Another pathetic negative rant from a poorly informed right-wing blogger. Got any ideas of your own XXL? You want to challenge global warming . . . try me.
I'll go with XXL's link. At least it's humorous. Your arguments are tired, repetitive and too full of "scientific" BS. There are just as many scientific studies showing that man-made global warming is a bunch of crap as the intellectual drivel that you dish out every time the subject comes up. For a smart man, you sure are gullible.
Only that is bullchit! 90% of the objections to global warming are political, not scientific. Just like the link above. If Al Gore agrees then knee-jerk conservatives must disagree. You got no argument so you just try to discredit those who do. Lame, but typical.
interesting that the same groups who preach global warming are the ones who were predicting the next ice age 30 years ago. these kooks always find a man made "problem" that is the next crisis. They get all types of funding for their studies, etc. interesting how they predict the doom and gloom is coming soon enough to get everyone in a panic, but far enough out that when it doesn't come true, no one says "I told you so".
That particular piece was more of a slap at the lemmings in America that willingly gobble up whatever their masters in either political party decide to feed them. I questioned your masters and you bit me just like a good pavlovian dog would. My blog and I am not a right winger. I think for myself. I do apologize for bruising your deity. Had any good strawberries lately? I tried to send you a PM telling you that I had started a blog and I linked Tiger forums on there, but your PM box was full so I posted on your profile page. When I didn't get a response I pulled the link here off. Check out the rest of the posts on the blog, there is some good stuff on there, but be warned, it will raise partisan hackles on both sides.
Pretty much. This has been argued here ad nauseam. You choose to believe that man causes climate changes and I choose to believe the opposite. We can both find plenty of people to support our respective positions. My problem with you is your haughty attitude. You cite your sources as "science and you debunk any opposing source as "political". Truth be known, it's a liberal vs. conservative position. And the liberals see $$ signs.
i think red's occupation is dependent on grants/funding which may have just a little influence on his "scientific" position. its all a load of crap. most people with a logic chip know we cant do shiit about it. hell they (all the worlds geniuses) cant even stop a simple wind tunnel in yankee stadium. we are merely a blip on the earth's radar. but hey, they're about to regulate your home energy usage, tell you what car to drive, who to seek for medical attention and be your banker all in one. they're just looking out for you. deterioration of a republic continues one tile at a time while all the lemmings smile and walk off the cliff with their face firmly embedded in the ass of the one in front.
