Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Media Matters)   Hannity: This is one of the coldest years on record, so global warming is a hoax. Science: This is one of the warmest years on record, so Hannity is a douche   (feeds.mediamatters.org ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Sean Hannity, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, warmest years on record, Sen. Lindsey Graham, Warmest Annual Means, global warming, data centers, anomaly  
•       •       •

19987 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Nov 2009 at 4:22 PM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1254 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Newest

 
2009-11-25 06:34:36 PM  
Solution: everyone involved is a douchebag.

i46.tinypic.com
 
2009-11-25 06:34:44 PM  

Flaccidor: Re: the issue of motive... want to really follow the money? Where does science, the free market, statistcal analysis, risk-management, liability, and the potential for economy-shaking financial losses intersect?

Insurance underwriters. Find out how they are approaching the issue and you'll get an indication of where the generally accepted state of the science sits.


Insurance companies. The Pentagon. The CIA. All well-known liberal-biased tree-hugging homo-greenie bastions promoting the religion of Algore.
 
2009-11-25 06:35:07 PM  

nicksteel: Did I insult your boyfriend??


Wow... that was clever. Come on... answer the question:

Do you think that if you embarrass him enough with your insults it will lend strength to your arguments?

No deflection now... it is a simple yes or no question. You could say, "partially", I suppose and perhaps elaborate on your justifications as to why and why not, but I imagine it would be ripe with the stench of bullshiat, so if I were you, I would just answer yes or no. :)
 
2009-11-25 06:36:11 PM  

I Said: NOAA is already on the list, but perhaps "The year 2009" should be added for this one.

List of People Conspiring Against the GOP, and therefor, America
(LOPCATGOPATA for short):
Liberals
Democrats
Socialists
Geologists
Biologists
Meteorologists
Atheists
Muslims
Jews
ABC
NBC
CNN
CBS
PBS
All of cable except FNC
The New York Times
The LA Times
The Washington Post
The Associated Press
Reuters
BBC
The Guardian
Black People
Mexicans
Human Rights Activists
SCOTUS
Europe
Movie Industry
Television Industry
Environmentalists
ACLU
The United Nations
Labor Unions
Colleges
Teachers
Professors
ACORN
National Endowment for the Arts
Gays
Judges
NPR
Paleontologists
Astrophysicists
Museums (*except Creationism Museum)
WHO
WTO
Inflated tires
The Honolulu Advertiser
The Star Bulletin
Teletubbies
Sponge Bob and Patrick
Nobel Prize Committee
US Census Bureau
NOAA
Sesame Street
Comic Books
Dogs

More groups will be added as they and their nefarious schemes are exposed.


You could shorten that list considerably if you just said 'Reality.'
 
2009-11-25 06:36:20 PM  

Huskadoodle: Kludge: Energy corporations have MUCH more to loose, than scientists have to gain.

True, unless your end goal was simply to create loss for BIG ENERGY in the first place in order to have little gains in the long run. It is called capitalism.

Even scientists are subject to it.


So, the scientific community has a vested interest in creating large financial losses for energy corporations in order to create smaller overall revenues for them in the long-term? I am really confused here. Are scientists competing with the energy corporations? What in the world are you talking about?

What specifically do scientists (not politicians, authors, celebrities etc.) have to gain by promoting global climate change?
 
2009-11-25 06:36:21 PM  

zanovar: To be fair to the climate change skeptics they are usually from the same side of politics that denies the evolution. It's not their fault that they have a profound inability to comprehend science


Oh look, a flat earth type argument.
 
2009-11-25 06:36:50 PM  

nicksteel: JohnnyC: nicksteel: drink the kool-aid - things will be better in the morning, moron.

So... do you think that if you embarrass him enough with your insults it will lend strength to your arguments? Now, I can't say that your insults were sufficient to embarrass him in the first place, but just curious if you planned that strategy or if you just got emotional for a moment there and lost your shiat.

Did I insult your boyfriend??


nicksteel: Skleenar: nicksteel: I am sure that the hacked emails don't bother you at all, do they?

You have the cognitive skills of a creationist.

They don't mean what you think they do.

And the fact that you take what people claim about them on faith is ironic, considering you are calling others out on their alleged religion-like belief in the science.

you are an idiot - go away.



Heh. Guess how we know they hit home - all you can do is sputter an ineffectual insult.
 
2009-11-25 06:36:58 PM  

elmo2525: The gobal warming people equal the world is flat. Back then, the ruling class said tha t earth was flat because it forced the trade routes to stay were they were. Today, the ruling class want your money to give away to the other rulers of corrupt countries. China is atcually on my side for a change. They are lecturing us as to why a climate change treaty is a bad deal. I actually agree with the commies for once.


Let's look at your analogy again:

Back then:
Science: Hi. I'm Eratosthenes. The world is round. Look, here is data showing you why.
Political groups: (allegedly): Nuh uh. The world is flat. (The dog ate my data.)

Right now:
Science: Hi. We're from NASA and NOAA and hundreds of other places around the globe. Greenhouse forcings are increasing the temperature. Look, here is data showing you why.
Political groups: Nuh uh. (The dog ate my data.)

I don't think your analogy points where you think it does.
 
2009-11-25 06:36:59 PM  

Huskadoodle: Geotpf: temps were down in the USA when they were up almost everywhere else on the planet.

Like China, who will never be capped and taxed?


"Mommy, Billy rapes and murders, why can't I rape and murder?"

"Mommy, there will ALWAYS be rapes and murders, why try to stop them?"
 
2009-11-25 06:37:44 PM  

JohnnyC: nicksteel: Did I insult your boyfriend??

Wow... that was clever. Come on... answer the question:

Do you think that if you embarrass him enough with your insults it will lend strength to your arguments?

No deflection now... it is a simple yes or no question. You could say, "partially", I suppose and perhaps elaborate on your justifications as to why and why not, but I imagine it would be ripe with the stench of bullshiat, so if I were you, I would just answer yes or no. :)


he is an asshole and so are you. I don't have to answer your questiond, douche bag.
 
2009-11-25 06:37:49 PM  

Skleenar: did I project right?


Haha... pretty close. He was more simple with the reply (partial admittance coupled with a weak attempt at insulting me on the basis that I am both gay and the other guy's boyfriend). It was stellar. Let me tell you. He's either a one trick pony or a genius of satire; I can't decide.
 
2009-11-25 06:39:19 PM  

nicksteel: I have my tongue up my own butt!.


I wouldn't admit that, but if it makes you happy.
 
2009-11-25 06:39:19 PM  

olddinosaur: True Story: Yesterday afternoon I wrote to the Editor of my hometown paper, and aked him politely why he had missed out on the Hadley Hacking, one of the biggest news stories of the year. His assistant wrote back: "---I agree with you that global warming is a hoax, but our editors think it is real, and will not run any stories to the contrary. That is why we will not cover the story---or publish your letter."


That's some amazing farking evidence there. Fine police work, Lou.
 
2009-11-25 06:40:05 PM  
HuskadoodleOh look, a flat earth type argument.

Almost forgot that one. But the flat earth is also a lie. Here is the real truth!

http://www.timecube.com/
 
2009-11-25 06:40:06 PM  

Diogenes: LordZorch: Reality: your "science" is most likely made up...
And I'm sure yours is the model of empirical rigor.


Actually, most published science probably is wrong, whether it's intentional due to an explicit political motivation, personal-career motivation, or just plain error.

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.002​0​124
 
2009-11-25 06:40:08 PM  

nicksteel: The fact that none of these hacked emails concern you at all tells me that you don't give a crap about science or accuracy.


There are a few things that concern me about them. If anyone did destroy evidence pertaining to a FOI request, he or she should be disciplined. Beyond that, as pertaining to what the denialosphere claims, no none of that is particularly concerning. Some people spoke intemperately. Some pushed for actions that I myself wouldn't have participated in. But none of it was illegal or even rising to the level of misconduct from what I've seen. I am, of course, more than a little concerned that there are deranged conspiracy theorists who would go so far as to hack an institutional email server in order to derail the upcoming Copenhagen talks. And of course I am concerned that so many people are so eager to believe that these emails have something to do with the scientific bases of reality/attribution or projection of climate change.

You are not interested in the truth about global warming at all.

The "truth about global warming" is based on 1st principles physics, as I noted before: IR absorptive properties of GHGs, blackbody radiation, atmospheric moist thermodynamics, etc. Beyond that, I am extraordinarily interested in the climate system. Those emails have nothing to do with the former and virtually nothing to do with the latter.

Have you ever looked into an issue to form your own opinion or do you always follow somebody else's opinions? You are like some pathetic robot that just keeps spitting out the bull that you were fed.

There are literally dozens of people on Fark who can attest to the fact that I cite primary data from either relevant refereed papers or appropriate institutions. Although my understanding cannot help but be shaped by the work and thus the perspective of others, I have reached the same conclusions as independently as anyone reasonably can when pursuing an academic subject.

I have asked you repeatedly to explain some of the BS about AGW and you have always refused. My purpose in asking was to see if you actually know anything beyond repeating what you have been told and you did not disappoint.

Once again, just because you're unable to comprehend the response, that doesn't mean I am being non-responsive.

Let's try some basics-

A) Do you grant the existence of Pleistocene glaciation cycles?
 
2009-11-25 06:40:36 PM  

relcec: MrSteve007: relcec: No it's a good thing, but no one is talking about pollution control or less waste. What they are asking for is more waste (ie. more money for less energy) and a less competitive America.

Sign me up for less pollution, less environmental footprint, less waste any day of the week. That's nuclear, and that apparently makes to much sense for the greens.

What the fu*k are you talking about? Nuclear is one of the most expensive and inefficient forms of electricity available.

Not by price per kilowatt or by system installation costs per kilowatt hour.

"The lifetime cost of new generating capacity in the United States was estimated in 2006 by the U.S. government (the 2007 report did not estimate costs). Nuclear power was estimated at 5.93 cents per kW·h. However, the "total overnight cost" for new nuclear was assumed to be $1,984 per kWe[39] - as seen above in Capital Costs, this figure is subject to debate."

Link (new window)

Even a solar panel group doesn't think that new array in Spain can get below 10 cents a kilowatt hour or below system installation of $3,600 per kW last year. Never mind all the miles and miles of pristine desert it will take up.

Now, you are correct that coal could beat nuclear, but that is not an option.

Link (new window)

Don't worry, I forgive you for your ignorance.


Price per kilowatt works great when you assume a non-polluting technology with no economic impact other than conversion of a resource to energy. If you start factoring in things like resource availability, clean-up costs (technological and political), and citizen resistance, solar is a lot more attractive. You see, the problem with comparing things on a purely monetary basis is that since money itself is based on nothing but an assumption of debt, you have to be very careful to include all the possible current and future impacts that might increase that assumption of debt. It's generally better to work with conversion efficiencies and resource availability, as well as relative cost of cleanup when comparing energy technology.

Also, your estimates for solar are based on a few pilot projects, and are assuming that the efficiency of solar cells will not increase with additional research investment. If you look at the history of solar funding levels compared with any other currently used energy technology, you will see that such an assumption is probably incorrect.

But don't worry, I forgive you for your ignorance.
 
2009-11-25 06:40:47 PM  

b2theory: Racht: bearsfolks: Why is the "Debate" seemingly closed?

Might have something to do with it.

unbiased data says temps have decreased.


Sorry, I'm a little late, but I noticed that no one mentioned anything about this data. What the heck does the graph mean? Please explain it, because what I'm seeing is not boiled down to "temperature over time." In fact, it may be one of the most difficult to understand graphs I've ever seen.

img22.imageshack.us


Seriously, how does "Northern Hemisphere Anomaly (Cº) relative to 1961 to 1990" disprove global warming?

Talk about cherry-picking statistics.
 
2009-11-25 06:41:17 PM  
I'll add this one too, tho' I see the main players are already here..

i5.photobucket.com
 
2009-11-25 06:41:49 PM  
when will these douches learn that the temperature doesn't mean anything, its the carbon dioxide levels that matter.

The ocean absorbs carbon dioxide and turns to carbonic acid, decreasing the pH of the water (less pH is more acidic). This is the earths natural protection since volcanoes let out lots of co2. We are overwhelming this protection.

One it reaches a certain amount, all fish with shells will be unable to form shells, causing the oceans food chain to collapse.

What happens when the ocean turns so acidic that algae dies? Algae takes the co2 out of water so once that dies, there will be a runway effect causing most ocean life to die, killing off the food chain.
 
2009-11-25 06:41:53 PM  

Kludge: What specifically do scientists (not politicians, authors, celebrities etc.) have to gain by promoting global climate change?


Could patents be involved at all? You spend your life developing alternatives to carbon based energy only to be obfuscated by a carbon based energy society. How could this not be a drive to change society?
 
2009-11-25 06:42:29 PM  
 
2009-11-25 06:43:36 PM  
I read an article in a 1904 issue of Scientific American "proving" heavier-than-air flight is impossible; shouldn't we tell that to all those people in all those airplanes?

I also call to memory an article by Admiral William Leahy, written in 1945, in which he says: "---I am an expert in explosives with more than 35 years of experience, and I can tell you point-blank: this atomic bomb is a humbug, it will not work!"

Well if that is so, then someone ought to tell all those people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to quit playing possum, and they ought to be glad they aren't actually dead after all.
 
2009-11-25 06:44:14 PM  
Yay! Another graph!

i249.photobucket.com
 
2009-11-25 06:44:19 PM  

nicksteel: you are an idiot - go away.


Ah. A reflexive ad-hominem dismissal.

That really shows that you aren't the one who is blindly faithful to a mythology.

Good job.
 
2009-11-25 06:44:21 PM  
On the bright side I imagine that Scandinavia and Canada could be the new Mediterranean :P
 
2009-11-25 06:44:40 PM  

kriegsgeist: nicksteel:
you got the religion bad don't you?? Nothing is going to shake your faith in your religious beliefs. The fact that none of these hacked emails concern you at all tells me that you don't give a crap about science or accuracy. You are not interested in the truth about global warming at all.

Have you ever had an original thought?? Have you ever looked into an issue to form your own opinion or do you always follow somebody else's opinions? You are like some pathetic robot that just keeps spitting out the bull that you were fed.

I have asked you repeatedly to explain some of the BS about AGW and you have always refused. My purpose in asking was to see if you actually know anything beyond repeating what you have been told and you did not disappoint.

It amazes me that people are willing to blindly follow ANYTHING. Birthers and creationists blindly follow - some because they are stupid or gullible, others because they are lazy. Where would you put yourself on that scale? Or are you not capable of thinking about that either??

drink the kool-aid - things will be better in the morning, moron.

This is hilarious - if you replace AGW with anti-AGW, this is exactly what I am thinking when I read your posts (and your fellow lunatics). I say hilarious, but then when I think about how serious the issue is it's more a feeling of sadness and then there is this kind of sickening disgust at the thought of people like you having any kind of power in the world. I really hope that is a baseless fear though. I certainly wouldn't vote for or give money to anyone like you.

The best part is, if you would actually take the time to listen to what JonSnow says, most of your questions about AGW (that are based on a real understanding of the issue instead of political strawmen) could easily be cleared up. The fact that you attack him as an unthinking parrot is telling. You don't actually understand anything he is saying, do you?


a serious problem?? How do you know?? The data is apparently all a big lie.

You morons have taken the word of other people and nothing that comes out makes you even stop for a second to consider what is going on. Anti-AGW people are the ones who did not drink the kool-aid.

JonSnowjob never says anything - he just posts links hoping that people will accept anything he says if he posts a link. People who believe him are ignorant and gullible. People like you.
 
2009-11-25 06:44:42 PM  

Jon Snow: There are literally dozens of people on Fark who can attest to the fact that I cite primary data from either relevant refereed papers or appropriate institutions. ...


I will say that JS is a farking SAINT for bothering to reply in a rational and polite manner to idiots who are a) most likely trolls or b) actual sociopaths c) people with some other severe brain issue.
 
2009-11-25 06:45:14 PM  

nicksteel: he is an asshole and so are you. I don't have to answer your questiond, douche bag.


Thank you for answering. The answer was "Yes".

Protip: insulting people does not add strength to your argument.

Don't ever change... we love you just how you are. You're like the spice in the pie. :D
 
2009-11-25 06:47:02 PM  

nicksteel: he is an asshole and so are you. I don't have to answer your questiond, douche bag.


Oh... and my favorite part was where you were thundering away on your keyboard so furiously that you accidentally hit "d" instead of "s". I think that, above all else really carried your sentiments. :)
 
2009-11-25 06:48:12 PM  

nicksteel: I don't understand science. I don't understand politics. I don't have a degree. I can't find ANY peer-reviewd science to back my positions. But I am smarter than ALL them thousands of people worldwide who have degrees in related fields. But I can't get my research published. Because CONSPIRACYGARBLLLLLLL


Yeah, right.
 
2009-11-25 06:49:03 PM  

Skleenar: nicksteel: you are an idiot - go away.

Ah. A reflexive ad-hominem dismissal.

That really shows that you aren't the one who is blindly faithful to a mythology.

Good job.


nice try, dipshiat. You have been given access to a bunch of emails that should make any sensible person reconsider their position. Not you.

How you think I am following a mythology when my core believe is that nobody knows enough about any of this shiat?

You have been told a story and you accept it without question. Anything that comes along that contradicts your belief is ignored.
THAT is religion. THAT is stupid.
 
2009-11-25 06:49:30 PM  
i2.photobucket.com
 
2009-11-25 06:49:41 PM  
HuskadoodleCould patents be involved at all? You spend your life developing alternatives to carbon based energy only to be obfuscated by a carbon based energy society. How could this not be a drive to change society?

Two points. Even without global warming we'd be forced to come up with alternatives to oil eventually as it starts to run out. Also so far as get rich quick schemes go starting a global conspiracy of scientists, governments and environmentalists is needlessly complex. There are far easier ways of making money.
 
2009-11-25 06:49:42 PM  
www.jir.com
 
2009-11-25 06:49:59 PM  

jshine: Actually, most published science probably is wrong


That's basically tautological. In a strict interpretation, *all published science is wrong* as science can only ever be the most accurate description of reality we can produce. The point is that some models of reality are more accurate than others, and as time and research progress, what isn't accurate and/or has little explanatory power is ignored while new models are developed and good but imperfect models are improved.

However, from a macro perspective, or in day-to-day reality, we acknowledge the imperfection of our state of knowledge and act with the information we have rather than defer until perfect knowledge is reached. We may not ever constrain climate sensitivity better than ~2-3°C (plus error bars), but that doesn't mean that we don't have enough information about whether or not mitigating is a good idea. In fact, in the real world, the value (in the economic sense) of mitigation in the face of uncertainty is actually higher than it would be if we constrained climate sensitivity perfectly.
 
2009-11-25 06:50:19 PM  

olddinosaur: I read an article in a 1904 issue of Scientific American "proving" heavier-than-air flight is impossible; shouldn't we tell that to all those people in all those airplanes?


Citation? The Wright brothers flew in 1903, for one thing.

I also call to memory an article by Admiral William Leahy, written in 1945, in which he says: "---I am an expert in explosives with more than 35 years of experience, and I can tell you point-blank: this atomic bomb is a humbug, it will not work!"

Well if that is so, then someone ought to tell all those people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to quit playing possum, and they ought to be glad they aren't actually dead after all.


One Admiral was once wrong, therefore the lesson is that all of science is always wrong.

More great police work, Lou.
 
2009-11-25 06:51:00 PM  
nicksteel a serious problem?? How do you know?? The data is apparently all a big lie.

No it isn't. If you are referring to the stolen private emails, then a few bloggers quotemining from large repository of email has as much credence as creationists who quote mine from Darwin's correspondence. Which is to say none at all.
 
2009-11-25 06:51:12 PM  

JohnnyC: nicksteel: he is an asshole and so are you. I don't have to answer your questiond, douche bag.

Oh... and my favorite part was where you were thundering away on your keyboard so furiously that you accidentally hit "d" instead of "s". I think that, above all else really carried your sentiments. :)


if that gets you all excited, fine. You are still an asshole. All typos are based on emotional states - you are also an idiot.
 
2009-11-25 06:52:10 PM  

zanovar:
a serious problem?? How do you know?? The data is apparently all a big lie.

You morons have taken the word of other people and nothing that comes out makes you even stop for a second to consider what is going on. Anti-AGW people are the ones who did not drink the kool-aid.

JonSnowjob never says anything - he just posts links hoping that people will accept anything he says if he posts a link. People who believe him are ignorant and gullible. People like you.


It's amazing - you are obviously unwilling or incapable of understanding very clearly presented evidence, you fail to provide contrary evidence, and yet you attack people who do as gullible, unthinking, and stupid. If I were a psychologist I'd try to get you into some kind of controlled environment so that I could figure out how you can so easily spout this kind of hypocrisy without ever realizing the irony of it.

Or maybe the joke is on me and you know exactly what you are doing.
 
2009-11-25 06:52:48 PM  

drxym: nicksteel a serious problem?? How do you know?? The data is apparently all a big lie.

No it isn't. If you are referring to the stolen private emails, then a few bloggers quotemining from large repository of email has as much credence as creationists who quote mine from Darwin's correspondence. Which is to say none at all.


do you actually believe any of the crap you just posted?? You are another kool-aid drinker. I'm guessing you went to public school.
 
2009-11-25 06:53:56 PM  

kriegsgeist: nicksteel:

eh sorry zanovar - last post was supposed to quote nicksteel
 
2009-11-25 06:54:14 PM  

nicksteel: Skleenar: nicksteel: you are an idiot - go away.

Ah. A reflexive ad-hominem dismissal.

That really shows that you aren't the one who is blindly faithful to a mythology.

Good job.

nice try, dipshiat.


Ah. Another ad-hominem. You are really making a point here. Just not the one you think you are making.

You have been given access to a bunch of emails that should make any sensible person reconsider their position. Not you.

How you think I am following a mythology when my core believe is that nobody knows enough about any of this shiat?

You have been told a story and you accept it without question. Anything that comes along that contradicts your belief is ignored.
THAT is religion. THAT is stupid.


Are you pretending that these e-mails changed your mind about anything?

Because, if you aren't, I am not sure why you think you are displaying any greater flexibility in thought than you assert I am showing.

One thing you are displaying, however, is ignorance about the scientific process.
 
2009-11-25 06:54:44 PM  

ghare: I will say that JS is a farking SAINT for bothering to reply in a rational and polite manner to idiots who are a) most likely trolls or b) actual sociopaths c) people with some other severe brain issue.


For the record, my current theory is that most of the Fark denier crowd falls under A, although nicksteel falls under B. He's previously suggested that climate change was invented by worldwide conspiracies to destroy democracy and industry, and called for the murder of environmentalists.
 
2009-11-25 06:54:56 PM  

give me doughnuts: Yay! Another graph!


Can you explain what you think the significance of that is? It looks like a comparison of the FAR (1990) European paleo temp plot vs. the TAR (2001) NH plot. Obviously not an apples to apples comparison, what is the intended information it's supposed to convey?
 
2009-11-25 06:55:02 PM  
 
2009-11-25 06:55:50 PM  

ghare: Huskadoodle: Geotpf: temps were down in the USA when they were up almost everywhere else on the planet.

Like China, who will never be capped and taxed?

"Mommy, Billy rapes and murders, why can't I rape and murder?"

"Mommy, there will ALWAYS be rapes and murders, why try to stop them?"


No, he has a point, sorta.

Global warming is very real, and manmade. However, I do not think it is possible for a workable political fix, because what would be required to fix the problem (not just slow the speed global tempertures occur, actually stopping the rise) is so extreme as to be politically impossible. You would need something like China's one child per couple policy, worldwide, to tamp down future carbon demand by reducing the population size. You would need to shut down every coal power plant on the planet today. You would need to do a hundred things that are politically impossible, and do them on a worldwide basis.

It's not going to happen. At best, you could slow the speed at which tempertures rise. That's not a cure; that's merely a delay.

Now, the question is, will rising tempertures hurt the standard of living of the average First World citizen? I don't think so, not by much. Sure, lots of poor people in Africa or wherever will die. Lots of animal species will become extinct. And even in the Western world, there will be winners and losers. A farmer in Iowa will lose; a farmer in Canada will win. But the biggest change to the average first world citizen might be the shrinking in size of women's fashions. No way that enough governments worldwide do all the extremely painful choices that would be required to actually fix the problem because of this, because if any democratically elected government did so, that government would not be in power for long. Even undemocratic countries like China are always afraid of internal rebellion.

This is why the discussion is mostly moot. Global warming is real, and it's unfixable.
 
2009-11-25 06:55:59 PM  

nicksteel: I'm guessing you went to public school.



Really? That's an insult? What are you - homeschooled or - wait - let me guess - private christian school?

Are you one of those people who thinks college is where the liberal elite put the devil in your brain?
 
2009-11-25 06:56:03 PM  

kriegsgeist: zanovar:
a serious problem?? How do you know?? The data is apparently all a big lie.

You morons have taken the word of other people and nothing that comes out makes you even stop for a second to consider what is going on. Anti-AGW people are the ones who did not drink the kool-aid.

JonSnowjob never says anything - he just posts links hoping that people will accept anything he says if he posts a link. People who believe him are ignorant and gullible. People like you.

It's amazing - you are obviously unwilling or incapable of understanding very clearly presented evidence, you fail to provide contrary evidence, and yet you attack people who do as gullible, unthinking, and stupid. If I were a psychologist I'd try to get you into some kind of controlled environment so that I could figure out how you can so easily spout this kind of hypocrisy without ever realizing the irony of it.

Or maybe the joke is on me and you know exactly what you are doing.


Look up the words troll and sociopath on google. You'll have your answer.
 
2009-11-25 06:56:37 PM  
It's no problem kriegsgeist we kool-aid drinkers need to stay together.


Hey Kool-Aid
 
Displayed 50 of 1254 comments


Oldest | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Newest



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report