Global warming poll

Does global warming exist?

  • It is a hoax.

    Votes: 35 50.0%
  • No

    Votes: 8 11.4%
  • Yes

    Votes: 15 21.4%
  • It is critical

    Votes: 12 17.1%

  • Total voters
    70
The fact of the matter is, none, and I mean none of you people know a god **** thing for a fact. I think global warming is bullshit for a lot of reasons, but these "facts" you speak of, are nothing more than statements and models from people who work in that field. This statements can be altered, deceiving and down right wrong. But because someone with a degree and some money states these things, the sheep of America, believe it. If you knew everything, then you would know the truth. Now, if and only if global warming could be proven by something like a mathematical equation, then it would have to have at least one true answer. No one in their right mind would try to do so. Now we do know the basics. CO2 + plants = air. For global temperature to change enough to notice, we would have to destroy and prevent the growth of all plants which is next to impossible. The sun gives the earth light and warmth. Sun blows up, we're ****ing dead. The sun is also very hot and I can imagine because of the fusion reactor inside, it's temperature and energy output varies. Common sense tells me it doesn't have a regulated output. Therefore if the Sun changes output or temperature, it affects our planet. GW is nothing more than exploiting a natural thing to make money, push for carbon taxes and make rich people even more money. Put the "facts", "arguments" and bullshit aside and look at this situation. The people that argue till they are blue in the face either know nothing or know they are wrong. The guy that says ok, don't believe me and moves on is usually the guy that is right. All in all, don't be stupid like the media wants you to be, figure the shit out on your own and you will see that we as a species are getting ****ed to make someone rich and powerful. **** Obama. He's a fraud. /post.

 
LOL.....gotta love the liberals.... they'll believe everything they say to each other....

"Gore, hey dude, its July... and I walked outside of my enviromentally clean dirt made shelter to pick up my recycled newspaper.... and it was HOT! Like 95 degrees!... Something ISSSS not right man..... we should look into it!"

"Your right! And lets SPEND billions on paying off these scientists and proving that Global Warming DOES exist, and I DID in fact create the internet!" You see that man! Two birds one stone... Always thinkin!"

 
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE56562Y20090707?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.

Since about half the planet's climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

As it stands now, under the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol, rich countries shoulder most of the burden for cutting the emissions that spur global warming, while developing countries -- including fast-growing economies China and India -- are not required to curb greenhouse pollution.

Rich countries, notably the United States, have said this gives developing countries an unfair economic advantage; China, India and other developing countries argue that developed countries have historically spewed more climate-warming gases, and developing countries need time to catch up.

The study suggests setting a uniform international cap on how much carbon dioxide each person could emit in order to limit global emissions; since rich people emit more, they are the ones likely to reach or exceed this cap, whether they live in a rich country or a poor one.

For example, if world leaders agree to keep carbon emissions in 2030 at the same level they are now, no one person's emissions could exceed 11 tons of carbon each year. That means there would be about a billion "high emitters" in 2030 out of a projected world population of 8.1 billion.

EACH PERSON'S EMISSIONS

By counting the emissions of all the individuals likely to exceed this level, world leaders could provide target emissions cuts for each country. Currently, the world average for individual annual carbon emissions is about 5 tons; each European produces 10 tons and each American produces 20 tons.

With international climate talks set to start this week in Italy among the countries that pollute the most, the authors hope policymakers will look at the strong link between how rich people are and how much carbon dioxide they emit.

"You're distributing the task of doing something about emissions reduction based on the proportion of the population in the country that's actually doing the most damage," said Shoibal Chakravarty of the Princeton Environment Institute, one of the study's authors.

Rich people's lives tend to give off more greenhouse gases because they drive more fossil-fueled vehicles, travel frequently by air and live in big houses that take more fuel to heat and cool.

By focusing on rich people everywhere, rather than rich countries and poor ones, the system of setting carbon-cutting targets based on the number of wealthy individuals in various countries would ease developing countries into any new climate change framework, Chakravarty said by telephone.

"As countries develop -- India, China, Brazil and others -- over time, they'll have more and more of these (wealthy) individuals and they'll have a higher share of carbon reductions to do in the future," he said.

These obligations, based on the increasing number of rich people in various countries, would kick in as each developing country hit a certain overall level of carbon emissions. This level would be set fairly high, so that economic development would not be hampered in the poorest countries, no matter how many rich people live there.

Is this a limousine-and-yacht tax on the rich? Not necessarily, Chakravarty said, but he did not rule it out: "We are not by any means proposing that. If some country finds a way of doing that, it's great."

This week's climate talks in Italy are a prelude to an international forum in December in Copenhagen aimed at crafting an agreement to follow the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. At the same time, the U.S. Congress is working on legislation to curb U.S. carbon emissions.

(Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

So since when is saving the planet a "rich" or "poor" issue? Why is this centered around money?

Who started the global warming mess? The UN. In 1988 they started the IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They used Dr. Micheal Mann's "hockey stick" in 2001 to promote global warming. It has been debunked.

"I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer

is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science" (Dr. Edward Wegman)

Vaclav Klaus (president of the Czech Republic)

"ASKED: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?

Answer translated: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.• "

 
The fact of the matter is, none, and I mean none of you people know a god **** thing for a fact. I think global warming is bullshit for a lot of reasons, but these "facts" you speak of, are nothing more than statements and models from people who work in that field. This statements can be altered, deceiving and down right wrong. But because someone with a degree and some money states these things, the sheep of America, believe it. If you knew everything, then you would know the truth. Now, if and only if global warming could be proven by something like a mathematical equation, then it would have to have at least one true answer. No one in their right mind would try to do so. Now we do know the basics. CO2 + plants = air. For global temperature to change enough to notice, we would have to destroy and prevent the growth of all plants which is next to impossible. The sun gives the earth light and warmth. Sun blows up, we're ****ing dead. The sun is also very hot and I can imagine because of the fusion reactor inside, it's temperature and energy output varies. Common sense tells me it doesn't have a regulated output. Therefore if the Sun changes output or temperature, it affects our planet. GW is nothing more than exploiting a natural thing to make money, push for carbon taxes and make rich people even more money. Put the "facts", "arguments" and bullshit aside and look at this situation. The people that argue till they are blue in the face either know nothing or know they are wrong. The guy that says ok, don't believe me and moves on is usually the guy that is right. All in all, don't be stupid like the media wants you to be, figure the shit out on your own and you will see that we as a species are getting ****ed to make someone rich and powerful. **** Obama. He's a fraud. /post.
Amen!

 
"G-8 cash sought for climate change fund

U.N official: Developing countries need money now to fight global warming

AMSTERDAM - Developing countries need money now to grapple with global warming, and the Group of Eight summit this week could energize troubled climate negotiations if it decided to make "significant" funds available, the top U.N. climate official said Monday.

The focus of U.N. climate talks over the past 18 months has been on an agreement to control greenhouse gases after 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol expires, including cash for developing countries.

But Yvo de Boer, who oversees the talks among 192 nations, says bumping up existing climate funds now would be a "practical, useful, tangible" signal to developing countries that the rich countries are serious about a deal. The accord is due to be completed in Copenhagen in December.

De Boer declined to mention figures, but studies by the World Bank and other institutions suggest between $5 billion and $10 billion a year are needed to help countries deal with changing weather patterns affecting agriculture, fishing and the effects of severe storms and drought. That figure could grow to $100 billion annually by 2020.

Accounts in the World Bank and special U.N. facilities now contain a few hundred million dollars.

Putting money on the table at the G-8 conference in Italy would allow poor countries "to prepare plans to limit the growth of their emissions and adapt to the impact of climate change," De Boer told The Associated Press from his office in Bonn, Germany.

More than 100 countries — many of them among the world's poorest — will suffer severely from climate change, he said.

"If I look at the magnitude of challenge, I think a significant amount would be important," he added.

Chronic hunger

For many of the poorest countries, climate change will mean more erratic and expensive food supplies, Oxfam International said in a report released Monday as a briefing paper for the G-8 leaders.

The British-based charity said chronic hunger may be "the defining human tragedy of this century," as climate change causes growing seasons to shift, crops to fail, and storms and droughts to ravage fields.

It predicted that as weather patterns change, farmers will be forced to abandon traditional crops. Water and food scarcity could lead to mass migration and conflict, it said in a study that found striking similarities across geographic zones.

More than 1 billion people, or about one in six people on earth, go hungry today. Without action, Oxfam said, most of the gains of fighting poverty in the world's poorest countries over the past 50 years will be wiped out, "irrecoverable for the foreseeable future."

Scientists warn that of potentially catastrophic climate change if average global temperatures rise more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) from preindustrial levels. To prevent that, greenhouse gas emissions should peak within the next few years and then rapidly decline by mid-century, according to the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The U.N. climate talks are stuck over demands that the industrial countries commit to specific pollution targets, while the wealthy nations insist that everyone must help limit greenhouse gases. Developing countries have agreed to shift toward low-carbon growth, if the receive technology and funding to help them.

Leaders of other major economies such as China, India and Brazil will join the G-8 leaders when climate change comes up on the agenda during the three-day summit at L'Aquila, Italy.

The big picture

De Boer said he hoped the session would deal with "big picture" issues. Besides financing, those might include fixing a firm pollution target for 2050 and setting an objective for 2020.

"These are the leaders who can make a difference, and this is the time to make a difference," De Boer said.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol required 37 countries to cut carbon emissions by 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2012. But it made no demands on developing countries, which was one reason the United States rejected the accord.

Since then, China has overtaken the United States as the world's largest polluter, and India is rapidly approaching their league. The U.S., in a major policy shift under President Barack Obama, says it wants to be part of the Copenhagen deal.

As part of the negotiations, the industrial countries have been asked to say how much further they will reduce emissions by 2020. Russia became the latest to put up numbers, pledging last week to be 10 percent to 15 percent below 1990 levels.

Environmentalists denounced that target, since Russia's pollution fell dramatically after the fall of communism and the collapse of its economy in 1989. The World Wide Fund for Nature said it would amount to a "significant acceleration" of Russian emissions over the next decade of 2 to 2.5 percent a year.

With the Russian proposal, De Boer said all rich countries except New Zealand have now pledged figures for 2020, and it was time for hard bargaining to begin.

"Countries will begin examining each other's numbers, comparing them with each other, and seeing how they can show the maximum ambition in Copenhagen," he said."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31748671/ns/world_news-world_environment

 
The fact of the matter is, none, and I mean none of you people know a god **** thing for a fact. I think global warming is bullshit for a lot of reasons, but these "facts" you speak of, are nothing more than statements and models from people who work in that field. This statements can be altered, deceiving and down right wrong. But because someone with a degree and some money states these things, the sheep of America, believe it. If you knew everything, then you would know the truth. Now, if and only if global warming could be proven by something like a mathematical equation, then it would have to have at least one true answer. No one in their right mind would try to do so. Now we do know the basics. CO2 + plants = air. For global temperature to change enough to notice, we would have to destroy and prevent the growth of all plants which is next to impossible. The sun gives the earth light and warmth. Sun blows up, we're ****ing dead. The sun is also very hot and I can imagine because of the fusion reactor inside, it's temperature and energy output varies. Common sense tells me it doesn't have a regulated output. Therefore if the Sun changes output or temperature, it affects our planet. GW is nothing more than exploiting a natural thing to make money, push for carbon taxes and make rich people even more money. Put the "facts", "arguments" and bullshit aside and look at this situation. The people that argue till they are blue in the face either know nothing or know they are wrong. The guy that says ok, don't believe me and moves on is usually the guy that is right. All in all, don't be stupid like the media wants you to be, figure the shit out on your own and you will see that we as a species are getting ****ed to make someone rich and powerful. **** Obama. He's a fraud. /post.

Of course you got it right there.... Obama invented the "fake" global warming to get rich. Really //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif:laugh:

Our planet over millions of years goes through temperature changes, I'm sure if we were around when the ice age began taking affect then similar steps/theories would be taken. Global warming isn't a short term thing and it isn't bullshit that our ice caps are melting faster and faster every year.

 
Scam.
ETA - Even if it is warming, its not because of humans.
1998 was the "hottest year" (on what chart I do not know LOL) but its been getting colder since. I have heard of lectures about global warming but never a real debate with any scientists that carry weight.

http://www.heartland.org/suites/environment/LetUsDebate.html

Funny part is the rhetoric has all "changed" to climate change, and countries complain about warming still even though its getting cooler.

Anyone notice how the UN, Hugo Chavez and Obama called the Honduras happening a military coup? Their "president" broke their constitution by running again. The Honduras supreme court even said he couldn't before he ran and all their military is doing is upholding their constitution....Chavez wants his patsy in power, the UN ignores a countries sovereignty and I guess Obama doesn't hold any constitution in high regard.

 
The weather has alot to do with the atmosphere and the sun. Like already stated we are in a cooling period with little solar activity on the suns surface. Believe it or not that does influence our atmosphere. Weather has got wild lately I do agree, but there was a dramatic change in the atmosphere. Central Alabama got 6 inch of snow early this year. CO getting pounding by above average tornadoes.

Global warming is some bullshit brought up by the dems to find another way to increase taxes on certain things we want. Big government (dems) want to tax tax tax tax and tax some more. If global warming was true, our stratosphere, mesoshpere and thermosphere would see a major change resulting in many issues with the troposhere in which we live. Basically the atmosphere below the Karman line (bounds of orbit). Just a FYI, so **** what everyone says.

 
Of course you got it right there.... Obama invented the "fake" global warming to get rich. Really //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif:laugh:
Our planet over millions of years goes through temperature changes, I'm sure if we were around when the ice age began taking affect then similar steps/theories would be taken. Global warming isn't a short term thing and it isn't bullshit that our ice caps are melting faster and faster every year.
Ice caps actually grew and polar bears are at over 2 times their population in the late 70's. World Wildlife Foundation is locking out anyone from speaking at their climate change shin dig who brings up the actual population numbers. They want you to see them on pictures and movies they take floating in the ocean....Can't waste a good fake crisis to grow government. Obama isn't getting rich off this global warming Al Gore is!

 
Of course you got it right there.... Obama invented the "fake" global warming to get rich. Really //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif:laugh:
Our planet over millions of years goes through temperature changes, I'm sure if we were around when the ice age began taking affect then similar steps/theories would be taken. Global warming isn't a short term thing and it isn't bullshit that our ice caps are melting faster and faster every year.
No where in there did I say Obama was the cause. I just don't like the stupid a$$hole. The governments around the world will get rich if a Global Carbon Tax is applied.

In bold. I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the earth is getting hotter or colder, but have you been to the ice caps? Have you seen this for yourself? Probably not, you're just going on these "facts" that are spoon fed to you. Do you think that the earth is always supposed to stay at certain temperatures? We've had Ice ages and meltdowns, how in the **** is it always supposed to stay the same?

 
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...

About this thread

jmanpc

5,000+ posts
CA.com Nostalgist.
Thread starter
jmanpc
Joined
Location
Jacksonville, Fl
Start date
Participants
Who Replied
Replies
70
Views
1,560
Last reply date
Last reply from
Grinder1989
IMG_20260513_214311575.jpg

ThxOne

    May 13, 2026
  • 0
  • 0
IMG_20260513_213956814.jpg

ThxOne

    May 13, 2026
  • 0
  • 0

New threads

Top