Show of Hands

Didn't read the article?

Nope. The question was enough for me.

You don't know what climate "bubble" is referring to then. You are out of your event Donny.

*element

Who is Donny?

The new change of terms (presumably by the left) is easy enough to figure out.

It's not referring to climate change or global warming if that's what you are inferring.

Aw what happened?

What happened?? Did you not mean that comment for me?

I come to this app to answer polls. I rarely have the time to read articles that clarify a poll. A good poll should have enough information within it to be answered without needing to do research. Attached articles should simply be supportive in nature.

OK..I looks at the childish ravings in the article. LMAO. My assumptions about this newly invented term were absolutely correct.
You know if climate fear mongers would choose an actual greenhouse gas to bitch about they would gain more credibility (Carbon Monoxide or Water Vapor for example).

I think, you think I am someone else.

Or maybe you were trying to insult me in which case you failed. Since I do not get the reference.

I used to work with a Donny..but he got fired for sexual harassment. That's as close to making sense out of your comment that I can force logic.

LOL sorry I didn't mean to trigger you. It helps to read articles before commenting though, just FYI.

I'm not triggered simply confused by your responses.

It is a big lebowski reference.

Donny....please

Ahh..I see..yea I never watched that one.

All together now..

Shut the fuck up Donny. 😉

Science from over a century ago tells us about CO2 and the greenhouse effect. And yes it's actually essential and not just as "plant food". Without the greenhouse effect the earth would be too cold, along with other changes it would be inhabitable. But too much is also bad for us.

Your argument that climate change is ridiculous because CO2 is "plant food" is as stupid as saying that the idea of drowning in water is ridiculous because people drink it all the time.

1) economics isn't a science
2) one hurts the economy a bit, the other leads to the extinction of the human race

Climatology is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time."

Economics is the study of scares resources which have alternate uses.
Not much of a difference. One is a physical science, the other is a social science.

Either way, if you think that reducing all carbon emissions will only hurt a "bit" you are denying economic principles. The sad part is, this climate extremism hurts the poor of the world the most.

Better than every single human dying

I have never seen a prediction by any scientist or otherwise whether for or against climate change that claims our use of carbon fuels will eradicate every single human being. Care to share your source? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Your extremism makes you irrational.

Someone didn't read the article

I read the article and the guy is your average alarmist joke. For instance, he blames the Syrian civil war on global warming. Not only are his current assessments wrong but his future predictions are even worse.

No global warming refugees? Why do you think people are fleeing Syria?

Lol. The refugees are fleeing because of war which has nothing to do with global warming. The UN was referring to refugees displaced because their towns, cities, villages were under water, which never happened.

Well climate change has caused drought in the deserts of Syria, forcing more urbanization, which is one of the causes of the Arab spring in Syria.

Not true. Plenty of people live in urban areas and aren't killing each other. It's their ideology that is their problem not global warming.

Yeah, but did you see he's made head of department of energy and EPA? What a joke

Yeah, I know. I'm just saying he may have changed a bit since the whole Chinese conspiracy thing.

Doubtful. Look at his appointments and the purge he wants to do.

I'm not denying that, this article covers a different aspect of the issue than who pollutes the most.

Read the article though, it's short. It might give a different perspective.

It is the same drivel with a new alarmist term you are trying to popularize.