| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » HEEEYYYYYY! Global Warming SHEEEP!!!
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Reginald Washington |
 Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Reply 2 - Posted by: Another_Fred, 4/28/2008 1:23:27 AM
The best that we can hope for is that by the time real money is spent
on these crazy schemes the true nature of the situation will be known.
This is not as unrealistic as it sounds because of the way the climate
alarmist scam works. Right now, as 95 percent of all public speakers
say Man-Made Global Warming is real the only way to stand out is to
take the most alarming position. For example: first, the artic would
be ice-free by 2050, then 2025. The last I heard it may be ice-free
prior to 2010! Now, that’s less than 2 years away. How long can this
go on before even the MSM realizes that it's cold in the Artic?
If you don't believe that last alarmist prediction is for real, google
the article "Frightening projection for Arctic melt" by Marianne
White, in the November 16th 2007 edition of canada.com.
Posted By:Fosterdad, 4/28/2008 12:46:28 AM
The usual chorus of environmentalists and editorial writers has chimed
in to attack President Bush's recent speech on climate change. In his
address of April 23, he put forth a goal of stopping the growth of
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2025.
Comments:
Finally, some actual numbers we can use to argue against CO2 emissions
cuts. The basic gist of the article is that it will be physically
impossible to reduce CO2 emissions 80% by 2050.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply 1 - Posted by: Alkyd Resin, 4/28/2008 1:16:07 AM
These goals are beyond unreasonable and should be more properly called
psychotically irresponsible. Just keeping your house above 50 degrees
in the north for the cold months will exceed your total yearly
allowance of CO2. In the deep south, air conditioning will have to be
forbidden. No personal travel, no lights, no appliances, no luxuries.
This will lead into a cascading economic crash that will make the
worst of the Great Depression seem like heaven.
Just 73 days equal 20% of a year. Imagine if what you had for those 73
days had to make do for 365.25 days. What kind of life do you think
you would live? This is what an 80% reduction means.
What kind of demogoguing politician would advocate economic suicide?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply 3 - Posted by: NMPatriot, 4/28/2008 1:31:21 AM
The greens won't be happy until everyone is cold, dead and gray
(except for themselves of course).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply 4 - Posted by: Ad Lucem, 4/28/2008 1:35:02 AM
Round these "greens" up and put them on a island somewhere, where they
cannot escape and let them live as they want to in the Dark Ages and
their limited life spans will do the world a great deal of good in the
final analysis!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Frank Arthur |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Published on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 by the New York Times
Exxon Backs Groups That Question Global Warming
by Jennifer Lee
WASHINGTON, May 27 - Exxon Mobil has publicly
softened its stance toward global warming over the last year, with a
pledge of $10 million in annual donations for 10 years to Stanford
University for climate research.
At the same time, the company, the world's largest
oil and gas concern, has increased donations to Washington-based
policy groups that, like Exxon itself, question the human role in
global warming and argue that proposed government policies to limit
carbon dioxide emissions associated with global warming are too heavy
handed.
Exxon now gives more than $1 million a year to such
organizations, which include the Competitive Enterprise Institute,
Frontiers of Freedom, the George C. Marshall Institute, the American
Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy Research and the
American Legislative Exchange Council.
The organizations are modest in size but have been
outspoken in the global warming debate. Exxon has become the
single-largest corporate donor to some of the groups, accounting for
more than 10 percent of their annual budgets. While a few of the
groups say they also receive some money from other oil companies, it
is only a small fraction of what they receive from Exxon Mobil.
"We want to support organizations that are trying to
broaden the debate on an issue that is so important to all of us,"
said Tom Cirigliano, a spokesman for Exxon. "There is this whole issue
that no one should question the science of global climate change that
is ludicrous. That's the kind of dark-ages thinking that gets you in a
lot of trouble." He also noted, "These are not single-agenda groups."
"Reginald Washington" <Liberal'sWorstNightmare@home.home> wrote in
message news:4815b167.2000296@news.motzarella.org...
Quote: Reply 2 - Posted by: Another_Fred, 4/28/2008 1:23:27 AM
The best that we can hope for is that by the time real money is
spent
on these crazy schemes the true nature of the situation will be
known.
This is not as unrealistic as it sounds because of the way the
climate
alarmist scam works. Right now, as 95 percent of all public speakers
say Man-Made Global Warming is real the only way to stand out is to
take the most alarming position. For example: first, the artic would
be ice-free by 2050, then 2025. The last I heard it may be ice-free
prior to 2010! Now, that's less than 2 years away. How long can this
go on before even the MSM realizes that it's cold in the Artic?
If you don't believe that last alarmist prediction is for real,
google
the article "Frightening projection for Arctic melt" by Marianne
White, in the November 16th 2007 edition of canada.com.
Posted By:Fosterdad, 4/28/2008 12:46:28 AM
The usual chorus of environmentalists and editorial writers has
chimed
in to attack President Bush's recent speech on climate change. In
his
address of April 23, he put forth a goal of stopping the growth of
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2025.
Comments:
Finally, some actual numbers we can use to argue against CO2
emissions
cuts. The basic gist of the article is that it will be physically
impossible to reduce CO2 emissions 80% by 2050.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply 1 - Posted by: Alkyd Resin, 4/28/2008 1:16:07 AM
These goals are beyond unreasonable and should be more properly
called
psychotically irresponsible. Just keeping your house above 50
degrees
in the north for the cold months will exceed your total yearly
allowance of CO2. In the deep south, air conditioning will have to
be
forbidden. No personal travel, no lights, no appliances, no
luxuries.
This will lead into a cascading economic crash that will make the
worst of the Great Depression seem like heaven.
Just 73 days equal 20% of a year. Imagine if what you had for those
73
days had to make do for 365.25 days. What kind of life do you think
you would live? This is what an 80% reduction means.
What kind of demogoguing politician would advocate economic suicide?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply 3 - Posted by: NMPatriot, 4/28/2008 1:31:21 AM
The greens won't be happy until everyone is cold, dead and gray
(except for themselves of course).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply 4 - Posted by: Ad Lucem, 4/28/2008 1:35:02 AM
Round these "greens" up and put them on a island somewhere, where
they
cannot escape and let them live as they want to in the Dark Ages and
their limited life spans will do the world a great deal of good in
the
final analysis!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| V-for-Vendicar |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Reginald Washington" <Liberal'sWorstNightmare@home.home> wrote
Quote: The best that we can hope for is that by the time real money is spent
on these crazy schemes the true nature of the situation will be known.
Ya, the true way. Go shave your head and look for converts at airports
and bus stations. You'll have better luck there.
MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNN |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:19 pm
|
|