|

Here’s a chart to help you win climate-change arguments

climate-flowchart_FINAL2

James West of The Nation created the chart.

I eagerly await responses from readers who get their insights on climate science from the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

Share:

6 Comments

  1. Expdoc

    The real debate now, is how bad is it going to get….and, what can we do within reason, so that the harm will not outweigh the good that it produces?

  2. Brian Opsahl

    Everybody needs to be on board with dealing with now….not later, now..!!
    we still have time to make the right changes but we really need to hurry, also we should be out front on the new technologys grabbing the new job markets that will follow.

  3. Expdoc

    Put down the Kool-Aid and step away from the MSNBC.

  4. Craig Knauss

    Brian says, “…we should be out front on the new technologys grabbing the new job markets that will follow.”

    Sorry, doc, but Brian, while a little bit optimistic, is 100% correct. If we’re going to save our climate, we should be leading the pack and reaping the benefits. Let the other countries, e.g., China, buy their equipment from us.

  5. Brian Opsahl

    Exactly Craig, The amount of potential jobs for these new tecnologys is off the charts. Can you imagain what the Chinese would pay to have that orange air the breath scrubed and cleaned by some new invention that doe’s that….most of you say why…and i say why not

  6. Alan D McIntire

    It’s obvious as hell that global warming is not a serious problem:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Co=
    penhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

    You cannot seriously believe AGW is an important issue, otherwise
    you wouldn’t be wasting energy turning on your computer to make
    unpersuasive personal attacks on those who argue for the liberty of
    allowing people to decide for themselves how much to spend on energy,
    and how to allocate those expenditures . IF CAGW were a legitimate concern, would believers be burning CO2 by
    flying to conferences in Kyoto, Copenhagen, and Rio? If human produced
    CO2 is such a serious threat, wouldn’t it make more sense to
    have “teleconferences” instead of meeting in person? Shouldn’t CAGWers
    who actually believe in the seriousness of the situation be setting an
    example on drastically cutting back energy use?

    Everyone,, even religious fundamentalists who believe the world is
    only 6000 years old, interacts with and observes other humans. We all
    become aware of con artists who trry to get us to donate to
    questionable charities, try to sell us products which will make us
    appear younger, slimmer, and have more hair on our heads. Our natural
    ability to detect “huxterism” easily spotsthe CAGW scammmers
    who preach “do as I say, not as I do”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>