Not just the 'top' scientists; practically all with any expertise in the field have reached that conclusion.
7 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
climate change=global warming=taxation and control. convince the sheeple that the sky is falling and they are easier to control.
9 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Forget about global climate change -- most of these Neanderthals don't believe in science.
Well, after all, the only ones who are right about anything are the wingers. Now, just a short question. What if the wingers are wrong about global warming? Then, the devastation of the world's climates and weather will become almost irreversible. But, what if the global warming followers are wrong? What will you have? More renewable natural resources being used. Certainly less air pollution. And, yet, we would still have access to current resources. So, which would be worse?
6 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
And now they are talking about a Mini ICE age! They really don't know and are only guessing.
8 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
The earth has always gone through cycles. We have only been measuring those cycles for a short time.
8 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Sorry for the repeat.
4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
If it is 95 degrees outside on December 21 of this year in and around Minot, I'll become a firm believer.
Until then, the business of global warming is all hot air.
9 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
It is my understanding that the Republican party has changed it symbol from an Elephant to an Ostrich. That certainly is appropriate.
2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"But, what if the global warming followers are wrong? What will you have? More renewable natural resources being used. Certainly less air pollution...."
Don't forget "more taxation" centerish. That's the real name of this game.
6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
One of our favorite videos, from the good folks at Minnesotans 4 Global Warming...
"If We Had Some Global Warming"
ewetube . com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM
4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Geez, do we even WANT to go there?
3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I mean, questions like this are just ASKING for the whole comment thread to blow up.
And what will come of it?
3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Now, loco, why would you bring up only one side of the money issue without addressing the other side. Let me see, some of the major funders of studies that become negative to global warming are funded by organizations that benefit from no regulations on their industries. So, if we talk about money, we need to address the vast amounts of money made by these industries that benefit from keeping the population ( kinda like the wingers) with their heads in the sand. Yes, there is money on both sides but the largest amount of money to be made comes from the corporations like big oil, coal, and many manufacturing companies. Thus, you must be convinced that the human race can not cause any changes in the atmosphere even thought we have burned tons and tons of fossil fuels over the last hundred or so years and emitted their negative residue into the atmosphere. Maybe you can find a video showing that as well.
3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Now, disty, is your source for that information the same one who is predicting open water on the north pole by 2020? Or is it that same source who predicts the end of glaciers in Glacier Park or possibly the struggle of Polar Bears to find food due to the melting of the ice pack. You really don't have an understanding of the signs of global warming do you.. Lets look at the violent weather over the past two years or maybe just changes in weather to huge extremes. Oh, that is right, you are a winger. Sorry, please don't look for that material as it is too factual for you.
2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I love it when people who probably have little more than a high school education and/or no training in science ridicule those who have studied and become experts on this topic. Interestingly, the same people that believe a few politicians about WMD's and support an expensive war doubt experts who support an inexpensive clean-energy solution to a definite problem. It seems that the gov't is trustworthy when the R's are in control, but the gov't is evil when the D's run it. How convenient! And MDN, it's climate change, not global warming.
3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
If it appears "green" in any way, remote or otherwise, it is always "good" and should always be sought after.
No, I'm not talking about money...
6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"Yes, there is money on both sides but the largest amount of money to be made comes from the corporations like big oil, coal, and many manufacturing companies"
Ah, so your big money is good and clean, but everyone else's big money is bad and corrupt as can be.
You people, playing your silly two-party games...
Rarely is something said in politics where there isn't something in it for the person saying it. Since I'm 95% sure that 95% of politics is all about harassing "those people" and making sure they don't get their way, stepping on anyone necessary on the way up, what's in it for most people is merely the satisfaction of subjugating others.
How about this? Remove government from the equation and make everything stand on its own merits? You may be surprised by what does and doesn't survive. Even the most "necessary" and "sustainable" industries may be in for a surprise.
Considering inexpensive, clean-energy alternatives as consumers is one thing.
Accepting global warming (aka climate change) at full face value, while facing more gov't taxation to "curb" it, is quite another.
phys . org/news/2013-07-british-scientists-explanations-global
After reading this article, I think they're punting big time.
Climate change "science" is inexact. Why should I believe the "experts" when they're making changes to their theory all the time?
5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Now, lets whistle in the dark some more, shall we? Your quotes are very miss-leading and certainly spit out what you want it to be. Since the new regulations are on NEW plants, their effect on current pollution from existing plants is not going to change. Thus, the quote. But, changing the rules on existing plans WILL change the carbon impact. You also fail to separate the EPA from the Institute for Energy Research. Which quotes are from where. THe entire drift of the quotes you have provided are coal industry slanted and the Institute is run by former Enron and Exxon personnel. Most of their previous research has been anti EPA no matter what the subject matter. What would you expect them to say? Again, back to the quote. Stopping new plants from polluting certainly will keep more pollution from occurring but will not change the old plants from polluting. Again, lets just twist things up and make up a story to fit your needs. Typical Winger.
Sep-25-13 1:33 PM
Great post, Matt.
3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Research a little more Loco, on what actually is climate change? The warming of the oceans is a part of that change. Increased water temperatures causes increased evaporation. Increased evaporation put more moisture in the air that leads to bigger and more violent changes in weather. We have been experiencing that all over the globe from hurricanes, to flooding, to extreme drought. Yes, the ocean is absorbing the heat and that is a part of the problem. The heat.
Gee, Matt, that sounds like privatization of the operation. That served us well with USIS in their security checks with Snowden and others. Yep, just privatize it and there will be no money , or special interests involved. Like I said before, which side would you rather make mistakes on, the side that will probably have irreversible damage to the environment or the side that won't.
4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Sorry, still not convinced...
301 4th St SE , Minot, ND 58703 | 701-857-1900