I think I found the proof you were looking for
http://www.anthonynotes.com/wp-conte...00-300x225.png

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Exactly. Here is a better example of a great correlation:

Per capita consumption of cheese (US)
correlates with
Number of people who died by becoming tangled in their bedsheets

http://i.imgur.com/N4YfC8W.png

:1orglaugh

More awesome correlations here: http://www.tylervigen.com/

Quebec is not Canada. If the Quebec government wants to ban it then that is there business. The other provinces can make their own decisions on it and you, and the rest of Quebec, can keep your noses out of the business of other provinces.

Quebec is the most leftist, socialist and corrupt jurisdiction north of Cuba and the less influence it has on the rest of the country the better.

Not true. CO2 was declared a pollutant. The EPA lumped carbon dioxide with five other gases -- methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride -- into a single class for regulatory purposes. That's because they share similar properties: All are long-lived and well-mixed in the atmosphere; all trap heat that otherwise would leave the earth and go into outer space; and all are "directly emitted as greenhouse gases" rather than forming later in the atmosphere.

Hopefully not. There are plenty of green alternatives.


I'm not a hypocrite. I don't want tracking anywhere, not in Canada and not in the US, at least not in its current highly unregulated state. The council of Candians is calling for a country-wide halt on fracking operations. , and the practice has also been banned in Quebec. Read http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/what-is...sial-1.1505246


The EPA is, By Law, making the coal industry reduce emissions so that you and your future kids can breathe. IF the price of coal goes up, isn't it worth the price? And you do know that not all of your electricity comes from coal, right? In the US, only 37% of electricity comes from coal. 93% of electricity in Kentucky comes from Coal, which is very disturbing. Kentucky can do like the rest of the world, and and balance their own power grid out by getting electricity from other sources including renewable energy. They have over 15 years to make it happen.

There are plenty of reasons why things change. The Sarah desert changed because of the Earth's Orbit around the sun: http://www.messagetoeagle.com/greensahara.php

The change occurring on the earth today is caused in part at least, by man.

The cool thing is, we can do something to stop this change from making things worse.

Peace.

**********, should "WE" Americans do this before or after we spend $20 trillion on the solar roadway you want us to buy?

I certainly trust your judgement. :1orglaugh

Oh look, a bottom runger tried to make a funny




And failed

Not by law, son, and not so my children can breath. My children breath just fine now and despite the hysteria you've bought into, our air has gotten cleaner and cleaner.
Oh, and the 39% of our energy derived from coal is the largest amount derived from any source.
Here amongst the intelligent we understand that you can't magically replace 39% of your energy output with another source. Especially since nuclear isn't on the table.

I'm sure that you, American hater that you are, applaud this because it weakens us but let me clue you in, we've had enough of the idiot left. These standards will be blocked by people with common sense.

Just because they declare it a pollutant does not make it so. If they declared oxygen a pollutant would you believe them then too? The only reason they declared it a pollutant is to help drive their leftist agenda forward. It's bullshit.

I hope all of you agitators and alarmists are around in 5 to 10 years when all of this is revealed for the nonsense that it is. You should all be sent to live in caves without any of the modern comforts and amenities currently provided to you by the emissions of the harmless trace gas CO2.

Dude, they HAVE been here 10 years after Al Gore told them there would be no more polar ice cap.
They don't care if they're wrong, they just move in to the next idiot idea.
It never matters to the idiot left that facts aren't on their side

I just can't believe that people of intelligence are believing this crap.

"Climate Change" happens NATURALLY.

Mankind is a flea on the ass of the Earth.

And scientists with agendas have been making these kind of predictions for a while.

Did you know:
That in 1970 Daniel Patrick Moynihan advised Pres. Richard Nixon that scientists said that IF the U.S. did not IMMEDIATELY address the "problem" that by the year 2000...New York, Washington D.C. , Los Angeles would all be underwater?

Doesn't that sound familiar to the same exact bullshit they are saying now?

Only it's 2014. And not one inch of any of those cities are underwater.

Oh, and by the way...in the later part of the 1970's those SAME scientists claimed that mankind was bringing on an ICE AGE.

What a crock of shit.

So the rest of the country has to suffer with bad air quality so Kentucky & West Virginia can destroy entire mountain sides and mountain tops digging out coal? Perhaps if these states did things to attract investors and did things to encourage people to work in new industries they might not be in this situation.

Both of those states are like the Welfare queens whom have 5 kids to get govt substitutes.. They do nothing to advance their states and just expect the govt to give them handouts. Why is it bootstraps never apply to states that are welfare queens?

There are places around the world that are flooding. Also it's not just "some scientist with a mysterious agenda" as you say but almost all scientists.. The most ironic thing about your sentence is the very few scientists whom think global warming is a fairytale more than often have ties to big oil & gas. Meaning there is a higher percentage of deniers with a hidden agenda than those that agree it's real.

Holy Christ! Someone alert Noah! Tell him the first flood in history is coming!


I love when you guys get home from the day job with your $30k a year insight into the world.:1orglaugh

Just get home from the roofing job did ya?

Awwwww, does that make the hurt of your failure feel better?:1orglaugh

Crockett...no pun intended...but that's a crock!

There are NO places that are permanently underwater from global warming.

And it was never a "mysterious agenda" from ONE scientist. It's ALWAYS been a group of scientists who are on the payroll of companies with the agenda.

Scientists prove what they are paid to approve. Otherwise they go from having big funding and grant money...to nothing.

I've shown you that over the last 40 years they have claimed the same things and then contradicted themselves and now they are back to their 1970 claims again.

I'm sorry, but the entire East Coast of the U.S. did not end up submerged by the year 2000.

And it won't be submerged in the year 2100 either.

If and when it ever happens...it will be because of a huge change in the Earth that mankind has no power of changing or stopping. And it definitely won't be because of CO2

I've already posted before that NEW data is showing that the ocean is now consuming all the excess CO2 and the levels are dropping.

Doesn't have a damn thing to do with Mark Prince getting a chevy volt either. :1orglaugh

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

in your garage, start you car ... and breathe ... come and tell me later how you feel ....


NOTE: he does not have a car and obviously no garage ... he can use the one of his mommy tough ...

You do realize that is carbon MONOXIDE. Not carbon dioxide. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Why are you always so argumentative and one sided? One sided to the point you will take a statement out of context just to make a point and troll.

Please show us the scientist s whom are on a payroll with an agenda. You seem to know a lot about it, so how about some names and proof? or is this just more fox news hearsay.. (most probable answer)

Also it doesn't have to be permanently underwater to be uninhabitable. It's called rising tides due to the water expanding as the average ocean temperature increases and extra volume due to melting poles.

Islands around the world are already seeing the damage and they of course are on the front lines. But of course because you don't believe it, it must not be happening.

Of course he doesn't.
He's one of the great unwashed idiots that politicians count on

yes , but he should still try it ...

I think we should open new plants just to produce CO2 , as it is a healthy element of our planet :2 cents:

Australia introduced a carbon tax and to be honest, I have no idea what it has done for the environment, all I know is that it has increased my power costs.

Now it looks like power is set to be deregulated - so all Australians are now bent over clenching awaiting the astronomical prices that are going to become a reality...

And there it is... your knee-jerk bullshit reaction. Fox News. Really? Again?

Why don't YOU link me to info showing that the oceans have risen and flooded anywhere on Earth due to "global warming"?

And which "islands around the world" are you talking about?

Crockett, you're dead wrong on this.

And as for scientists being on payrolls and reporting what they are told...isn't that EXACTLY what you far left people claimed about scientists in the past who were on oil company payrolls?
And now that scientists are on the payrolls of companies looking to cash in on "green energy" you suddenly believe that scientists just magically get money from thin air and don't answer to their boss?

You need to rethink this with some logic.

And AGAIN...the data you are using has already been shown to be wrong. All the data is based on computer models that were using WRONG data.
The new models are taking the new data of the ocean absorbing the CO2 into account.

And guess what? Global warming ain't gonna happen because of CO2.

Now what's your answer to that?

Or are you going to take your info from MSNBC? And of course if you don't believe the new data...then it isn't true!
(Doesn't feel good to have some asshole insult your intelligence like that does it? Then maybe you should stop doing it to me)

Because I get tired of seeing the results of the great dumbing down of America here on these forums.

No, you get tired of people not seeing things exactly like you do.

Goodnight.

So what you are telling me is that you have no scientist names and how they are linked to some massive conspiracy to make some unkown people rich.. Instead you try to charge the argument in order to avoid answering the simple question.

Meanwhile I will provide you with a research paper that links almost all climate denial to funding from big oil, gas and friends..

http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/...%20Change.ashx

btw that link comes from here.. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...denial-effort/

I'll be holding my breath for similar proof that shows the thousands of scientists from all around the world are linked to some great conspiracy to steal everyone's money..

It's hard to ignore the truth when on one side of the argument there are actual scientist saying something, but on the other side of the argument all the naysayers are political, and big business groups with a actual agenda.

I find it very odd that these political groups and big business are directly linked with IRS data showing the funding on the denial front, yet you guys whom swing right ignore it.Yet believe there is some great conspiracy on the side of actual scientist whom have no money to be made or political goal.

So I'm asking if you guys are so sure of your self, proof it. I just proved the links to big oil with deniers. So do the same prove that scientist whom support global warming are in some giant conspiracy..

You guys just repeat bullshit that never has any proof and you ignore actual proof that shows you are wrong. That is the dumbing down of America and I'm tired of seeing it. I'm not going to compromise with willful ignorance.

Perhaps you should just read this article:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...78462813553136

The entire MYTH that most scientists agree on mankind causing climate change is pretty much based on the opinions of 79 scientists who were surveyed.

You really do fall for anything that you read on leftist propaganda don't you?

You have spent the last couple of posts insulting me and several others and suggesting that YOU are somehow smarter than I am.

I don't think so. And many of the things you have typed have led me to believe that you are the perfect mark for the leftist machine: You seem gullible, naive, and ready to believe whatever you are told without even looking for or listening to dissenting viewpoints.

You have been shown over and over in this discussion that the world goes through climate change on it's own. You have seen graphs showing CO2 levels and Earth temps throughout history and can see with your own two eyes that it had no effect. I have told you that new data has made all the computer models from 10 years ago obsolete.

And with all of that...you STILL parrot the tired old bullshit being put out by green energy cronies of the administration.

And the whole time you do that...you accuse me and others of listening to "Fox News" for our information.

No Crockett...some of us have the ability to use our brains. Some of us have the ability to do things like simply google up: scientists who do not believe in man made climate change

You have mental blinders on and refuse to see ANYTHING that goes against what you have been conditioned to believe.

It's frustrating to me that you are not alone. Too many people who are easily influenced, like you, are helping to ruin our country.

So I give you a research paper with real stats that can be confirmed if you would pull your head from your ass and actually read it and for your proof you give me a opinion piece on a website...

You then claim the whole thing is just made up by 79 scientist and we are supposed to believe that just about every scientist in the world decided to go along with what ever these 79 scientist said..

So lets think about this real hard.. like it was a 9/11 conspiracy..

Does it sound realistic to you that 97% of the world's scientists have all agreed to follow these mysterious 79 scientist blindly, for no apparent reason other than to make Al Gore rich..

Or that they actually have as most of us have seen and produced scientific data that backs up their claims?

Meanwhile on the denial side of the argument the only proof is the argument that CO2 has been high in the past.. However what you seem to not be able to understand, is when CO2 was high it was during times of massive volcanic eruptions and life was extinct as we know it.

Have you seen many super volcanoes going off lately Robbie? Have yo seen any rapid influx of volcano activity which would correspond with the rapid increase of CO2. No? of course not, so I guess it must be because of cow farts right?

Hey look here on NASA.gov http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus they even offer up sources. However the number is 97% of scientist not 79 individuals..

Still you can not offer up any actual source to show that there is a massive conspiracy to fool everyone into giving all their money to Al Gore.

Yet, on the denial side it's been shown time and time again, that everything links right back to big oil and friends.

I'm sick of playing games of being politically correct and I'm sick of watching my country be turned into a idiocracy by the right wing. Every time you guys start preaching your made up Fox facts about global warming I'm going to hound you on it, because you have no evidence or scientific study to back anything up, just political talking heads whom bow to big oil.

Crockett... Pres. Obama himself quoted that bullshit 97% figure that his team got from that survey of 79 scientists.

Use your brain. Think for yourself for once.

I even showed you that your exalted and loveable and NEVER greedy scientists told Pres. Nixon back in 1970 that the entire east coast would be underwater by the year 2000.

And then a few years later...those same scientists claimed that we were going into an Ice Age!

If you had been old enough at that time in the 1970's, I believe you would be telling all the "deniers" that they were so dumb for not believing it then.

Can't you see this is another money grab?

And fuck you about "Fox News". You keep insulting me personally? It shows how fucking dumb you really are.

You can't answer my questions about the graphs you have been shown. You can't explain how on Earth the infallible scientists could have been SO wrong in the 1970's.
You REFUSE to acknowledge that the computer models from the late 1990's/early 2000's are completely WRONG because they did not take into account what the ocean is doing by absorbing all the CO2.

Basically you are turning a blind eye to everything that doesn't go along with your spoon-fed extreme-leftist bullshit.

You have a nice day crockett. I've tried to have a sensible discussion with you and not ridicule you as 12clicks does.

But apparently that's the only way to talk to you. You're like talking to a fencepost.

Robbie how is it you are so hyper critical about things like these so called 79 scientist, when it's pretty obvious way more than 79 scientist agree that man has speed up global warming.

Yet you totally ignore all the points I made about big oil being linked to funding your precious deniers. You nit pick and cherry pick everything possible to try to make your point, yet you totally turn a blind to the 700lbs gorilla in the room, which is the entire argument from the denial standpoint is bought and paid for by big oil and friends.

It just goes right over your head and you speak of blinders yet you never take yours off.

BTW who gives a shit about what Obama said.. It's what scientist say that matters. Global warming is not a political issue, it's a issue about survival of the human species. Obama is only a policy maker that can help steer the ship..

Get over the political aspect and your I hate everything Obama does, because it's Obama..

crockett, I don't "hate" Obama. He's a bureaucrat who like all of them is super busy making money for his associates.

Of course the oil companies have scientists. And so do the green energy guys.

Put YOUR politics aside for a minute.

Explain the graphs I showed you.
Explain the NEW data on the ocean absorbing the CO2 which NEGATES the old computer models that bureaucrats are using to buy and sell "carbon credits" for huge money.

Stop trying to make everything political and use your fucking brain.

So I guess it's just completely random that scientist paid by big oil decide there is no global warming?

That's your only comment on the matter that big oil and co have spent billions of dollars trying to push the denial agenda and just so happens that scientists on their payroll seem to be the only ones whom don't believe man has anything to do with it.

Yet you see nothing at all wrong with this? No questions pop in to your head about perhaps they have a conflict of interests..

Yet you have no questions at all that the rest of the scientists not paid by big oil all have it wrong..

So you have no answers. And the scientist who I first heard that ALL that data is negated by the new data showing the ocean absorbing the co2 was a LIBERAL non-oil scientist on the Bill Maher show.

You're such a tool.

Now answer just ONE of my questions: What about the historical graphs? They mean nothing huh?
All that counts are scientist's opinions who work under govt. grants and funded by liberal think tanks.
Everything else doesn't count in your world.

You are a real piece of work crockett. lol

I gotta get out of this conversation. I'm talking to a fencepost.

You don't care about answers unless everyone blindly agrees with you. You never change your view no matter what evidence is presented. All you ever do is nit pick little parts of arguments and ignore anything that proves you wrong.

Anyone with half a brain would understand that it's pretty odd that the only scientists whom say that man has no effect on Global warming all happened to be paid by the polluters.

Yet I'm the fence post because I refuse to blindly go along with what you say And question the fact that the only ones denying it are getting paid to do so.. You have no logical explanation for why the rest of the scientist in the world disagree with big oil pay rolled scientist..

You never have any critical thought about anything that goes along your already decided view point.. Everyone one else is always wrong but you.

So you still haven't addressed anything I've put forward.

And you accuse me of not having critical thought and having a "decided point of view"?

Brother you just described yourself. You just can't see it.

Tries to look smart, fails miserably yet again. Don't you get tired of playing the fool lady?

That's bullshit. Sure there may be scientists getting paid by oil companies but there are many scientists who are climate realists that are not getting any money from oil companies.

The climate alarmist movement is using typical leftist tactics to stifle opposition - they shout down their opponents, use smear tactics, propaganda and outright lies. Next they will be sending people to gulags.

The only climate "deniers" are the alarmists because they deny reality, they deny actual facts and they outright fabricate "data" to suit their agenda.

The bullshit-laden climate alarmists have been standing on the street corner wearing their "the end is near" signs for decades now. None of their doomsday predictions have come true and none of them are close to coming true. It's all bullshit.

Wake up and realize that you are being lied to and manipulated.

Already driving pure electric now. The Zip cars are an interesting idea though...I have a friend who signed up and so far loves it.

Completely, Completely, wrong. You could not be further from the truth.



Quebec has its problems but has alot going for it too.

Alberta is Canada's Texas. It is rich in oil and tar sands. Most of Canada is still fairly green when it comes to Energy, and despite the minor skirmish, much of the untouched land is still owned by Natives who care more about the environment than anything else. For sure its a struggle and hopefully big oil can be kept in check, the way it should be.


"WE" means you and me. And others. Not Vendzilla. He smells like feet.


Actually, Yes by law..! "The EPA Is Essentially Required To Regulate Carbon Emissions By Law", and, "The Environmental Protection Agency's forthcoming regulations on greenhouse gas emissions will provide legally required protection for the health and welfare of Americans at a cheap cost, while allowing states flexibility" http://mediamatters.org/research/201...ion-sta/199516


That's right! Thanks to the EPA. Over the years the EPA has done things like force the removal of lead from Gasoline http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/airpage....d+Gas+Phaseout, reduced acid rain, air pollution and even skin cancer & cataracts : http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/40th_highlights.html

Your kids can breathe thanks to the EPA, and some industries with help from politicians are trying to take this away from you.

No one is saying that it needs to be replaced. The world can never be without coal and oil, everyone knows that. What people are saying is that the pollution it creates needs to be reduced. Who said remove or replace coal?

12clicks, I don't hate America or Americans. Your country is beautiful and your people are friendly. You guys have a shitload of accomplishments and without you, Canada might not even be here. You are completely missing my point and filing me away in a place I do not belong.

Controlling pollution does not weaken the coal industry or the American economy in any way. What you are hearing or reading about this is pure propeganda from the coal industry, nothing more. Controlling pollution BOOSTS the economy, helps keep air and water clean for today and future generations, and makes the place a nicer place to live.

And since you mention Nuclear: The USA has over 100 Nuclear power plants that produced almost 800 Billion kWh in 2013, over 19% total electric output. 6 New reactors will be online by 2020. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Co...Nuclear-Power/

I know this bit of info will get me shot, but here you go:

Deaths by Nuclear energy compared with other causes:

Coal = 24 people x 57 TWh x 2 years = 2,736 deaths, plus 25,000 serious ailments
Gas = 3 x 58 x 2 = 348 deaths, plus 3,400 serious ailments
Oil = 19.2 x 9 x 2 = 342 deaths, plus 2,900 serious ailments
Total EXTRA fossil deaths = 2,736 + 348 + 342 = 3,426, plus 31,300 serious ailments

Nuclear = 0.052 x (57 + 58 + 9) x 2 = 13 deaths, plus 54 serious ailments

http://theenergycollective.com/wille...d-other-causes

Peace.

You didn't address anything I brought up. You completely ignored the fact that deniers are getting paid to deny. This should be a end to the discussion to be honest because there is no scientific proof that actually makes sense on your side of the argument.

Your entire basis of man not adding to global warming is because the earth has cycles and CO2 levels have been high before. No one has ever argued that the earth doesn't have cycles, what we are arguing is that fossil fuels and pollution are drastically speeding up the process and putting the entire human race survival at risk. Not to mention all the other living creatures that share the planet with us.

Meanwhile, I mentioned the fact that in the past CO2 levels were high due to volcanic eruptions which caused a naturally occurring greenhouse effect. I then asked you do you see any extreme volcanic activity that would cause the rise of CO2 as it has risen in the last 50 years?

Did the CO2 just magically appear? So yes I did respond to your CO2 comment you just didn't bother to answer back and you still ignore the fact that there is no real science that supports the deniers. It's all just paid for propaganda by big oil.

oh yea using smear tactics, propaganda and out right lies.. all things clearly above the Right wing.. Obviously just a leftist tactic..

**********, the real world- you should come here and check it out sometime. holler when you get here, I'll give you a tour.

How many deaths for solar & wind power.. :winkwink:

Here Robbie, I'll make a deal with you.. Show me a scientific paper from the denial side which supports the theory that man is not causing global warming to speed up.

I want to see the actual science that supports your claims. Not BS opinion pieces from news sites, but actual real science.

I would find it myself self, but I've tried. Everything I find online about denial of man having any affect on global warming is just a wash of political talking points. I've found no real scientific papers just the same talking points that get thrown around endlessly that cherry pick specific data and fail to look at the big picture.

Show me the science and prove me wrong, that we have nothing to worry about.