+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
Users Threads  
ShortNewser of the month
      Back to Forum
  Are you worried about global warming?  
53.74 %
46.26 %
number of Votes:
 From: ShortNews   07/29/2011 12:01 PM     
I don´t worry about anything anymore. We need a world-wide re-boot like we had with the dinosaurs. Humans need to be eliminated from this planet. They have done nothing but screw it up. It´s time to start over.
  by: Lurker     08/03/2011 06:25 PM     
  I think  
the better poll would have been are you worried about Man Made Global Warming.
  by: hellblazer     08/04/2011 03:43 AM     
The current warming we´re seeing is man-made. Otherwise it would be happening far more gradually, as warming trends did in the past.
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/08/2011 10:37 PM     
  "It is time to start over" ...  
It sure is, but it is not the peoples fault, money and greed play a bigger part in it.

Oh yes, on global warming. I think a lot of that has to do with so many men too!
  by: captainJane     08/09/2011 08:58 PM     
  i dont like this poll  
because while I do believe in mmgw, i´m not personally worried because its practically futile anyways
  by: conflictdiamond   08/10/2011 05:12 AM     
  Global Deception  
Man made false information is what this all boils down to. The earth and the climate is going through cycles that are perfectly normal.

World Domination of a global new world order. Lurker is right; we need to start over. That day is quickly approaching with the much anticipated return of Jesus Christ. The earth abides forever. That promise was written over 120 times!
  by: Klinger   08/11/2011 10:48 PM     
The promise will be broken in about 3 billion years the Milky Way Galaxy will collide with the Andromeda Galaxy. The collision will take about a Billion years to complete.

It the aforementioned collision was not to happen the sun will become a Red Giant and absorb the Earth in approximately 5 billion years.

Not much chance for the survival of the Earth under any of these scenarios.

Damned science anyway.
Just perfectly normal stellar cycles.

[ edited by ichi ]
  by: ichi     08/12/2011 11:18 PM     
I´ve never met people so out of touch with reality in my life.

Totally clueless!
  by: Klinger   08/12/2011 11:24 PM     
  @Section 8  
"reality"? You dare think that you live in "reality?" Your myths, hallucinations and brainwashing are NOT "reality."
  by: Lurker     08/14/2011 07:50 PM     
  God is in control  
1) Carbon dioxide is neither toxic, nor pollutant. Its emission is an inevitable and necessary result of any combustion with composites of carbon (oil refined, coals, natural gas, etc). It is also an essential gas to life on earth because when they breathe, all living beings inhale a mixture of oxygen and CO2, and then exhale the latter.

2) There is no evidence that CO2 emissions of anthropogenic origin (i.e., man-made, which excludes all other natural emissions of this gas) have any significant effect on global warming. Many scientists consider that the human contribution to global CO2 emissions occurring on the planet is absolutely negligible.

3) Empirical data has shown that the renowned global warming foreseen by computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has not been happening since 1998. So, opportunistically, they have changed the expression "global warming" – which no longer corresponded to the factual truth – to the more ambiguous term of "climate change" (which always existed throughout the history of the Earth).

4) Computer models are themselves unreliable. The modelling theory tells us that, to be useful, models should be relatively simple, with a limited number of variables. Trying to apply modelling to the climate is a pathless effort because then the number of variables (and the assumptions that have to be made) is huge. In climatology, little use can be obtained from computer modelling, no matter how powerful the computers may be (although the same does not apply to the weather forecast).

5) It becomes even worse if a bad method such as computer modelling is based on an obsolete theory. This is precisely what is happening with the climatologic models used by IPCC, designed in the early twentieth century (thus, before the existence of Meteorological Satellites). The modern climatologic theory was established by the great French scientist Marcel Leroux (1938-2008), from the Université Jean Moulin in Lyon. Professor Marcel Leroux´s opinion about this supposed warming is summarized in his article "A scientific sham ": (French) (Portuguese)

6) The IPCC is not an organization of scientists but of bureaucrats appointed by governments and usually well-paid. It is a lie that the IPCC has three thousand scientists specialized in climate, as has been so often proclaimed. And it is also a lie to say that there is a "scientific consensus" in regard to the heating dogma.

7) It would not be bad for mankind if there was some degree of global warming on Earth. Many regions of the world would start having fruitful farming. Greenland, for example – the "Green Earth" as the Vikings called it – had agriculture in the Medieval Warm Period. One might even say that the cradle of Western civilization on Earth was in an extremely hot land: Mesopotamia (now Iraq) between the Tigris and the Euphrates. The Egyptian and Aztec civilizations flourished in warm climates.
  by: antihec   08/16/2011 12:17 PM     
1) You´re wrong.
2) You´re an idiot.
3) People like you are going to get us all in a lot of trouble.
4) You´re doing just what the oil companies want you to do and you´re not even getting paid for it.
5) You wouldn´t know science if it snuck up behind you and bit you (which it should, and hard).
6) You´re a propagandist apologist for the pro-corporate far right.
7) You´re an idiot.
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/31/2011 06:23 AM     
   Back to Forum
Copyright ©2017 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: