74% of GOP Congress Members Reject Climate Science
- Thread starter ThaG
- Start date
Good point, but thats a pretty large difference in opinion, even if it only is 39 on each side. Bascially, only ONE democrat didnt believe climate change was real, and 28 republicans thought it wasnt real, IN contrast, that ratio would stand that for every i deomcrat who thinks its fake, 28 rebups share the same ideology. Thats pretty steep.
It has zero to do with "hippies" and everything to do with science. The person who posted this is an MIT student. I dare you to debate this with him. It would be hilarious to say the least.
It has zero to do with "hippies" and everything to do with science. The person who posted this is an MIT student. I dare you to debate this with him. It would be hilarious to say the least.
The other issue that often gets down played unfortunately is that, even if hypothetically speaking we find out that man-made pollution is in fact NOT contributing to global climate change, it does nothing to change the fact that most of the aspects of the pollution that we theorize are causing climate change are still detrimental to the environment and our health.
In other words, whether or not man-made pollution is contributing to global climate change, doesn't change the fact that man made pollution is still negative and we need to do something to curtail it.
Suppose we did find out that burning fossil fuels has no impact on climate change. Does that change the fact that we are running out of fossil fuel to power our economies, that the process of attaining fossil fuels is bad for the environment, the process of storing/shipping is bad for the environment, and the gasses released are bad for our health; amongst many other negative things???
SMH
Really? A myth? Really?
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/labs/Lab9/Vostok.htm
This article doesn't surprise me at all.
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/labs/Lab9/Vostok.htm
This article doesn't surprise me at all.
some of you are fuckin weirdos. what does the rising global temperature (uncharacteristic and exponentially disproportionate to recorded natural fluctuations) and its correlation to the rising amounts of man made pollution have to do with being liberal or conservative? It is what it is. Read the damn data. the numbers don't lie. If the numbers aren't telling us that global warming is real, then you tell me what the numbers are telling us.
Get this man a cookie!
Soem of you people just want to ignore scientific facts. Why would liberals make that up? There is no reason to LIE about it. Matter of fact, some would say that covering it UP would be better. How else do you exploit man better than using harmful, cheap ways to power the world?
Use your fuckin brains, please.
Soem of you people just want to ignore scientific facts. Why would liberals make that up? There is no reason to LIE about it. Matter of fact, some would say that covering it UP would be better. How else do you exploit man better than using harmful, cheap ways to power the world?
Use your fuckin brains, please.
peak oil, exponential growth in oil consumption in developing countries, "communist", oh my, china fueling its economy past the US using our own growth model, allowing them to dominate the region as economic power allows. there is tremendous incentive to spin the story this way. the US built itself off of fossil fuel and domination of these resources, presidents over the last 60 years have declared protecting these interests to be our paramount goal as a nation. and then once china is nipping at our heals, demanding oil, driving up prices, and trending towards crippling our economy, it becomes "uhhh nope, shouldnt be doing that there chang chong chinaman, or you neither you filthy dotted ingines, oil is evil because somehow you became successful, but when gas was a dollar and nobody knew your economies threatened ours we were buying hummers, closing refineries, and referred to conservationists strictly as faggots". ooooh, but now we can create entire bullshit industries , ETHANOL from corn that uses as much energy to make as it produces, or hydrogen which is the same, to try to stimulate our dying economy and keep people working. in practical terms we can retrofit every house with solar panels, and rain trapping technology, have everyone work to buy and replace their car with a new and improved model, if they are a real american that is, that should help us limp along until the next global war.
lmfao at "there is no reason to lie" or "the numbers dont lie". even if im just being sarcastic, a retarded child could identify at least a few reasons and few ways to make the numbers say what they want. but lets get back to it.
im being honest here, and if this is such an easy topic than surely someone can clue me in. first of all what are the numbers even attempting to prove? i see people get all worked up with their power point slides, and charts, and links they found on al gores website, but first off what are the numbers proving? yes burning something, all else being equal, will increase temp. can someone for once just put this into concrete words, what is the definition of man made global warming, or wait is it climate change now, but wasnt it global cooling before by the "scientists" (i guess scientist is synonymous with clergy 1000 years ago)? Secondly, how do we account for it? third, where are these facts? do these "facts" actually prove anything? ( i saw a graph that shows the inverse relationship between global temps and the number of pirates). fourth, so what. fifth, economic incentives dont really work against the most dominant economy (china soon, and evidenced by our domination while we firmly had it) so what are you going to do, is this worth going to global war over? i mean its supposedly the BIGGEST threat to the planet ever, so i guess global war is absolutely justified right?
i look forward to a response, most people look at the surface and buy a bumper sticker, but if you follow the path and the rhetoric, the implications are fascinating to me.
lmfao at "there is no reason to lie" or "the numbers dont lie". even if im just being sarcastic, a retarded child could identify at least a few reasons and few ways to make the numbers say what they want. but lets get back to it.
im being honest here, and if this is such an easy topic than surely someone can clue me in. first of all what are the numbers even attempting to prove? i see people get all worked up with their power point slides, and charts, and links they found on al gores website, but first off what are the numbers proving? yes burning something, all else being equal, will increase temp. can someone for once just put this into concrete words, what is the definition of man made global warming, or wait is it climate change now, but wasnt it global cooling before by the "scientists" (i guess scientist is synonymous with clergy 1000 years ago)? Secondly, how do we account for it? third, where are these facts? do these "facts" actually prove anything? ( i saw a graph that shows the inverse relationship between global temps and the number of pirates). fourth, so what. fifth, economic incentives dont really work against the most dominant economy (china soon, and evidenced by our domination while we firmly had it) so what are you going to do, is this worth going to global war over? i mean its supposedly the BIGGEST threat to the planet ever, so i guess global war is absolutely justified right?
i look forward to a response, most people look at the surface and buy a bumper sticker, but if you follow the path and the rhetoric, the implications are fascinating to me.