Greenpeace Founder: No Scientific Proof for Global Warming

shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I just did a scientific poll on the number of Americans that believe Global Warming is a supported scientific position. A blind post was made on the Sport Trac Website. Seven individuals responded. Six indicated that it was Bull ..... , one ranted and posted a number of pictures. Conclusion, 84% of all Americans believe it is not proven that man is responsible for Global Warming or Climate Change.



Note: The one respondent, that supported the premiss, could have had his vote rejected, as in other studies, because of a error in his post. He spelled Trac with a K.
 
You guys are wasting your time arguing with frank. He is always right. Just ask him. :sad:



I hate to admit it but my oldest sister is just like him. If the DNC or CNN didn't publish or broadcast something then it isn't worth talking about. She has no original thoughts, only the propaganda spewed by those two entities. Paying attention to anything reported by Fox is considered a sin worthy of the death penalty. Every time she shows up at any family gatherings she tries to turn the conversation into a political debate which is a big reason why most of the rest of my family avoids family gatherings. Very frustrating. :banghead:
 
Frank,

I don't deny Climate Change, there is just no proof that it's caused by humans. Your cartoons do not even address that question and offers no proof. That's all we denier are asking for is proof that humans are causing Climate Change? A handful of unnamed scientist funded by the Political/Financial government using bias data is not proof.



You made a statement that the Majority of Americans believed in the Al Gore Global Warming theory.....Frank, I can assure you that there are a hell of a lot more deniers than there are believers...The fact that they have to resort to cartoons and labeling them as Deniers clearly indicates that the deniers are the overwhelming majority.



...Rich
 
It's utterly ignorant, arrogant, and ludicrous to infer or believe that we (humans) are capable of causing significant, catastrophic changes to the climate of the planet; at least to the armageddon-like point that the global warming/cooling/climate change Chicken Littles of the world would have us believe. Has the climate changed? Sure it has. That's what climate does: It changes.



6c8fe32b74f08291ce27f66e817b1895.jpg




And it's been doing that since long before man was ever around. And so what if it is changing? Is it going to change so dramatcially so as to cause world-wide armageddon, as the global warming/cooling/climate change Chicken Littles would have us believe? No. It's merely changing over the course of time, as it's done since time began. We can't do anything about that except merely adapt. Frankly, after this hellishly cold winter, I'd welcome a little "global warming". :cheeky:



And here's something that we never hear any of the Chicken Littles (or the "97% of scientists" for that matter) talk about: If the climate is warming/cooling/changing, why is this supposed change bad? What exactly is the ideal climate? Funny how you never hear this discussed...



And check out the article I've linked below. Looks like the "97% of scientists" were just a wee bit off in a few of their predictions... :bwahaha:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, I this discussed several years ago, and if you go back and look at history, it makes sense. As the Soviet/Communism collapse became imminent, the Communist strategy became to infiltrate global environmental organizations. The co-founder of Greenpeace mentioned at the start of this thread also acknowledged this fact.
 
As for Frank and his cries of "Deniers! Deniers": That's what people like him do when folks disagree with him on ideology, philosophy, or politics, especially when they have no real factual ground to stand on to back up their point of view. It's no different that anyone disagreeing with the President being called a "racist".



Instead of worrying about "climate change" we should be worrying about frank destroying the internet. The debate is over! Scientists agree! :cheeky:

Scientific proof that trolls are ruining the Internet



By Zach Epstein on Mar 5, 2014 at 10:25 AM



Internet trolls are not a new phenomenon, but people have yet to find a way to effectively stop these woeful web goers from spoiling the fun for the rest of us. They flood forums, blogs, news sites, social media networks and any other page that supports open discussions with the deplorable goal of ruining any hope of meaningful conversation. You?ll probably see comments from many trolls below this very post (sit tight, we?re working on rolling out an easy way to hide the comments section completely).



Trolling is obviously annoying and sometimes even exasperating, but many people don?t realize that it?s much worse than that. As noted in a recent report, we now have actual scientific proof that trolls are ruining the Internet.



Per Washington?s Blog , The New York Times recently offered some thoughts on a study that sought in part to determine why trolls start flame wars. The entire post is a good and highly recommended read, but one section in particular really raises some eyebrows.



As part of a study published last month in The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1,183 participants were asked to read a post on a blog. Half the people read a version of the story that contained civil, interesting comments beneath it. The other half read the same story but the comments section was filled with angry, aggressive trolling.



From the Times:



The results were both surprising and disturbing. Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant?s interpretation of the news story itself.



In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology ? whom we identified with preliminary survey questions ? continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarized understanding of the risks connected with the technology.



Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they?d previously thought.



In other words, trolling actually changed people?s perception of the story. Not only that, but it changed their opinions of the facts in the story.



Encouraging conversation is one of the greatest things about the blog and social media formats, but there are obvious downsides as well. Free speech cannot and should not be limited, but stopping trolls from ruining other people?s experiences is an important task, and progress isn?t being made quickly enough.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your cartoon forgot to mention honest, hard working people who might lose perfectly good jobs because idiots like you are more concerned about trying to achieve the unachievable.
 
Frank, that last cartoon doesn't explain anything about Global Warming/Climate Change and doesn't relate to your argument. We can have those type of things whether or not climate change exists and is/isn't a result of mankind. I'm sure you'll respond with another political cartoon without actually defending your argument though... Or you probably won't even respond to anything us "naysayers" type :cheeky:
 
Frank,



With all due respect. One of these days you will learn two important aspects of getting support for your goals by your post.



One if you truly want to work towards Energy Independence, Preservation of Rainforest, Sustainability, Green Jobs, etc, etc, etc. All you have to do is say this is what I believe in and want for the World. No doubt you would get 100% support for these goals. There would be some dispute about the best ways to accomplish it, but everyone wants this.



Secondly, you have to dump the Climate Change, Global Warming or whatever scare tactic of the day may be. This is a political approach to throwing great sums of money to buy votes. The only reason to approach the problem from this point is because you want it to be political.



Simple if you want to clean up the planet you have support, if you want to make it political you have no support.



:banghead:

:banghead:
 

Latest posts

Top