THE NEPAL EARTHQUAKE WAS CAUSED BY WHAT ????????????

The climatista loons are at it again, claiming the earthquake in Nepal was caused by global warming.........man-made presumably.

“This effect could certainly have made the Nepal earthquake come sooner,” says Professor Roland Burgmann, of the Department of Earth and Planetary Science at the University of California, Berkeley. . .

http://www.newsweek.com/nepal-earthq...gs-326017.html

The climatista loons are at it again, claiming the earthquake in Nepal was caused by global warming.........man-made presumably.

“This effect could certainly have made the Nepal earthquake come sooner,” says Professor Roland Burgmann, of the Department of Earth and Planetary Science at the University of California, Berkeley. . .

http://www.newsweek.com/nepal-earthq...gs-326017.html Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Yeah, because I'm going to take your word over a planetary scientist. That's the problem with you dumbasses.

Geologist's are not climatologist's ........

And that's not really what the article says, is it Whir-LIE-turd?

For a change, you're not shooting straight.

Go figure.

No, that's pretty much what the article says.

If you don't agree with Whirly's characterization why don't you specifically state why? Or is this another example of "dipshit not taking a day off?"

No, that's pretty much what the article says.

If you don't agree with Whirly's characterization why don't you specifically state why? Or is this another example of "dipshit not taking a day off?" Originally Posted by gnadfly

So, I'm guessing you're a phd? What grounds do you have to dismiss it? Other than you don't like the politics of it.

So, I'm guessing you're a phd? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Yes, he is a phd. As in, a PRETTY HUGE DOUCHE

Do you have a specific counter argument as to why I or Whirley are wrong or you just trolling? I thought so.

Do you have a specific counter argument as to why I or Whirley are wrong or you just trolling? I thought so. Originally Posted by gnadfly

So let me get this straight. Eminent scientists in their field put forth a theory that says it COULD be caused by climate change and you dismiss it out of hand and I'M the one who has to defend it? You're the one who has no basis for dismissing it. The burden of proof is on YOU.

Do you have a specific counter argument as to why I or Whirley are wrong or you just trolling? I thought so. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Yes with these compelling "arguments" that you've made it's hard to deny what you have been saying. I concede.

The climatista loons are at it again, claiming the earthquake in Nepal was caused by global warming.........man-made presumably.

“This effect could certainly have made the Nepal earthquake come sooner,” says Professor Roland Burgmann, of the Department of Earth and Planetary Science at the University of California, Berkeley. . .

http://www.newsweek.com/nepal-earthq...gs-326017.html Originally Posted by Whirlaway

No, that's pretty much what the article says.

If you don't agree with Whirly's characterization why don't you specifically state why? Or is this another example of "dipshit not taking a day off?" Originally Posted by gnadfly

No, that's pretty much what the article says.

If you don't agree with Whirly's characterization why don't you specifically state why? Or is this another example of "dipshit not taking a day off?" Originally Posted by gnadfly

Just whirlagay's sarcasm about a natural phenom that has been occurring for thousands of years then blames man for it.

Somebody must have leaked the word that there was a big government grant to study,(and conclude), that the Nepal earthquake was caused by Climate Change.

These quakes, and landslides, have been happening for eons, mainly because the Lower Asian continental plate is steadily moving under the Upper Asian plate. The only reason it is a big concern now is because the Mt Everest base camp has become a big tourist trap, where would be climbers dream of making it to the top.

If only two people are there when a quake occurs, just two people die. If 10,000 are there, then 10,000 die.

Unfortunately, Kathmandu City has been on of the fastests expanding metropolitan areas in South East Asia. As a result of the rapid growth, enforcement of building codes hasn't kept pace. Alot of this growth hasn't been planned or regulated. In rural areas of the Kathmandu Valley, satellite towns have grown without much guidance from the government. And within the city property shopping centers, offices, and residential buildings have not adhered to safety codes that would protect their occupants during an earthquake.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/fea...ban-transition

Maybe they are like libertarians and want no government interference.

Somebody must have leaked the word that there was a big government grant to study,(and conclude), that the Nepal earthquake was caused by Climate Change.

These quakes, and landslides, have been happening for eons, mainly because the Lower Asian continental plate is steadily moving under the Upper Asian plate. The only reason it is a big concern now is because the Mt Everest base camp has become a big tourist trap, where would be climbers dream of making it to the top.

If only two people are there when a quake occurs, just two people die. If 10,000 are there, then 10,000 die. Originally Posted by Jackie S

If you actually believe your first sentence, you have absolutely no idea how real science works.