groups are using polar bears to get an emotional response out of its viewers. Did anyone ask the polar bear why he was eating his friend or enemy? Nope. Did they test the polar bear's stomach contents to find out if the bear has been only eating other polar bears? Nope. So, how on earth (pun intended again) do they really know that "man-made global warming" is the culprit? They don't. They are merely suggesting it to elicit an emotional response.
There are some people that get more emotional about seeing animals in pain compared to seeing people in pain. They know this and are using it. Does it make since to humanity to burn our food for energy, while people are still starving around the world, in an effort to prevent the polar bears from eating each other, which they do anyway? Nope.
Sometimes, solving a problem or figuring something out is best done backwards. In this case, who benefits the most if all of the Global Warming people out there get their way? And, are these the same people pushing the agenda?
Where I live, we had the coolest August I can remember. Today, thanks to politicians and their green lobbyists, the local GM dealer went under. It was only the second largest dealer in the nation. Lost jobs, lost tax revenue are just an example of how the local economy is "benefiting" from the Green's agenda. Hmm, maybe that shouting match on Capital Hill between the auto industry and Democrat greenies back around 2004 or 2005 was not a good idea for US car makers.
Maybe, re-read the posts here and try to identify people typing with emotion and those that are not. Then look at which side is being supported.
Peace
Who are you masked stranger?
lol..
You're on the right side of the wall
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| No Ice Possible in the Arctic Sea Within the Next 10 Years |
05 Mar 2024, 8:48 pm |
| Melting polar ice is slowing the Earth's rotation |
30 Mar 2024, 2:12 pm |
