It is now official. No global warming of the earth's environment in 15 years.

(*)(*)(*)(*)ed lazy Americans

http://youtu.be/zSAJ0l4OBHM

 

It was a rhetorical question. It is beyond obvious you have never done such.

 

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.

The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.” What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

 

That song really sucks.

But right next to it on the page is Eric Burton and the Animals doing House of the Rising Sun and they are great.

Leave it to a traumatized lib to pick the wrong tune.

 

I seriously can't believe you just wrote something so retarded.

Give yourself an uppercut Champ.

 

Here is one you might like

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZrhG2iT3H0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZrhG2iT3H0[/ame]

 

Yet when Obama or the climate Nazi's in your country puff themselves up and proclaim that "every major scientific body agrees" you are sort or trying to impress the public with your knowledge, right?

 

I am getting ready to go to work and it is 32 degrees outside. PLEASE send some global warming my way!!!!!!!!

 

Why?

Many of the world's leading economists disagree with you.


The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands an urgent global response.

Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.

In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP year.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/CLOSED_SHORT_executive_summary.pdf

Are YOU one of the world's leading economists? Are you even one of your trailer-park's leading economists?

errrr...power is already in the hands of government and corrupt politicians.
That is no reason to ignore science.

 

I do like that.

And that was THE Al Gore the climate change freak with a 20,000 square foot house and a private jet to take him to all the global warming conferences?

 

and the house has 6 fireplaces dispite the fact he says the Earth is warming

BTW the house has NO solar panels

 

You can't be serious?

Economists?

They are one of the few groups who rival climate scientists for the biggest waste of a formal education.

An economist will say anything today and then say just the opposite next week.

 

Yes utter nonsense.

Please don't tell lies. It is really childish. I have never heard anyone say global warming will destroy the planet.

Please don't attempt to discuss things you are so poorly educated in.

And stop telling silly lies. Otherwise people will treat you as they treat Red states rule.

 

Of course you side tries to scare the public with dire predictions of famine, plague, civil unrest and who knows what else if we don't do as the climate freaks demand.

You may be a victim of those scare tactics yourself.

 

You were the one putting forward unsupported economic theories Champ

Any reason why we should believe the opinion of someone who clearly doesn't even understand the subject being discussed?

 

In the moment we have here a hard winter time here in Germany - and this is indeed a result of global warming. It has something to do with the lack of snow and the reflection of the sunlight in the area of the north pole.

I fear the USA tries to find a kind of pi-bill for global warming - but it's a physical process completly independent what someone is thinking about and completly independent from any political system. It's very difficult to understand the phenomenon "global warmring". But no one on earth can wait until he understands everything before he starts to do something. Learning while doing is the best in this case because the risks are gigantic. What the USA is not doing in the moment is in the eyes of lots of people in this world more criminal than negligent. The most people like to offer their children and all future generations of human beings a worthful living planet and not a dying world.

http://youtu.be/vBMA8knxvt8

 

Stop telling lies.

Learn how to actually put up an argument.

 

I think my economics are as worthy as theirs.

As for who you should believe clearly common sense and a reasoned approach to the subject are not your forte.

What you should do is think the issue through for yourself and become your own reference rather than flipping a coin to decide who will form your opinions for you.

 

My argument is fine.

But it may not be good enough to pierce the man-made global warming brainwashing that has gripped the leftwing establishment.

 

Good idea.

Why don't you explain to me where I am wrong.
Could you do that?


Am I wrong about what greenhouse gasses do?
Am I wrong about the evidence that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased over the past century or so?
Am I wrong about the evidence that the majority of this increase in atmospheric CO2 has been anthropogenic?
Am I wrong about the evidence that the surface temperature of the planet has been increasing?
Am I wrong about the evidence that the ocean temperatures have been increasing?
Am I wrong about the evidence that sea levels have been increasing?
Am I wrong about the evidence that glacial mass balance is decreasing?
Am I wrong about the evidence that stratospheric temperature is decreasing?
Am I wrong about the evidence downward radiation in the frequency bands re-emitted by CO2 is decreasing?

Help me think for myself. Could you please point out - in your opinion - where i am wrong?

Thanks - that would be great.

 

Are you Chinese?

http://youtu.be/Orv_F2HV4gk

 

No - your arguement was bollocks.

You wrote:
Of course you side tries to scare the public with dire predictions of famine, plague, civil unrest and who knows what else if we don't do as the climate freaks demand.

Stupid lies and hyperbole only make you look foolish.

Try to write something sensible.