The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Chris_ on January 27, 2009, 11:09:21 AM
-
I just visited the Yahoo main page. In their news box area I saw the following headline Ice, snow storm wreaks havoc from Plains to East; seven dead (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/winter_storm). Which is terrible I might add and my thoughts and prayers go out to these folks and their families.
Immediately below that headlines was another headline that read: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1,000 years, study finds (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090127/ts_alt_afp/uswarmingenvironmentclimate_20090127132619)
-
You gotta get screencaps of this. The libs heads will explode from the irony.
Oh, and it'd look great on failblog.
-
(http://i569.photobucket.com/albums/ss137/Bucket_pail/yahoo.jpg)
-
You don't understand, unusually cold temperatures are proof of global warming, proof I tell you !!111!!ELEVENTY!
-
You don't understand, unusually cold temperatures are proof of global warming, proof I tell you !!111!!ELEVENTY!
Stop you. Localized weather events don't mean a thing about climate. Unless it supports Global Warming. /Global Warming Nut
-
I have said consistently, and I stand by it now, that if the global warming wienies were actually right, the effect would be irreversible by this point.
If you buy into the fundamental premise of 'Anthropogenic Glocal Warming Climate Change,' there are three hundred years of momentum behind the Industrial Revolution, and that cumulative effect CANNOT be reversed by anything short of about a 90% depopulation of Earth ("Women, minorities most affected").
Ergo, we should say 'screw it' and pursue a sound energy policy based on renewable supply instead of worrying about emissions. After all, if fossil fuels are all going to be consumed sooner or later, won't the net inputs to the atmosphere from them be the same either way?
-
I have said consistently, and I stand by it now, that if the global warming wienies were actually right, the effect would be irreversible by this point.
If you buy into the fundamental premise of 'Anthropogenic Glocal Warming Climate Change,' there are three hundred years of momentum behind the Industrial Revolution, and that cumulative effect CANNOT be reversed by anything short of about a 90% depopulation of Earth ("Women, minorities most affected").
Ergo, we should say 'screw it' and pursue a sound energy policy based on renewable supply instead of worrying about emissions. After all, if fossil fuels are all going to be consumed sooner or later, won't the net inputs to the atmosphere from them be the same either way?
DAT, there is a fundamental flaw in your thinking.
It makes sense, so not nutball is going to listen to it.
-
DAT, there is a fundamental flaw in your thinking.
It makes sense, so not nutball is going to listen to it.
It's an affliction. I try to fight it, but I just can't seem to make myself think like a Liberal on policy questions (their tactics I can follow, it's not as hard to just think like a weasel).
-
It's an affliction. I try to fight it, but I just can't seem to make myself think like a Liberal on policy questions (their tactics I can follow, it's not as hard to just think like a weasel).
Remember requirements for goverment service.................all common sense and brains left at front gate in morning and retrieved when leaving
-
Unless and until they have snow in Havana, Global Warming is the final word.