Poll: twice as many say Gore NOT a global warming expert

[AKLes]

The questions need to be answered fully and negativing all other statements in this order:

1.  Is there a current, on-going climate change?

2.  When did said change start?

3a.  Is it wholly or substantially at the hands of humans?

3b.  If so, what evidence dispells the historic, accepted scientific hypothesis of cyclical changes?

4.  What is its severity?

5.  What are the long-term prospects for its continuation?

Some answers from the Neanderthal Point of View (non-Geico cavemen speak!)

1.  Yes.  Alway was from the first day of "creation" or the "Big-Bang" (a non-Oval Office Presentation).

2.  See #1 above.

3a.  There were no humans when the cyclical changes began, nor were there any for the first several millions of years.  Since the cycles appear to be slowing down it seems unlikely that humans have had any impact and it is arrogant for any human to assume an impact possible.  In short, God'll get ya for denying his (or her) absolute authority in this manner.  THEN maybe we'll see climate change!

3b.  algore's (secret) presidential campaign says it's so; therefore it must be.  Of course he's speaking from under The Great Democrat Bus but he's wisely using his invention, the internet, to spread the word rather than trying to outshout Ms. Rodham and Mr. Obama.

4.  Neither greater nor lesser than at any previous time in history.  To the heartbreak of those who wish it were otherwise.

5.  Excellent.  Problematic is that cycles are just that.  Cooler now, warmer later.  Then cooler, then warmer.  It's just that we puny humans have sufficiently short life cycles that we perceive only the portion of the climactic cycles for which we live our individual lives.  Historical evidence proves otherwise but history is best ignored when it fails to fit the agenda.


It is only because the Global Warming profiteers have realized that there actually is a natural cycle that they have tried to shift the rhetoric to "Climate Change".  In this way their power-trip agenda can continue come rain, shine, ice, snow, etc. since most of the people they perceive as sheep will have no memory of what the weather was last week.  Right correct thinking people will INSIST the left adhere to their original "Global Warming" term so they have less opportunity for generating confusion.

[radiofriend1]

hey if human are only responsible for 50% of climate change and there are reasonable changes we can make, why the heck not???

(oh, i get it-that would mean al gore wasn't the total buffoon all of U have claimed for yrs.  don't let pride get in the way of helping save the planet!!!!!)

[AKLes]

hey if human are only responsible for 50% of climate change and there are reasonable changes we can make, why the heck not???

(oh, i get it-that would mean al gore wasn't the total buffoon all of U have claimed for yrs.  don't let pride get in the way of helping save the planet!!!!!)

Humans may be responsibile for about 1/10th of 1% of the rate of global warming but how do you explain that humans stalked the earth and polluted much more heavily an hundred years ago during a period of global cooling.  Or do your history books not go back far enough to describe London fog and Los Angeles smog, both of which have been long since abated.  Gosh, if we follow Lib-Logic, that suggests that reducing pollution causes global warming.

algore is not a buffoon except, perhaps, in appearance.  He's downright Machevellian and has hitched his presidential ambitions to The Great Global Warming Star Swindle.  He's the biggest threat to Hillary for the nomination but she's not smart enough to figure that out.  The sludge he's peddling will bring the world economy to its' knees and pauperize millions, especially those who are living marginal lives now.  It'll also put an end to The African Dream so there is a racist (though probably not intented as such) aspect as well.

But if folks want poverty and repressed minorities, yeah, climb on board algore's Global Warming Bandwagon.  A few us us have already figured out how to profit from it and that's terribly crass....but guilt is best left to the left; they roll in it like dogs in offal.

[Johnny Morgan]

hey if human are only responsible for 50% of climate change and there are reasonable changes we can make

First, show me some evidence that humans are X% responsible.

Second, I don't think there is anyone here who is opposed to reasonable changes to our lifestyles.  My fiancee's family uses their own natural gas.  They have well and spring water.  Natural light permeates their 1833 federal-style, negating the need for much electricity.  I have no problem with that.  I drive the most economical automobile this side of a hybrid (41 highway miles in the Toyota Corolla).  I use old caselaw printings to take notes.  I always 2-side my paper.

What I do have a problem with is (a) governmental regulation that requires changes, and (b) elitist flouting of so-called carbon neutral measures by the filthy rich that do not, in fact, REDUCE any carbon footprint, but merely maintain the status quo...while said elitists tsk-tsk me for not being willing to give up food in face of a $14 lightbulb and want to REQUIRE that I am only able to purchase said $14 lightbulb.

And this says nothing of the regulatory destruction of the economies of the West, en masse.

But, I am a right-winger, so all of this doesn't matter to some folks here because I (apparently) am beholden to oil companies.  If so, I'd sure as hell like to see some of that profit.

Or maybe the left-wing could lose the talking point...and the sanctimony.