Global warming is a joke?

Question

Let all get in my SUV drive up to anwar and club some baby seals this weekend. Who is with me

Answer 1

hell yeah!!! let's go! Should I bring a baseball bat or a golf club?

Answer 2

global warming is bull. Here's an e-mail I got recently about it:

The up-tick in global warming propaganda in recent
days is to set the stage for the release of the Fourth
Assessment Report from the International Panel on
Climate Change. Surprise, surprise, the report will
say the sky is falling – faster and faster.

For people who have watched this process since the
beginning, this report, at least the executive summary
of the report, is mostly hogwash, wordsmithed by
policy wonks and media specialists to scare the gas
out of the economy.

The First Assessment Report was developed by a fairly
balanced group of scientists from around the world and
released in 1990. The report was quite extensive and
dealt primarily with capturing and storing carbon
dioxide.


The Second Assessment Report was adopted by a fairly
balanced group of participating scientists in December
1995. Then, the lead author of the report, B. D.
Santor, acting with the consent of the co-chairman of
the Working Group, John Houghton, and with the consent
of the executive secretary of the Framework Convention
on Climate Change, Michael Cutajar, changed the report
significantly, without the approval of the scientists.


Dr. Freidrich Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller
University and former president of the National
Academy of Sciences, said:

"I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption
of the peer-review process than the events that led to
this IPCC report. Nearly all the changes worked to
remove hints of the skepticism with which many
scientists regard global warming claims."

A hundred distinguished scientists, meeting in
Leipzig, Germany, released a joint statement July 10,
1996, which said:

"There is still no scientific consensus on the subject
of climate change. On the contrary, most scientists
now accept the fact that actual observations from
earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever."

From that point forward, any scientist who dared to
offer research results that did not affirm the
conclusions of the IPCC has been denied invitations to
participate in the IPCC studies, denied funding and/or
denigrated publicly by politically motivated
scientists and/or the media. Any scientist who dares
express skepticism is at once denounced as a pawn for
the oil and coal industry.

Actually, the opposite is true: Advocates of global
warming are pawns of the global warming industry. And,
indeed, global warming is an industry. In 1996, at the
same U.N. meeting at which the Second Assessment
Report was released, Mohamed T. El-Ashry, chief
executive officer and chairman of the Global
Environment Facility, released its quarterly report.
He told the delegates that his agency had leveraged
$462.3 million into $3.2 billion in climate change
projects. And that was just the beginning.

In the last decade, billions and billions of dollars
have been spent by governments and foundations on
research and mitigation programs related to global
warming. To the endless bureaucracies, recipients of
grant awards and non-government organizations, it is
imperative that the global warming hysteria continue –
to produce the funding that provides their livelihood.
Their incessant hype has convinced many people,
including legislators, that ridiculous policies should
be enacted to prevent carbon dioxide from reaching the
atmosphere.

Sen. James Inhofe is one of the few in Congress who
really knows that the science of climate change is in
its infancy, and no one really knows whether human
activity has any impact on the climate at all. After
all, the earth was warmer during the "Global Medieval
Optimum" (1100-1250), when gas-guzzlers didn't exist.
The same global warming zealots who manipulated the
science to distort the Second (and subsequent)
Assessment Reports reinterpreted the science that has
stood for more than a century to now deny that there
was a Global Medieval Optimum.

This study, produced by Michael E. Mann and Raymond S.
Bradley in 1999, was shown to be flawed in a
subsequent study by Drs. Willie Soon and Sallie
Baliunas. Global warming advocates extol the Mann
study and decry the Soon/Baliunas study. Real science
welcomes conflict as a challenge and evidence that
further study is required.

Global warming hypocrites, such as The Weather
Channel's Heidi Cullen, who wants the American
Meteorological Society to decertify any weatherman who
doesn't toe the global warming line, continues to
disparage scientists and others who dare to disagree
with her conclusions.

The Second Assessment Report was released in 1996 to
instill fear and stir up support for the 1997 Kyoto
Protocol. This current round of global warming hype,
including the Fourth Assessment Report, is designed to
instill fear and stir up support for forcing the U.S.
to join the Kyoto crowd in adopting energy
restrictions that will have no effect on the climate,
but will severely impact the economy.

U.S. policymakers and the public would do well to
reject the propaganda from the global warming
hypocrites.


also, read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. It is a fictional story, but uses real scientific studies to make his point that global warming is NOT real. AT ALL. They are just being retarded.

Answer 3

Global warming is totally real, read the facts, It just has a long term effect......

Answer 4

no its not. u can't really beleive that we can put all these chemicals in the air and it wouldn't affect anything. we hav a big impact on our earth

Answer 5

it's not a joke

Answer 6

No it's not.

Answer 7

Jackass.