Mad Mike

Downloads for the CIRA Report | Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action | US EPA

Illegal not to act: Could courts save world from climate change? - environment - 25 June 2015 - New Scientist

Yeah, oil and coal companies are pure as the driven snow. The stupidity of your argument is mind boggling.And I noticed you didn't address my link. Classic tactic... Can't argue facts? Deflect and change the subject.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

I think that the safest and most sane way to look at global warming is that there are costs associated to both lowering carbon output and ignoring the problem and dealing with the consequences of global warming. The bottom line for me is that while oil and coal profits will take a hit, America can offset that impact on the overall economy by LEADING in alternative energy solutions. Unfortunately Republicans don't seem to believe in American ingenuity and our ability to tackle remaining hurdles in solar and other alternative energy sources. They have no problem with subsidies for oil and coal but they demand that alternative energy gets no such help.

That is NOT in any way shape or form what the link you provided says.

EPA: Limiting Climate Change Would Have Tremendous Benefits For The U.S. | ThinkProgress Heat wave kills more than 1,100 in India - CNN.com Heatwave in Pakistan's Sindh province leaves 224 dead - BBC News Australia Is Melting Under a Horrifying Heatwave | TIME But hey, "I haz a snowball".

Sculpture by Issac Cordal in Berlin called "Politicians discussing global warming."

From the article.... "Matt Ridley is an English science journalist whose books include The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves. A member of the House of Lords, he has a website at www.mattridley.co.uk. He declares an interest in coal through the leasing of land for mining." So he is NOT a climate scientist. He's just a guy spreading disinformation who profits from coal.

You do realize that my single link post was directly above yours right? You think maybe you can be more specific about your issue next time? It might help avoid further confusion.

What is your friggin issue now? Do you get some special thrill complaining about my posts? And for the record, when posting from my iPhone i am forced to be brief. Deal with it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-06-18/this-year-is-headed-for-the-hottest-on-record-by-a-long-shot I was going to come back and post a quote from this article anyway. But for the record, I have more of a problem with stupid posts and links than brief ones.

Global carbon dioxide levels break 400ppm milestone | Environment | The Guardian

You mean James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium is wrong? And you have done a study that refutes him? Man you are one funny dude.

It takes a really "special" person to find something to feed their conformational bias in a report that says 99.9% of published scientists agree that their bias is wrong. LOL You do realize that "or" allows for more opportunity to find disagreement don't you? You do realize that "or" allows for more opportunity to find disagreement don't you?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2015/06/16/republicans-criticize-pope-on-climate-change-asearth-continues-to-heat-up/#.VYI23or3anN "NASA’s monthly update on Earth’s average temperature is out, and it shows this past May in a tie with May 2012 for second warmest on record for the month. Only May of last year was warmer in NASA’s record, which extends back to 1881."

Meanwhile in reality land... http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-climate-change-deniers-got-it-very-wrong "James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium, reviewed more than 24,000 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published in 2013 and 2014. Only five reject the reality of rising temperatures or the fact that human emissions are the cause, he found. “It’s now a ruling paradigm, as much an accepted fact in climate science as plate tectonics is in geology and evolution is in biology,” he told msnbc. “It’s 99.9% plus.”

RealClimate: What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came? Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study | Environment | The Guardian

Between the irony of you accusing others of conformational bias and the idiotic insinuation that NASA (the single most successful scientific organization the world has ever seen) should not be trusted even as you support Ted Cruz in his efforts to get them to NOT EVEN STUDY THE PROBLEM, you have once again proven that there is no limit to the level of stupid your positions can take.

You mean like this conference which stipulates that even the speakers must PAY to register?.... Our Common Future under Climate Change Do you see any fees offered to attend here? Northwest Climate Conference | Abstracts & Special Sessions In short, NO. It is NOT common practice to pay scientists to represent set positions.

Here's how you get climate deniers... You pay them to speak. http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Heartland.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-releases-detailed-global-climate-change-projections Is willfull ignorance of danger merely stupid or the product of a profound learning disability?

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7504710

Exxon Mobil CEO: No fracking near my backyard

Keep making **** up TWA. Your alternate (loony) world is almost amusing enough to make your "contributions" to the thread worthwhile.