LOL Fox News



[Edited on December 18, 2009 at 11:40 AM. Reason : BIGGER]

12/18/2009 11:39:31 AM

I like how 3 of the 5 answers are negative.

And LOL at the faulty science.

Fucking idiots.

12/18/2009 11:40:09 AM

1 positive answer, and it still has a negative statement attached to it.

12/18/2009 11:41:31 AM

lol @ Fox News...

they just don't care about credibility anymore.

12/18/2009 11:42:50 AM

I use them as a news source, but not a political news source. I only read the shit that they can't fuck up.

[Edited on December 18, 2009 at 11:44 AM. Reason : s]

12/18/2009 11:44:42 AM

i dont support this poll. i do however maintain that global warming is crap. Climate change....yeah, why not - but the climate is always in flux and we cannot measure the impact that man has had on the climate, if at all.

12/18/2009 11:44:55 AM

^gtfo

This is a lol @ this poll thread, not a global warming thread.

12/18/2009 11:45:58 AM

You know absolutely nothing about what you're talking about.

[Edited on December 18, 2009 at 11:46 AM. Reason : ^^]

12/18/2009 11:46:37 AM

indeed, this poll has .5 good answers.

12/18/2009 11:48:54 AM

whatever

i've decided that i really don't give a fuck anymore about the political slant this shit is on

from looking at all the shit and evidence from both sides (those internal memo emails are pretty fucking damming) I still have my doubts about the scale of the human factor involved. not that we shouldn't be doing something about it (co2 and other emissions/waste).

being more efficient always pays off (until you get into diminishing returns areas (we are not))

but anyways back to the poll

LULLZ REPUBLICANZ
LULLZ DEMOCRATZ
rabble rabble rabble

honestly, neither of them do shit anymore

don't get me started on how they think they can 'fix' healthcare... they can't end of story. reasons: they don't know what the fuck they are doing and will only increase taxes and collateral costs. they can't do shit to keep costs down. the insurance reform might be the only boon (forcing insurance companies to not drop people for incredibly greedy reasons)

[Edited on December 18, 2009 at 11:57 AM. Reason : s]

12/18/2009 11:51:43 AM

Quote :

"but the climate is always in flux and we cannot measure the impact that man has had on the climate, if at all."

[Edited on December 18, 2009 at 11:55 AM. Reason : .]

12/18/2009 11:55:08 AM

paging McDanger

12/18/2009 11:55:09 AM

10/10 Chit Chat thread

12/18/2009 12:00:32 PM

this makes me lol

12/18/2009 12:06:01 PM

Fox News is about as fair and balanced as climate science

12/18/2009 12:06:22 PM

^^that's pretty good.

^please don't be "that guy"

\/ you too. ignorance is not a charming quality for anyone.

[Edited on December 18, 2009 at 12:09 PM. Reason : .]

12/18/2009 12:08:09 PM

Quote :

"I still have my doubts about the scale of the human factor involved. not that we shouldn't be doing something about it (co2 and other emissions/waste)"

12/18/2009 12:09:02 PM

^^hey look, its another AGW alarmist who wants to say there is no debate...very productive! Silence any skeptics! Lets delete some more emails! Then we can act like we know everything about a 5 billion year old planet based on 100 years of unreliable data! Woo hoo!

12/18/2009 12:10:35 PM

to say that humans have had no negative impact on the natural environment is simply wrong.

overpopulation is the biggest and most challenging problem of them all.

12/18/2009 12:13:27 PM

Quote :

"paging McDanger"

haha i gave up on this a long time ago

12/18/2009 12:14:41 PM

Quote :

"to say that humans have had no negative impact on the natural environment is simply wrong"

who said that?

12/18/2009 12:14:58 PM

lol at "green jobs"

12/18/2009 12:15:51 PM

there are some green jobs in cali now

12/18/2009 12:16:20 PM

humans negatively affecting the environment?

i


think


not




[Edited on December 18, 2009 at 12:17 PM. Reason : .]

12/18/2009 12:16:56 PM

IBT TKEs

12/18/2009 12:18:45 PM

Quote :

"there are some green jobs in cali now "

unfortunately, you have to take an IOU for the next few years in lieu of a paycheck.

12/18/2009 12:18:49 PM

i meant growing for the dispensaries heheh

12/18/2009 12:19:23 PM

green card jobs, si.

12/18/2009 12:22:33 PM

carlface

12/18/2009 12:25:23 PM

true, which is why i'm not opposed to doing stuff about it. i do think if any sort of global impact is to be made developing countries are gonna have to get in line with it, no fucking free pass. blah blah blah it isn't fair, no shit it isn't neither is the US having most the nukes in the world but what the fuck are you gonna do about it other than bitch and moan?

Quote :

"you too. ignorance is not a charming quality for anyone."

i love how you just blindly assumed that the quote means that we don't think there is a human factor or that the climate is 'changing'

it's quite a bit more nuanced than that, which was apparently completely lost on you.

i get equal lullz out of those with their heads in the sand as i do with those that staunchly attack anything that says that humans aren't the cause of everything bad in the world (and we should give the government all the power and money we can to 'save' our helpless asses)

both of you sides suck and and are mostly wrong.

immigration: 1 of 2 things should happen - either open controlled fully un-restricted immigration (in terms of numbers restrictions) but catalog and index everyone that comes in and make damn fucking sure you get taxes out of them and make sure they aren't here for bad purposes (criminals, terrorists etc) OR actually enforce the existing immigration laws, we are doing it half assed and wasting money as a result. i'm for #1 actually

[Edited on December 18, 2009 at 12:30 PM. Reason : s]

12/18/2009 12:26:50 PM

I love the save the planet angle. The planet will be just fine. Humans can't do a thing to hurt it. It'll heal. We're trying to save ourselves here.

12/18/2009 12:30:33 PM

Quote :

"I love the save the planet angle. The planet will be just fine. Humans can't do a thing to hurt it. It'll heal. We're trying to save ourselves here."

lol what

12/18/2009 12:31:08 PM

I'll boil it down.

Long after we've raised temperatures and killed ourselves off, the Earth will still be here. We can't do anything to destroy it. Even if all the nukes in the world went off at once, it'll still be here, healing itself and carrying on.

It isn't about saving the planet. It's about saving the human race.

12/18/2009 12:34:14 PM

i wish there was a "who cares about the summit, shit's gonna end in 2012 anyway" choice on the poll

12/18/2009 12:34:47 PM

Quote :

"It isn't about saving the planet. It's about saving the human race."

true enough

12/18/2009 12:35:57 PM

Quote :

" love the save the planet angle. The planet will be just fine. Humans can't do a thing to hurt it. It'll heal. We're trying to save ourselves here."

Well, generally people are referring to the living aspect of the planet when they say "save the planet". As in humans AND all other life. I think everyone is aware that rocks and minerals are doing alright on their own.

[Edited on December 18, 2009 at 12:38 PM. Reason : .]

12/18/2009 12:37:36 PM

Even if temperatures rose to a level that wouldn't sustain HUMAN life, life would continue on this rock. Even if a nuclear winter went on and radiation went through he roof.

We can't do anything to kill off all life, even if we wanted to.

[Edited on December 18, 2009 at 12:39 PM. Reason : *]

12/18/2009 12:39:12 PM

yeah that doesn't make it a good fuckin' idea now does it?

12/18/2009 12:40:37 PM

^^
Well no shit, the point is to sustain life as it is currently. I wouldn't consider a planet inhabited by archaebacteria to be thriving.

12/18/2009 12:42:18 PM

^^ No, I just think the semantics of it are interesting.

^ What difference would it make what life is left, if we've killed ourselves off?

[Edited on December 18, 2009 at 12:45 PM. Reason : *]

12/18/2009 12:45:19 PM

what's so interesting about the semantics

yes "save the planet" could mean "keep something alive" if you stretched it far enough

don't think this is what anybody's talking about though

12/18/2009 12:46:26 PM

i enjoy how the "progressive" liberals in here are so tolerant and can appreciate diverging opinions - especially since no data exists. Yall make a point to try to convince others there is no God and it is all a myth, when global warming may very well be a myth in itself. So, why do you deny one 'myth' and support the other? You put more faith in an "Inconvenient Truth" (which has been proven scientifically inaccurate) than you do in the Bible. (Not a Bible beater, just using using an example)

Now, when one of you guys can stick some data in here (besides a picture of smokestacks (ps-that last one is steam)) then we can debate the merits of your point of view. So far, no one has shown any true scientific data that climate change is made by man. Shouldnt we also blame 19th century europeans for putting all that carbon in teh air as indicated by the first picture (which was enhanced to make it look darker and more negative - i thought Fox was bad)?

the facts remain:
-overpopulation is or will be a problem
-look for ways to 'reuse' buildings, materials, etc, without having to create new
-we should do our best to improve the planets health
-tighten restrictions on pollutants
-etc

12/18/2009 12:47:57 PM

Quote :

" the facts remain: -overpopulation is or will be a problem -look for ways to 'reuse' buildings, materials, etc, without having to create new -we should do our best to improve the planets health -tighten restrictions on pollutants -etc "

yeah, this is correct. couldn't get through the rest of your ramblings.

12/18/2009 12:50:52 PM