How's that global warming thing coming?

No, I think that's from the cars.

 

Well, in Hondo's universe, if you mock or disagree with these nutbars, it's a "difference of opinion".

 

Don't call them stupid, though, you elitist scum.
old_tony, you can reattach the ass that's been handed to you about CO2 any time. And you never did answer the fundamental question - do you believe that the overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue, and the vast majority of peer-reviewed literature on the topic, is all incorrect because they forgot to take into account the simplistic talking-points that you tossed out there?
Straight from the talk-radio to you.

 

God --> Rush --> Tony --> Us

It's a simple, linear equation, Fenian.

 

It goes from God to Jerry to you to the cleaners.
Right, Kent?

 

JR --> Fenian --> Doc --> We're always right. Disagree with us, and you're stupid.

 

Excellent. I was really hoping someone would pick up on that.

 

Hondo, I rarely post in political threads. Try again.

 

Remain calm. All is well.

 

That's the guy.

 

Here's the thing I don't get. Let's take the enormous leap that Old Tony is correct and global warming is a myth. Why would it still not be a good idea to develop technologies that create cleaner burning fuel, better fuel efficiency, use fewer fossil fuels, etc. Where is the downside in creating a cleaner environment and, possibly (even if it's only a remote chance), slowing down the effects of global warming?

You can argue global warming is a myth all you want -- I'll agree to disagree on the topic -- but where is the downside on reducing emissions of chemicals into the environment?