Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't believe you quite understand the relationships or the overall argument here ... nor do you seem to recognize the contradictions within your own statements, or in the accounts you choose to accept as truthful.
Even though Water Vapor represents 95 % of the supposed "Greenhouse Gases", according to you, removing all of that would have no effect, and would self correct in a couple of weeks? Yet, CO2 which represents just a tiny fraction (3%), and man made CO2 just a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction ... removing that tiny amount of CO2 would have profound effects on climate? Does this even remotely make sense? No, it doesn't.
Do you not see the problem you have? The facts are, it's impossible to prove a fallacy, and every attempt to do so will fail miserably. It's like a lie ... tell one lie, and then you'll have to tell a dozen more less believable lies just to support the first one ... which pretty much sums up the Global Warming argument. And, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that you are personally lying ... only that you are being lied to, and apparently believe these things which in turn, you then choose to promote them.
The truth is, water vapor and CO2 are variable based on temperature and other factors, which is another way of saying that temperature dictates these levels and not the other way around. This is the big clue you're ignoring, and why blaming CO2 for global warming is so obviously wrong. These gasses do not create warming, but are a result of warming. And Water Vapor accounts for about 95% of the so-called "Green House Gases", which varies between winter and summer months, as well as geographically ... i.e. low levels over deserts and arid lands, higher levels over oceans. Conversely, CO2 represents just a tiny fraction of the overall variable Greenhouse gasses, and fluctuates primarily with ocean temperatures (which is the largest of the CO2 sinks) ... the cooler the temperature of the oceans, the more CO2 is dissolved and retained (kept out of the atmosphere) ... the warmer the ocean, the more CO2 is released, adding to the atmospheric levels. Another of the most important CO2 sinks is vegetation. The more CO2 available, the more plant life prospers and grows abundantly, using that CO2. And this symbiotic relationship is very beneficial, as vegetation is the source of both food and oxygen for the rest of us creatures that do not employ photosynthesis as a means of survival.
While Water Vapor may increase and decrease rapidly in response to temperature changes by means of evaporation or lack thereof (as evidenced by the constant changes in Relative Humidity that fluctuate daily, weekly, monthly and seasonally).... the CO2 cycle takes a lot longer, because warming of the land surface temperature doesn't immediately translate into warmer oceans or increased vegetation .... it takes quite a while to raise the ocean temp even slightly ... which is why there is this 800+ year lag time between global warming periods and increased levels of atmospheric CO2 which show up much later on.
This is the most compelling evidence that CO2 does not cause warming, but is only a result ... and a very delayed result at that. But there are many other common sense issues that demand skepticism of this CO2 cause of global warming ... none the least of which is the pure double talk that is so obvious. Truthfully, it's hard to imagine why everyone doesn't fall out of their chairs laughing at this "heads I win, tails you lose" style of scientific debate ... and I use the term "scientific" very loosely here.
Take any of the sources of this so called "Global Warming" theory and simply analyze what they say. A great example is this site called "Skeptical Science" who's motto is "Getting skeptical about Global Warming Skepticism" (You gotta love that Orwellian double think nonsense).
Here, on this page they claim that pre-industrial CO2 levels had been steady for Thousands of years ... and also claim that CO2 levels are higher today than they have been for 15-20 Million years, no doubt due to modern post-industrial man's contributions:
This suggests a massive, and modern CO2 problem to those who aren't up to speed on the subject, and therefore easily bamboozled. The reality is, Man made CO2 accounts for about 3% of the total CO2 level, with 97% naturally occurring. Of that 3%, they admit that 40% of this extra amount from man's activity is absorbed into the CO2 cycle, with the remaining amount going into the atmosphere. That means that roughly 98.2 % of atmospheric CO2 is naturally occurring, while 1.8 % is man made. The inference is, don't worry about the 98.2 percent ... it's that last 1.8 % that's the killer .. that's going to cause the global catastrophe? Let's see ... current levels are 384 ppm CO2 .... 377 ppm is natural, and 7 ppm is man made. That 7 ppm .... well, it's the straw that breaks the camel's back, aye? This lends new meaning to the saying ... "there's a sucker born every minute".
Now, if this nonsense doesn't immediately make you want to shout BALONEY .... just wait ... it gets much better. The very same publication ... different page says this:
They don't say! Imagine that! CO2 isn't the ONLY driver of climate? Who would have guessed given this constant beating of the drum about CO2 being the Global Warming gremlin! Can we say ... CO2 is the only driver of climate when these lying frauds find it convenient? As in only today, and never before? That's the issue in a nutshell .... never did before ... but trust us ... it is now? Trust them because they say so? Please!!!
Now, let's critically analyze and summarize what we have gone over so far .... they said that CO2 today is higher than the at any time in the last 15-20 Million years ... then they say CO2 has been higher many times in the past, even during times of Glaciation ... but pay no attention to this ... it's not a contradiction because they say so ... and there were other factors that prevented those higher CO2 levels from causing warming back then! There must have been global cooling factors offsetting the CO2 global warming factor? Uhh .. got it. (If your head isn't spinning now, its only because you are blindly accepting these BS stories as truthful, without actually analyzing what is being claimed.)
The real kicker is that these past higher CO2 levels which didn't cause global warming were up to 7000 ppm!!! That's right ... 18 times higher the total amounts that exist today, or 1000 times as much as modern man contributes today.
So, they want us to believe that today's inconsequential increase of 7 ppm of atmospheric CO2 due to man's activity is going to cause global catastrophe ..... but the prior levels of 6,616 ppm higher than today's TOTAL amount in the past apparently didn't destroy the earth? How freaking dense and ridiculous can one argument become, for God sake?
The more these Global Warmists talk, the more ridiculous they sound. And there really is no excuse for anyone to believe this nonsense, because if you can read and write, and dress yourself in the morning ... you have all the tools you need to understand how nonsensical these explanations are.
The bottom line here is that those who believe this Man Made CO2-Global Warming nonsense MUST simply accept what they are being told, and choose to believe it without actually taking the time to think critically.
As already well documented, CO2 has no measurable effect on temperature one way or the other .... this is proven by the fact that we have measured simultaneous increases in CO2 levels while temperatures were in decline (and as admitted above, during glacial periods). The reality is, there is no direct, correlative association showing an increase in temperatures due to increases in CO2 levels ... not today, not yesterday, and never before in the Hundreds of Thousands of years of historical climate data found in the ice core records.
The most OBVIOUS conclusion that logic would demand suggests that if CO2 was actually capable of causing global warming ... it would have done so at some point, and you'd expect to see evidence of that ... but such evidence is totally absent. What the long term data shows is we have CO2 and Temperature levels fluctuating in both directions .... high CO2 during periods of Glaciation, and low CO2 during periods of warming ... for which both directly contradicts the notion that CO2 causes Global Warming.
The only thing that is absolutely clear here is that climate science is made up of perhaps the largest collection of corrupt snake oil salesmen and dishonest bureaucrats ever to be assembled to promote one single agenda. And the underlying secret to all of this is that agenda is not to "Save the Planet".
And it's high time the adult population in this country start behaving like adults ... which includes recognizing fairytales for what they are. We can no longer afford to blindly trust and accept the lies and distortions being fed us constantly ... and that is true whether the subject is war and terrorism .... or global warming.
It's precisely this failure to take personal responsibility as citizens to ensure that we are educated and knowledgeable about the important issues of the day, that has left us in the mess we find ourselves. The price of continued ignorance is too costly, especially regarding matters with such implications and severe repercussions.
These global warming snake oil salesmen are trying to convince everyone to accept solutions to non-existing problems that in reality promote our own self destruction. By agreeing to accept the premise that CO2 is BAD, you literally are embracing Orwellian double think. CO2 is only bad if you hate life and abundance, because that is what warmer climate and higher CO2 leads to ... abundant and prosperous life.
These double talkers might as well say Oxygen is bad and needs to be reduced ..and I wonder how many would accept that at face value? I probably don't want to know the answer.
Great post. The cultists just don't understand science and therefore presenting rational arguments refuting thier contentions will fall on deaf ears.
With so many to choose from, why not pick one of them to prove such an allegation? Why not? Oh ... because it's just easier to make a baseless claim rather than actually provide substance?
HAHAHAHA .... the irony is beyond definition, particularly when it comes to this aspect of the argument ... that of global temperature measurements and a charge of "cherry picking" data from the side caught red handed lying, and manipulating data to fit a predetermined conclusion..
I mean really ... the Climategate emails are a bloody confession of chicanery in manipulating the data to "hide the decline", and to stonewall release of raw data, and to engage in character assassination of those who dare challenge consensus lies ...err I mean consensus opinion. It's really quite rich.
And, the topic of this link of yours suggesting that Muller was a climate skeptic turned believer base on the facts is just another laughable lie amongst a river of lies. Muller is a first rate shill, and has been pretending to be a skeptic, yet his history of being an AGW proponent is easily documented. It's not even a good deception ... but then neither is claiming CO2 to be a pollutant.
One thing is consistent on your side ... you all either love to lie or love being lied to, and it's hard to determine which definition fits whom.
That global warming is happening is undeniable. The only question in dispute is what is causing it...The net amount of ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic is decreasing. Polar bears are in trouble, the ocean levels ARE rising, as is the global temperature. These facts are not opinions, but are recorded.
One can dispute the cause of global warming, but not the reality that it IS happening. Lying about it is not helpful.
Carbon Dioxide is .03% by volume of the total atmospheric air. The other gases that make up 99.998% of our air are Argon (.93%), Oxygen (20.95%) and Nitrogen (71.8%). The other .1% are trace gases.
Also water vapor decreases the density of air because more moisture is present in the same volume of air (which means there are less molecules of air in that same volume).
The other .002%. Sorry.
The two gases that are not substantially influenced by the pressure-temperature correlation (inert gases) are argon and nitrogen. Both are used as welding gases because they displace oxygen and its oxidizing affects.
Inversely, they won't affect the volumetric efficiencies of the other gases and also won't influence the atmosphere., as much.
The other two, oxygen and carbon-dioxide, will be affected but only to the affect that they become less catastrophic as temperatures rise. The atmospheric volume increases (albeit minimally) to benefit of the atmospheric trapping of gas.
In other words, along with the increased efficiency of plant life, the biosphere is self correcting.
As those two gases become more prevalent, the volume of our atmosphere increases, which decreases their green house effect.
Last edited by BigJon3475; 10-25-2011 at 11:13 PM..
That global warming is happening is undeniable. The only question in dispute is what is causing it...The net amount of ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic is decreasing. Polar bears are in trouble, the ocean levels ARE rising, as is the global temperature. These facts are not opinions, but are recorded.
One can dispute the cause of global warming, but not the reality that it IS happening. Lying about it is not helpful.
That's because you are missing the entire point of "man caused global warming". And the first point is that no one is in favor of pollution, for crying out loud. The argument is, CO2 is not a pollutant! It's as necessary to life on earth as is oxygen, and the more of it, the more abundant life is on the planet.
Not necessarily true. An increase in CO2, would indeed mean plants would be able to utilize more of it. That also means an increase in other nutrients for the plants as well, including water, nitrogen, phosphrous, and the like. Aside from the obvious complications of increasing human intervention in plant growth through fertilizers, the entire system wouldn't be sustainable. There is a reason these CO2 generators are placed in controlled environments where it can be sustained.
Of course, you also run the risk of drowning the plants as well through CO2 toxicity. [2] You can't shove a person in a room full of oxygen for long, why would you do the same to plants? 10,000ppm would kill a plant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Even though Water Vapor represents 95 % of the supposed "Greenhouse Gases", according to you, removing all of that would have no effect, and would self correct in a couple of weeks? Yet, CO2 which represents just a tiny fraction (3%), and man made CO2 just a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction ... removing that tiny amount of CO2 would have profound effects on climate? Does this even remotely make sense? No, it doesn't.
Combine increased CO2 levels with decreased ability to handle it? You're plugging the drain while turning on the bath faucet, and thinking the house isn't going to eventually flood.
Quote:
Do you not see the problem you have? The facts are, it's impossible to prove a fallacy,
Which fallacy is being committed?
Quote:
and every attempt to do so will fail miserably. It's like a lie ... tell one lie, and then you'll have to tell a dozen more less believable lies just to support the first one ... which pretty much sums up the Global Warming argument. And, just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that you are personally lying ... only that you are being lied to, and apparently believe these things which in turn, you then choose to promote them.
So you reject that the planet is getting warmer, and that climates are changing?
Quote:
The truth is, water vapor and CO2 are variable based on temperature and other factors, which is another way of saying that temperature dictates these levels and not the other way around.
Evidence?
Quote:
This is the big clue you're ignoring, and why blaming CO2 for global warming is so obviously wrong. These gasses do not create warming, but are a result of warming. And Water Vapor accounts for about 95% of the so-called "Green House Gases",
Scary quotes for a clearly defined term doesn't help your argument. Your citation for water vapor representing 95% of green house gasses?
Quote:
which varies between winter and summer months, as well as geographically ... i.e. low levels over deserts and arid lands, higher levels over oceans.
Notably, water vapor increase as it gets hotter, which would result in a feedback effect assuming it doesn't self-regulate via some kind of lightcolored atmospheric phenomenon.
Quote:
Conversely, CO2 represents just a tiny fraction of the overall variable Greenhouse gasses, and fluctuates primarily with ocean temperatures (which is the largest of the CO2 sinks) ... the cooler the temperature of the oceans, the more CO2 is dissolved and retained (kept out of the atmosphere) ... the warmer the ocean, the more CO2 is released, adding to the atmospheric levels.
Oceans are dark, which absorb infrared radiation, and the rate of absorbtion of CO2 is ridiculous slow. The problem with CO2 is that it incubates radiant heat from the earth, which means all that blue ocean keeping the country warm, also means the reflected IR is what's keeping it more so.
Quote:
Another of the most important CO2 sinks is vegetation. The more CO2 available, the more plant life prospers and grows abundantly, using that CO2. And this symbiotic relationship is very beneficial, as vegetation is the source of both food and oxygen for the rest of us creatures that do not employ photosynthesis as a means of survival.
Discussed above and patently absurd.
Quote:
While Water Vapor may increase and decrease rapidly in response to temperature changes by means of evaporation or lack thereof (as evidenced by the constant changes in Relative Humidity that fluctuate daily, weekly, monthly and seasonally).... the CO2 cycle takes a lot longer,because warming of the land surface temperature doesn't immediately translate into warmer oceans or increased vegetation .... it takes quite a while to raise the ocean temp even slightly ... which is why there is this 800+ year lag time between global warming periods and increased levels of atmospheric CO2 which show up much later on.
Citation for 800 year lag?
Quote:
This is the most compelling evidence that CO2 does not cause warming, but is only a result ... and a very delayed result at that. But there are many other common sense issues that demand skepticism of this CO2 cause of global warming ... none the least of which is the pure double talk that is so obvious. Truthfully, it's hard to imagine why everyone doesn't fall out of their chairs laughing at this "heads I win, tails you lose" style of scientific debate ... and I use the term "scientific" very loosely here.
Patently false. That's the entire greenhouse effect.
Quote:
Take any of the sources of this so called "Global Warming" theory and simply analyze what they say. A great example is this site called "Skeptical Science" who's motto is "Getting skeptical about Global Warming Skepticism" (You gotta love that Orwellian double think nonsense).
Anti-intellectualism is not skepticism.
Quote:
Here, on this page they claim that pre-industrial CO2 levels had been steady for Thousands of years ... and also claim that CO2 levels are higher today than they have been for 15-20 Million years, no doubt due to modern post-industrial man's contributions:
This suggests a massive, and modern CO2 problem to those who aren't up to speed on the subject, and therefore easily bamboozled. The reality is, Man made CO2 accounts for about 3% of the total CO2 level, with 97% naturally occurring.
It takes less than 3% by body weight of ricin to kill you. Of course, you completely fail to mention you're ripping the information from [here], or worse, your source is doing so.
Quote:
Of that 3%, they admit that 40% of this extra amount from man's activity is absorbed into the CO2 cycle, with the remaining amount going into the atmosphere. That means that roughly 98.2 % of atmospheric CO2 is naturally occurring, while 1.8 % is man made. The inference is, don't worry about the 98.2 percent ... it's that last 1.8 % that's the killer .. that's going to cause the global catastrophe? Let's see ... current levels are 384 ppm CO2 .... 377 ppm is natural, and 7 ppm is man made. That 7 ppm .... well, it's the straw that breaks the camel's back, aye? This lends new meaning to the saying ... "there's a sucker born every minute".
Add that up over time. Don't forget that as we continue to increase our output, we also continue to decrease the ability of nature to handle it. That number gets bigger. Quickly.
Quote:
Now, if this nonsense doesn't immediately make you want to shout BALONEY
Balogna.
Quote:
.... just wait ... it gets much better. The very same publication ... different page says this:
They don't say! Imagine that! CO2 isn't the ONLY driver of climate? Who would have guessed given this constant beating of the drum about CO2 being the Global Warming gremlin! Can we say ... CO2 is the only driver of climate when these lying frauds find it convenient? As in only today, and never before? That's the issue in a nutshell .... never did before ... but trust us ... it is now? Trust them because they say so? Please!!!
Citation?
Quote:
Now, let's critically analyze and summarize what we have gone over so far .... they said that CO2 today is higher than the at any time in the last 15-20 Million years ... then they say CO2 has been higher many times in the past, even during times of Glaciation ... but pay no attention to this ... it's not a contradiction because they say so ... and there were other factors that prevented those higher CO2 levels from causing warming back then! There must have been global cooling factors offsetting the CO2 global warming factor? Uhh .. got it. (If your head isn't spinning now, its only because you are blindly accepting these BS stories as truthful, without actually analyzing what is being claimed.)
The real kicker is that these past higher CO2 levels which didn't cause global warming were up to 7000 ppm!!! That's right ... 18 times higher the total amounts that exist today, or 1000 times as much as modern man contributes today.
So, they want us to believe that today's inconsequential increase of 7 ppm of atmospheric CO2
Inconsequential to you, perhaps. The people who actually study this, not so much. I don't go to a doctor for an opinion on my blown head-gasket, why would I go to an internet moron for an opinion on climate science?
Quote:
due to man's activity is going to cause global catastrophe ..... but the prior levels of 6,616 ppm higher than today's TOTAL amount in the past apparently didn't destroy the earth? How freaking dense and ridiculous can one argument become, for God sake?
I don't recall anyone claiming the earth was going to be destroyed--that's just a bit of hyperbole.
Quote:
The more these Global Warmists talk, the more ridiculous they sound. And there really is no excuse for anyone to believe this nonsense, because if you can read and write, and dress yourself in the morning ... you have all the tools you need to understand how nonsensical these explanations are.
Actually, you don't. People dedicate their lives to the pursuit of knowledge using the tool of science. Dressing yourself in the morning doesn't qualify as adequate.
Quote:
The bottom line here is that those who believe this Man Made CO2-Global Warming nonsense MUST simply accept what they are being told, and choose to believe it without actually taking the time to think critically.
Oh the irony.
Quote:
As already well documented, CO2 has no measurable effect on temperature one way or the other
.... this is proven by the fact that we have measured simultaneous increases in CO2 levels while temperatures were in decline (and as admitted above, during glacial periods). The reality is, there is no direct, correlative association showing an increase in temperatures due to increases in CO2 levels ... not today, not yesterday, and never before in the Hundreds of Thousands of years of historical climate data found in the ice core records.
This statement is different from the one above. You're attempting to equivocate, which is a fallacy.
Quote:
The most OBVIOUS
If you're follower of science as you pretend to be, it might be wise to know that reality isn't obvious. If there is one thing that our foray into the physical has taught us, it's that reality is anything but obvious. It is frequently counter-intuitive.
Quote:
conclusion that logic would demand suggests that if CO2 was actually capable of causing global warming ... it would have done so at some point, and you'd expect to see evidence of that ... but such evidence is totally absent.
What the long term data shows is we have CO2 and Temperature levels fluctuating in both directions
Claims Data Shows...
.... high CO2 during periods of Glaciation, and low CO2 during periods of warming ... for which both directly contradicts the notion that CO2 causes Global Warming.[/quote]
We can no longer afford to blindly trust and accept the lies and distortions being fed us constantly ... and that is true whether the subject is war and terrorism .... or global warming.
This is just too much. Speak out against established scientific fact, fails to understand scientific theories.
Quote:
It's precisely this failure to take personal responsibility as citizens to ensure that we are educated and knowledgeable about the important issues of the day, that has left us in the mess we find ourselves. The price of continued ignorance is too costly, especially regarding matters with such implications and severe repercussions.
These global warming snake oil salesmen are trying to convince everyone to accept solutions to non-existing problems that in reality promote our own self destruction. By agreeing to accept the premise that CO2 is BAD, you literally are embracing Orwellian double think. CO2 is only bad if you hate life and abundance, because that is what warmer climate and higher CO2 leads to ... abundant and prosperous life.
These double talkers might as well say Oxygen is bad and needs to be reduced ..and I wonder how many would accept that at face value? I probably don't want to know the answer.
Seriously, this is just nonsense. Let's take a bet. I'll renounce any and all support for global warming and climate change if you flood a room with 100% oxygen, and live in it for one month. ProTip: Leave your belongs to a living trust before you go on, wills are too easy to circumnavigate for profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
Great post. The cultists just don't understand science and therefore presenting rational arguments refuting thier contentions will fall on deaf ears.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
That global warming is happening is undeniable. The only question in dispute is what is causing it...The net amount of ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic is decreasing. Polar bears are in trouble, the ocean levels ARE rising, as is the global temperature. These facts are not opinions, but are recorded.
One can dispute the cause of global warming, but not the reality that it IS happening. Lying about it is not helpful.
There is a bit of ostrich action going on here. If I recall correctly, you're in the "not quite sure" camp of human involvement. What puts you there?
There is a bit of ostrich action going on here. If I recall correctly, you're in the "not quite sure" camp of human involvement. What puts you there?
Well I guess it because I'm not sure...There are other factors that effect warming besides CO2...Solar activity being one of them, but I am sure that it is happening for whatever reason.
It's easier to just refer you to videos rather than wasting too much time. Honestly, you should watch the whole series to educate yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Even though Water Vapor represents 95 % of the supposed "Greenhouse Gases", according to you, removing all of that would have no effect, and would self correct in a couple of weeks? Yet, CO2 which represents just a tiny fraction (3%), and man made CO2 just a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction ... removing that tiny amount of CO2 would have profound effects on climate? Does this even remotely make sense? No, it doesn't.
While Water Vapor may increase and decrease rapidly in response to temperature changes by means of evaporation or lack thereof (as evidenced by the constant changes in Relative Humidity that fluctuate daily, weekly, monthly and seasonally).... the CO2 cycle takes a lot longer, because warming of the land surface temperature doesn't immediately translate into warmer oceans or increased vegetation .... it takes quite a while to raise the ocean temp even slightly ... which is why there is this 800+ year lag time between global warming periods and increased levels of atmospheric CO2 which show up much later on.
This is the most compelling evidence that CO2 does not cause warming, but is only a result ... and a very delayed result at that. But there are many other common sense issues that demand skepticism of this CO2 cause of global warming ... none the least of which is the pure double talk that is so obvious. Truthfully, it's hard to imagine why everyone doesn't fall out of their chairs laughing at this "heads I win, tails you lose" style of scientific debate ... and I use the term "scientific" very loosely here.
Which is more likely? That experts on the subject are foolish, or that you're completely ignorant of the subject?
Quote:
They don't say! Imagine that! CO2 isn't the ONLY driver of climate? Who would have guessed given this constant beating of the drum about CO2 being the Global Warming gremlin! Can we say ... CO2 is the only driver of climate when these lying frauds find it convenient? As in only today, and never before? That's the issue in a nutshell .... never did before ... but trust us ... it is now? Trust them because they say so? Please!!!
Which climatologists say that CO2 is the only driver of climate?
Quote:
The real kicker is that these past higher CO2 levels which didn't cause global warming were up to 7000 ppm!!! That's right ... 18 times higher the total amounts that exist today, or 1000 times as much as modern man contributes today.
The bottom line here is that those who believe this Man Made CO2-Global Warming nonsense MUST simply accept what they are being told, and choose to believe it without actually taking the time to think critically.
Oh, the irony.
Quote:
The only thing that is absolutely clear here is that climate science is made up of perhaps the largest collection of corrupt snake oil salesmen and dishonest bureaucrats ever to be assembled to promote one single agenda. And the underlying secret to all of this is that agenda is not to "Save the Planet".
A conspiracy! What is your evidence for a conspiracy among climatologists?
Quote:
It's precisely this failure to take personal responsibility as citizens to ensure that we are educated and knowledgeable about the important issues of the day, that has left us in the mess we find ourselves. The price of continued ignorance is too costly, especially regarding matters with such implications and severe repercussions.
Well I guess it because I'm not sure...There are other factors that effect warming besides CO2...Solar activity being one of them, but I am sure that it is happening for whatever reason.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(If your head isn't spinning now, its only because you are blindly accepting these BS stories as truthful, without actually analyzing what is being claimed.) 
