AGW Today: Call It “Global Scorching”

I do so love a good mega-climate alarmist story: It’s Not Just Global Warming. It’s Global Scorching. Let’s skip to the end

Failure to produce meaningful change in our carbon-choked social structure could literally burn us

Right. So far their climate models have been a disaster, but, hey, how about

The warmer colors (red, purple) represent parts of the planet that are likely to experience the worst drought within the next few decades.

Uh huh. Garbage in garbage out.

Global warming is also pushing Mankind to the tipping point. OMG, we’re all going to….have to adapt? Evolve? Overcome? Liberals are such negative nellies.

I do love this comment in the NY Times article about the TEA Party being skeptics

Is it me or are we arguing the wrong point? Maybe there is global warming, maybe there isnt. That doesnt change the fact that there is global pollution. Lets change the frame of the argument away from “Global Warming” To “Chronic Pollution”. Our planet has a problem. Everyone wants to argue to see who i right and who is wrong, but neither side will help this planet survive using the wrong point of view. Keep it simple stupid. More pollution= more chronic disease, famine, destruction of natural resources and wildlife, food chain disruption and planetary ecosystem imbalance!

Except, CO2 is not pollution. Environmentalists have truly lost their way, which is a shame.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “AGW Today: Call It “Global Scorching””

  1. captainfish says:

    “carbon-choked social structure ”

    hmmmm, I don’t know about you guys, but my social structure isn’t even tied, associated, bothered, or even recognize the existence of carbon.

  2. The funniest part is that the same old alarmists, who claim they are about science, don’t understand the difference between carbon and CO2.

  3. Doomed says:

    Additionally the Progressives around the world who made the decision to usurp the AGW scare and turn it into an agenda to take money from the rich and give to the poor have done a great injustice to the worlds attempts at pollution control.

    Pollution is a problem. AGW is not. However everyones focused now on debating global warming when we should continue to be focused on controlling pollution and keeping this planet healthy.

    Pollution is a real problem and if we wrest the ball from the progressive “NEW WORLD ORDER” fanatics we can continue to make nations like India, China, Russia the the US and Eastern European nations focus on pollution controls, instead of spending every ounce of their strength fighting job squelching carbon emissions standards that have no bearing on anything other then to give our money to poor nations to squander on palaces for the kings.

  4. An excellent point, Doomed, one I whole heartedly agree with. I am an environmentalist, old school, and think the same thing, we should deal with real pollution, real environmental issues. The focus of the climate alarmists on AGW, and linking it to every real environmental issue has done serious damage to environmental movement. But, then, the hardcore enviros, like Greenpeace and ELF, have always caused problems.

    Take the problems with vehicles: it is not CO2 that’s the problem, it’s the smog. Hybrids and electric vehicles should have been pushed to reduce smog, a real problem.

  5. captainfish says:

    Yes Doomed. All of this money and taxes could have been better spent on reducing pollution and congestion.

    Teach?? “Hybrid and electric vehicles should have been PUSHED”???

    EEEEKKKK!!!! How about just offered? I despise the current mandate that auto companies must sell hybrid and electric vehicles. Let the consumer decide. End the subsidies so that consumers can see the true costs involved.

    Myself, I don’t see why we haven’t moved toward nuclear powered vehicles. Why isn’t the government pushing this completely green and economical anti-oil alternative fuel source???

    Now, you want to talk about getting off the oil-tit. Imagine never having to worry about fuel, charging, battery life, etc.

  6. Well, of course I don’t mean forced, but, if the enviros were sane, they would highlight the air quality benefits of moving towards hybrids and electric vehicles, rather than the globull warming insanity. The company I am working for now has awesome car deals, just waiting for an SUV hybrid to be available at a good price.

  7. captainfish says:

    Ok. I understand.
    However, don’t you think the Nissan Leaf and Toyota Prius, etc have pushed the “can’t we all be green” or “we’ll make people grow like flowers and trees and babies as bees”?

    Granted they haven’t spent as much time with the clean air aspect as they have with the Save The Icebergs.

    I think the average consumer though knows that if they buy a hybrid that can turn off cylinders or an electric car that can go 30 miles, they are not burning as much petroleum products. (Actually, they are not making much of a dent or are just forcing the pollution to be produced elsewhere).

    The average consumer doesn’t really care. They want a car that has alot of power, saves gas, can carry their soccer team, and pull their boat on weekends.

    I mean, come on, we should be flying cars on the moon by now, but we are debating whether we should drive solar-powered go-carts on roads full of MACK Trucks.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9501 access attempts in the last 7 days.