Global Warming Science Is Bunk

Discussion in 'Politics' started by pspr, Jan 24, 2013.

  1. The UN is going to be inducing panic about GW even if we go into a major ice age. They, via the university system, own the venue for the debate. They can never be wrong! Their minions are here on ET continually, pointing to all the scientists that agree with the UN. The UN is using this issue to generate a UN Tax, every liberal minion on the planet wants the UN to have more political power so there you have it, GW is "truth".

    I know one of these panic inducing assholes personally.. he's one of those Asperger's thingies, Mensa brain and emotional life of a spider and absolutely obsessed with GW. He must find it stimulating mentally or something, maybe I'll anonymously send him an ass dildo or something, it might get him off in a new, healthier tangent.
     
    #11     Jan 24, 2013
  2. Tell me why does the belief in "AGW" almost exclusively correlate with the political ideology of the believer?

    That in itself should tell you it's not based on real science.

    The Active vs Passive investing is just as polarizing a debate.
    Academia almost exclusively promotes one school of thought : which is passive investing is superior.

    However an investors political ideology probably plays zero role in which theory he or she accepts as valid, completely unlike the agw nonsense.
     
    #12     Jan 24, 2013
  3. pspr

    pspr

    Just light a fire under his ass and give him some global warming up close and personal. :D
     
    #13     Jan 24, 2013
  4. pspr

    pspr

    Quote from futurecurrents:
    What "stories"? You mean the fact that virtually all the world's climate experts and science organizations agree but moron science-ignorant righties don't? Do you mean that "story"?
    --------

    Your last post, dimwit. Look, I can't carry on a conversation with someone I have on ignore. All I can do and want to do is snipe.

    So, stick it up your ass. :cool:
     
    #14     Jan 24, 2013
  5. global warming is a scientific fact, it has been well documented in old dusty college libraries for at least 100 years

    climate change is relatively new, and still hotly debated if it is human induced

    problem is, the communists jumped right on it because they are anti business

    and the right wingers jumped right against it because they are anti communist

    but yes, the globe is warming, it has been known for over 100 years, and you can't stop it, no matter what you do

    but the human animal has become so formidable, that it can actually change the climate

    for instance, we can burn up in one day, what it took the earth a million years to produce
     
    #15     Jan 24, 2013
  6. That theory of yours should tell us that you are an idiot. Are you trying to say that - virtually all the world's climatologists and science organizations are basing their science on politics?

    I've said it before. That's just plain fucking stupid and demonstrates that you don't have clue how science works and/or you are so psycho/ideologically twisted that you can't think straight.

    Of course that's true for many of your fellow denier nitwits including and especially Fracturedthoughtsareus as evidenced by his post above.
     
    #16     Jan 24, 2013
  7. it's also true of you

    instead of talking about the climate

    you are talking about politics
     
    #17     Jan 24, 2013
  8. Good post, but I'd like to add this. The debate about AGW among the climate scientists is essentially over. The only debate going on is among the citizenry. The only doubt being sown is by tabloid pseudo-science dispensed by interests related to the fossil fuel industry, for example, the GOP.

    Also yes, some warming is built in now no matter what we do. However we can still avoid the worst of a future catastrophe if we act now.
     
    #18     Jan 24, 2013
  9. Oh I see you are so afraid of real debate you have to create a strawman.
    My theory is FACT.
    No matter how you claim to come to your decision on agw why do you think it's split almost 100% among ideological lines?


    How do you explain that?
     
    #19     Jan 24, 2013
  10. Well he did ask me a direct question about the effect of politics on AGW beliefs.
     
    #20     Jan 24, 2013