/sarcasm, obvs. Also I hate having to put the sarcasm tag, but nobody went broke underestimating...you know the rest.

[www.venganza.org]

for proof.

Everyone is so afraid of change, you think the liberals would understand this concept all the time, they're trying to change everything. Alas, I live 50 feet about sea level, so when it comes down to it, I DON'T CARE. I actually want New Orleans to vanish, it shouldn't have ever been rebuilt.

@sam1am: all this talk about wood reminds me that Jessica Biel may be nude in "Powder Blue".

You can't even get your own story straight. One moment you say "Global Warming is a farce" then next you says "global warming is a natural cycle of the earth".

So which is it? Is it real or not? I'll wait while you go get some right wing mouthpiece to tell you what to think.

I would like a " globally warmed " Wopper please ...

Call it whatever you'd like. The FACT of the matter is that earth is a changing entity, always has been, always will be. This is regardless of Human Interference or not.

Get used to it.

unfortunately there is lots of conflicting data, and very little that con be considered 'conclusive'. either way, lack of persuasive evidence does not negate the responsibility to put effort into reducing our negative effects on the planet.

Hmmm, now I want a sandwich.

Don't you find it the least bit ironic? I mean, it's like being taught abstinence from Hugh Hefner. (now THAT would be funny...)

The attendants in the restaurant didn't know anything about it at the time. I thought it might be a prank but I guess not.

@SJ Stanaitis: Yes. Next question.

If you don't believe in Science, all you ignoramuses out there, then give up your magical music rocks (Ipods), your crazy picture-word boxes and their picture-box cousins (PCs and TVs), and go back to candlelight, horse transportation, and the town crier. Cause those other things are magical-witchery!

@OrlandoDude:

That's why it's generally referred to as Climate Change now, not Global Warming.

LAME.

If God didn't intend for us to make industry and America, He wouldn't have given us oil and Africa to exploit!

(/noshititbesarcasm)

@Mike8813:
Oh yes, you must believe that global warming is real. But then again, you only listen to what is on the 6:00 news. The only ones still pushing this are politicans who want more of your money, and companies who want to force you to buy there "green" products. Scienceist who actually first came up with the idea, have proved this thing false a couple of hundrend times over. NASA own solar flare research also completely debunks this. How about actually studying the fact before calling someone a moran. BTW, the last 5 years the temps have been falling, and parts of of the country are under a Frost Warning. Now they are no longer calling it Global Warming, but Climate Change because the opposite of what they claimed would happen is happening. These same people in the 80's claimed that we were on the verge of an Ice Age, and that we needed to pump CO2 into the air to heat up the planet.

@jacques: Let me see here, I believe the stat that everyone claimed, was that the amazon rain forest is being deforested at a rate of 3 football fields a day. Man, they must have some major growing seasons down there. Because that amazon forest should have been completely gone over 20 times by now.

:)

My point was, we have all these so-called "experts" telling US what to do, but they don't act like it's a GLOBAL EMERGENCY when it comes to their private life. Same with most politicians (on both sides), celebrities, etc, etc, etc.

I use CFLs, recycle, and the rest. Why can't we just all agree to do our part WITHOUT the insane jabbering of idiots who tell us the sky is falling?

Because we "can't let a good emergency go to waste." That should make it crystal-clear what the governments motivation is. It's not environmental controls- just "control."

Got to get back to my TV...

Read the comments code.

@weaselbit: Nah, do what makes you happy. But remember, it will be on a smaller scale.

@OrlandoDude: The thing is, you should not be doing something/not doing something/buying into/not buying into based on what someone else is saying and doing.

From what I have read, there humans are partly responsible for the warming of the climate but it is also part the cyclic nature of the earth's climate.

I recycle, use CFLs, try not to add more pollution to the environment, etc. In fact I probably could say that I do more than most of people who fly their environmentalist flag high. But I do it because I WANT TO DO IT. Not because Al said so, or there is a new movie out, or a talking head was railing against whatever.

Do it if you want to but don't feel guilty if you don't. Trust me, I am probably erasing your carbon footprint too.

(If you recognize the reference from memory then I might be the roommate who made fun of all your music in college.)

On natural CO2 cycles, the earth puts out and takes in much more CO2 than humans put in. But that process has been in a balance between 200ppm and 300ppm for the last 600,000 years. Now we are nearing 400ppm and you are saying it's the earth's fault for not eating up all of our CO2 output faster? Do you honestly believe that the earth has suddenly caused this increase at the precise time humans started burning fossil fuels in large quantities? Over short time period, yes, the excess CO2 might be contributed to the earth but on the average (in the long run), we are the cause.

@Lucky225: God, you're messing with beat. you can't mess with the beat.

Here is an excellent example of censorship in on this blog. If one goes against the liberal thought and ideas, ones voice will be silenced! The Communist is not a forum for free ideas, only the party line!

Now watch the libs on this blog sensor my thoughts and push the liberal agenda, Brown Shirts I say!

If it has become an 'industry' as some posters complained, then it's about freaking time. It should have happened in the 70's, but for the real and established 'industries'.
Now GM and Chrisler are failing because of what everyone agrees is their wrongheaded and shortsighted decisions and we're paying the price. Me, I'd rather pay that price in advance, pay less, and have better air and water.

(Sorry, I noticed that this flame war didn't have the obligatory Obama-socialist comment. Carry on.)

Fact
1. Global warming is happening
2. More C02 contributes to Global warming

Unknown
1. amount of Human output of CO2 vs amount of natural CO2
2. Measurable economic trade-off of C02 giving positive and negative effects on global warming.

Especially the Kyoto meetings. If we all(meaning the 8-10 major countries) agree on limiting our Co2 output, it only lessens our quality of life and allows the smaller countries capitalizes on limitations. eventually their CO2 output will put us back on track with where we are already heading and it's pointless, especially when the technology is still very expense. Do you really want to pay twice or 3 times as much for electricity to have "green energy"? Businesses will pass on their cost (green energy) to your purchases and when that happens, your money will dry up pretty fast.

As a proud consumerist that is living in the state of Tennessee, allow me to say this: Ouch.

But wait, they have a private jet to catch to a 20-room mansion.

Kudos to the one celebrity I know who actually lives by her true beliefs and words- The mermaid girl Daryl Hannah. I understand she is completely "off the grid".

Common sense has gone out the window. I wish we could really debate without the politics.

@Matthew Frank: Saying mean things about those who don't agree with you is easier than looking up the facts and maybe having your beliefs blown out of the water. But at least looking up facts will help you not look like a complete idiot.

@OMG! OMG!: I wonder how much people "hear" on this blog or in real life anyway so ya might as well say it!

It's amazing how many people you can convince once you sink a few billion dollars into your cause... [www.publicintegrity.org]

Our local attorney general decided that no adult store should be open after Midnight, because bad things happen after midnight.

I could go on forever about just how backwards memphis is.

- You will not put any signage without getting it approved first.
- If you do and we hear about it, franchise gone, you get no money back and you SO fired.

Have a nice day.

Out of curiosity, what is your view on Darwinism?

I also think its pretty obvious that when you have 8 billion of the same species consuming resources and actively disrupting the environment to get to said resources, that you will have large environmental disruption. And when much of that resource is oil, which produces C02, which is known to trap heat, and we have basically consumed almost all of it in a 100 years, then the climate probably will get hotter.

Compared with: The human race is not changing the climate, this is all normal.

Now, if you want to rehash the science, we should all be at a science blog.

I get tired of a lot of the uninformed reactions to both sides of this issue. It's funny though because typically people are going to do what they are going to do regardless.

I do have a lot of success convincing people to make some changes though based on the following argument. I'm not saying change your life, simple things help. I don't bike to work, although I believe it would be better for the world for instance.

1) Everyone makes bets.

This doesn't mean everyone wastes money on slot machines and lotteries, but literally everyone makes value decisions based on expected outcome of an unknown variable. For instance, if you buy a full head of lettuce on the chance that you are going to eat the whole thing, and it only costs an extra $0.05, then you made a bet. If you ate it, you won, if you tossed it, you lost.

2) There is at least a small chance that our behavior is impacting global warming

There are some arguments that this is mostly naturally occurring. There are virtually zero informed people arguing that there is not at least some possibility that people are generating some of the warming. The only people I've ever heard say something like that are parroting editorials and non-researched based opinion. Even the scientists (the source of their counter arguments) they rely on for their arguments do not discount this possibility. Sam, you even say it's a possibility in what I replied to.

3) The expected outcome if global warming continues may be catastrophic

Major floods, crop failure and famine, even in the 1st world.

4) Based on this it is most intelligent to at least try simple changes

Even if you think your expected outcome is low (say like buying a lottery ticket) the potential payoff is HUGE (not starving! Continuation of the species!) So it makes sense as a betting person (see definition above) to make small changes.

Even just little changes can help. Many of these don't impact your life adversely at all. For instance I drive a smaller vehicle as a secondary vehicle (to/from work), actually a scooter. This was initially an environmental decision, but I've saved so much money doing it that even if it is proven that the earth doesn't give two bits about that, I'll keep it up.

p.s. Please try and find a reference to support your incorrect "fact" that "To date the world has spent $642,730,136,201 fighting global warming under the Kyoto Protocols since 2005." Just one among many of your incorrect statements.

You've put out a lot of completely incorrect information (provably false) that you take as fact, maybe that's why you're not convinced. If your argument is relying on such incorrect information no wonder you're having trouble convincing people.

Jeezus - it's like throwing out apostrophes because people whose minds haven't risen above Third Grade reading levels can't figure out the difference between "its" and "it's".

sam1am > *

You read articles, you watch thew news, you assume it's true. I'm a liberal dem from California - the Santa Cruz area, so that should indicate how crazy liberal pro-Earth I am.

The last time I did some basic research into global warming (university level research, not googling something)...well, here's a great example: the U.N. selected the two most extreme models from a selection of 600. Even the scientists said the models were crap, but the person selecting the models believed the idea, so they "chose" the science to present to the world.

Total.

Crap.

No, they aren't.

I'm not trying to sound accusational at all, I am honestly asking. Not knowing the physics data, I am genuinely curious how the data would shake out in the model, and I'd love to see this happen. If any of this is published - can you provide a link? I'd LOVE to read it. (I promise to give you a cite if I can!)

This is a peer-reviewed look at anthropogenic biomes of the world - and how we have changed them.
[ecotope.org]

Climate change is so called because it will affect temperature regimes as well as things like precipitation and sea level (which is obviously linked to temperature, but also obviously not the same thing). For a reasonable, if governmental overview (but one that is available to all without university library access), check out
[www.epa.gov]

Yes the other guy was correct in that some places will be affected differently than others- some will have a net cooling effect, some will have a net warming effect. This is not just because of ocean currents, however, and I'm not in agreement with the majority of his post. Just sayin' before I get my intestines ripped out. :)

I am not sure about Burger King, But McDonald's corporation makes most of their profits from leasing the property. McDonald's is the biggest retail landowner in the nation.

They can revoke the lease. They can put other franchises close by. They have a lot of power.

I spent about half an hour driving around, and yep, they are still up.

Example:
"Last year- Warmest year on record!" Cause: Global Warming.
"Last Year- Coldest year on record!" Cause: Global Warming.

It's to the point that NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS with the climate, it's the fault of Global warming. They win. I give up.

"Lowest temps since Christ!"
"Hottest Summer this side of Hell!"
"Cold snap ruins Florida Citrus!"
"Mohave Desert- Below Freezing!"

IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER.

@OMG! OMG!: oh, people would hear you. they'd just call you a rethuglican-nazi-flat-earth-science-killer for not immediately condemning these people.

@theodicey: Actually, no. There are many, many scientists doing those very things. Only they are not 'disproving observed temperature changes', they are proving that global temperatures have decreased since 1998.

We're almost fully-grown adults...

And as for those whining about being the poor little owner being oppressed by BK corporate, there are these things known as franchise agreements. They cover quite a bit of what a franchisee owner can and can not do. Since BK doesn't want to lose the business of those of us who aren't allergic to science, it is hardly surprising that they would consider these signs a violation of the franchise agreement. I would expect the same response about, for example, sign regarding abortion rights or a local election.

I suppose it's not surprising that people gullible enough to fall for global warming denial would think that BK corporate is part of the Great Big Al Gore Global Warming Dirty Effing Hippie Destroy Capitalism Conspiracy, but it is still pretty embarrassing for them.

@OMG! OMG!: Not just a huge flame war, but a flame broiled war!

There, fixed it for ya.

The sun has been cooling down in its solar activity for several years now. If climate change was due to the sun, we'd have seen an effect by now."

You do realize it stopped getting hotter like ... 8 years ago ... right? The sunspot activity temperature overlay is VERY revealing.

I want to reiterate what I said in my very first post. It is highly doubtful that man has had any significant impact on global temperature. An impact? Perhaps. But if we have, it has been infinitesimal.

To date the world has spent $642,730,136,201 fighting global warming under the Kyoto Protocols since 2005. The potential (read: POTENTIAL) change in global temperature from all of this is about 0.006665352 °C by 2050. That is $100k spent per billionth of a degree in change.

The reasoning and world push behind the Kyoto protocols becomes clear when you consider the economic ramifications of enacting such rules. Look up two figures online: Our GDP compared to the rest of the world and our CO2 output compared to the rest of the world. The idea is that we have to put the economy on hold to come up with new cleaner technologies while smaller economies (read: everyone) hasn't yet reached their CO2 quota or gets a complete pass because they are "undeveloped." In other words, stop what you're doing America, while we catch up.

Reference: [www.junkscience.com] - I'd recommend it, it's an enlightening read.

@chrylis: And if it wasn't for us computer science researchers, you'd still be doing experimental models on the abacus ;)

@theodicey: There are a lot of different kinds of researchers out there. There are the kind who do legitimate research funded by people and companies who believe in what is being researched, and there are the kind of researchers who look for any cash cow they can milk (e.g. biased research about the viability of electric cars sponsored by the oil industry)

It shouldn't be this hard to find unbiased funding, but not many people want to spend money on things that don't concern them.

It reminds me of a picture I saw, a liquore store sign:

[www.justourimages.com]

I guess some at Burker King are trying to match the gay-hating of Wendy's thankfully-dead Dave Thomas.

Step off the beef, hippie.

It almost gives me hope for the internet...

Of course, the difference is that In'N'Out also makes awesomely delicious food.

I found a lot of assertions with no facts to back them up. What was I supposed to find?

If I'm not mistaken, they aren't authorized to put that signage up because a reasonable person could be mistaken as to it being the opinion of BK, not the owner.

As youbastid says, they are independent in that they own the business, perhaps the building and the land. However, they signed an agreement with BK that allows them use of the BK trademarks, marketing materials, etc.

I guess my "main" point is that people see this as such a horrendous thing and something that must be stopped. I say let things change, because if we aren't doing it, we can't fix it; if we are doing it, we can't fix it (unless we all start growing our own personal food, having only one child, never traveling within walking distance of our house thus living like the earliest Americans and annihilate the entire population of China in order to have enough space to do this.)

And who was the schmuck to come up with the idea that global warming/climate change is such a bad thing? (no, I'm not pointing fingers at Al Gore, he probably got the idea from some dude somewhere) It's only a "problem" made out of a neutral event. And if you try to come back at me saying that climate change causes an increase in deadly heat waves, deadly hurricanes, deadly tsunamis, deadly aliens invasions thus it is "bad" and all that nonsense and therefore should be feared and must be stopped, I'll only refer you to my earlier more morbid post about human population control.

I am backed 100% in these assertions by my pet woolly mammoth 'Wrangel.'

Yea and this is Burger King, so Their way Right Away, now if it was Oscar Meyer on the other hand, my Boloney has a first name it's G L O B A L, My Boloney has a second name, it's W A R M I N G.

I do not think that cars help but to be honest humans are nothing compared with the actual universe. we really are just specks of nothing. We are not responsible for this climate change.

The sun has been cooling down in its solar activity for several years now. If climate change was due to the sun, we'd have seen an effect by now.

Yes, yes, I know, correlation does not equal causation. But one large possible factor, that has changed dramatically... and no result.

As well, the reason its called climate change, is because only some areas of the world will experience warming. Other areas, like the UK will actually get colder as ocean currents change.

So, climate change is the scientifically accurate term, instead of global warming.

And yes, I have the same problem. The flame broiled taste is like eating the polish sausage at costco, you taste it the rest of the day. Tums and Zantac are in order!

If that's what you did just hit the X next to submit if you change your mind about replying to someone.

If that's not what you did...then I got nuthin'.

One has to carefully look at who is pushing the global warming agenda and what's the real purpose behind pushing this agenda. I fear motivation is about the control of money, power, and hearts and minds, to suppress the full potential of this country and to make it more like its European cousins--a more docile and less competitive nation. The global warming agenda gives cover for action for certain elements, to implement a socialistic agenda; and perhaps, the start of a "one world government."

Always look and see who is pushing an agenda. In this case, the global warming agenda is being ushered in by the likes of Al Gore and the liberal left. When all segments of our society (the left, rational center, and right) come out w/ the same message and irrefutable science to back it, then I'll buy int it.

Many individual freedoms can be eliminated the the name of global warming! Until then, beware of phony bill of goods!

Here's the new list:
A) climate is changing
B) CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere
C) Fossil fuels generate some of the CO2 in the atmosphere
D) Volcanoes and increased sun activity release large amounts of trapped CO2 in the earth into the atmosphere
E) We burn fossil fuels

Instead of thinking the all high and might race of humans is so capable of doing this thus we MUST be doing this actually ponder that fact that there are underlying changes that happen to the Earth that we have absolutely no control over and that global warming, something that was only coined in the past decade, may, just may be something completely out of our control. I for one think the sun plays a much larger role than we ever have.

Besides even if we do cause global warming with our transportation-gas-spewing and electricity-making who is going to be the one to throw the first stone? The wheel has been rolling too long (if it was ever rolling, /rolls eyes) for us to call for an immediate halt now. Do you think China will stop if we do? HA.

And the next question to be asked is why is global warming bad? This is a hard question to swallow but should we be protecting humans or human-kind? Earth is already pushing it carrying capacity of humans if not having already broken it.

Should we devote countless resources to put flimsy band-aids over already broken problems (New Orleans comes to mind) or spend that money on technology that will help countless generations down the road with the bigger problems that arise. Without a form of population control implemented by ourselves, something else will arise to control us (global warming in this case.) And those 300,000 deaths a year by "global warming" is the earth's way of telling us I don't want and can't have any more of you pestering folks. Unless we start populating new places reallll soon, our population rate of increase must start to slow. The earth is just culling the herd.

Ah...the truth hurts. This whole green thing is so ridiculous I imagine BK will be owned by GE next week.

The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m-2 (see Figure SPM.2).

In physics, we use computer models to determine what we expect to see when we run an experiment if our theory is correct. If the experimental results are different from our predictions (say, average temperatures fall for a decade when we say they should have been increasing), then that's an indication that our theory is missing something.

And it's not the weekend for me yet. I'm riding out the last minutes of work. Just so it's clear that this is not how I spend my Friday nights ;)

Also a bridge, closer to home.

Now THAT'S hot!

[citation needed]

What kind of scientist are you that you have so little respect for an entire field of science, involving thousands of serious researchers? I call shenanigans.

Five years isn't really sufficient evidence. Do we have evidence going back at least 6,000 years (to the start of settled civilization) or, preferably, much longer? Yes, but the results are inconclusive.

CO2 and temperature are correlated. Implying any cause from this is illogical, just ask Spock.

Okay, that was the last one. Goodnight folks!

[news.mongabay.com]

3 million trees is nothing, when the overall rate has taken a sharp turn for the worse.

You sound like a reasonable person, so I'm surprised that you aren't more informed about global trends, and that you assume trends in Utah will also hold in marginal, lawless, impoverished areas of the world.

[news.mongabay.com]

Anyway, it's the weekend and we're sitting here debating the finer points of global climate change instead of doing something totally awesome. I'm going to try to go home and avoid the temptation to come back to this thread looking for more things to argue about.

The bottom line is this: Burger King is not a reliable source for scientific theories. This, I think, we can all agree on.

Tennessee did give us the Scopes trial, after all.

Anyway, two of those things you said are facts, the climate is changing and we burn a lot of fossil fuels.

B is a shaky theory. It is not supported by a single reputable scientific experiment that exists to support it.

The data suggests that the temperature increases before the CO2 does.

Here's a good video on it adapted from a scientific paper by David Evans.

Maybe man's activities are contributing to it, or maybe not.

Either way, shouldn't we be following a path that assumes it exists and that we're affecting it?

The fact is that the climate changes, sometimes getting hotter, sometimes getting colder. The general trend of the last 40 years has been warmer. Maybe not the last 10 years. I think we're in agreement unless I'm missing something?

B) [climateprogress.org]

@Don't take anything aaron8301 says seriously:

"baloney

slang for "nonsense," 1922, Amer.Eng. (popularized 1930s by N.Y. Gov. Alfred E. Smith), from earlier sense of "idiot" (probably influenced by blarney)"

[www.etymonline.com]

The Alfred E. Smith quote in question is, "No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney". Go Google it. You won't find a variation of this quote that uses the "bologna" spelling.

IMHO, the sign maker should have used a different word, but "baloney" does work.

I don't have statistics about world deforestation, but it wouldn't surprise me one way or the other. I imagine that like us, anyone cutting down more trees than they are planting will soon correct this behavior. I do know that Disney recently planted nearly 3 million trees in Brazil, so that's a start to helping the problem - if such a problem exists.

Isn't Al Gore also from Tennessee? Let the conspiracy theories begin......

Yes, evidence says the earth is getting warmer. There is very little evidence that we are causing it though. Remember that when you read anything on global warming. There's a real thing happening and an imaginary thing being inferred.

I'd also highly recommend reading the Wikipedia article on logical fallacies. Especially the part about how correlation does not imply causation.

Here's a scientist saying that global warming is not a threat: [climatedepot.com]

Here's some more scientists who claim that climate change is - GASP! - natural: [www.scoop.co.nz]

We have 4.5 billion years of existence and about 100 years of good solid data. I'm not ready to be baptized by Gore's religion.

Here's an article I wrote some time ago that shows a clear correlation between temperature and sunspot activity.

Global warming is a farce dreamed up to creat tens of thousands of jobs. Polution is real, but global warming is a natural cycle of the earth. Watch the great global warming swindle (I think thats correct) that was put out on the BBC. Top scientists are saying this with evidence. They also have evidence that shows that Al Gore is a tool who fakes his info for the sake of a message!

[news.mongabay.com]

(I'm not a climatologist, but I am a physicist and understand chaos theory and statistics. I plant global warming firmly in the "possible but not proved" category because most of the figures used by both sides don't mean what they say they mean. All the while, of course, many of the same goals pursued by those who are pushing "climate action" could have been championed as reducing other, known types of pollution, and most everyone would have been on board.)

You're right. We have nothing to do with this at all.

Consider this: "Between 1990 and 2000, United States of America gained an average of 364,600 hectares of forest per year. The amounts to an average annual reforestation rate of 0.12%. Between 2000 and 2005, the rate of forest change decreased by 56.9% to 0.05% per annum. In total, between 1990 and 2005, United States of America gained 1.5% of its forest cover, or around 4,441,000 hectares. United States of America lost -1,086,000 hectares-0-of its primary forest cover during that time. "

So over the last 19 years while we've supposedly been blindly clear-cutting forests to make way for cows according to you, our forests have increased by quite a bit. We created 4 million hectares and cut down 1 million hectares.

Statistics can be found here: [rainforests.mongabay.com]

The US logging industry plants 3 trees for every one they cut down. More trees have been created than destroyed since the 1940s.

The US department of land management is the one who claimed there are more trees now than 100 years ago.

If you use Google I'm sure you can find lots of supporting evidence!

"The report said 99 percent of all people who die due to climate-change related causes live in developing countries, even though those countries generate less than 1 percent of total emissions of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming."

Got that last part of the sentence? "...emissions of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming". This was a conclusion. From scientists. Who are well versed and educated in the subject of biology, chemistry, and geology. Who have spent years studying tiny, teeny, infinitesimally small changes and finding patterns in them. And you think you know better than they do. Classic.

And again, please show where you got your statistics about the 87 and 13 trees and the what not.

"The report said 99 percent of all people who die due to climate-change related causes live in developing countries, even though those countries generate less than 1 percent of total emissions of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming."

Got that last part of the sentence? "...emissions of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming". This was a conclusion. From scientists. Who are well versed and educated in the subject of biology, chemistry, and geology. Who have spent years studying tiny, teeny, infinitesimally small changes and finding patterns in them. And you think you know better than they do. Classic.

If I ever eat at BK, I end up tasting it all day. That flame broiled flavor just doesn't leave you. Blech!

@xthexlanternx: Just you wait until my groundbreaking paper on the $2.99 Whopper and Fry combo gets published!

This is an outrage. I think all that don't believe in Global Warming (or Climate Change as it has been rebranded) should be rounded up and kept in camps where they are forced to do hard labor. We can't have anyone questioning the un-questionable.

I live in SLC and when the pioneers came here in 1850 or whatever it was pretty much a barren desert. Everything outside of the Salt Lake valley still is pretty much. But I work up on the foothills and as I'm looking over Salt Lake City right now all I can is green trees.

Overlay the number of sunspots per year with the average temperature and it makes more sense than any zoomed in graph missing a Y-axes or frame of reference that Gore can come up with.

extreme sarcasm ftw

MARRIED QUEERS
ARE COMING TO
TAKE YOUR GUNZ

Or maybe The Guardian? England is a good area of Europe, right?
[www.guardian.co.uk]

But the world is a much worse place.

I'm confused - if they are independent, why can't they put up the sign? It doesn't say it is a corporate opinion. Or would that just be assumed?

Now SAYING it's corporate policy, that's wrong if it aint so.

Also, you can't make a delicious steak out of a tree.

Oh and one more think, for every 13 trees saved by recycling, 87 don't get planted tree farms. So if you want more trees, buy more non-recycled paper and throw it in a landfill.

Burgerville in the NW where I live is the opposite. They're very much into seasonal, local foods with a changing menu, they support alternative energies, etc. Hell, one recently decided to add beer and wine to their menu. Yeah, I know! We're almost fully-grown adults with the ability to make choices!

Now Al Gore's version of global warming where we all have to buy Priuses and buy carbon credits? That one IS baloney.

In summary: Global warming is real, man having a significant impact on it is not (unless our greenhouse gasses are reaching Mars - which is heating up at about the same rate).

Can you imagine what would it be like to be an employee there? To have to work for a boss that's obviously a moron?

Oh wait. I think we've all been there before.

Oh wait, that's true.

The signs now read:

CANT
GET PREGNANT
WHILE STANDING