Author Topic: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?  (Read 421 times)

xckoza

  • Lil Geezy
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: 1

It seems like half the questions in the global warming section these days are 'if global warming is true why is it snowing today?'.

What percentage of global warming deniers do you think don't know the difference between weather and climate, local and global, or past and present?

Considering this figure and the small minority of people who continue to deny anthropogenic global warming (AGW), what does this tell you about the AGW denial movement?

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #1 on: April 05, 2009, 05:34:58 AM »

Your posting is based on a falsehood, it is an illusion which has been created.

I draw your attention to http://www.petitionproject.org/ and http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM600.pdf.

It is very clear that the media is not interested in pursuing a balanced approach to journalism, therefore the mainstream media have become irrelevant, they have become avenues from which to disseminate a particular propaganda angle. It is true that there are some investigative journalists, but they are the ones who definitely number in the minority. The vast majority of news is intended to be heard and to be understood in a bite sized manner and of course when you only hear one point of view, it becomes easy to castigate any views outside of this paradigm as nonsense.
 

Matty

Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #2 on: April 05, 2009, 06:55:30 AM »
i haven't done enough research to really form a strong opinion but i'm aware there are two sides to the whole global warming debate. not so much that the world is or isn't getting warmer but the REASONS given for the small temperature increase and the likely policy reactions based on that.

from the title of the post it sounds like anyone not believing the government side of the argument would be classified as a denier. troubling!

RETURN OF THE OVERFIEND!

  • Guest
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #3 on: April 05, 2009, 08:03:43 AM »
I don't know about contributing to climate change,

but I do know carbon dioxide fucks up the air and isn't very nice to breath!

The effects of carbon dioxide are obvious, all you have to do is take a look at any big city, it pollutes the air you put into your lungs, fucks with the view and the overall quality of life.



Sorry virtuoso, I guess I'm with the corporate-banking-industrial elites on this one... 
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #4 on: April 05, 2009, 08:15:59 AM »
The sulphur, the mercury, the smog, is what pollutes the lungs, not carbon dioxide, plus you can't see carbon dioxide unless you are viewing it under controlled conditions. In addition plants emit CO2 during photosynthesis, what are we going to do, cut down all the trees to save us from carbon and oxygen?.  ;D

Rhetorical question, I wonder how many people will look at the links I just posted, since most people won't be bothered to read that, I also draw your attention to

The reason given for not classifying CO2 as a pollutant is based upon the fact that it is a natural component of the atmosphere and needed by plants in order to carry out photosynthesis. No one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic (6). Living systems, be they an ecosystem or an organism, require that a delicate balance be maintained between certain elements and/or compounds in order for the system to function normally. When one substance is present in excess and as a result threatens the wellbeing of an ecosystem, it becomes toxic, and could be considered to be a pollutant, despite the fact that it is required in small quantities.


http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html

So now they have decided that there is an "excess", based upon the fact that carbon dioxide levels have risen in this warmer period. However they can not directly correlate this all with man as they well know. That is why they have been playing the word game, it's gone from being called global warming, to climate change. The climate is always changing and indeed right now there is global cooling, it was meant to last a decade, now they are back tracking and saying perhaps 2 decades or more. So in twenty years time, we will see on the surface to air temperature line graph an increase of below 1 centigrade for the last 100 years, followed by a drop again. This is all so deceitful, the only reason why they are using the last 100 years as any kind of guide is because they can then attempt to tie it in with industrial activity - the industrial revolution.

So while it's gone from being denied to accepted that global cooling is taking place, it doesn't matter, it's a short reprieve the sky is falling the sky is falling. The irony is not lost on me, the same people who mockingly respond to posts of mine with bs like the "sky is falling" are the same ones being seduced by this very idea. I remember my geography teacher, who did actually school us well, taught us about how we were all going to freeze to death (according to the so called experts at the time) and that polar bears would be present in Scotland by the year 2000. It seems like the war on terrorism is losing momentum, so instead now it's the war on climate but of course none of these so called wars can ever be won because of their very nature.

Check this out to http://BreakForNews.com/audio/BeautifulTruth090221a.mp3

You can't stop the climate holmes, you can't stop the drugs and you can't stop terrorism
Peace!

« Last Edit: April 05, 2009, 08:43:18 AM by virtuoso »
 

ŕiņ

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 960
  • Karma: -161
  • Cold Hearted Son Of A Bitch
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #5 on: April 05, 2009, 09:47:46 AM »
I have done little to no 'research' on global warming, but i believe that we are humans. We have been polluting every since we existed and will continue to do so. I can see global warming being real but i don't think its a major problem by now. Hopefully by the time it gets bad we will have invented a rocket we can shoot into the atmosphere and when it explodes it creates a new ozone layer  ::)
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2009, 09:55:16 AM »

Look at the pollution caused by depleted uranium munitions alone, deforestaion and shit loads more of examples. of course man pollutes, this isn't about man polluting per sa though, this is about saying that the very essence of life is the pollutant.
 

ŕiņ

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 960
  • Karma: -161
  • Cold Hearted Son Of A Bitch
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #7 on: April 05, 2009, 10:02:32 AM »
So you have traveled around the world and done extensive research to prove these things true? Or you just bought into it like everyone else??? Oooookkaaayyy  ::)
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #8 on: April 05, 2009, 10:05:49 AM »
So you have traveled around the world and done extensive research to prove these things true? Or you just bought into it like everyone else??? Oooookkaaayyy  ::)

I don't follow, your response, so carbon dioxide isn't the essence of life? why would I need to travel the globe to state that humans need oxygen and the way in which we get it is to breath out carbon dioxide?
Have you even read the posts and looked at the links?


« Last Edit: April 05, 2009, 10:10:23 AM by virtuoso »
 

ŕiņ

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 960
  • Karma: -161
  • Cold Hearted Son Of A Bitch
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #9 on: April 05, 2009, 10:14:51 AM »
No actually i didn't read anything i am just violently ranting. I don't like these discussions because it seems to often people get their opinions mixed with their facts. On that note i have exited the thread.
 

M Dogg

  • Greatest of All Time
  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12111
  • Thanked: 13 times
  • Karma: 330
  • Feel the Power of the Darkside
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #10 on: April 05, 2009, 11:02:38 AM »
See, here's the thing. Most people confuse CO2 with carbon monoxide, or CO. CO is what is produced by cars, by factories, by tobacco smoke and naturally by volcanoes and forest fires. If you think there is no such thing as global warming, then you should start your car in your garage and close all the doors and stay there. You see, what is only nature from fires and volcanoes, and was only in the air for small amounts of times, is now in the air everyday, and we put it in the air way more often than it once was. Once in the air, it usually finds a way back down, but IF you continue to put CO in the air everyday, then it's always there, and if you live in a valley like the San Bernardino Valley next to Los Angeles, and a breeze blows LA's CO that's in the air into your valley, but no where to go but in peoples lungs, something has to be done. On top of all of that, all the CO in the air is always being replaced, and in nature this would never happen unless you had a long term volcanoes, or a huge forest fire that destroyed regions. CO is not naturally suppose to be in the air for long periods of time, it always falls, but in todays case, it's always being replaced unnaturally.

How many scientist do I need to show to convince you that global warming is real? Just name me a number, and I'll get a list, and then I'll even get some facts that have been found. We are in one of our most critical times for our environment, and if you can't see it you are either in buttcrack USA surrounded by cows, or you've been in your garage with your car turned on too much.
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #11 on: April 05, 2009, 12:37:07 PM »

Again, you have ignored the links and are now talking about carbon monoxide when the basis for the hysteria is carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is the fundamental issue not carbon monoxide, one being the basis for breathing and the other is something quite different, you are just trying to defeat an issue which wasn't even presented or mentioned, it's idiotic and pathetic.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2009, 12:41:15 PM by virtuoso »
 

jeromechickenbone

  • Guest
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2009, 02:04:12 PM »
There are def changes going on on Earth, and the rest of our galaxy as well.  As people, we need to do a better job of respecting our environment,not pollute and make conservation a priority.  But we are not the sole cause of the phenomenon, but we do contribute negatively.
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2009, 02:27:38 PM »

I am not contesting that Jrome  ;D
 

herpes

  • Guest
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2009, 04:55:06 PM »
The George Bush wing of the Illuminati in conjunction with the Lizard People created this false fear of global warming even though they already have a weather machine to control the weather.  The occasionally change the global climate to scare us until they use the machine to kill off large segments of society in order to control the population.
 

RETURN OF THE OVERFIEND!

  • Guest
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #15 on: April 05, 2009, 08:19:52 PM »


So now they have decided that there is an "excess", based upon the fact that carbon dioxide levels have risen in this warmer period. However they can not directly correlate this all with man as they well know.


Its obvious given our industry and transportation there is more CO2 being produced than usual. I don't think carbon dioxide is cited as the only greenhouse gas: there is also methane (which is produced naturally) and a host of others. Just because something is produced naturally dosn't mean an un-natural excess will be great for the World.




You can't stop the climate holmes, you can't stop the drugs and you can't stop terrorism


Law and government is a practical human institution which is not perfect and does not pretend to it.


Its fun and useful to criticise and complain.  But there reaches a point where you have to stop being cynical and critical of the world and try to work with what you have, otherwise life leaves you behind and asks you 'well you sure complained a lot during your time here, but did you actually do anything to alleviate those problems?'





 

jeromechickenbone

  • Guest
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2009, 10:04:51 PM »
The George Bush wing of the Illuminati in conjunction with the Lizard People created this false fear of global warming even though they already have a weather machine to control the weather.  The occasionally change the global climate to scare us until they use the machine to kill off large segments of society in order to control the population.

Do yourself a favor and research HAARP. 

Reptilian shapeshifting is a total load of shit, and is pimped to confuse you and distort reality.  So therefore you associate legit things like HAARP w/ it, and immediately think it's a load of crap because obviously the reptilian thing is crap.

 

M Dogg

  • Greatest of All Time
  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12111
  • Thanked: 13 times
  • Karma: 330
  • Feel the Power of the Darkside
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2009, 12:16:22 AM »

Again, you have ignored the links and are now talking about carbon monoxide when the basis for the hysteria is carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is the fundamental issue not carbon monoxide, one being the basis for breathing and the other is something quite different, you are just trying to defeat an issue which wasn't even presented or mentioned, it's idiotic and pathetic.

I just wanted to clarify that the TRUE cause of global warming is CO, not CO2, and that the people disproving global warming focus on CO2, not CO, because once you get into CO you realize that there is something to global warming after all. Again, how many scientist do you want me to source. I took classes on this, both in science and even economy, I have facts. Just list a number and I can get them to you. People are mistaken by CO2, especially global warming deniers.
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #18 on: April 06, 2009, 03:27:19 AM »

Again, you have ignored the links and are now talking about carbon monoxide when the basis for the hysteria is carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is the fundamental issue not carbon monoxide, one being the basis for breathing and the other is something quite different, you are just trying to defeat an issue which wasn't even presented or mentioned, it's idiotic and pathetic.

I just wanted to clarify that the TRUE cause of global warming is CO, not CO2, and that the people disproving global warming focus on CO2, not CO, because once you get into CO you realize that there is something to global warming after all. Again, how many scientist do you want me to source. I took classes on this, both in science and even economy, I have facts. Just list a number and I can get them to you. People are mistaken by CO2, especially global warming deniers.


Take two.....Okay I shall repeat this again, politicians have been pondering calling CO2 a pollutant, scientists are telling us that the sky is falling because of CO2, experts are warning we must reduce our CO2 footprint before it's too late. Therefore you are just trying to create a false argument, I never contested with you that carbon monoxide is poisonous but it seems not only are you trying to play that.  Also you seem to be directly contradicting what even the experts are saying. Now notice I didn't say that the earth hasn't warmed by just under a centigrade in the past century, what I noted was that it is now not really disputed by the same people who have been put on a pedestal saying that the earth is getting hotter,  that global cooling is occurring which they predicted would last a decade but are not revising that for a longer term of time. This is the reason why it's now gone from being called global warming to climate change. 

As for talking about HAARP Jrome you are wasting your time, it seems that the way in which some people choose to try and win arguments is to false attribute claims to others. Claims which for instance I have never made, idiots childish moronic bs stuff like "lizard people" Tommy that isn't even third grade intelligence perhaps in the second grade, such a response might leave fellow little children in awe but after that, that's under average son.
Cue the diss button being hit lol

Overfiend, I am trying to work with what I have, the problem is as soon as you accept that humans are the problem, i.e. breathing, then humans can be completely dehumanised, forcible sterilsation, and or imposing massive fines on families who breaks the rules on the number of children, carbon rationing cards etc. It is they who want to impose new thinking, new bureaucracies, new regulations, so I think your point overlooks that. Unless of course you are saying why resist it, accept it and the simple response to that is without balance, you create a very unbalanced world and the pr stage of this event is to win the hearts and minds, well I don't contest that saving energy is a good thing for example as long as it's not done with the intention of treading on people. Now I have absolutely no doubts whatsoever that these plans could be implemented to benefit everyone but it seems very apparent that throughout all of the deadly pollutants ignored, that really their agenda is not for the betterment of humanity.

I also think it's important not just for balance but for also informing people because for instance I have had a similar debate/discussion with some English peeps and at first they thought this whole issue was about cutting down car journeys, cutting down on deforestation etc, they didn't even know that a carbon rationing card had been suggested, in fact they laughed at me first of all, thought I was making it up. The problem is as the media is determined to present just one angle, how can I not be expected to be cynical? Also by the way, there is nothing wrong with cynicism, furthermore reforms are often to the detriment of society, so the message of "move with the times" in itself is just a message of acquiescence.

To illustrate the wickedness which is really behind this I quote

LONDON, March 25, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - One of the British government's foremost advisors on environmental policies will tell a conference this week that to make Britain "sustainable," its 60 million-plus population must be reduced by half.

Jonathon Porritt told the London Times this week that he will tell the annual conference of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), to be held at the Royal Statistical Society, that in order to reduce "pressure" on the world's ecosystems, Britain must halve its population to 30 million inhabitants.

He said and I quote "we must do this by contraception and abortion, you don't need to be a genius to realise that for such a plan to come fruition with the ever expanding population of britain courtesy of the waves of new arrivals from other E.U states, that the spectre of what he and other like minded people are envisaging, is wicked to say the least.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2009, 04:04:29 AM by virtuoso »
 

M Dogg

  • Greatest of All Time
  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12111
  • Thanked: 13 times
  • Karma: 330
  • Feel the Power of the Darkside
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2009, 06:40:59 AM »
What is so funny, is because people confuse CO and CO2, you want to make an argument saying global warming ain't real. So because some people deny the Holocaust, was that not real then, or if you got hit in the mouth, but you didn't know if it was a right fist or a left fist, then it never happened. Get out of here. Your arms are too short to box with God. Of course the average person will confuse CO and CO2, because the average person has no idea about it.

Fact, we have a heating Earth and smaller glaciers; and we can do something about it.
 

RETURN OF THE OVERFIEND!

  • Guest
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #20 on: April 06, 2009, 08:29:55 AM »


Overfiend, I am trying to work with what I have, the problem is as soon as you accept that humans are the problem, i.e. breathing, then humans can be completely dehumanised, forcible sterilsation, and or imposing massive fines on families who breaks the rules on the number of children, carbon rationing cards etc. It is they who want to impose new thinking, new bureaucracies, new regulations, so I think your point overlooks that. Unless of course you are saying why resist it, accept it and the simple response to that is without balance, you create a very unbalanced world and the pr stage of this event is to win the hearts and minds, well I don't contest that saving energy is a good thing for example as long as it's not done with the intention of treading on people. Now I have absolutely no doubts whatsoever that these plans could be implemented to benefit everyone but it seems very apparent that throughout all of the deadly pollutants ignored, that really their agenda is not for the betterment of humanity.

I also think it's important not just for balance but for also informing people because for instance I have had a similar debate/discussion with some English peeps and at first they thought this whole issue was about cutting down car journeys, cutting down on deforestation etc, they didn't even know that a carbon rationing card had been suggested, in fact they laughed at me first of all, thought I was making it up. The problem is as the media is determined to present just one angle, how can I not be expected to be cynical? Also by the way, there is nothing wrong with cynicism, furthermore reforms are often to the detriment of society, so the message of "move with the times" in itself is just a message of acquiescence.


Well your perspective assumes and/or has come to know, with conviction, that the aims are sinister.

I see that there is always going to be the potential for something sinister, but that is not necessarily the intent or even the most probable outcome. I think most people don't mind or will come to accept rationing their carbon emissions. I don't mind that we may have to tread on people and drastically change our way of life either, that is if, the justification is genuine and to me, regardless of global warming or climate change, there is justification enough in a clean environment. I don't care about climate change or global warming, I want less of a human impact on the environment period, because yes, I am a radical nutcase fueled by utopian ideals. 

Sure the governments have left out many (many, many, many) other harmful things, that is because, I think, they want to move slow to try and smooth the transition. In the end, Overfiend will get that utopia, if not this Overfiend then the next, or the one after that...
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #21 on: April 06, 2009, 09:55:49 AM »
What is so funny, is because people confuse CO and CO2, you want to make an argument saying global warming ain't real. So because some people deny the Holocaust, was that not real then, or if you got hit in the mouth, but you didn't know if it was a right fist or a left fist, then it never happened. Get out of here. Your arms are too short to box with God. Of course the average person will confuse CO and CO2, because the average person has no idea about it.

Fact, we have a heating Earth and smaller glaciers; and we can do something about it.

Ah once again you are only proving my point, defeating a non existent argument. Who are the people that confuse carbon monoxide with carbon dioxide? I will repeat it again the so called experts have been telling us that CO2 is the problem!. You are playing a paper tiger game here and it's pathetic.

I knew it wouldn't take long for the issue of the holocaust to be raised, it's base propaganda, comparing denying the holocaust to this. Your arms are too short to box with a midget you aint even a featherweight!, that is why you resort to such bs lol.

Why are you denying that the media has been pushing the hysteria on CO2?
Are you denying that global cooling is taking place?

If you are, perhaps you have a complete inability to read, and or until someone from the democrat party states publicly that global cooling is taking place, followed by a but about worse is yet to come, you will deny what you have read....who knows...you might even call one of the media annoined experts on global warming a conspiracy theorist if he mentions global cooling.
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #22 on: April 06, 2009, 10:09:14 AM »

Where is the humanity in stepping on people? drastically changing the typical persons way of life, means drastically reducing their standard of living, economic growth has been prominent during industrial activity. So that will in turn create even more disparity between the rich and the poor and completely destroy the middle class.

This ignores all of the pollutants which are being used which never get mentioned, so the idea of a clean environment with so many things ignored, is a false reality.

One persons utopia is another persons nightmare, the word in itself is clearly subjective. I to want less of a human impact on the environment, they can start by getting rid of depleted uranium, halting the dumping of nuclear waste, ripping all of the gm crops, but will it happen? of course not, they benefit from those things and they will benefit from taxing carbon dioxide because everything we do produces carbon dioxide. Perhaps they should tax the biggest animals to, perhaps impose a methane tax on giant whales since some people want a tax put on cattle  ;D

They left out many things because what it equates to is incredible control, this is like stepping back into history 400 years. It's just a more slick, high tech slavery instead, one is which it is true, a lot of people would thank them for, lost in happiness brought about by servitude.
 

M Dogg

  • Greatest of All Time
  • Made
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12111
  • Thanked: 13 times
  • Karma: 330
  • Feel the Power of the Darkside
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #23 on: April 06, 2009, 10:48:33 AM »
What is so funny, is because people confuse CO and CO2, you want to make an argument saying global warming ain't real. So because some people deny the Holocaust, was that not real then, or if you got hit in the mouth, but you didn't know if it was a right fist or a left fist, then it never happened. Get out of here. Your arms are too short to box with God. Of course the average person will confuse CO and CO2, because the average person has no idea about it.

Fact, we have a heating Earth and smaller glaciers; and we can do something about it.

Ah once again you are only proving my point, defeating a non existent argument. Who are the people that confuse carbon monoxide with carbon dioxide? I will repeat it again the so called experts have been telling us that CO2 is the problem!. You are playing a paper tiger game here and it's pathetic.

I knew it wouldn't take long for the issue of the holocaust to be raised, it's base propaganda, comparing denying the holocaust to this. Your arms are too short to box with a midget you aint even a featherweight!, that is why you resort to such bs lol.

Why are you denying that the media has been pushing the hysteria on CO2?
Are you denying that global cooling is taking place?

If you are, perhaps you have a complete inability to read, and or until someone from the democrat party states publicly that global cooling is taking place, followed by a but about worse is yet to come, you will deny what you have read....who knows...you might even call one of the media annoined experts on global warming a conspiracy theorist if he mentions global cooling.

See, here is where you get lost. You keep pushing the media, and CO2. That maybe what's on the mainstream, but that's like saying Soulja Boy represents Hip-Hop. It's all on the cover and is not what a true liberal believes. You keep with this media thing, TURN OFF YOUR TV.
 

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: What percentage of global warming deniers can't differentiate?
« Reply #24 on: April 06, 2009, 10:59:48 AM »

A carbon rationing card is aimed at rationing the usage of CO2. are you denying that now to? I don't really much tv bro, except for a few programmes, I mostly get the news from the publications.