Will somebody tell this childish name-caller that the "flat earth society" was once the scientific consensus? The only reason he does it is because it further divides people. http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...for-flat-earth-society-on-climate-change?lite
Um, I think he's referring to the modern day Flat Earth Society. You know, the crowd that chooses to believe that the Earth is flat despite some pretty compelling scientific evidence that it's not. Not so different than the crowd of folks with poor science education backgrounds who don't believe (or understand) that human-influenced global change is real. I guess it's a refreshing change from the "we don't believe in evolution" whining.
Oh. So you're a flat-earther, despite the lack of a CO2/warming causation, or even correlation, the last 40 years of "recorded" history. Welcome to your dumbshit post.
It's no different than calling someone a retard. They most certainly may be a retard, but it's really bush to call them one if they really are.
You're a Flat-Earther if you're banging pots, shouting out your strong opinion about a topic you have a poor understanding of. I get it, you read this and that in a newspaper or Newsweek magazine.
MIT is on the case for cleaner emissions! http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/06/26/mit-creates-plug-and-play-co2-scrubber-for-existing-power-plants/ http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2013/ee/c3ee41165f
Everyone deserves due process, if you really think someone is egregiously polluting the air take them to trial. Otherwise leave them alone. It can't just be a vague correlation.
Uh, ok. I'm actually curious why you are ok with human induced manipulation of the global temperature in one direction but not the other. It is a reasonable question.
man..this is such an unimportant issue. The value of this is to further divide and divert attention from actual ongoing events. Typical banter, bluster and bullshit.
Assuming climate change is being influenced by human activities, it wouldn't even matter if everybody all of sudden got a pang of conscience and decided to "go green." We've got far too many people for the resources we possess on this planet and it's not going to get any better, especially as China and India become far more energy intensive economies/societies. 2 meters of sea level rise by 2100 (assumed to be a sort of "worst case" scenario by the IPCC) could be a minor annoyance compared to the contests we may see over a dwindling supply of cheaply gotten fossil fuels, arable land and potable water.
It's a funny question to ask. You're talking about it like a thermostat in your home. Influence isn't control. And the important point in the debate isn't warming, it's the rate of warming.
No shit. You think the Blazers-Lakers rivalry is nasty? We're just seeing the start of it, like Farmers vs Fishermen for water rights. Country vs country, states vs states, industry vs industry. It'll be a mess. And they'll all have guns!
