http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-31944410825346433&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle+duration%3Along&total=16&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=7
GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE! GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE!
Record sea ice in Antarctica. Was that in the model?
Science can't say if it'll rain tomorrow with much certainty, yet they can predict a 2 degree temperature rise fifty years from now?
The New York Times ran global warming scare stories in the 30's. The droughts that led to the dust bowl seemed to prove them right.
Too many mouth breathers add to CO2 levels, overpopulated countries need to fix that too.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-02 16:35
thanks for trolling! also, the only scientists denying global warming are the equivalent of the 'scientists' who denied cigarettes cause cancer.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-02 16:46
why does global warming/climate change need to meet a platinum standard of truth when almost nothing else does? oil companies have only the faintest outlines of data when they make the decision to invest billions in infrastructure to reach an unseen oil field. financial stock market brokers weave together disparate points of data across multiple markets when deciding when to invest. someone who buys a house with a mortgage is making the assumption they'll still be able to pay in 20 years - something most people can't possibly know as fact.
in each of these cases, it's entirely appropriate to act on limited data. but why not with global warming? because conservitards would rather stick their heads in the sand on a business as usual corse than acknowledge what's happening.
global warming is happening. it's being measured and evidence strongly points to human causes. do we have 100% proof? of course not? are there small groups of countervailing evidence? sure there's a few blips where its getting colder. that's why the term climate change is preferable to global warming. the Earth has a surface area of 510,065,600 km^2, so it's entirely reasonable to expect some localization of results.
more icebergs in a small part of the Antartic? sure, but the overall pattern, the line of best fit, common sense if you will, all point to an overall level of warming. so take your tiny group of iceberg "proof" and STFU
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-02 18:32
>>17 "why does global warming/climate change need to meet a platinum standard of truth when almost nothing else does?"
Because DOING SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT about global warming would be so costly that we need to be ABSOLUTELY SURE that it is true. Even if we WERE absolutely sure it was true, that still doesn't prove that the costs of doing something don't outweigh the possible benefits of doing something.
"so take your tiny group of iceberg "proof" and STFU"
Yeah, lets not let inconvenient little facts get in the way of the left-wing anti-business, anti-commerce agenda.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-02 18:43
Only the true fucktards are denying that the global climate is getting warmer. HOWEVER, the idea that humans are the cause of this phenomenon or that they can some how slow down or reverse it is ridiculous.
Increased solar activity is causing temperatures to rise. When sun spot activity dies down the temperature of the earth will go down. It has very little to do with how much co2 goes into the atmosphere (it's what plants and other elements of the earth produce naturally for fucks sake, and in much larger quantities than what industry produce).
when Gore was vice-resident, he wanted to launch a satellite with a full view of Earth that would have, among other things, accurately monitored the total amount of sunlight that the earth receives. the conservitards killed it and now they're criticizing him for not having full data on sunlight
>>19 | co2 goes into the atmosphere (it's what plants and other elements of the earth produce naturally for fucks sake)
i love it when faggot collage republicans pull out misleading facts like saying plants produce co2 (which is true by the way). what they fail to mention is that plants produce LESS CO2 THAN THEY TAKE IN. so plants, in effect, lower the amount of total co2 in the atmosphere.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-02 19:39
>>19
increased emissions of CO2 (burning fossil fuels) and CH4 (from cattle and hog factory farms) are in fact at the root of the global temp increase. that's us.
plants fix CO2 into sugar, they don't produce much, moron.
who's the fucktard now, fucktard troll?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-02 19:48
>>19
Fun fact: sunspot activity hasn't actually been increasing recently.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-02 22:19
>>21
Welcome to /newpol/, are you enjoying your first day here, libfag?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-03 14:07
>>21
Possibly...because it was expensive and a huge waste of money? ...
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-03 14:20
PHAIL, plants eat CO2 and shit out oxygen. People eat oxygen and shit out CO2. GET YER FAKTS STRATE
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-03 14:26
>>23
"increased emissions of CO2 (burning fossil fuels) and CH4 (from cattle and hog factory farms) are in fact at the root of the global temp increase."
http://www.goveg.com/environment-globalwarming.asp
"In a groundbreaking 2006 report, the United Nations (U.N.) said that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined. Senior U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization official Henning Steinfeld reported that the meat industry is “one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems."
So until you envirofaggots go vegan, stfu. Everyone I know who is an environmentalist eats meat. Such faggots. If you want to tell everyone ELSE to change THEIR lifestyles, the least you can do is change YOUR OWN first.
>>31
That's just because a handful of people are just getting sick of hearing envirofags bitch about global warming. They changed the labels up a bit so they could sound fresh when in reality it is just the same old stale bitching.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-04 13:57
CO2 has been released by volcanoes and underwater fissures for centuries which dwarfs anything humans can accomplish, the reason why the artmosphere is not 99.9% CO2 is because plants and algae remove the carbon from the atmosphere then die and get buried by other dead plants. This has been going on for 3 billions years.
>>34
As tropical zones clearly show, an environment good for plant growth is NOT good for agriculture, and therefore NOT good for Humans to support our expected population base.
Colder climates have sufficient diversity in flora and fauna, AND allow soils to build up for crops, AND allow storage of food for long periods. A warmer world will reduce those advantages.
If you weren't such a fucking tool you'd have realized that by now. Time to turn off Rush Limbaugh and read a few books for a change, rightwingnut!
it is actually possible, just not in the traditional sense and not in a way which is as easily mass prodceable as the way you can grow things in colder climates. it's alot harder to do it and may not be as profitable short-run, but you you can do it in a way that doesn't fuck up the soil and causes erosion and expansion/creation of desert or desert-like areas.
and where-as cold climates allow for longer food storage, warmer (and moister) climates allow for production year around.
>>36
Unfortunately for you, the cultures who are tropical and who rely on constant agricultural harvesting are very hobbled by the frequency of harvest. Literally, plant+grow+harvest+store agricultural is less labor over the entire year, which leaves spare time for constructing things like an extensive culture, literature, and technology.
It's still better to have moderate climes subject to the seasons. This alone makes the prospects of "global warming" (i.e. "global climate change") fairly oppressive.
>>38
"It's still better to have moderate climes subject to the seasons. This alone makes the prospects of "global warming" (i.e. "global climate change") fairly oppressive."
The climate isn't going to change THAT much. Quit whining. Any climate change is going to be pretty small and very likely manageable.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-05 12:29
>>35
Wrong. The southern Chinese and Vietnamese have had enormous dense populations since pre-history. The Incas and Aztecs all had thriving equatorial agricultures, yes the Mayans and some south east asian civilisations fucked it up and underwent a teagedy of the commons but once these cultures implemented a primitive free market the benevolent landowners who owned the land managed the holdings to prevent them from being overworked and it has not happenned since.
Chill out. We're all fucked (so many serious things can go wrong right now) so enjoy life while you can
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-08 11:33
The only thing is that the industrial age has severely choked the planet. That's the key difference, the Chinese/Vietnamese argument doesn't really do it. We've had MASSIVE population growth. ~6.6 billion faggots now. Couple that with developed world standards and the planet will just give in.
That probably includes global warming. But as I said in post number forty-three, that's the least of our concerns, really.
Economic implosion, geopolitical (and nuclear) instability etc, you might randomly die any minute. Like they say "life is shorter than expected"
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-08 12:49
>>44
Mother Earth doesn't exist. The happiness of sapient life is all that matters so it is immoral to stand in the way of progress no matter how hard you want to pussy baaawwwwwww.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-09 9:15
>>44
If the Earth was really populated by ~6.6 billion FAGGOTS, we'd only have to wait about 30-40 years for me to have free reign on woman-kind everywhere.
Fast: The sun has been emitting more cosmic waves over the last 500 years due to increased activity, leading to more humidity and increasing the temperature.
ITT fags that don't understand humidity has more to do with temperature than C02.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-09 17:02
>>48
humidity dampens temperature fluctuations, fucking retard troll.
>>48 Fast: The sun has been emitting more cosmic waves over the last 500 years due to increased activity,
This is wrong. The sun does not emit any cosmic waves at all. Do your research.
If you're talking about sunspot activity, it's still wrong. The sun's output has been surprisingly stable, in fact.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-10 6:59
the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie.
Temperatures will increase over the next 20 years a few centigrade not due to CO2 but to fluxuating sun spots. We are at the low level of sun spot activity cycle and it will be dramatically increasing over the next 20 years.
It always does this.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-12 1:42
>>55
minor contributors, nothing compared to what humans spew into the atmosphere.
you know, you'd be a much more effective troll if you weren't so fucking stupid.
>>54
so you wanna breath brown air, live to be maybe 40 before dying of cancer, all the while eating the same animals/plants that can actually survive the pollution? fuck you. people like you should be put to death for the good of us all.