var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
xthexlanternx
May 30, 2009 12:12 AM
Moderate | Flag for review

I know I always look to my local Burger King's sign for the most accurate political and scientific commentary.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
rushevents
June 1, 2009 4:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xthexlanternx: These signs were absolutely legit. I noticed this last tuesday at a location on Poplar Avenue in east Memphis.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Coles_Law
May 30, 2009 1:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
omgwtflolbbqbye
May 30, 2009 12:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

And this why they work at Burger King...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
lockdog
May 30, 2009 12:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This doesn't surprise me. Its not to uncommon for one person/entity to own multiple franchises/locations in a region. About half the McDonalds around here are operated by the same family. What is crazy is that someone thought this was a good idea, even in Tennessee. The real question is if Burger King's franchise agreements give them any real power to do something about this other than a nasty phone call.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trexxen
May 31, 2009 2:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lockdog: \"even in Tennessee\"

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Optimus
June 1, 2009 6:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trexxen: Hey, at least you don't live in Alabama. No body even jokes on Mississippi any more because of Katrina.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
suburbancowboy
May 30, 2009 2:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lockdog: Have you read Fast Food Nation? Corporate can do a lot of things to get rid of franchises they don't want around anymore.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Greasy Thumb Guzik
May 30, 2009 4:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@suburbancowboy:
Exactly where are you getting the info that McDonald's is the biggest retail landowner in the country?
10,000 2-4acre leases is still only 20,000-40,000 acres of land.
There are many retailers that own huge amounts of land, Sears/Kmart is one.
It's believed that Eddie Lampert really bought Sears to sell off the land & buildings when it collapses!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
yagisencho
May 30, 2009 12:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The signs now read:


CANT
GET PREGNANT
WHILE STANDING

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
May 30, 2009 2:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: Sorry about the typo.
New, corrected version: \"Darwin wuz RONG!!!\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sinfonian94
May 30, 2009 1:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@yagisencho: Uhhhh.... yeah you can. At least if the pornos I watch are any indication...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shadowman615
May 31, 2009 6:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sinfonian94: What kind of crazy pornos have people getting pregnant?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
omgwtflolbbqbye
May 30, 2009 2:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sinfonian94: You watch pornos where they impregnate each other?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TacoDave
May 30, 2009 12:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

But it IS baloney...

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
f3rg
June 1, 2009 10:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TacoDave: Al Gore has made drones of so many otherwise intelligent people. The planet is fine, people.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ephdel
June 1, 2009 7:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TacoDave:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Aquasol
June 1, 2009 8:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TacoDave: I concur, why, it's deathly cold here! How can there be global warming if I need wool socks and a hat?

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

(/noshititbesarcasm)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
May 30, 2009 3:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TacoDave: They aren't supposed to be worried about baloney. It's a Burger King.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sam1am
May 30, 2009 12:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TacoDave: No rational scientist or thinking person who can look at a thermometer is in denial about global warming. The earth is getting warmer.

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).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chrylis
May 30, 2009 1:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sam1am: You mean how average temperatures have fallen every year since 2000?

(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.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sinfonian94
May 30, 2009 1:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chrylis: No. The same people who deny global warming would deny that approach, too. With deniers, it's not about truth. It's about Dogma.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
youbastid
May 30, 2009 12:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sam1am: No, Al Gore's version is NOT baloney. 300,000 people a year are dying from the deliciously euphemized \"climate change\":
[www.cnn.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sam1am
May 30, 2009 1:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@youbastid: Yea, nice one. Read my post again. I do not deny that the climate is changing, I just deny that me driving my car like a gas-guzzling maniac had anything to do with it.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LegoMan322
May 30, 2009 4:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sam1am: I agree with you. The earth went through millions of years of ice ages...then it got warmer...what is to say that it should not continue to get warmer?

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sam1am
May 30, 2009 1:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sam1am: Only a moron would deny the climate is changing. You just have to be smart enough to separate that from faith-based religion of which Al Gore is the prophet.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
OMG! TenderRonis!
May 30, 2009 1:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sam1am: Let's see...
A) Climate is changing.
B) An increase in CO2 is a significant contributor to that change
C) Fossil fuel burning is a significant source of CO2 in the atmosphere.
D) We burn a lot of fossil fuels.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SpruceStreetPhil - in a new Pine flavor
May 30, 2009 2:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@OMG! TenderRonis!: u have made the wrong assumption that most rookies do in statistics, that b is a direct contributor to a.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Amish Undercover
May 31, 2009 7:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SpruceStreetPhil: Scientists have experimentally verified that CO2 reflects infrared radiation, i.e. have a greenhouse gas effect. This isn't observational but experimental data, therefore causation can be inferred. As for ice core data, yes, that is observational, however, it is just a piece of the evidence.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SpruceStreetPhil - in a new Pine flavor
June 1, 2009 9:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@statgrad: 600,000 years? seriously, you're basing this off of 600,000 years? The world has been around much longer and just because its been like this for what is seemingly a very long time (albeit not much at all) But you don't get my point: Why in the world care about global warming??!! There's only anecdotal evidence about what bad it could possibly bring.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
June 1, 2009 3:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@statgrad: What it comes down to for me is this: The earth has been around a long time but we have reliable scientific climate data for only a short period of that lifespan. How can we possibly have enough information to decide beyond a reasonable doubt that we are the sole reason the earth is warming?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tyler Laing
May 30, 2009 3:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SpruceStreetPhil: I'd just like to point out that the sun is clearly not responsible for an increase in global temperatures.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sam1am
May 30, 2009 6:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Tyler Laing: You said \"I'd just like to point out that the sun is clearly not responsible for an increase in global temperatures.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JessMeNU
May 31, 2009 4:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sam1am: Sam I agree with you all the way. Global warming is a \"feel good\" movement.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ugly
May 30, 2009 5:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sam1am:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Five
June 2, 2009 12:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ugly: Hearted for this. The cost of doing nothing is far greater than that of doing something. I mean, if we're all wrong about climate change and the Earth keeps ticking over anyways...we're out what? The gas saved from biking to work? Using less stuff? Turning the lights off? These have their own rewards separate from reducing harm to our environment.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Steeldrumhero
June 8, 2009 1:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Five:
Billions of dollars in research and higher prices consumer goods?
The time of scientists that could be discovering things that are of immediate effect

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SpruceStreetPhil - in a new Pine flavor
May 30, 2009 4:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Tyler Laing: data please, i was led to believe other wise, but either way if is increasing or decreasing or staying the same.

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.'

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sam1am
May 30, 2009 2:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@OMG! TenderRonis!: arrggh!! I can't keep these threads straight anymore. How about some indentation to replies Consumerist?

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sam1am
May 30, 2009 2:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@OMG! TenderRonis!: Yes, correlation. Remember that Wikipedia article I recommended about logical fallacies? That one about correlation not implying causation?

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

Okay, that was the last one. Goodnight folks!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chrylis
May 30, 2009 1:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@OMG! TenderRonis!: Please provide evidence for assertions A and B. (Oh, and specify what it is you mean by change--no saying that whatever you hit was the target.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chrylis
May 30, 2009 2:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@OMG! TenderRonis!: The mean average temperatures go back to the late 1800's at the earliest. How have the accuracy of instrumentation and the locations where the measurements were taken changed in that time? Is the standard error more than 2F?

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
omgwtflolbbqbye
May 30, 2009 2:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chrylis: Then Google \"Megan Fox Esquire Shoot\"

Now THAT'S hot!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chrylis
May 30, 2009 2:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@OMG! TenderRonis!: Exactly--those were the primary inconclusive studies I've referred to. (They seem to indicate that the introduction agriculture probably had a forcing effect on the climate, but the models used don't account for, say, the Little Ice Age when correlated with CO2/methane levels. I suggest that this is because climate itself is chaotic.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
youbastid
May 30, 2009 1:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sam1am: Read the \"biased\" news facts:

\"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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sam1am
May 30, 2009 1:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@youbastid: The problem is that people can't seem to separate the reality of the earth getting warmer and the shoddy theory that we are causing it.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sam1am
May 30, 2009 1:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@youbastid: They're inferring a lot with the little add on at the end of that sentence aren't they? I'll admit I only scanned the article, but I didn't see any mention of scientists. The news reporter is saying that, not a scientist.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
youbastid
May 30, 2009 1:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sam1am: No, a news reporter is not saying that. That is a news reporter saying WHAT THE REPORT SAID. You don't have to be baptized by \"Gore's religion\", but maybe you shouldn't just deny absolutely every shred of concrete evidence put in your face.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sam1am
May 30, 2009 2:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@youbastid: Perhaps some work needs to be done on your definition of \"concrete evidence.\"

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GuidedByLemons
May 30, 2009 2:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sam1am: OK, seriously, I've had more than enough of this. Here: [www.ipcc.ch]

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).
Reply
\"user-pic\"
chrylis
May 30, 2009 2:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GuidedByLemons: One of the reasons that I'm especially skeptical about many of the global-warming claims from government sources is the fact that the IPCC has been shown to have edited reports that said that there may be a human influence on climate to read that the evidence shows a discernable influence. Once a political body has been demonstrated to have changed scientific publications to match the politically-desirable outcome, its credibility is shot. (Looking at you, Bush administration.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
youbastid
May 30, 2009 2:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sam1am: I would consider a world-class panel of scientists congregating, researching, exchanging data and coming up with a conclusion to be fairly concrete evidence. Not evidence that you necessarily have to believe, or even evidence that PROVES anything, but certainly one that you shouldn't just deny because you don't believe in \"Gore's religion\" and you have some anecdotal evidence of the shit that goes down in Utah.

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 ;)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Steeldrumhero
May 30, 2009 1:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@youbastid:
I'm sorry, but CNN hasn't published a non-biased news story for 10 years, along with 90% of american news stations. If you want true un-biased information, don't live in the states, or check out something from Canada or the good areas of europe.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
youbastid
May 30, 2009 1:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Steeldrumhero: Is the AP too biased for you? [www.google.com]

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
fs2k2isfun
May 30, 2009 12:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well I fully support them. The owner will be vindicated with time.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jacques
May 30, 2009 12:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

You know what else is baloney? The massive deforestation of the rain forest to make room for cattle grazing.

Oh wait, that's true.

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
Jeff-er-ee
June 1, 2009 10:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jacques: You all don't know anything. It's obvious that Global Warming, Climate Change, or whatever you want to call it is a direct result to the falling number of pirates in the world. See:

[www.venganza.org]

for proof.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
all4jcvette
June 1, 2009 2:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jeff-er-ee
June 1, 2009 11:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@all4jcvette: Can you cite sources for your figures? Things like total land area of the Amazon basin, etc. I'm curious where your numbers (\"...20 times...\") come from.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MooseOfReason
May 30, 2009 5:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jacques: Yeah, let's not worry about deforestation to make room for growing soybeans.

Step off the beef, hippie.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
subtlefrog
May 30, 2009 2:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MooseOfReason:
To be fair, both are a problem, but in many parts of the world, the beef production is a lot worse, as it takes a LOT more resources to grow beef than it does to grow soybeans. Deforestation is deforestation and either way it sucks, but if you're looking at resource use afterward, soybeans would be the lesser of two evils.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sam1am
May 30, 2009 12:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jacques: The number of trees in the world has been increasing since 1900.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
youbastid
May 30, 2009 1:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sam1am: Also, I'd like to know where you got those statistics, because they're completely bogus.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sam1am
May 30, 2009 1:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@youbastid: The laws of supply and demand would at the very least suggest that the number of trees would increase. Trees are grown as a crop and they are a renewable resource. Same with chickens - the more chicken you eat, the more chickens get produced.

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!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
June 1, 2009 8:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
youbastid
May 30, 2009 1:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sam1am: No one said we've been clear cutting forests in the US to make way for cows. We have plenty of grazing land. It's the rainforest land in south america that's being cleared. The very site you cite will not back you up.

[news.mongabay.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sam1am
May 30, 2009 1:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@youbastid: Forgive me, you're correct that my claim of the world having more trees was unfounded. I only know about what is happening in the US, which I apparently sometimes think constitutes the whole world. ;p

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
subtlefrog
May 30, 2009 3:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sam1am:

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. :)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
May 30, 2009 5:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@subtlefrog: Am I the only one that's annoyed that we had to change the name from Global Warming to Climate Change because too many mouth-breathers took Global Warming's words too literally without spending two minutes Googling to figure out that it doesn't mean everything's going to get hotter?

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\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Five
June 2, 2009 12:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: And now that the name's been changed, the \"morans\" still refuse to accept it - because they think that the scientists were \"wrong\" about \"global warming\" so they just backpedalled and called it \"climate change\" in order to fool us ordnary folks. You just can't win.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
redkamel
May 30, 2009 6:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: It is WELL PROVEN that global warming is happening. It is also concurrent with industrialization. There is a lot of evidence supporting its cause to be man made, little that it is not. But whats the risk: benefit? Do something, and the worst case scenario is increased efficiency. Do nothing, and the worst case scenario is climate collapse. That alone should be enough for most people.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Yossarian
May 31, 2009 6:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@redkamel: \"It is also concurrent with industrialization.\" You might want to check your facts... starting with the temperatures in the middle ages (pre-industrialization) with now. Or, hell, millions of year compared to now. Those damned dinosaurs and their factories.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
May 30, 2009 7:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@redkamel: It'd be interesting to see how many Global Warming deniers also don't believe in evolution.
Both seem based on irrational, faith-based reasoning based on \"information\" given by biased sources with axes to grind.
I'd bet there's a VERY strong correlation.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hoss
May 30, 2009 2:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sam1am: Take Haiti for one. Removing trees in many places devastates the potential regeneration of trees.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
May 30, 2009 6:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hoss: There's also a huge difference between manmade reforested cover (Burger King) and a thriving, embedded rain forest stripped bare (1\" smoked burgers made by mom). Even if reforested (a BK burger served by mom). They're not even close, to the local ecology or to the oxygen generating potential.
It's greenwashing, in other words.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
oneandone
May 31, 2009 5:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: You have read my mind. I wish I could give you another heart click for this comment!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
theodicey
May 30, 2009 2:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sam1am: No, deforestation in Brazil won't be corrected soon, because ranchers are converting rainforest into land for beef cattle. They're not practicing forestry.

[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]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sam1am
May 30, 2009 1:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Remember that societies evolve to appreciate the principles of responsible reforestation. @chrylis: TO be fair, I said \"changing\" not \"increasing.\"

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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HalOfBorg
May 30, 2009 1:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sam1am: I love looking at old photos. In almost everyone, no matter how old it is, when ever I see hillsides they are almost always bare. And now there are trees everywhere. And ducks and geese in the sky everyday.

But the world is a much worse place.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sam1am
May 30, 2009 1:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HalOfBorg: Agreed.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MMD
May 30, 2009 6:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sam1am: Because your immediate vicinity proves the state of the rest of the world?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
takes_so_little
May 30, 2009 1:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HalOfBorg: Anecdotal evidence = scientific proof! Yay!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Mike8813
May 30, 2009 12:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
all4jcvette
June 1, 2009 3:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
May 30, 2009 3:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mike8813: It takes a moron to think it would be a good idea to post an inflammatory political or religious statement on the front of your business. Anyone who either finds your statement offensive or the mixing of politics and religion into a mainstream business offensive is going to not be your customer any longer.
Then you add the rampant stupidity that the parent company wouldn't care that your making them look bad.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Megalomania
May 30, 2009 4:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: I'm not sure what global warming has to do with religion, unless Christ doesn't like the heat. Besides, for every idiot who gets pissed off at a fast food sign (seriously folks, it's a fast food sign, who cares) there will be someone else who will approve of someone being willing to make a claim like that. I mean, I don't even agree with it but hell, I'd go there just because I'd like to think that the owner thought \"I wonder what will happen if I put something crazy on my signs\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
May 30, 2009 5:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Megalomania: I redirect you to Bohemian's use of or, with is different than \"and\".
Your welcome.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
pb5000
May 30, 2009 12:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Can you even order baloney at Burger King?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
pb5000
May 30, 2009 12:45 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pb5000: Also, that's quite possibly the best tag ever, \"Global Flamebroiling\" he he

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
INsano
May 30, 2009 12:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oh corporate, just wait for the e-mail I send you. And little franchisee, understand that the full crown of BKs wrath will descend upon thee.

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!

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
May 30, 2009 1:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@INsano:

We're almost fully-grown adults...

So you're planning on sending a completely random and unwarranted email regarding a Burger King that's not even in your state, that you have no business with, and has a sign that you saw on the internet that's since been taken down?

Please.
Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
May 30, 2009 2:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: His (or her) opinion is clearly more important than that of the business owner.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
INsano
May 30, 2009 6:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: Supercereal and Radiology, it is a blunt instrument of affecting change, but as this site as shown, feedback from the masses is the kind of thing that can (and there are few alternatives) actually force behemoth companies to pay attention. As the article mentioned the sign has been taken down and corporate tried to keep the owner at arms-length. If my e-mail along with others', and phone calls or letters make it clear that this is something not acceptable, it will be less likely to happen in the future. Maybe an owner gets chastised, a manager harangued, etc. Like I said, it's a blunt instrument, but its one of very limited options we have as consumers. Maybe you think it futile, if that's the case you're certainly entitled to think so, I guess I'm just more of a zealot about trying to do my part.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
June 3, 2009 4:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@INsano: Again, the fact that you think you need to abuse this person's business for the purposes of forcing him to change his OPINION only shows how highly you regard your own. Its fine though, lets get someone fired because they took a different science class in college than you did. Or maybe get someone's salary reduced because they like to read a different magazine than you. Its all completely appropriate, because clearly his opinion affects your ability to appreciate a delicious, flame-broiled hamburger.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Faust
May 30, 2009 11:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@INsano: No no NO! Have you learned nothing from the comments here? It's not actions such as feedback from consumers nor complaints that affect change. It is simply the magical fairy dust of the free market, ONLY, that will make any company do \"the right thing\". Because the magical fairy dust of the free market can do ANYTHING. Just like 8 years of decreased sunspot activity cancels out 150 years of pumping out the most noxious chemicals that mankind can make - it's all MAGIC!

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Five
June 2, 2009 12:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Faust: \"No no no! You're infringing upon my RIGHT to read this blog without encountering things I don't agree with!!!!11!! And now I will quote numbers at you, and insult you personally! How dare you malign the free market!11!!\"

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sam1am
May 30, 2009 12:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@INsano: Ha! Love it. Beer at the BK? Awesome - now that's a big kids club.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
youbastid
May 30, 2009 1:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sam1am: Read the \"biased\" news facts:

\"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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
youbastid
May 30, 2009 1:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@youbastid: Don't know how this got down here, that was supposed to go on jacques' post.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
May 30, 2009 3:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@youbastid: I've had that happen when I hit reply for one person and then hit reply for someone else without canceling the comment first.

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'.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
jdmba
May 30, 2009 12:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is a no winner. Anyone who points to standard solar cyclical temperatures will just get jeered. ... but I'm telling ya people; \"global warming\" is an industry now, and a LOT of people have a vested interest in keeping that pretense going.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
OrlandoDude
May 30, 2009 2:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jdmba: Sigh. The Global Warming Crowd wins.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bbagdan
June 1, 2009 3:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@OrlandoDude:


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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
takes_so_little
May 30, 2009 1:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jdmba: Yeah, like all those SCIENTISTS, doing, whaddya call it, uh... RESEARCH! PFFT! Eggheads, HAH!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chrylis
May 30, 2009 1:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@takes_so_little: Um, actually, yes. Speaking as a scientist, there's a tremendous pressure to publish the kind of \"research\" that gets you funding, and on an issue like this, the funding is thoroughly politicized.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
takes_so_little
May 30, 2009 3:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chrylis: I KNOW! There's always pressure to research things like global warming and other useless crap like CANCER or AIDS! WHEN will they leave us to research what we REALLY WANT! Which is, of course, to turn a barbie doll into a real woman in our bedrooms a la 'Weird Science.'

Reply
\"user-pic\"
theodicey
May 30, 2009 2:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chrylis: Actually, no. Speaking as a scientist, if I could make a credible case that global warming weren't happening, which involved (1) disproving the greenhouse gas theory that explains why it should be happening, (2) disproving observed temperature changes, and (3) dismissing observed effects of warming, I would be the greatest scientist in the world, by far, and recognized as such.
through corporate think tanks.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chauncy that billups
May 30, 2009 1:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
FrugalFreak
May 30, 2009 1:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@theodicey: No use arguing, there's Environment and money and those that seek the latter will not ever be for the first. the only use for Environment is to use it beyond repair or the word \"Environment\" in a marketing campaign. the Burger King sign was probably meant to bring in Republican Tn rich folk.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chrylis
May 30, 2009 2:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@theodicey: Physicist. And the burden of the skeptic isn't to disprove a theory but to demonstrate reasonable doubt or alternatives. In this case, the effects of solar variance are typically disregarded, and the unusual activity that we've seen isn't addressed.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
redkamel
May 30, 2009 6:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chrylis: I have not seen any scientific articles showing the last 10 decades as cooler. In fact, most of the satellite data shows it as increasing. Some were more level. I have seen many news articles showing the last 10 as cooler though. Do you have any proof?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jstonemo
May 31, 2009 10:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@redkamel: Wow, I didn't know they had satellites monitoring temperatures for the past 10 decades. That is awesome! In fact, 6 decades ago, we were using satellites to monitor the Korean peninsula for troop movements and we could all see it on our color computer monitors.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
perruptor
May 30, 2009 4:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chrylis: In this case, the effects of solar variance are typically disregarded, and the unusual activity that we've seen isn't addressed.

No, they aren't.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wardawg
May 30, 2009 5:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
subtlefrog
May 30, 2009 3:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wardawg:
And as someone using computers for climate-based distribution modeling - thank you. Because I'm not so much with the abacus.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
xoforoct wishes he lived in chasm city
May 30, 2009 5:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chrylis: In all seriousness, a round of applause to both chrylis and theodicey. Congrats on being able to take a highly debated topic, and on an Internet comment section, have an intelligent debate without it turning into a flame war.

It almost gives me hope for the internet...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sinfonian94
May 30, 2009 2:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chrylis: There's probably the same kind of \"pressure\" in that field as there is \"pressure\" to publish studies saying Oxygen is breathable and Ammonia is not. Or the \"pressure\" to publish \"research\" that proves that rain comes from the sky.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chrylis
May 30, 2009 2:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sinfonian94: Except that we can do reproducible experiments to demonstrate that oxygen is breathable and why, and we can independently determine where rain comes from. Most of the literature dealing with climate projections comes from computer simulations, which can easily be twiddled to say whatever it is you like--such as, for example, that mortgage-backed securities are low-risk investments.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
redkamel
May 30, 2009 6:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chrylis: you forgot that most of those models are based on evidence from carbon deposits and ice samples, and arent just numbers picked from the sky, and have little financial incentive for the scientists. If you think global warming scientists are getting paid big bucks to falsify data, please, introduce me to a rich climate scientist, since most I know have a modest income.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
subtlefrog
May 30, 2009 3:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chrylis:
Which is why there is peer review. Are you writing rebuttals to the journals when these papers come out suggesting that perhaps there is another parameter that should be incorporated into the models? Have you published data suggesting that the solar variance parallels the temperature shifts in earth's temperature? Have you tried to collaborate with climate people to get them to incorporate these data?

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!)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
HalOfBorg
May 30, 2009 12:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"The two restaurants where these signs appeared are independently owned and operated and were not authorized to display this statement.\"

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
stinerman
May 30, 2009 4:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HalOfBorg:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
youbastid
May 30, 2009 1:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HalOfBorg: They're independently owned and operated but they still have to answer to corporate. That's the downside of owning a franchise. The positive is you're buying in to something that has a built in customer base, but you can't make many decisions on your own.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Timewalker
May 30, 2009 1:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I saw the sign Tuesday at the Atoka BK, about 20 miles North of Memphis. Just hadn't gotten around to writing the letter yet.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Ben Deming
May 30, 2009 4:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Timewalker: I was there Wednesday night and didn't even see it. I guess I was paying no attention.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
takes_so_little
May 30, 2009 1:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I was about to write something derogatory about southerners, but fuck that, I'm sure there are a lot of decent, level-headed people living in Memphis, just like there are a lot of dipshits living up here. I try to maintain the belief that most people are decent; the assholes are just louder or more visible.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
rushevents
June 1, 2009 5:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@takes_so_little: Funny thing - there is a frost warning in upstate New York tonight

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Charlotte Rae's Web
May 30, 2009 2:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@takes_so_little: thank you. the southern culture just allows more of them to yap, that's all. the balance is about the same everywhere i think.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LandruBek
May 30, 2009 6:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@takes_so_little: Thanks for your restraint. In America, although it is (fortunately) no longer polite to vent racist and sexist attitudes in public, nevertheless somehow it's still OK to joke about southerners as stupid, obscurantist degenerates. It's very aggravating.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
takes_so_little
May 30, 2009 1:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This sign also seen:

MARRIED QUEERS
ARE COMING TO
TAKE YOUR GUNZ

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
May 30, 2009 3:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@takes_so_little: And this was all in Midtown Manhattan!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sinfonian94
May 30, 2009 2:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@takes_so_little: And maybe even have sex with each other!!!!!!!!!!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ben Deming
May 30, 2009 4:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sinfonian94: Hey hey hey.. that's in Arkansas! Not Tennessee..

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
HiPwr
May 30, 2009 1:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
Todd Miller
June 1, 2009 7:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HiPwr:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
takes_so_little
May 30, 2009 10:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HiPwr: ...or we could just make fun of them on the interwebs!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
theodicey
May 30, 2009 2:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HiPwr: Question all you want, but...

[citation needed]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Barney_The Plug_ Frank
May 30, 2009 2:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HiPwr: You think your kidding--do a Google search under FEMA camps and see what you find!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
May 30, 2009 7:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Barney_The Plug_ Frank: You know, your linking \"FEMA camps\" to \"Global warming is a hoax\" provides more support for our side than 1,000 peer-reviewed studies.
Thanks!

Out of curiosity, what is your view on Darwinism?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
stinerman
May 30, 2009 4:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Barney_The Plug_ Frank:

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HIcycles
May 30, 2009 1:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HiPwr: I, for one, welcome our green overlords.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Bluth_Cornballer
May 30, 2009 1:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sign should say \"Baloney is a better choice than one of our burgers\".

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

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
rpm773
May 30, 2009 1:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

We skeptics are beyond reach at this point. Climate change believers, I implore you to save yourselves. Build a space transport and carry all believers away to safety and environmental utopia, leaving the skeptics to die horrible deaths on this doomed planet!

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
theodicey
May 30, 2009 2:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rpm773: I have 1000 square miles of Bangladesh coastal property I would like to sell you. Cheap.

Also a bridge, closer to home.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
PølάrβǽЯ
May 30, 2009 1:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Bologna. BOLOGNA. BOLOGNA! NOT BALONEY! BOLOGNA!

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Jabberkaty
May 31, 2009 5:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Don't take anything aaron8301 says seriously: Came for bologna assertion, leaves satisfied.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
HooFoot
May 30, 2009 1:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Lucky225
May 30, 2009 4:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@HooFoot:

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.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
AlessandroBeans
May 30, 2009 1:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Global warming is a farce. their signs were correct. Give me a piece of evidence that it is real and i'll give you one that it isn't.

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!

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
soulfinger
June 1, 2009 7:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AlessandroBeans:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 9, 2009 12:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@soulfinger: He's talking about man made global warming vs. a global warming/cooling cycles. I want to know why this is a right vs. left thing. Truth dosn't change weather your on the left or the right.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
chrylis
May 30, 2009 1:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The meat is bologna. Nonsense is baloney.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
jp7570
May 30, 2009 1:49 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Charlotte Rae's Web
May 30, 2009 2:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jp7570: he's really from DC but like most political families has a home state, his is TN.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ben Deming
May 30, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Charlotte Rae's Web: His father was from Tennessee. Al Gore basically grew up in DC because his father was a U.S. Representative there.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
May 30, 2009 3:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jp7570: Speaking of balogna, or baloney as it were.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
HIcycles
May 30, 2009 1:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

At first, when I read this, I was like, \"Go Burger King!\". But then I realized that, really, with an article like this, it would be huge flame war, and nobody would hear me.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
thelushie
May 31, 2009 1:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chauncy that billups
May 30, 2009 2:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Mykro
May 30, 2009 12:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
zentex
May 30, 2009 4:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@OMG! OMG!: it IS the home of the flame-broiled burger...

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
MyPetFly
May 30, 2009 2:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe global warming is real, or maybe it's not.

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?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Barney_The Plug_ Frank
May 30, 2009 2:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MyPetFly: Not necessarily. If one blindly falls into the belief of global warming, one may be falling into a nest of lies.

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!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
redkamel
May 30, 2009 6:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Barney_The Plug_ Frank: I think everyone except the right is pushing global warming. And by everyone I mean developed nations.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
OrlandoDude
May 31, 2009 1:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@redkamel: I'll buy into it when Gore, Pelosi, et al, stop being hypocrites... telling US to go green, ride a bike, cut your carbon, every day is earth day DAMNIT GET WITH IT......

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
takes_so_little
May 31, 2009 10:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@OrlandoDude: Do you always live your life based on the behavior of celebrities?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
OrlandoDude
May 31, 2009 10:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@takes_so_little: I sure do. But only if his name is CHUCK Freakin' NORRIS!

:)

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...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Sean Masters
June 1, 2009 4:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@OrlandoDude: and Al Gore is supposed to travel the world talking about climate change how, exactly? Should he walk across the oceans? Perhaps a kayak would be acceptable?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
OrlandoDude
June 1, 2009 5:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Sean Masters: A kayak would produce zero emissions, I guess; however I was thinking along the lines of a commercial flight, just like you or I would have to take.

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...)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
thelushie
May 31, 2009 9:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
takes_so_little
May 30, 2009 10:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Barney_The Plug_ Frank: \"Many individual freedoms can be eliminated the the name of [terrorism]! Until then, beware of phony bill of goods!\"

There, fixed it for ya.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
RandomHookup
May 30, 2009 2:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Tennessee did give us the Scopes trial, after all.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 30, 2009 2:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

All 3 Burger Kings in West Memphis, AR have this ridiculous statement. I generally like my burgers without political statements, thank you. You could just call that, \"my way\".

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Japheaux
May 30, 2009 2:28 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 30, 2009 3:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well I do believe it is false. Global Warming is not fact. fact is, it's just the way the earth is. The weather changes all of the time. I think the news forgets about the rain nowdays. they focus on all of the hot days only now. Oh well, they will shove it down everyone's throat untill they believe it!

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!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Michael Hyland
May 30, 2009 3:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

So now it's me, Burger King, and the intelligent people. Rad.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
hamburglar
May 30, 2009 4:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This just in: In'N'Out Burger chain prints bible verses on its soda cups and burger wrappers!

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

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
qxrt
May 30, 2009 5:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The \"baloney\" in my fridge is very real. Maybe that's what they meant...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Righteous
May 30, 2009 5:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Al Gore. Clinton News Network (CNN). See the connection? Me neither.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
tankertodd
May 30, 2009 5:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Good for them! And let's bring science back to the question, not celeb-scientists and corporate opportunists.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
P_Smith
May 30, 2009 5:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
MightyCow
May 30, 2009 9:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Bologna might cause global warming. Maybe they were on the right track, they just don't do sentence structure well.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Barney_The Plug_ Frank
May 30, 2009 12:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hsn't ths plnt bn clng nd wrmng vr th crs f ts hstry!? Wht's th dffrnc nw--l Gr--nd th lbrls' nw schm t plc ddtnl txs n ppl n th nm f glbl wrmng.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 30, 2009 12:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Corporate is apparently wrong about the signs being taken down. My wife and I were out last night and we saw one of these at the burger king at Germantown and Dexter.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Pithlit
May 30, 2009 12:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The sign is still up at the location on Germantown road as of last night. I was wondering if it was some bizarre promotion. I'm glad to see Consumerist shed some light on this for me this morning.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jhtrico1850
May 30, 2009 1:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My next burger visit WILL be Burger King.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Evan Walker
May 30, 2009 2:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I live in Memphis, and I have seen this on about 5 of them, but there are only two that have been up for more than a day. The closest to civilazation I would go to see it though would be the one at I-40 and Whitten road, but they took it down after a few hours.

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

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Matthew Frank
May 30, 2009 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sigh. What a wonderful fad - saying mean things about someone because you believe opposite than they do. And, you people commenting haven't even done your own research into global warming (most likely anyway).

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
thelushie
May 31, 2009 1:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
weaselbit
May 30, 2009 7:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Would it be such a bad thing to stop polluting the air and destroying the forests which create the air?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
thelushie
May 31, 2009 9:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Pithlit
May 31, 2009 3:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@weaselbit: @weaselbit: Apparently so. Because the models are crap. Hey, a liberal Dem from California just said so in the comments and he/she some research! I'm impresed. It must be true. So, no need for change. Poor oppressed Burger King franchiser.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Con Sumer Zealot
May 30, 2009 8:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Simple way to fix this. BK, put in your franchise agreement:

- 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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 30, 2009 9:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Memphis is a backwards place, and we tend to do things that might seem utterly retarded. We have a mayor that called a press conference to tell everyone he had an illegitimate child.

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.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
AbsurdHero
May 31, 2009 6:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I once saw my local Burger King advertising \"English McMuffins\" on their sign. When I informed the employee of their mistake, she clarified - \"McDonald's has Egg McMuffins, we have English McMuffins!\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Justifan
May 31, 2009 7:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

bk..king of trolls.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon.
May 31, 2009 7:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, there you go, proof that Obama is trying to turn the United States into a Godless socialist state.

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
infinitemonkeys
May 31, 2009 1:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, hopping on the whole argument bandwagon, I'm always astonished that the same people who argue \"If you go to church and practice Christianity, what's the harm. At worst, you spent some time with others of the same disposition?\" Atheists argue that the harm is in the massive consumption of time merely to re-dose yourself with a doctrine by watching others do the same. It's often the same subset of far-right republicans who have made dogma of the 'global warming isn't real, na-na-na-na-I-can't-hear-you...' Well, what was the harm when London found its growth stifled by sewage and smokestacks in the 1800's and they were among the first modern cities to install modern sewer lines and factory pollution zoning and limits? We all followed suit and there's not shit running through our streets today. What will be the harm in mandating that cars must go farther on a tank of gas? That energy renewables be put on equal footing with coal?

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
danno5-0
May 31, 2009 3:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Throughout the history of this planet, the temperature has fluctuated w/o human involvement. Now that Al Gore and the liberals are in control, we now have to believe that global warming is our fault. Forget about history! Believe us says Al Gore so we can increase your taxes and take your freedoms away!

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
danno5-0
May 31, 2009 4:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hsn't ths plnt bn clng nd wrmng vr th crs f ts hstry!? Wht's th dffrnc nw--l Gr--nd th lbrls' nw schm t plc ddtnl txs n ppl n th nm f glbl wrmng.
=========================================================

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!

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
takes_so_little
May 31, 2009 10:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@danno5-0: Waaaaaaa!

Read the comments code.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 31, 2009 6:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

People in the U.S. have lost their right to free expression! When they are being scammed, they can even call the scam (global warming/cap and trade) “baloney”! No wonder the Russians are gloating that the U.S. population has been “dumbed down” (to the point that many voted for Obama) and we are already a collapsed Marxist country... From Pravda -- \"The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.” Read the article in Pravda: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-american_capitalism-0

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
From the cubicle of PGibbons
May 31, 2009 7:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"Burger King - where Junk Food and Junk Science meet.\"

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Bob Brown
May 31, 2009 9:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Global Warming Is Baloney
Therefore, I shall have
A Global Warming sandwich
With MUSTARD!!!!!

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

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
WeAre138
June 1, 2009 1:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why would burger king try to take money out of poor Gore's pocket?

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
SJ Stanaitis
June 1, 2009 12:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oh no! A company is not embracing the group think of our time, BURN THEM! Seriously, would this have even made the front page if the sign out front said \"Fight Global Warming, Come In For A Meal!\"

LAME.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
June 1, 2009 4:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Seriously, would this have even made the front page if the sign out front said \"Fight Global Warming, Come In For A Meal!\"

@SJ Stanaitis: Yes. Next question.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 1, 2009 4:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Unless you are a meteorologist specializing in global climate patterns, WHY do any of you insist on arguing that Global Climate Change is fake??? The VAST majority of people with degrees in this field believe, BASED ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (experiments repeated 10s of thousands of times) that man is impacting the global climate in a negative way. (http://www.greenfacts.org/en/climate-change-ar4/l-2/1-human-natural-causes.htm#0), (http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures).

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!

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
RobinB
June 1, 2009 5:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hmmm, now I want a sandwich.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
AMetamorphosis
June 1, 2009 7:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
OSURoss
June 2, 2009 12:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Because when you think climate specialists, you think illiterate, burger-slinging hillbillies.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
failurate
June 3, 2009 3:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This was totally misunderstood. The amount of energy and waste involved in making baloney is incredibly high. The chemicals used to cure baloney also kills plants.

Reply
","","","");