Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Rob Valentine
524 Followers
MrGogu123abc
1573 Followers
Pokerkidas
362 Followers
abedin050685
426 Followers
Pepsi Driver
42 Followers
thapamisakta
457 Followers
timmark123
404 Followers
isenborgMay 25, 2011
Silly scare tactics to herd Americans in the "proper" direction. Sad really.
jagedlionMay 25, 2011
Yes, the few degrees of temperature change are really going to affect our wifi transmissions....
I dunno about you guys, but my wifi only works in the winter.
Closed AccountMay 25, 2011
It is THIS kind of s**t that gives ammunition to doubters.
id77May 25, 2011
we are called "Deniers"...
feedthemindMay 25, 2011
more like "Idiots"
ninhMay 25, 2011
That's the quality of "science" the AGW hoax rests upon. Behold and laugh your asses off.
partrowMay 25, 2011
Buried for "climate change", as always.
donniehoward08May 25, 2011
I guess I will stop with the greenhouse gasses and pollution so I can play Angry Birds anywhere I please.. thank you planetgreen for opening up our eyes!
tatsuayaMay 25, 2011
what is climate change ?
bieno002May 25, 2011
The earth has gone through climate cycles and changes throughout its existence. It gradually warms until the ice caps melt off enough to disrupt the climate and gradually cause an ice age. Once enough of the earth is covered in ice the sunlight reflecting off it gradually warms the atmosphere and warms the earth, and the cycle is repeated. Are you going to tell me that around the last ice age that the warming preceding it was caused by carbon emissions? There is no evidence that proves that the climate's warming, if it is indeed going to continue warming, is being caused by humans or just the natural cycle of earth's climate. However, we do need to start weening ourselves from fossil fuels simply for the fact that they won't be around forever, but not because if we continue to use them for 30 years it will somehow become hell on earth. It has just become a buzzword for politicians and lobbyists to use to influence people.
jewfro297May 26, 2011
And to add to that, the greenhouse effect would not even be increased much at all if we burned every bit of oil on earth at once. Carbon dioxide makes up less than .04% of the atmosphere. Venus's atmosphere is 92% more dense than that of the earth's, and is 98% carbon dioxide. The temperature on Venus is only around 30 times that of earth, and it is also 50 million KM closer to the sun. If carbon dioxide had as much of an effect on temperature as politicians say it does, Venus would be much hotter than it is.
bieno002May 26, 2011
Great point, I knew that the earth's atmosphere had very little carbon in it but didn't know the numbers.
peepnklownMay 25, 2011
I like how they call it ‘climate change’ like the climate does not change naturally during Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter.
darthseussMay 25, 2011
"Climate" and "weather" aren't the same thing.
rizal_prastyMay 27, 2011
good wi-fi
yawar333May 25, 2011
Nyc One .......atleast see my blog too thnkx
id77May 25, 2011
this is a new low, until when people will put up with this so cal "science".
Wake up people, follow the money and see who is behind theses "studies" and "research". these are the same people that in the 70's warned us about the incoming Ice age.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
garryfieldsMay 25, 2011
No they're not.
immunofortMay 25, 2011
But all the climatologists in the world are in the pockets of green tech companies!
/s
immunofortMay 25, 2011
It is quite sad when uneducated people choose to ignore warnings given to them by more knowledgeable people out of sheer ignorance. I could understand skepticism, but outright denials and claims of a conspiracy? Don't forget your tinfoil hat.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Now they don't give you a whole lot of in-depth information on that page but if the organisation that managed to put humans on the moon says.
As you say follow the money .... what money? what does NASA or any other organisation have to gain from making up stories about climate change?
id77May 25, 2011
U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming
The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973) - Washington, D.C.
Author: By Victor Cohn; Washington Post Staff Writer
Date: Jul 9, 1971
"The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts. Dr. S. I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Columbia .."
you can research the rest online by yourself, im not going to make ur homework for you.
wanna see where the money is:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663
this is the scenario
Start a business that would cash in "green tech" and "green services" such as carbon trade, then scare the world into thinking everything will change, that this is about to happen and if we dont do anything about it will all go to hell in a hand basket.
DO you know what propaganda is?? How the media and public opinion is manipulated?
and even if was true, and we humans are causing the climate to change (which is such arrogance that makes me sick) and we decided to stop everything and go to an Victorian age again, how long until the climate would come back top "normal"? i've seen figures on the 900 years, the fact is, they don't know. And if u think that money is not in play in this, you are a fool, im sorry for the name calling, but there is no other way to describe it.
immunofortMay 25, 2011
Right, so some person wants to make a company in green tech and starts rumors around the whole world, and has thousands of scientists in their pockets just to make a quick buck? If thats the case then why don't oil companies, who are worth billions, who have a lot to lose debunk this climate change beyond beyond reasonable doubt? Even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists changed their stance on climate change in 2007.
Even IF there is are a lot of people making huge amounts of money and have a vested monetary interest in making sure that climate change theory stays, there still exists all the scientific data that you cannot refute with a simple claim of "They're making loads of money from climate change!"
And your so called "proofs" are laughable, take a look at the sources "NewsBusters - Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias" .... yeah I'm not even going to bother taking them seriously. If thats the so called "proof" you have then its pretty weak. They're so focused on attacking the human and monetary side of the argument and completely ignore the scientific evidence. Give me an article from a credible scientific peer reviewed journal, and then i'll take you seriously.
I'm admit that the climate change theory could be wrong, but given all the evidence for it, its stupid to think otherwise. Are you a scientist working in the climate field? No? You are analogous to a potato farmer telling a Immunologist that his theories on how the immune system works is wrong, and that the immunologist is just trying making it all up so that vaccine companies can make a lot of money from selling their product.
You are an idiot if you think climate change is a big conspiracy. I suppose you also think that the illuminati is real right?
immunofortMay 25, 2011
And another reason why the "money" argument is so retarded is that pretty much every event has the possibility of people making money from it. Wars? Gun, vehicle, ship manufacturers. Global recession? Gold investors. Any natural disaster? Construction companies. etc.
id77May 25, 2011
You are right, I'm not a "climate scientist", I don't have data or studies like they do ( I could manipulate some data to prove my arguments like they did, does climate gate rings a bell?), but I know a scam when I see one, I don't think is a conspiracy, is just plain greed and arrogance. What u call irrefutable data is not fact and is open to debate, the whole world is yet to drink the cool-aid, this scam is being put in place to stifle the growth of emerging countries and to control all you sheep.
Yes, call me a nut job, trow conspiracy theory in the mix, I don't care, I see the world as it is, and I don't swallow everything that they try to feed me.
Question everything my friend, and you will see the true world.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
immunofortMay 25, 2011
If you actually knew anything about climategate you would know that investigations were made and that there were no scientific misconduct to be found. And regardless of that, it was only a single group. Do you really think that every single climatologist in the world is in on the conspiracy?
Oh that data is actually up for debate? How do you know? are you a climatologist? Oh wait no you're not! You have no idea about the strength of the data because you're not a scientist. Admittedly I don't either, but there are tens of thousands of people around the world who do, and who have reviewed the data. Again, you purport to know have to have knowledge on this climate data, but you're just an idiot who holds himself in high esteem.
I call you a nut job because you are a nut job.
DavidM01May 25, 2011
http://www.qando.net/?p=10156
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
Some recent people to see the light.
If you believe that A causes B, then B stops happening even in the presence of A, then A DOESN'T cause B. ( A = Co2, B = Rising temperatures ).
And by cause I mean in a significant way. My breath warms the earth to some minuscule degree, but it won't cause the earth to become Arrakis.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
immunofortMay 25, 2011
TBH I just dismissed the first link as soon as I saw it because I didn't consider the site to be very reliable.
Your second link however I'll admit gives some credibility to the claims that climate change isn't as dangerous as some make it out to be.
However a few guys saying that global warming isn't that big a deal versus the thousands, if not tens of thousands of people qualified to speak on the matter isn't really much proof. You're always going to have some people that speak out against what the masses are saying.
Do you really think scientists were just like "Oh hey theres lot of CO2, and temperatures are rising! It must be the CO2 making temperatures rise, lets not carry out any experiments or anything of the sort and just sit on our lazy asses and assume that correlation = causation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
It's not that hard to understand.
DavidM01May 25, 2011
Its also not hard to understand there is a lot we don't know and cannot capture in a computer model. Human beings cause changes but to assume they are (1) automatically destructive or that (2) nature doesn't adapt to those changes, is quite misguided.
immunofortMay 25, 2011
Fair enough. I'm just saying I'm choosing to believe in what the majority are saying is correct. I'll admit they could be wrong, they could be grossly overestimating the effects of global warming. There is no way we're going to prove or disprove global warming in a small comments section given scientific evidence. And as I said before, the scientists could be wrong. However my main point arguing against id77 is that its stupid to think that there is some huge conspiracy theory and that the scientists are part of the plot.
JerseyBlakeMay 25, 2011
when you said 'tethered' I lol'ed to myself a little
Closed AccountMay 25, 2011
why?
JerseyBlakeMay 25, 2011
Tether. Wi-Fi. Did that go over your head?
waresMay 25, 2011
Give you one proof? How about this one? http://bit.ly/iz99zW
It shows how reputable SCIENTISTS colluded to pull off a trick in the data and make Global Warming seem real.
Honestly, if you are still touting Climate Change as real and not just goofy entertainment now you have to have been under a (socialist) rock for the last 3 years!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
immunofortMay 25, 2011
That is not proof that climate change is a lie. It is only proof of a few bad eggs skewing data in order to support their claims.
If Richard Dawkins skewed some data in order to further support evolution in order to further his argument, does that automatically mean evolution is a lie? It may make you question his integrity as well as any other evidence he had submitted, but it doesn't undermine any of the thousands of studies that have been done worldwide.