Quoted: RIIIIIGHT and all the companies against the global warming theory, for them it's not about money. They do it for the noble truth!
Read the article again, it's not saying Global warming does'nt exsist all it says is that pollutants may slow it down. SO WHAT? SO well be colder and all have Emphasema? Yippie! And again people don't understand science because they are ignorant. A perfect example is the concept of "pollution" One creatures pollution is anothers paradise! For example suppose you had a lake that had human waste in it and was declared "poisoned" with a sign and had dead fish floating ETC ETC. Does that mean the lake is devoid of life? Not at all, All it means is that there is an imbalance that causes all around ecological disaster. But guess what? some of the creatures in the lake are loving it! The Micro-fauna & Flora that thrive on human waste are having a good old time! they are so populous they have crowded out all the small plants and other micro life, that leads to the death of the small fish, which leads to the starvation of the large fish. They are so numerous they consume all the oxygen and fill the pond with Co2. therefore all the O2 breathers die. The excess of CO2 causes most plants to die off. This causes all the insects nearby to flee or die. All amphibians will die as well. And of course any human being who swims in the water will either die or become ill as he ingests the little nasty critters. But in the end someone could come along and claim "The lake is teeming with life" and he would'nt be lieing. Or he could say that everything in the lake is "found normally in nature" and he'd also be right. The nasty critters are natural as is human poop But the lake is still polluted and that asshole is trying to fool you from your lack of knowledge about the enviroment.
|
See what I mean... Talk about human poop and excess CO2 production. Comic book environmentalism.
blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa, blaaa.
ETA:
We are supposed to take global warming proponents seriously?
Global warming proponents like the NYTs who’s stated position is no contrary evidence should be allowed to be heard… so they will not report any contrary evidence.
Global warming proponents who have been caught falsifying data, who ignore data that is contrary to the orthodoxy.
Global warming proponents who use computer models to predict future events… computer models that when run backwards do NOT coincide with know data. Here is a clue… a computer model that when run backward in time that does not give results equal to the know history is WORTHLESS for predicting future events.
Global warming is pseudo-religious junk science... if global warming is happening humans did not cause it and cannot effect the outcome one way or another. Pseudo-religious dogma disguised as science that is no more science than INTELLEGENT DESIGN.