By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
theprof00 on 25 April 2012
Edit Thread
killerzX said:
theprof00 said:
killerzX said:

that is a fictitious number, there are literaly thousands of scientists that disent from that opinion, and thousands of others, that disagree to but do not publicly say so out of fear of loosing their jobs.

guess what 30 years ago it was a "consensous" that we were headed for an ice age. where did that go.

and there has been scandal after scandal of scientist conspiring, lying, and massaging numbers, and falsely reporting numbers, that i really cant take anything they say seriously.

also, in order for us to fix and reverse course from the global warming they preach about, we would have to completely shut down our economy, revert back to pre-industrial revolution, kill 100's of millions of people, if not billions. we would have to go into a stone age to reverse course. so theres no point, we are all doomed, may as well make the best of it.

 

anyway, in 5, 10, 20, 50 years from now when the earth is still perfectly normal, and global warming still hasnt attacked us, we will all be laughing (at least i will) at this rediculous hysteria. but according to al gore we only have 3 years 276 days before the earth turns into a frying pan. we will see whos right.

Let me guess. You watch fox news....or wait, wait.. you read drudge report.

Oh yes, how could I have been so blind to the one or two sources that are telling the complete truth, right under my very nose!??

And no, we wouldn't have to kill billions of people. There is already work in action to change what's going on. This involves solar power, wind energy, tidal energy (guess who's also against these alternative energies), and lots of other changes. Each change is a slice of the pie, a pie that solves the problem. However, people who are against global warming conspiracies are also against every one of these solutions.

i watch and read all news sources, that includes fox from time to time, i try to get my news from every where and see how networks and sites are reporting suff.

my turn.. let me guess you get your news from msnbc... or wait, wait... John Stewart.

as for the bolded... the democrats. yes the dems, its usually always them that, are stiking down proposals to have green energy. cant have swinds farms miles off the coast... might abscure peoples views. cant have solar fields in the middle of the desert. 

furthermore if you believe those are the solutions, you are sorely naive and mistaken, those arent at all practical or effiecient. they are an incredible waste of time and energy. Something that is clean that should be used, that greenies hate for some reason in Nuclear power. we should be investing in this, but again regulations keep us from doing so.

Source for that? The same happened in Cape Cod here in Massachusetts, but little do people know that Cape Cod has a large republican population.

No, I agree, nuclear power is the best, but I don't see which republicans are the ones who are against it.

However, where I disagree, is that alternative energies are what propelled clean car technology. We can't have a nuclear car now can we. No.

Lastly, the idea that green tech and global warming is a scam bent on destroying the USA is a completely ridiculous and short-sighted theory in itself. The entire world demands green technology, and if we were the ones spear-heading the way and producing everything, why, we'd make a fortune! It's understandable that you lambast global warming. If you had any idea how illogical the arguments against it are you'd be completely for it!