^Just because you don't like Al Gore, it doesn't mean global warming is not a threat.![]()
but really, i do believe that the earth is going through a natural cylce and sure man probably has helped to some degree but not as to the extent that many people want to scare us into believing. afterall while some places on earth are seeing record high temps other places are seeing snow for the first time in decades. whomp whomp whoooommp
all the far left global warming alarmist that want to scare the public are very much like some far left loonies from 30 years ago that said we are all going to freeze to death in another coming ice age due to global cooling....but we all know how that panned out
Yes. that is the problem. People just don't believe it. So let's live the way we do but IF IT HAPPENS DON'T complain but die silently.in the end, if they cant predict the weather 7 days ahead, why the fuck should i believe that they can predict it decades from now?
afterall while some places on earth are seeing record high temps other places are seeing snow for the first time in decades
How narrow minded is that. 30 years are nothing for a climate change, nothing - that it didn't happen the past years doesn't mean we are 'safe' what so ever.
Yes. that is the problem. People just don't believe it. So let's live the way we do but IF IT HAPPENS DON'T complain but die silently.
that is sad cause it just shows that u didn't understand the problems of the climate change. I don't blame u puff since too many don't understand it but well, it's not only a lil snow here and there, believe me that.
better is not the right word 2 describe the situation.
The flooding affected thousands of businesses, tens of thousands of homes and further affected up to a million people. Estimated damages on 23 July 2007 were over £2 billion.
- I'd say that's pretty over the top and insensitive, to be honest. It was bad and yeah it sucked that loads of people died and lost their houses but it wasn't that bad compared to Katrina.The term "British Katrina" has been used to describe the floods.
- damn.The flood waters affected the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Burghfield, which handles Britain's nuclear warheads.
On 21 July, Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service attended 1,800 calls in an 18 hour period. Normally they attend 8,000 in a year.
By 23 July, parts of Worcestershire were under 6 feet (2 m) of water
you missed the point. i was comparing the global cooling alarmist from 30 years ago to the global warming alarmist of today
i think people don't believe the man made global warming but they do believe the earth is going through a cylce. there is no positive proof that man is the main factor in global warming. while there are scientists leading the charge on man made global warming there are scientists that are not and saying there is proof against it. many on both sides are in the pockets or people that are right and left
there is no positive proof that man is the main factor in global warming
From what i understand and know is that the scientists believing in mankind being the main problem, far outweights the number of scientists who dont think so.
Ive seen a documentary on tv a couple of months ago which was pro natural cycle. I think this documentary is well known. After that there was a discussion and the people explained why this documentary is shit, basically. And to me, the reasons they mentioned were good.
WHO TOLD U THAT? I mean, yes I agree, there are some scientists that say the world is going through a normal natural cylce.... but almost every scientist agrees that the man played and plays his role...... and the majority of scientist actually believes that it's men made change we gotta expect.
Who told u there are no proofs?
Let's see what for example the IPCC says (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change)
- Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Most of (>50% of) the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (confidence level >90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
- Hotter temperatures and rises in sea level "would continue for centuries" even if greenhouse gas levels are stabilized[16], although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century
- The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
etc etc. I don't want to go back and forth, read it for yourself if u care. Anyway. How can u say that only a some extremist says there's gonna be a climate change if that is what the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says....?
What kind of proof do u want? If the climate really changed and 80% of the people died or so, would that be proof enough? Before that happens it's all just lies and natural?
I think it's so funny, if it comes to climate people don't believe the experts for some reasons.....when they claimed that Iraq has WMD the people weren't quite as critical.
peace
ask yourself, what kind of scientist does not want to have a debate on issues like these? what kind of scientist calls for people that don't agree with them to have their licenses removed and to be shut up so nobody can hear their opnions?
you hear about more "experts" on the issue that agree with issue of man mad global warming because the media is 80-90% liberally biased.