global warming

global warming?

  • Is happening and man made

  • Is happening and natural

  • Is not happening, greens are hysterical

  • Is just a distracting ploy

  • Is an attempt to establish a world government.

Results are only viewable after voting.
Stu

Stu

Town Drunkard
Donor
MBTI
.
Enneagram
.
I don't have to explain this, Bill Nye sums it up nicely :)

[video]http://www.smithsonianmag.com/video/Climate-Change-101-With-Bill-Nye-the-Science-Guy.html#ooid=BycjFtNzoNqDj6MomRzoRGsY7DQWue4W[/video]
 
Bunch of god damn liberals on here is why there's so many picking the first option in the poll.
 
Because its true. Just a look at a satellite photo of the Earth at night, seeing all them millions of lights burning up fossil fuels, tells me that were straining the planet to Breaking point.
Consider this that the earth was like a living cell and we a micro organism such as a virus, if we tread lightly on the planet and don't do much damage, the earth will not react to us.
Yet if we spread around the sphere draining the Earth's resources, causing damage and threatening its very own existence through human activity and Global man made warming (like a virus infecting a healthy cell) then that cell or our Earth might have its own anti body defence mechanism, which we can identify as the weather patterns. So the changing Whether would then threaten our own survival, by way of failed crops, rising sea levels more unpredictable and life threatening storms, which would have a drastic effect on the human population and numbers, which in itself would have an immediate effect on global warming.
Of course this would be the planet correcting the imbalance in temperature and co2, but for us it would spell disaster.
So we should be so very careful not to disturb old mother nature, and should show respect to Gaia.
I respect that other people may or may not share these views of mine. Peace.
 
the said:
Bunch of god damn liberals on here is why there's so many picking the first option in the poll.
Click to expand...

how did this become a liberal issue anyhow?
 
Stu said:
how did this become a liberal issue anyhow?
Click to expand...

I imagine because big money doesn't want to shut their factories down or clean up after them. And big money usually is equated with conservatism. So to fight conservativism is just automatically associated with its polar opposite, liberalism. And thats it in a nutshell.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Stu
Basing a scientific fact on a political ideal is why no one will ever do anything about it. That and, as a society, we have the attention span of a goat. There's something to be said for dictatorships/monarchies; it took hundreds of years, spanning several generations to build projects like the Great Wall, Pyramids and Great Library. Put a bunch of diverse people together with lots of "freedom" and we'd be lucky to tie a shoelace in a single lifetime.
 
No option for 'Is happening and is the result of both man-made and natural factors'?
That is what I would pick, but since that is not an option, I will pick natural causes to be annoying.

Though, am I the only person who believes it but also doesn't care about the children and children's children? I will be concerned with what affects me but I don't have much concern for future, not yet existent generations.
 
Humans are part of the natural environment. Sorry to blow everyone's mind.
 
Stu said:
how did this become a liberal issue anyhow?
Click to expand...

The truth has a well-known liberal bias, Stu. Everyone knows that.
 
the said:
Humans are part of the natural environment. Sorry to blow everyone's mind.
Click to expand...

Yes, but we make things that aren't.
Sorry to blow your mind.
 
Lerxst said:
Put a bunch of diverse people together with lots of "freedom" and we'd be lucky to tie a shoelace in a single lifetime.
Click to expand...

If we had the right dictator in place at the moment, all of our environmental problems would be solved… provided said dictator was willing to place their ideology ahead of the economy, and then use force to suppress the ensuing revolt.
 
We are not ready to move on

%newsclimatedeniers.webp
The US newspapers had the largest number of articles in percentage terms (34%) which contained skeptical voices over the period examined, and nearly double the next country which was the UK at 19%. The Chinese newspapers came next with 7% of all articles, although the figures were taken from a low base. India and France followed with roughly 6%, with Brazil last at 3%. So, despite the high number of articles in the Indian and Brazilian press covering the issue, a very low percentage of these included skeptical voices.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top