Global Warming vs. Climate Change: Does It Make a Difference?

Nov 17, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: WNYC-AM New York

I am a regular listener to NPR, and it seems to me that the network has systematically started saying "climate change" instead of "global warming." ....If I am wrong in this observation, I am sorry.

Comments (Page 3)

Showing posts 41 - 51 of51
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Apr 27, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

4

tina: Some changed AGW to ACC after peer reviewed studies were published disproving AGW.

Reply: This is a lie.

tina: As for making things up, I do not make things up. I find using facts to be far more powerful tool.

Reply: See above.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Apr 28, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

SpaceBlues wrote:
tina: Some changed AGW to ACC after peer reviewed studies were published disproving AGW.
Reply: This is a lie.
tina: As for making things up, I do not make things up. I find using facts to be far more powerful tool.
Reply: See above.
I noticed that you did not give a reason why they did change from AGW to ACC. If I am lying then you should ber able to tell everyone why they did switch from AGW to ACC. And claiming they did not is simply lying because they did. One of the reasons why the AGW has disappeared from the media is that the amount of published peer reviewed studies published means that if someone like me wanted to sue them for publishing articles that were not true we could. Lawsuites that could cost them millions or even billions.

You can of course cling to the belief that AGW has not been debunked but the news media cannot afford that. They cannot afford to live in your fantasy world where you can claim those who you disagree with must be lying instead of your denying.
Bassman3

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
May 1, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

harvey wrote:
<quoted text>
What your lame attempt at sarcasm misses is that it would also lead to higher ocean levels, flooding of oceanfront areas and seaports, massive changes in weather patterns which could leave many fertile or productive areas dustbowls or deserts, increased numbers and violence-levels of storms, changes in ocean currents, etc.
Just a 'rough with the smooth' thing to you, or don't you care about the dangers?
Yes, you are correct, I do not care about "the dangers" because there isn't any, the only danger I see is people like you who buy this crap HL&S.
Increased CO2 levels & slightly warmer temperatures would be great for us & plant life, they eat CO2 for food you see, they need it as we need oxygen. So to deprive them of this basic building block for life, you will kill us all.
If the GW get their way, they will turn this planet into a dust bowl. They want to starve plant life. Increased levels of CO2 would mean more food for everyone at cheaper prices because it will be easier to grow. This increase in plant life would in turn provide more oxygen, you see the cycle here? To disrupt the CO2 levels is an example of liberal intentions once again destroying life, not preserving it.
Having said that, I own 3 fossil fuel vehicles, I start them up at night & let them idle in the driveway all night so I can help "feed" the plants your idiot retard, none thinking anti capitalist pawns are trying to kill.
Read about Co2, it's an amazing compound, it is 1 of the essential building blocks of life. To tax my car exaust is to tax me, I eat carbon based life forms for nurishment, that will be next, to tax our food because when I eat it, I emitt carbon myself, so you will have to tax me to regulate Co2. You should read, "The wonders of Co2" it's amazing the mirical that is carbon, all created from exploding stars. You greenies have no idea how resiliant the planet is, it will be fine no matter what we do. One day the earth will not be able to sustain "human life" this is niether good or bad, it's just evolution. It was only recently that the earth can sustain land animals & human life as we know it, so the story is not complete, & in the end, man will not be here to write about it.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
May 1, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Bassman3 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you are correct, I do not care about "the dangers" because there isn't any, the only danger I see is people like you who buy this crap HL&S.
Increased CO2 levels & slightly warmer temperatures would be great for us & plant life, they eat CO2 for food you see, they need it as we need oxygen. So to deprive them of this basic building block for life, you will kill us all.
If the GW get their way, they will turn this planet into a dust bowl. They want to starve plant life. Increased levels of CO2 would mean more food for everyone at cheaper prices because it will be easier to grow. This increase in plant life would in turn provide more oxygen, you see the cycle here? To disrupt the CO2 levels is an example of liberal intentions once again destroying life, not preserving it.
Having said that, I own 3 fossil fuel vehicles, I start them up at night & let them idle in the driveway all night so I can help "feed" the plants your idiot retard, none thinking anti capitalist pawns are trying to kill.
Read about Co2[sic], it's an amazing compound, it is 1 of the essential building blocks of life. To tax my car exaust is to tax me, I eat carbon based life forms for nurishment, that will be next, to tax our food because when I eat it, I emitt carbon myself, so you will have to tax me to regulate Co2[sic]. You should read, "The wonders of Co2" it's amazing the mirical[sic] that is carbon, all created from exploding stars. You greenies have no idea how resiliant[sic] the planet is, it will be fine no matter what we do. One day the earth will not be able to sustain "human life" this is niether[sic] good or bad, it's just evolution. It was only recently that the earth can sustain land animals & human life as we know it, so the story is not complete, & in the end, man will not be here to write about it.
wow ignorance based on propaganda is obvious.

So there was no life before man started burning fossil fuels?

Go back to school.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
May 1, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>wow ignorance based on propaganda is obvious.
So there was no life before man started burning fossil fuels?
Go back to school.
Wow, ignorance based on propaganda is obvious.

So there was no climate change before man started burning fossil fuels

Go back to school yourself. To begin with the first word in any sentence is supposed to be capitalized. Then after you review the most basic rules of the language then try both history and science.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
May 1, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

tina [always in small letters] is not qualified to judge any subject or any poster.

LOL.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
May 1, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

tina: One of the reasons why the AGW has disappeared from the media is that the amount of published peer reviewed studies published means that if someone like me wanted to sue them for publishing articles that were not true we could.[from Post #45 above]

REPLY: Learn how to think before you post in this forum.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
May 1, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

SpaceBlues wrote:
tina: One of the reasons why the AGW has disappeared from the media is that the amount of published peer reviewed studies published means that if someone like me wanted to sue them for publishing articles that were not true we could.[from Post #45 above]
REPLY: Learn how to think before you post in this forum.
Of course one can sue when they publish something which has been proven to be untrue. Just because you refuse to admit the fact dosn't stop it from being one.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
May 1, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

tina: One of the reasons why the AGW has disappeared from the media is that the amount of published peer reviewed studies published means that if someone like me wanted to sue them for publishing articles that were not true we could.[from Post #45 above]

REPLY: Learn how to think before you post in this forum.

tina: Of course one can sue when they publish something which has been proven to be untrue. Just because you refuse to admit the fact dosn't[sic] stop it from being one.[Post #51]

REPLY: Learn how to think before you post in this forum.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#53
May 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SpamBot wrote:
tina [always in small letters] is not qualified to judge any subject or any poster.
Oh dear, you've turned into another liteout "(ALWAYS SMALL LETTERS)"
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
May 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
tina: One of the reasons why the AGW has disappeared from the media is that the amount of published peer reviewed studies published means that if someone like me wanted to sue them for publishing articles that were not true we could.[from Post #45 above]
REPLY: Learn how to think before you post in this forum.
tina: Of course one can sue when they publish something which has been proven to be untrue. Just because you refuse to admit the fact dosn't[sic] stop it from being one.[Post #51]
REPLY: Learn how to think before you post in this forum.
You should follow your own advice and learn to think.

If the media was silly enough and they know better than to open themselves up to those kinds of situations I could sue and make millions of not billions. Given the amounts involved and we are talking enough to even make Buffit and Gates take notice, enough that the IRS would open a branch office right next to whoever you used as an accounting firm. Amounts that would make lawyers millionaires by the time it was done.

You think that someone would not be willing to do something that could make not only themselves but future generations insanely wealthy. To end up with more money than they could spend in ten generations. Just take a look at how many play the lottery for a fraction os such money.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 41 - 51 of51
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••

Orwell Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Orwell People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Orwell News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Orwell
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••