Why do cons believe the weather service?

[RoadVirus]

Getting rid of the EPA will provide jobs because corporations will be able to save money by dumping toxic sludge in our drinking water. The money that the corporations save will trickle down to the workers, just like Reagan promised. Right now, big government regulations make it illegal for corporations to dump toxic sludge in our drinking water, which costs America jobs.

Conservatives only make sense if you don't think about it.

Another Libturd making shit up.

 

[The Rabbi]

Getting rid of the EPA will provide jobs because corporations will be able to save money by dumping toxic sludge in our drinking water. The money that the corporations save will trickle down to the workers, just like Reagan promised. Right now, big government regulations make it illegal for corporations to dump toxic sludge in our drinking water, which costs America jobs.

Conservatives only make sense if you don't think about it.

Another Libturd making shit up.

It's all they know how to do.

 

[Avatar4321]

Just about everybody believes the meteorologists when they say that there's going to be a snow storm coming, or a hurricane, or a heat wave. But when those same meteorologists say "global warming", the cons try to make everyone believe that those weather forecasters don't know what they're talking about.
It should be obvious that the cons are just parrots for the polluter industries. Kind of like when they tried to make everyone believe that smoking cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Back then they were subsidizing the tobacco industry. They still do today. No cure for stupid.

They have a hard time predicting weather in a 5 day forcast and you think they can predict 10 years down the line and we are the ones that are stupid?

 

[blackhawk]

Just about everybody believes the meteorologists when they say that there's going to be a snow storm coming, or a hurricane, or a heat wave. But when those same meteorologists say "global warming", the cons try to make everyone believe that those weather forecasters don't know what they're talking about.
It should be obvious that the cons are just parrots for the polluter industries. Kind of like when they tried to make everyone believe that smoking cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Back then they were subsidizing the tobacco industry. They still do today. No cure for stupid.

You have never seen a meteorologist get a forecast wrong?

 

[Kosh]

Just about everybody believes the meteorologists when they say that there's going to be a snow storm coming, or a hurricane, or a heat wave. But when those same meteorologists say "global warming", the cons try to make everyone believe that those weather forecasters don't know what they're talking about.
It should be obvious that the cons are just parrots for the polluter industries. Kind of like when they tried to make everyone believe that smoking cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Back then they were subsidizing the tobacco industry. They still do today. No cure for stupid.

Interestingly some of the same fake scientists show up with both cigarettes and carbon emissions. Men willing to sell their souls for a few bucks.

Yes that poor James Hansen who has had millions off the AGW scare, drives his Bentley to his activities rallies, lives in a 16 room mansion. Of course there is the ever popular Al Gore that now owns nine non-environmental friendly mansions because of the AGW scare, fly's around in his private B-707 jet and uses limo services to be shuttled around to these AGW conferences.

Yep we should really believe those that have the faith in the AGW gods, but can not practice what they preach.

Then again the far left believed Al Gore without hesitation and without question as if AL Gore was a scientist.

 

[Kosh]

In light of recent events it seems they do not have enough oversight, because it is clear they are incapable of policing themselves or abiding by incredibly loose state level regulation without the occasional permanently scarring environmental catastrophe. Just what are these jobs worth to you? A little cancer here a humongous fish-kill there a polluted countryside everywhere?

The simple way to eliminate risk of industrial accident is to eliminate the industries. That is precisely what Obama is proposing.

So what are you proposing? There has to be some kind of balance here but all the coal industry has done to clean up their act is to buy lobbyists, slick PR and politicians. If it is impossible to use coal as energy without wrecking things then the question stands, how much long-term environmental damage is worth those jobs?

Ah the far left fallacy line of questioning.

Since the far left wants the US to be exactly like Europe, most (if not all) European nations have abandoned their alternative energy projects in favor of their over bloated social experiments on the population.

But it won't stop the far left from posting their far left Obama drone propaganda.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Just about everybody believes the meteorologists when they say that there's going to be a snow storm coming, or a hurricane, or a heat wave. But when those same meteorologists say "global warming", the cons try to make everyone believe that those weather forecasters don't know what they're talking about.
It should be obvious that the cons are just parrots for the polluter industries. Kind of like when they tried to make everyone believe that smoking cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Back then they were subsidizing the tobacco industry. They still do today. No cure for stupid.

HUGE difference. Local weather patterns are trackable, viewable and can be reasonably guessed as to following weather as well as projections as to what OBSERVED weather patterns are doing.

NO ONE can guess what the weather will be next year aside from generic , well it did this the last x number of years.

NO ONE can predict what the weather will be in 10 years much less 100 years. We simply do NOT know enough about what MAKES certain things happen.

No computer model is accurate and no wild ass guess by scientists is either. Or perhaps you would care to go back to the predictions made in 1998 for now?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Just about everybody believes the meteorologists when they say that there's going to be a snow storm coming, or a hurricane, or a heat wave. But when those same meteorologists say "global warming", the cons try to make everyone believe that those weather forecasters don't know what they're talking about.
It should be obvious that the cons are just parrots for the polluter industries. Kind of like when they tried to make everyone believe that smoking cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Back then they were subsidizing the tobacco industry. They still do today. No cure for stupid.

out here when they say its going to rain you dont believe them until it happens.....and they are wrong alot of those times.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Just about everybody believes the meteorologists when they say that there's going to be a snow storm coming, or a hurricane, or a heat wave. But when those same meteorologists say "global warming", the cons try to make everyone believe that those weather forecasters don't know what they're talking about.
It should be obvious that the cons are just parrots for the polluter industries. Kind of like when they tried to make everyone believe that smoking cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Back then they were subsidizing the tobacco industry. They still do today. No cure for stupid.

Interestingly some of the same fake scientists show up with both cigarettes and carbon emissions. Men willing to sell their souls for a few bucks.

that sounds more like our Politicians....

 

[Clementine]

Meteorologists use radar to see what is actually happening and make educated guesses as to what the weather will be like based on many factors. Sometimes, they get it wrong, sometimes not.

The predictions from the global warming alarmists have yet to happen.

I know of no one who doesn't want to respect the earth, however, I am leery of those making policies that cause a lot of money to change hands with no real solutions for reducing the carbon footprint.

Taxing the shit out of people isn't going to magically heal the earth.

Some countries are relying on money redistribution from global warming policies to fund their pensions. Some stand to get filthy rich off this "solution" and it's not a matter of disbelieving scientists, though no conclusion has been made. A consensus among people paid big bucks to come to certain conclusions isn't all that impressive and their opinions are not hard facts. Even if we give the benefit of the doubt, the solution offered up is more about wealth redistribution than anything else.

 

[PredFan]

Just about everybody believes the meteorologists when they say that there's going to be a snow storm coming, or a hurricane, or a heat wave. But when those same meteorologists say "global warming", the cons try to make everyone believe that those weather forecasters don't know what they're talking about.

Why would that be so hard for you to figure out? A meteorologist can see the storm coming on the radar. Anything that they can't see there is a guess and they are about 50/50 usually.

It should be obvious that the cons are just parrots for the polluter industries.

Now see, there's your problem. The reason you aren't smart enough to answer the question yourself is that you believe this nonsense. It's keeping you stupid man! Wake up!

Kind of like when they tried to make everyone believe that smoking cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Back then they were subsidizing the tobacco industry.

Thanks for bringing that up. The cigarette companies had armies of scientists who supported their claim. Just like global warmists have armies supporting their claims. Scientists are for sale, have been for decades. Follow the money.

No cure for stupid.

Oh, then I shouldn't have wasted my time trying to cure you.

Nevermind.

 

[PredFan]

Just about everybody believes the meteorologists when they say that there's going to be a snow storm coming, or a hurricane, or a heat wave. But when those same meteorologists say "global warming", the cons try to make everyone believe that those weather forecasters don't know what they're talking about.
It should be obvious that the cons are just parrots for the polluter industries. Kind of like when they tried to make everyone believe that smoking cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Back then they were subsidizing the tobacco industry. They still do today. No cure for stupid.

On Valentines day, 2007, our local forecast called for 3 to 5 inches of snow. Twenty hours later, we were at 24 inches.

This happened when they had radar tracking a storm that was moving eastward at a constant velocity, producing a steady stream of moisture at a specific rate.

This was a 24 hour forecast.

Now, you want to use a daily forecast of weather that is only 80% accurate and then project that to say that in 20 to 100 years from now, they can predict the temperature of the planet......

And you want to ridicule republicans?

Too funny....

You could tell by his first paragraph that he didn't spend too much time thinking this over.

 

[PredFan]

Getting rid of the EPA will provide jobs because corporations will be able to save money by dumping toxic sludge in our drinking water. The money that the corporations save will trickle down to the workers, just like Reagan promised. Right now, big government regulations make it illegal for corporations to dump toxic sludge in our drinking water, which costs America jobs.

Conservatives only make sense if you don't think about it.

Romper Room is that way=============>

 

[PredFan]

1. telling the weather a few days out is vastly different than talking about climate change.

2. what makes you thinks "cons" believe weathermen? they are often wrong.

3. what katz said, meteorologist and climatologist study two different fields

what a bizarre thread.

The OP just isn't too bright.

 

[PredFan]

Was it my imagination of did several candidates suggest pulling the teeth or even abolishing the EPA? A quick google search shows at least two did call for it to be rendered powerless or abolished altogether. That may not be an explicit endorsement of pollution but telling the environment cops to go home is the same thing.

being opposed to an overly large intrusive federal agency does not mean anyone favors polluting the earth. No one is advocating for eliminating laws against pollution, just looking for some reasonableness in it that does not destroy jobs and the economy.

How is the country helped by obama's desire to destroy the coal industry?

In light of recent events it seems they do not have enough oversight, because it is clear they are incapable of policing themselves or abiding by incredibly loose state level regulation without the occasional permanently scarring environmental catastrophe. Just what are these jobs worth to you? A little cancer here a humongous fish-kill there a polluted countryside everywhere?

What does that have to do with global warming numbskull?

 

[PredFan]

Another idiotic thread from the AGW idiots down the drain.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just about everybody believes the meteorologists when they say that there's going to be a snow storm coming, or a hurricane, or a heat wave. But when those same meteorologists say "global warming", the cons try to make everyone believe that those weather forecasters don't know what they're talking about.
It should be obvious that the cons are just parrots for the polluter industries. Kind of like when they tried to make everyone believe that smoking cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Back then they were subsidizing the tobacco industry. They still do today. No cure for stupid.

Why do leftists think that if you believe one thing a person says, you're obligated to believe EVERYTHING that person says, even when they say something they're totally unqualified to speak to?

There's a huge difference between being able to see a weather pattern and which direction it's heading, and being able to definitively state that human beings are CAUSING the weather pattern.

The fact that you needed me to tell you this earns you a big ol' "Duuuhhh".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, and for the record, I don't "believe the weather service". I never check the weather service. I live in Tucson, Arizona. The weather's going to be sunny and warmer than most of the rest of the country. Write it down. The few days of the year that it DOES rain always show up at the exact same time every year, and I can just look outside, see it raining, and go from there. I don't even remember the last time I gave the weather here much thought at all.

 

[Star]

When did anyone on the right come out in favor of pollution? please give us some citations or STFU.

Was it my imagination of did several candidates suggest pulling the teeth or even abolishing the EPA? A quick google search shows at least two did call for it to be rendered powerless or abolished altogether. That may not be an explicit endorsement of pollution but telling the environment cops to go home is the same thing.

being opposed to an overly large intrusive federal agency does not mean anyone favors polluting the earth. No one is advocating for eliminating laws against pollution, just looking for some reasonableness in it that does not destroy jobs and the economy.

How is the country helped by obama's desire to destroy the coal industry?

Carbon sucking rightwingers ODS is showing again!
According to Forbes, President Obama and the EPA aren't stopping coal production, natural gas is but-----but Forbes says coal is a buy-----coal is buy because Obama's EPA is a friend of coal, in fact Forbes even goes so far as to say...

...Coal's New Best Friends: An Environmentalist and Obama's EPA - Forbes

Michael Krancer1/09/2014

<snip>

Then, just last Friday, the Obama Administration gave a big boost to CCS when the EPA published its CCS final rule. This rule is sweet for CCS fans. The EPA says the “rule provides a clear pathway for using carbon capture and sequestration technologies.” The key is that this rule excludes CO2 streams that are sent into underground injection wells for sequestration from the EPA’s onerous hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. This rule is, in essence, a get-out-of-jail-free card for CCS with respect to hazardous waste regulation. The EPA put it this way:

EPA is taking this action because the Agency believes that the management of these CO2 streams, when meeting certain conditions, does not present a substantial risk to human health or the environment, and therefore additional regulation pursuant to RCRA’s hazardous waste regulations is unnecessary. EPA expects that this amendment will substantially reduce the uncertainty associated with identifying these CO2 streams under RCRA subtitle C, and will also facilitate the deployment of [CCS] by providing additional regulatory certainty.
​

All of this comes with the backdrop of the EPA’s already unveiled regulations for emissions from new power plants and its anticipated release this summer of the draft rules for existing power plants. Many decry these EPA rules as a “war on coal.” They fail to recognize that it’s not regulation that has stalled the rush to build any new coal plants in the United States, it’s economics—namely, the low price of natural gas. As for existing coal power plants, it is expected that the EPA rule will undergo intense public and stakeholder participation across the board and that local state governments will be left with much flexibility to implement what works best for them.


And...

"Clean coal is an essential component of the President's "All of the Above" energy strategy and the proposed project would help DOE meet its congressionally-mandated mission to support advanced clean-coal technologies," the DOE added.


Redfish: "obama's desire to destroy the coal industry?"
Conjure much?
.

 

[Politico]

Just about everybody believes the meteorologists when they say that there's going to be a snow storm coming, or a hurricane, or a heat wave. But when those same meteorologists say "global warming", the cons try to make everyone believe that those weather forecasters don't know what they're talking about.
It should be obvious that the cons are just parrots for the polluter industries. Kind of like when they tried to make everyone believe that smoking cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Back then they were subsidizing the tobacco industry. They still do today. No cure for stupid.

I got a better one. Why would someone be retarded enough to believe a bunch of clowns who can't correctly tell me the temperature tomorrow can predict what it will be 100 years from now?