Copenhagen climate summit: US rules that greenhouse gases endanger human health

"They are still abundant and productive."

Polar bears, as a species, do not appear to be threatened or in decline based on the data that I’ve seen at the present time, although some populations do seem to be experiencing deleterious effects from climate change."



Poor PGT. He's one of the few rats that is too busy eating the cheese to get off the ship....

but who said that they were endangered as a species? I certainly didn't.

So who exactly voted for the president of China again -- that's right the Communist Party of China. The same people who routinely arrest political dissenters and memebers of Fulan Gong. And by the way, Thailand is so free that it blocked access to the internet because someone insulted their king on youtube. Your file only mentions public opinion, not the people who will be making policy. People around the wolrd may support "doing something" but they aren't getting to decide what that something is.

As though humans are the only source of CO2. Might I point out that a cow fart also releases methane, which is a greenhouse gas, as well as ocean methane deposits. And this little furnace I like to call "the sun" is also producing mass amounts of heat.

You could say that about any issue where China is concerned , but on this one, governments are in general broadly in line with their people.

We're talking about AGW, that is cause by humans. If you deny that, then it doesn't really matter if we switch away from fossil fuels.
If you accept that we're causing warming, the market will not solve the issue for the reason I gave.

I recognize that the accumulation of carbon monoxide in our atmosphere is a problem and the phenomenon is multi-faceted to say the least, but there is no doubt that a significant amount of it is due to human activity... westernized industry to be specific.

I don't think so - I've purchased my carbon credits in addition to investing Al Gore's brokerage firm. He's a good man, that one. We're gonna be rich.

That's either a :overhead: or a ... or possibly both.

So basically you're saying you have regular intercourse with a horse?

Corrected for accuracy.

I haven't said anything about it being okay to lie, scumbag.

About the horse or the political agenda?

If it's the horse you guys need to take your sexual persuasions to private messaging.

This is hilarious, the Gore Effect:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gore Effect

More here:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1869/Climate-Depot-Factsheet-on-the-Gore-Effect-Phenomenon

It's in full effect at Copenhagen, where they are expecting 21 cm of snow today....

http://translate.google.com/transla...10/krijgt-kopenhagen-gore-effect/&sl=nl&tl=en

By hilarious do you mean asinine?

And considerably less funny:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/science/earth/09cost.html?_r=1

Note that doesn't count the effects of potential cap and trade legislation (the largest tax increase in human history) and the necessary transfers of wealth from the developed nations to the developing ones.


So why should we pay it?

OK, libtard whackos, does anyone here really believe if we don't get a deal at Copenhagen it will mean the extinction of the human race?

You've said that you will ignore all evidence that a hoax perpetuating AGW has taken place, and it's obvious that you support policies supporting the AGW theory, so by saying that you are saying that it is acceptable to you to lie as long as it serves a political agenda you agree with.

Snarf, Snarf... Al Gore talks about Climate Change and it snows! Guffaw.

If you find that funny you may as well hold up a big sign with "I DONT HAVE A FUCKING CLUE WHAT ANY OF THIS IS ALL ABOUT" on it.

Take care.

Awwww... PGT doesn't like us making fun of his religion...

He's a perfect example of why the U.S. founding fathers insisted on separating religion from government. Religious fanatics tend to get ugly when you step on their closely held beliefs.

Speaking of which, why can't we get GW tossed out of schools on those grounds?

"Can" does not equal "does."

I have said no such thing. You need to get your eyes examined, for you are reading things which are not there.

No, my eyes are fine, I saw you go on about how you were going to ignore the truth and substitute it with your own.

Double post.

Quote, please.

This is the same kind of retard logic that you and every other enviro-tard uses. You're basically saying that it doesn't matter if AGW is true or not, because you're convinced we need the lie to sort the world out, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that the sun has a massive effect on Earth's climate.

Quite how you manage to extract that meaning from the words you've quoted is flabbergasting.

In the context of Bathier Maximus saying that market forces could fix any AGW issue that exists, what I said was that:
a) if there is no AGW, there's no issue and it doesn't matter.
b) if there is AGW, then the market won't fix it because by the time alternatives are cheaper than oil, it'll be too late.

So you're trying to say it doesn't matter, so we should just go with AGW no matter what.

Sure. No problem.

This pretty much says it all. The government's position has been, quite obviously, that regardless of the evidence and intimations of fraud, the conclusions previously offered are true, and no further investigation is needed. Moreover, you've labeled the information which led to a call for renewed scrutiny (which no reasonable scientist should fear) a "criminal operation".

So....what'll it be, Rick? Blastin' Berry Cherry or Kickin-Kiwi-Lime?

Hold on, now.

How in the fuck could you possibly know that? By what measure will it be "too late," and how are you able to establish a time table?

Did your mother drop you on your head? I've just explained exactly what I'm "trying to say".

It was a criminal operation. And that is only the governments position in your deranged head.