Yep– reposts should only be for things so funny someone might actually want to read them twice or things so old everyone has forgotten them. This post is neither.
Well I don’t know why I have an article which shows me that global temperature is dropping since 2005?
And let’s take a look from other way.
Can you pull lots of money out of it? Yes.
Is it a good reason to raise taxes? Yes.
Is it a good thing to get extra points at election? Yes.
Therefore, it’s fake.
And there is one more thing… don’t complain it’s getting warmer. Man has nothing to do with it. Yes, polluting is something that’s not good, but we don’t contribute to global warming.
Also. We are returning from last ice age to normal conditions. (that was 500 years ago, mini ice age when temperatures suddenly dropped).
You are also missing out the fact that our sun is the thing that has to say the most when it comes to our weather. It was also proved that earth magnetic field is getting weaker [sarcasm]again, by the fault of mankind[/sarcasm]… Earth magnetic field deflects sun wind, particles from sun, they’re not pleasant thing. Less magnetic field means more of these particles are coming closer and closer to earth and its surface… [sarcasm]and they don’t cause any effect to earth, life, weather or atmosphere[/sarcasm].
First you say that global warming is fake, then you defend your point assuming that it is true.
You contradict yourself, either proving your trolltactics (making your argument essentially invalid) or your sheer stupidity (through reaching an illogically-found conclusion).
1) We know that we are releasing carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere, correct?
2) We know that carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere traps heat, warming up the atmosphere, correct?
3) Therefore, we must be having some effect on the environment, correct?
4) EVEN IF THAT EFFECT IS NEGLIGIBLE, we need to make sure that we control the amount of CO2 that we emit. Because what if we keep putting more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and it begins to have an effect? Or what if we underestimated its effect and found out later that we have been causing global warming on a larger-than-anticipated scale?
You’re basically proving the point that WE DON’T KNOW how much we (humans) effect the global temperature change.
Yes it’s true that CO2 warms the atmosphere, but I’ve seen that the human contribution is something like 3 to 5%. The rest of that 95%+ CO2 emissions come from volcanoes, decaying plant matter, etc. In all likeliness, this is probably a matter of people being vain, thinking that humans can really effect the environment on such a scale. We’re way more likely to run out of fossil fuels long before affecting the global temperature on a non-negligible scale.
“Global Warming” is a scare tactic used by governments and individuals for profit.
I’m not sure if any of you have heard of the East Anglia e-mail scandal, but the data that the THEORY of Global Warming was based on was manipulated and therefore is a FAIL. Since I’m not a scientist, I’m not going to say it is real or not, however before you run around thinking that the Day After Tomorrow is really going to happen, you might want to read a few more articles written by people other than Al Gore.
Also, while the theory originated with a scientist named Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (see http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/10/climate-scientist-warns-political-heat-global-warming-republicans-win/comment-page-1/), it was brought to the US government’s attention about 20 years ago by Harold Lewis (see http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/4926-climate-change-a-pseudoscientific-swindleq) who also was a proponent of Nuclear Winter, of which anyone who has studied Physics or Cold War political theory knows has been mathematically disproven.
Point: If a scientific theory is based on manipulated data and it’s proponents also argue theories that have been mathematically proven, why would you believe it?
1.) You’re an idiot for calling it “THEORY” in the sense you don’t think it’s been proven. It shows you’re using the colloquial definition, and not the scientific one. Scientific theories are explanations based on FACT. If scientists were to use the defintion you claim it to be, it would be called a HYPOTHESIS.
2.) OMG, that article you linked is total crap. Carbon dioxide is not a benign gas. You can prove that it holds heat in just by using two jars (one with normal air, and one with CO2) and some lamps and track how fast they heat up and cool down.
3.) There is no made up data. You need to find better sources of data. The entire “climategate” crap was nothing but quote-mining. Most of the papers that ran with that story have since printed retractions, but no one hears about that.
Point: Theory does not mean what YOU think it means because you’re scientifically illiterate. Get your information from real sources. Read the REAL scientific peer-reviewed articles. There’s a lot more than just temperature to go by. Ice caps are shrinking, plankton populations have taken a nose-dive (that stuff that provides 70% of the earth’s oxygen… yeah, that stuff), etc.
Now, GTFO or STFU because you don’t know enough science to talk about this stuff.
By “scientist” I’m assuming you mean “18 year old undergraduate student with a C average”…
“Global Warming” is a misnomer. The only significant “warming” occurs at the arctic and antarctic regions; the subsequent ice cap melting actually causes slight cooling elsewhere.
You cannot seriously have just said that. The ice cap melting is a direct result of the air becoming warmer. The only possible thing it could cool is the water. Just because one part of the globe gets warmer does not mean the rest has to get cooler. In fact, that’s kind of the point–the entire atmosphere of the Earth is getting warmer.
I don’t believe “narrow-minded” is the correct phrase to use. Instead, I think that those of us who believe that CO2 causes global warming suffer from a severe lack of myopia. It’s obviously true that plants need carbon dioxide to live. The problem is that we are putting so much into the air that the plants can’t absorb it all. On a small scale, plant growth is stimulated, certainly. But on a global scale, plants simply can’t absorb the CO2 at the same rate that we emit it. There’s a point at which the amount by which they are stimulated by extra CO2 becomes less than the amount by which they are stunted from excessive heat.
I dislike your use of ‘we’. We contribute, we are putting, we emit.
We contribute less than 5% of CO2 emmissions that are released into the air. Other 95% + come from processes we can’t stop/terminate/whatever, i.e. volcanic and tectonic activity. SO don’t blame us.
You certainly missed what +150 ppm of CO2 does to plants.
It is also an impossible task to keep earth from cooling (long-term), see the sun.
You are certainly missing the fact that 20ppm of CO2 cause more greenhouse effect than next 400ppm.
+water vapour is worst greenhouse gas.
“18 year old undergraduate student with a C average”
More like graduate student about to receive his MS from Johns Hopkins University (you know, the one that’s one of the best universities in the United States), currently with a 3.875 GPA based on 8 of 11 classes completed (FYI, that’s 7 As, and 1 B), and has been working for Lockheed Martin for several years…
““Global Warming” is a misnomer. The only significant “warming” occurs at the arctic and antarctic regions; the subsequent ice cap melting actually causes slight cooling elsewhere.”
Something tells me you’re as unfamiliar with real scientific journals as Stripes_RL.
So…a student. Yep; that’s already been pointed out, but thanks for the emphasis.
As for real scientists, ask 10 of them and you’ll get 10 different answers. Those students such as yourself that continue to promote this crap with emotion-based tactics are a freakin’ joke.
1) Fact: Scientific method is: observe (e.g. see something you think might be real), hypothesis (e.g.come up with a possible explanation, which is a theory), predict (e.g. your reasoning for why your theory has a given result), experiment (e.g. test the theory). Then you repeat and subject it to peer review. A good example of how theories change over time is the explanation of how the universe was created (and I’m discounted intelligent design and the flying spaghetti monster so please don’t bring those up).
2) Definition of a theory: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory – an analysis of a set of facts and their relationship to each other. Therefore: Global Warming (theory) is based on scientists observation that global temperature averages have increased over a given period of time (an observable fact). Therefore global warming is the THEORY of why global temperature averages have increased over time. This differs in a Law in that it has not been experimented enough by different scientists over a long enough period to be excepted as such.
2) Definition of benign: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/benign. CO2 does not cause significant harm to individuals or the environment in small amounts (anything is toxic in large enough doses, even something like water) so therefore it is a benign gas.
3) I have read the REAL scientific reviewed articles, which is why I stated that I was not going to argue the existence of Global Warming. It’s people like you who “quote-mine” to make themselves feel smart when they argue with someone on the internet. You should read the whole article or statement. I simply used those articles to cite where I got information about two people, which if I didn’t would have been plagiarizing, another fact that someone in the real academic community would have realized.
4) Most real scientists call themselves biologists, physicists, or chemists, since that is their actual profession. I have already stated I do not have any more scientific background except the usual high school courses, plus a few physics, chemistry, biology and mathmatical courses that were either required for one of my two bachelor degrees or I did for fun…if you would care to share your scientific background with us please do. Otherwise you should maybe cite something to back your argument and stop using curse-acronyms. That way you may sound intelligent.
5) Yes, Global Warming most like exists as a real thing. Tell, me, how are you going to prove it is not a part of a billion-year global cycle and a direct result of our pollution instead? Yes, green-house gases most likely are speeding the process up, but I would love to see the case study by a renown climatologist from the last ice age, so if you could provide that to the rest of us we would appreciate it. Until then, please read my statements in full before quote-mining them for your personal gain.
Oh, and Nocturnesthesia. Most likely he is not an 18 year old undergraduate with a C average. He is probably that 40 year old obese, lonely guy on the internet either pretending to be a 16 year old cheerleader while he jerks it to chat rooms or is right now, as we speak, trying to get in some body’s 12 year old son’s transformer underwear.
Global warming is the excuse the Blair/Brown need to tax us even more in a pathetic attempt at hiding how badly they’ve bled the country dry, all the while claiming bogus expenses….Well done scientists! Then just to run salt into the wound, how many of the theories have now been debunked?
The evidence about global warming is not limited to the UK. Here in the US–and pretty much everywhere–there are the same conspiracy theories. How does it make sense that the politicians would want to tax us more for no reason, anyway? The money doesn’t go to the politicians, and none of the people who vote for them want to pay taxes. The only reason taxes would be raised is if the government sees a need that the private sector cannot or will not provide, and the public sector needs to fill the gap.
“How does it make sense that the politicians would want to tax us more for no reason, anyway? The money doesn’t go to the politicians”
Can you honestly really be that incredibly stupid and ignorant at the same time? I mean, I’ve seen a lot of internetz before, but this seriously wins it. God I hope you’re 12.
If I am 12, you must be 11. Even the most self-centered politicians care more about getting re-elected than about making money on the side. Think about what you are suggesting. Are you actually saying that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by thousands of scientists, politicians, and activists simply to make money? That all of these people around the world are calling each other up on the best way to fudge their data? And that everyone who has attempted to investigate this has failed to find a shred of credible evidence? You are clearly young, mistaken, gullible, or merely idiotic. Or some combination thereof.
Wow, I guess ignorance really is bliss, huh? Regardless of your view on global warming, you cannot honestly believe that politicians generally base their votes purely on good intentions and the needs of their people. At the very least, they are influenced by their party and lobbyists (who are heavily influenced by power, and, of course, the almighty dollar).
Interestingly enough, you still seem to have missed my point. What you are ultimately suggesting is that the hypothesis that scientists and government officials around the world–everybody who has looked at the evidence–are lying is more plausible than the theory that the scientists are correct. Think about it. Which is more likely–a global conspiracy such as the one you suggest, or the scientists telling the truth?
You’re suggesting that ‘everybody who has looked at the evidence’ is in agreement about global warming.
This is fundamentally incorrect.
The scientific community is, in fact, incredibly split on this topic and, of course, scientists on each side of the argument believe the other side are wrong.
You can’t use the fact that there is one group of scientists with an opinion on global warming to argue a point when there is another group of equally qualified scientists who refute it.
Whether there is anything to the conspiracy theories is a different matter, but the state of opinion in the scientific community doesn’t tell us one way or the other.
“Just for and giggles, why don’t you give us a list of theories you think have been debunked?” <–How 'bout the theory that you are a credible source of anything?
I’d rather have the Labour government tax me for a non-existent problem(which does exist -.-) than have the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition f*ck the country up by messing up the cuts.
So when Blair and Brown were getting British scientists to fake data for them, how were they getting the scientists in every other country to find the same conclusions?
This girl is confused about what causes climate change.
Without getting into the anthropogenic debate – we know that increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere contributes to global warming. WTF why is she talking about litter?
I contest that when litter biodegrades that eventually it will release methane.. but seriously.. I highly dougt that that’s what she was thinking about.
She probably confused pollution with climate change. She most likely lumped these things together into an earth-unfriendly category in her mind where people who pollute are also the people who contribute to greenhouse gases. She isn’t very inaccurate in that aspect.
But the point is she was referring to those people what environmentally irresponsible.
‘Thank you jerks who litter and contribute to global warming’.
I’d say that this statement could also be interpreted as saying that there is correlation between a person’s propensity to litter and the degree to which they contribute to global warming, without claiming a causal connection between the two.
She’s looking for an excuse to blame it on someone… she can’t accept the fact that the 3 lbs of cow she eats every day is really whats contributing to Global Warming
This post is not a failbook fail; pull your heads out. Any post that even remotely references the almighty “global warming” will garner a rabid flood of comments and attention. You nuts are as Pavlovian as can be, and failbook knows it.
repost
Indeed it is.
Yep– reposts should only be for things so funny someone might actually want to read them twice or things so old everyone has forgotten them. This post is neither.
repost is for losers no matter what, if it’s funny and you want to read it twice do us a favor and refresh the page.
get some new material
Seconded.
Motion Passed. Failbook to get new material.
Yes. Probably something more breathable.
…
…….
…………
What a nice set of comments we have here.
Well played, sir.
sounds like the worst excuse for being unfit haha.. lets blame it on someone else!
Globabl warming is a device invented by the British government used to raise taxes without provoking public outcry.
You’re an idiot.
It was DISCOVERED by many scientists world wide, with much evidence to prove it.
Well I don’t know why I have an article which shows me that global temperature is dropping since 2005?
And let’s take a look from other way.
Can you pull lots of money out of it? Yes.
Is it a good reason to raise taxes? Yes.
Is it a good thing to get extra points at election? Yes.
Therefore, it’s fake.
And there is one more thing… don’t complain it’s getting warmer. Man has nothing to do with it. Yes, polluting is something that’s not good, but we don’t contribute to global warming.
Also. We are returning from last ice age to normal conditions. (that was 500 years ago, mini ice age when temperatures suddenly dropped).
You are also missing out the fact that our sun is the thing that has to say the most when it comes to our weather. It was also proved that earth magnetic field is getting weaker [sarcasm]again, by the fault of mankind[/sarcasm]… Earth magnetic field deflects sun wind, particles from sun, they’re not pleasant thing. Less magnetic field means more of these particles are coming closer and closer to earth and its surface… [sarcasm]and they don’t cause any effect to earth, life, weather or atmosphere[/sarcasm].
First you say that global warming is fake, then you defend your point assuming that it is true.
You contradict yourself, either proving your trolltactics (making your argument essentially invalid) or your sheer stupidity (through reaching an illogically-found conclusion).
What? No he didn’t. He said the global temperature has been dropping since 2005.
Five years is too small of a sample size. How have temperatures changed between the last 150 years and the 150 years before that?
i agree with you.
and it’s called a paradox.
Here’s something to chew on.
1) We know that we are releasing carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere, correct?
2) We know that carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere traps heat, warming up the atmosphere, correct?
3) Therefore, we must be having some effect on the environment, correct?
4) EVEN IF THAT EFFECT IS NEGLIGIBLE, we need to make sure that we control the amount of CO2 that we emit. Because what if we keep putting more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and it begins to have an effect? Or what if we underestimated its effect and found out later that we have been causing global warming on a larger-than-anticipated scale?
You’re basically proving the point that WE DON’T KNOW how much we (humans) effect the global temperature change.
Yes it’s true that CO2 warms the atmosphere, but I’ve seen that the human contribution is something like 3 to 5%. The rest of that 95%+ CO2 emissions come from volcanoes, decaying plant matter, etc. In all likeliness, this is probably a matter of people being vain, thinking that humans can really effect the environment on such a scale. We’re way more likely to run out of fossil fuels long before affecting the global temperature on a non-negligible scale.
“Global Warming” is a scare tactic used by governments and individuals for profit.
+1
Humans really are narcissistic.
We’re coming out of an ice age, at an alarming rate. The speed at which the warming has happened is the concern.
Weather is a bit more complex, but if there’s ONE thing that affects it most, it’s greenhouse gases, not the sun.
If there really is something with the largest influence on the weather it *IS* the sun.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20101015/OPINION03/10150338/1008/Bogus-global-warming-data-hurts-real-scientific-efforts
I’m not sure if any of you have heard of the East Anglia e-mail scandal, but the data that the THEORY of Global Warming was based on was manipulated and therefore is a FAIL. Since I’m not a scientist, I’m not going to say it is real or not, however before you run around thinking that the Day After Tomorrow is really going to happen, you might want to read a few more articles written by people other than Al Gore.
Also, while the theory originated with a scientist named Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (see http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/10/climate-scientist-warns-political-heat-global-warming-republicans-win/comment-page-1/), it was brought to the US government’s attention about 20 years ago by Harold Lewis (see http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/4926-climate-change-a-pseudoscientific-swindleq) who also was a proponent of Nuclear Winter, of which anyone who has studied Physics or Cold War political theory knows has been mathematically disproven.
Point: If a scientific theory is based on manipulated data and it’s proponents also argue theories that have been mathematically proven, why would you believe it?
Correction: my last sentence should have said disproven…I fail
I am a scientist, so I can say this:
1.) You’re an idiot for calling it “THEORY” in the sense you don’t think it’s been proven. It shows you’re using the colloquial definition, and not the scientific one. Scientific theories are explanations based on FACT. If scientists were to use the defintion you claim it to be, it would be called a HYPOTHESIS.
2.) OMG, that article you linked is total crap. Carbon dioxide is not a benign gas. You can prove that it holds heat in just by using two jars (one with normal air, and one with CO2) and some lamps and track how fast they heat up and cool down.
3.) There is no made up data. You need to find better sources of data. The entire “climategate” crap was nothing but quote-mining. Most of the papers that ran with that story have since printed retractions, but no one hears about that.
Point: Theory does not mean what YOU think it means because you’re scientifically illiterate. Get your information from real sources. Read the REAL scientific peer-reviewed articles. There’s a lot more than just temperature to go by. Ice caps are shrinking, plankton populations have taken a nose-dive (that stuff that provides 70% of the earth’s oxygen… yeah, that stuff), etc.
Now, GTFO or STFU because you don’t know enough science to talk about this stuff.
By “scientist” I’m assuming you mean “18 year old undergraduate student with a C average”…
“Global Warming” is a misnomer. The only significant “warming” occurs at the arctic and antarctic regions; the subsequent ice cap melting actually causes slight cooling elsewhere.
Of course, a fellow scientist would know that.
*hands over all the internets she has and will ever have*
You cannot seriously have just said that. The ice cap melting is a direct result of the air becoming warmer. The only possible thing it could cool is the water. Just because one part of the globe gets warmer does not mean the rest has to get cooler. In fact, that’s kind of the point–the entire atmosphere of the Earth is getting warmer.
All people who say that CO2 causes ‘global warming’ are very very narrow minded. And they serioulsy like to get sexually abused from the government.
http://plantsneedco2.org/ I wish you interesting read. Focus on section which mentions climate change drivers.
I don’t believe “narrow-minded” is the correct phrase to use. Instead, I think that those of us who believe that CO2 causes global warming suffer from a severe lack of myopia. It’s obviously true that plants need carbon dioxide to live. The problem is that we are putting so much into the air that the plants can’t absorb it all. On a small scale, plant growth is stimulated, certainly. But on a global scale, plants simply can’t absorb the CO2 at the same rate that we emit it. There’s a point at which the amount by which they are stimulated by extra CO2 becomes less than the amount by which they are stunted from excessive heat.
I dislike your use of ‘we’. We contribute, we are putting, we emit.
We contribute less than 5% of CO2 emmissions that are released into the air. Other 95% + come from processes we can’t stop/terminate/whatever, i.e. volcanic and tectonic activity. SO don’t blame us.
You certainly missed what +150 ppm of CO2 does to plants.
It is also an impossible task to keep earth from cooling (long-term), see the sun.
You are certainly missing the fact that 20ppm of CO2 cause more greenhouse effect than next 400ppm.
+water vapour is worst greenhouse gas.
“18 year old undergraduate student with a C average”
More like graduate student about to receive his MS from Johns Hopkins University (you know, the one that’s one of the best universities in the United States), currently with a 3.875 GPA based on 8 of 11 classes completed (FYI, that’s 7 As, and 1 B), and has been working for Lockheed Martin for several years…
““Global Warming” is a misnomer. The only significant “warming” occurs at the arctic and antarctic regions; the subsequent ice cap melting actually causes slight cooling elsewhere.”
Something tells me you’re as unfamiliar with real scientific journals as Stripes_RL.
Except for college is taught by liberals who are in cahoots with this stuff.
Wow you excel at it.
So…a student. Yep; that’s already been pointed out, but thanks for the emphasis.
As for real scientists, ask 10 of them and you’ll get 10 different answers. Those students such as yourself that continue to promote this crap with emotion-based tactics are a freakin’ joke.
+1 Internet for Kemanorel
1) Fact: Scientific method is: observe (e.g. see something you think might be real), hypothesis (e.g.come up with a possible explanation, which is a theory), predict (e.g. your reasoning for why your theory has a given result), experiment (e.g. test the theory). Then you repeat and subject it to peer review. A good example of how theories change over time is the explanation of how the universe was created (and I’m discounted intelligent design and the flying spaghetti monster so please don’t bring those up).
2) Definition of a theory: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory – an analysis of a set of facts and their relationship to each other. Therefore: Global Warming (theory) is based on scientists observation that global temperature averages have increased over a given period of time (an observable fact). Therefore global warming is the THEORY of why global temperature averages have increased over time. This differs in a Law in that it has not been experimented enough by different scientists over a long enough period to be excepted as such.
2) Definition of benign: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/benign. CO2 does not cause significant harm to individuals or the environment in small amounts (anything is toxic in large enough doses, even something like water) so therefore it is a benign gas.
3) I have read the REAL scientific reviewed articles, which is why I stated that I was not going to argue the existence of Global Warming. It’s people like you who “quote-mine” to make themselves feel smart when they argue with someone on the internet. You should read the whole article or statement. I simply used those articles to cite where I got information about two people, which if I didn’t would have been plagiarizing, another fact that someone in the real academic community would have realized.
4) Most real scientists call themselves biologists, physicists, or chemists, since that is their actual profession. I have already stated I do not have any more scientific background except the usual high school courses, plus a few physics, chemistry, biology and mathmatical courses that were either required for one of my two bachelor degrees or I did for fun…if you would care to share your scientific background with us please do. Otherwise you should maybe cite something to back your argument and stop using curse-acronyms. That way you may sound intelligent.
5) Yes, Global Warming most like exists as a real thing. Tell, me, how are you going to prove it is not a part of a billion-year global cycle and a direct result of our pollution instead? Yes, green-house gases most likely are speeding the process up, but I would love to see the case study by a renown climatologist from the last ice age, so if you could provide that to the rest of us we would appreciate it. Until then, please read my statements in full before quote-mining them for your personal gain.
Oh, and Nocturnesthesia. Most likely he is not an 18 year old undergraduate with a C average. He is probably that 40 year old obese, lonely guy on the internet either pretending to be a 16 year old cheerleader while he jerks it to chat rooms or is right now, as we speak, trying to get in some body’s 12 year old son’s transformer underwear.
Global warming is the excuse the Blair/Brown need to tax us even more in a pathetic attempt at hiding how badly they’ve bled the country dry, all the while claiming bogus expenses….Well done scientists! Then just to run salt into the wound, how many of the theories have now been debunked?
The evidence about global warming is not limited to the UK. Here in the US–and pretty much everywhere–there are the same conspiracy theories. How does it make sense that the politicians would want to tax us more for no reason, anyway? The money doesn’t go to the politicians, and none of the people who vote for them want to pay taxes. The only reason taxes would be raised is if the government sees a need that the private sector cannot or will not provide, and the public sector needs to fill the gap.
“How does it make sense that the politicians would want to tax us more for no reason, anyway? The money doesn’t go to the politicians”
Can you honestly really be that incredibly stupid and ignorant at the same time? I mean, I’ve seen a lot of internetz before, but this seriously wins it. God I hope you’re 12.
If I am 12, you must be 11. Even the most self-centered politicians care more about getting re-elected than about making money on the side. Think about what you are suggesting. Are you actually saying that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by thousands of scientists, politicians, and activists simply to make money? That all of these people around the world are calling each other up on the best way to fudge their data? And that everyone who has attempted to investigate this has failed to find a shred of credible evidence? You are clearly young, mistaken, gullible, or merely idiotic. Or some combination thereof.
Wow, I guess ignorance really is bliss, huh? Regardless of your view on global warming, you cannot honestly believe that politicians generally base their votes purely on good intentions and the needs of their people. At the very least, they are influenced by their party and lobbyists (who are heavily influenced by power, and, of course, the almighty dollar).
Interestingly enough, you still seem to have missed my point. What you are ultimately suggesting is that the hypothesis that scientists and government officials around the world–everybody who has looked at the evidence–are lying is more plausible than the theory that the scientists are correct. Think about it. Which is more likely–a global conspiracy such as the one you suggest, or the scientists telling the truth?
You’re suggesting that ‘everybody who has looked at the evidence’ is in agreement about global warming.
This is fundamentally incorrect.
The scientific community is, in fact, incredibly split on this topic and, of course, scientists on each side of the argument believe the other side are wrong.
You can’t use the fact that there is one group of scientists with an opinion on global warming to argue a point when there is another group of equally qualified scientists who refute it.
Whether there is anything to the conspiracy theories is a different matter, but the state of opinion in the scientific community doesn’t tell us one way or the other.
Why would you want God to be 12?
=WIN=
Just for and giggles, why don’t you give us a list of theories you think have been debunked?
“Just for and giggles, why don’t you give us a list of theories you think have been debunked?” <–How 'bout the theory that you are a credible source of anything?
I’d rather have the Labour government tax me for a non-existent problem(which does exist -.-) than have the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition f*ck the country up by messing up the cuts.
So when Blair and Brown were getting British scientists to fake data for them, how were they getting the scientists in every other country to find the same conclusions?
Beer? ;o)
You must be a Tory and following the example of Cameron and Co by blaming labour for everything and anything whether its true or not
………
This girl is confused about what causes climate change.
Without getting into the anthropogenic debate – we know that increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere contributes to global warming. WTF why is she talking about litter?
I contest that when litter biodegrades that eventually it will release methane.. but seriously.. I highly dougt that that’s what she was thinking about.
She probably confused pollution with climate change. She most likely lumped these things together into an earth-unfriendly category in her mind where people who pollute are also the people who contribute to greenhouse gases. She isn’t very inaccurate in that aspect.
But the point is she was referring to those people what environmentally irresponsible.
1. You had such an intelligent sounding dig until you misspelled doubt.
2. Did you mean contest or concur?
‘Thank you jerks who litter and contribute to global warming’.
I’d say that this statement could also be interpreted as saying that there is correlation between a person’s propensity to litter and the degree to which they contribute to global warming, without claiming a causal connection between the two.
She’s looking for an excuse to blame it on someone… she can’t accept the fact that the 3 lbs of cow she eats every day is really whats contributing to Global Warming
I may have read this somewhere… maybe on the voting page… pity it made it all the way here…
It is a repost.
First person said so.
Second did. He was agreed to twice.
Guy below you also said so, but that was his fault.
this is a repeat post from a few months ago.
Won’t this belong to artoftrolling rather than this submirror of the cheezburger network anyway?
It is a repeat. It was on this site once before. Annoyance! If the readers can recognize repeats, why can’t the staff????
Because they receive way more posts than us, the readers?
Just saying..
Well said. Cookie for you!
This is a Failbook FAIL…..Come on, you have some loyal fans, reposting is never good. Once again, FAIL.
This one’s so old it’s got whiskers.
+1
and liverwarts
Hahaha because all people who sweat are fat, and being fat is like the worst thing evr! Crawl back in your pro-ana hole now plz.
We won’t judge you for saying that, it’s just your type II diabetes talking.
Or maybe the person who commented on her status actually knew who she was and knows that she is overweight.
Or maybe he knew who she was (After all, people tend to know their friends on facebook) and knew that she was overweight.
Usually by now, Failbooker has made 3 to 5 snide remarks calling people idiots for thinking this is a re-post.
… what does littering have to do with exercising??
Er, it’s called summer. And probably a humid one. *sigh*
I blame global warming on all the cows that fart. Kill the cows. Eat beef. Save the planet.
Amen. This Thanksgivin’ I’mma havin’ some beef on the table.
Err…. you probably want to be a little more specific.
I disagree.
I’m getting de javu about this. Anyone else?
Déjà vu.
I suck.
I know this is a repost, because I b!tched about it and shat all over the comments section months ago.
I’ll do it again if I have to.
About everyone having to accept god, or something along those lines, iirc?
No, you don’t have to.
Global warming is not a threat. The #1 threat is Man-Bear-Pig. Global warming is made up.
Are you serial?
So, littering is contributing to the HOAX of global warming?? FAIL.
This post is not a failbook fail; pull your heads out. Any post that even remotely references the almighty “global warming” will garner a rabid flood of comments and attention. You nuts are as Pavlovian as can be, and failbook knows it.