Comments on: Earth Day Predictions From 1970

By: larry d.

larry d. — Mon, 04 May 2009 00:02:57 +0000

Those hearings are reminiscent of some videos I saw last fall concerning finance committee hearings on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

They don't care if they're selling the earth down the river any more than they cared when they were selling the nation down the river. It's the truth.

By: Da King

Da King — Sat, 02 May 2009 22:09:30 +0000

I know, joe. I've heard them. The Dems in Congress interrupt global warming skeptics constantly and barely let them get a full sentence out. Then they smirk and attack and act like the guy just said the earth is flat. It's pathetic.

By: averagejoe5

averagejoe5 — Sat, 02 May 2009 16:35:32 +0000

King, there have been several congressional hearings on the subject of global warming and when they let the ones against the subject speak they treat them like they are insane. They don't even listen. This is going to be a huge profit maker for them. They don't want the truth, because they can't handle the truth. They would rather lie than protect their constituents.

By: Da King

Da King — Sat, 02 May 2009 11:57:39 +0000

I'll take your response to mean you DON'T have any proof that people are denying air or water pollution.

And please stop calling all global warming skeptics "Big Carbon Producers." That's very dishonest. You sound like Al Gore.

One such global warming skeptic, Lord Monckton, the former science adviser to Margaret Thatcher, was supposed to speak at the recent global warming hearings in Congress, but the Dems pulled the plug on him. They didn't want him to make Al Gore look bad. Apparently, that's how Dems reach "consensus," they silence the opposition.

http://www.wikio.co.uk/news/Christopher+Monckton

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Fri, 01 May 2009 20:55:42 +0000

Is that the official score? 1900 to 31,000?

It looks like, hey, many more scientists disagree with Al, rather than agree.

I don't know, for some reason…those numbers look suspicious.

But Big Carbon Producers couldn't be wrong, could they? I mean Big Carbon has no potential conflict of interest in any of this, right?

By: Da King

Da King — Fri, 01 May 2009 18:16:19 +0000

Rev,
Of what crime in Iraq are you speaking ? Congress voted FOR the use of military force in Iraq, remember ??? You must be confusing Bush with Clinton, who bombed Iraq without any Congressional authorization, and also went to war in Bosnia without any Congressional authorization.

I don't recall anyone ever saying there is no such thing as air pollution or water pollution. If you have such evidence, which I doubt you do, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Scientific consensus is fairly obvious, but maybe it would help if I told you what scientific consensus DOESN'T look like. It doesn't look like 1,900 UN scientists agreeing on global warming and 31,000 other scientists disagreeing. Scientific consensus doesn't look like flawed temperature models, conflicting evidence, and closed minds like Al Gore's.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Fri, 01 May 2009 14:25:34 +0000

I'm wondering…after reading your post…..is there such a thing as air pollution? Water pollution? Do these things even exist?

And what of the EPA? If there isn't any air, water, or atmospheric pollution, you know, to speak of, shouldn't we do away with the EPA?

What would a scientific consensus look like? Would EVERY scientist have to agree on everything before conclusions could be drawn?

And…I just can't resist the setup…..Bush predictions about Iraq didn't have EVERY foreign policy expert on board….but that didn't stop him from committing the crime anyway. I mean, right?

Does that mean that wars of choice simply don't need unanimous consent but earth-threatening environmental issues do? And why the distinction?

By: Da King

Da King — Fri, 01 May 2009 13:11:29 +0000

Andrea says, "I 'd still rather believe science than those that are politically motivated to protect the interest of big business."

I agree completely. Let's listen to the scientists. The problem is, the scientists are divided. The consensus Al Gore speaks of doesn't exist, not to mention the fact that global warming is big business too. Gore's company alone has billions invested in green technologies, as does GE and many others.

By: angry conserv

angry conserv — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:04:09 +0000

Thanks King,
I read those predictions last week and have passed some along to people I annoy with my growing strident monalogues. I found great humor in some of those but the people I repeated them to are comfortable in the belief- it has been decided

By: Christopher

Christopher — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:17:45 +0000

I'm not a believer. And it really has turned into a religion at this point where if you don't believe then you are pollitically incorrect.

I remember reading the ice age magazines in the 1970s as a youngster. Kinda scared me then but the algore people scare me more today. They are very misguided and scary.

By: averagejoe5

averagejoe5 — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:27:52 +0000

So what do we fear? Global warming? Global cooling? How can there be such differences of opinion in 30 years. How can both use data from the beginning of the century and beyond and come up with 2 such differeing opinions? Here's why. They are fulla' sh*t. It's about money and politics. They know alot about weather patterns, they know alot about how things work. But earth and the universe has been here for eternity and has adapted. Humans will go extinct like the dinosaurs. Or their spirit will be taken to another realm. What ever you believe. This is beyond our control because the more we are charged for carbon credits the faster industry is going to go to China and India and just pump the atmosphere full of polutants. There is no EPA there. Better smoke 'm while ya got 'em.

By: Andrea

Andrea — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:25:27 +0000

There are always some predictions that haven't been met yet. And maybe some never will. How about the ones who said global warming doesn't even exist. But before you rule out some things you should read this ..yeah I know just a bunch of crazy scientists again …
but then the talking heads also said cigarettes don't cause cancer . I 'd still rather believe science than those that are politically motivated to protect the interest of big business.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/090429-total-carbon.html