The most important step to combat global warming

[cowwy]

Im actaully with Mrmr's on his opinion of socialism and capatalism...distopia is for more dangerous than anything capatalism has to offer. As long as we're economically free we can encourage change( labor unions ect.) But giving up that economic freedom to a entity that is allowed to have an army with which to force our submission to it is simply dangerous. I wouldn't trust our government with the redistribution of the change under our couch, let alone the redistribution of the quadillions of dollars that america is worth.

As far as taxation goes, I think we have a good system. Those who can't support themselves are given help by the government. Those who can support themselves, but barely can pay the largest percent of their money to the government, allowing for higher paid people to pay a lesser percentage, but a greater quantity, stimulating the economy by allowing those at the top the economic freedom to invest.

I don't know the sum total of the US federal taxes last year, but I'd imagine that those in the bottom 50% lack the income to meet their share in a flat tax situation.

As far as global warming goes, I am not willing to revive the global warming debates of months past, but its april and its really cold outside still!

[ShakeZula]

Originally Posted by bladeway

And steering this thread back on topic;

The US should just go ahead and sign the Kyoto protocol, so it can join the rest of the world in doing nothing about global warming.

Haha! That's awesome. Perhaps the best comment since "Jump up and down and point at your dick!"

-S-

[RUSTY RUSTY]

Could this be what's happening

[chunky]

Ok...back on the subject of global warming, specifically deforestation.
It certainly looks as if there isn't going to be any adherence to the moratorium on the destruction of rainforests!
As I said before, I really don't understand why this issue never seems to be on the table!

Selling off the rainforest - a modern-day scandal

John Vidal in Kisangani
Wednesday April 11, 2007
The Guardian

Vast tracts of the world's second-largest rainforest have been obtained by a small group of European and American industrial logging companies in return for minimal taxes and gifts of salt, sugar and tools, a two-year investigation will disclose today.More than 150 contracts covering an area of rainforest nearly the size of the United Kingdom have been signed with 20 companies in the Democratic Republic of Congo over the past three years. Many are believed to have been illegally allocated in 2002 by a transition government emerging from a decade of civil wars and are in defiance of a World Bank moratorium.

According to the report, the companies, mainly from Germany, Portugal, Belgium, Singapore and the US, are already stripping from the 21m hectares (52m acres) of forest, primarily to extract African teak, which sells for more than £500 a cubic metre and is widely used for flooring, furniture and doors in Britain.According to the 100-page study, compiled by Greenpeace International working with Congolese ecological and human rights groups, if all the forests identified for logging are felled, it could "release" up to 34bn tonnes of carbon - nearly as much as Britain has emitted in 60 years.
To gain access to the forests for the next 25 years, the European companies have made agreements with village chiefs, offering bags of salt, machetes and bicycles, and in some cases promised to build rudimentary schools, the report states.
Yesterday the companies admitted that many of the agreements that they have signed with local communities in return for gifts needed to be reassessed.
"Many of the criticisms are valid. The companies are now going to re-evaluate all the agreements made with communities," said Francoise van de Ven, secretary general of the Congolese Timber Industries Federation, which represents all the international firms named in the report.
Hilary Benn, the UK international development secretary, said: "50 million people rely on the rainforest of the Congo for food, shelter and livelihoods. We rely on it as an ecological handbreak for our rapidly changing climate."
The report criticises the World Bank for encouraging logging in Congo in the knowledge that corruption was rife. It refused to comment until the report has been published.

[AllEyezOnMe304]

Didn't bother reading all of the posts on here, because "Global Warming" is bullshit. By the way scientists are talking, the glaciers will melt in 50,000(+) years. They're melting what? 1/12 an inch a year or something? That's not a lot.

It's common sense... Why worry about something that's gonna happen in 50,000(+) years when Korea or Iran or another one of these retarded countries(don't get me wrong, America can be one as well) will destroy the world by nuclear power?

Forget about "Global Warming". There's stuff out that's more powerful... I'm afraid of what's going to happen in the next 5 or 10 years with all this talk of Nuclear Wars...

[chunky]

Thanks for clearing that up........

.........anyone fancy a pint?

[trumpet]

Originally Posted by chunky

Thanks for clearing that up........

.........anyone fancy a pint?

Spitfire?

[chunky]

Originally Posted by trumpet

Spitfire?

I'll 'ave 'alf!......

[bladeway]

Originally Posted by chunky

Ok...back on the subject of global warming, specifically deforestation.

Selling off the rainforest - a modern-day scandal

John Vidal in Kisangani
Wednesday April 11, 2007
The Guardian

Vast tracts of the world's second-largest rainforest have been obtained by a small group of European and American industrial logging companies in return for minimal taxes and gifts of salt, sugar and tools, a two-year investigation will disclose today...

It's becoming clear that going GREEN can be a forked-path. Certainly the planet is warming, but what steps should we take? Who knows, but deforestation needs to stop for sure.

Today in the St Louis post-dispatch, i found an interesting editorial. A local microbiologist from the area's (if not the country's) leading university voiced his opinion on ethanol, and deforestation. his short editorial can be found here: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...F?OpenDocument

Points of interests:
1) To fill your suv with ethanol, in the US, you use enough corn to feed one person for a year. Currently 2 billion are going hungry.

2) As ethanol production in the US increases, the price of corn will rise, costing consumers, Ranchers (livestock) more money, and farmers will grow more corn, at the expense of wheat, soy, and of course cotton. You'll pay more for nearly all food.

3) more forests in the US will be cleared, a result of increased demand of agro-related products from the production of ethanol.

4)While Brazil has become a ethanol exporter, it's sugarcane farming has led to more devastation of the amazon rainforest. He says 80% of Brazil's greenhouse gases is from clearing rainforests. (i remember seeing a photo taken from the space shuttle where you can actually see the fires burning from outer space, all along the amazon basin.)

5)Malaysia and Indonesia are fortunate to grow palm, for palm oil gives the highest yield of ethanol. The result? you guessed it... one of the world's largest rainforests is dissappearing.

6) Back to the US, some of the country's largest polluters are ethanol producing plants. Producing ethanol is a smoggy job.

And peeps are starving, while we switch to ethanol production. There is an easy fix, chop down more forests for cropland.


Who has been following the "Iron-seeding" plan?

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by bladeway

It's becoming clear that going GREEN can be a forked-path. Certainly the planet is warming, but what steps should we take? Who knows, but deforestation needs to stop for sure.

Today in the St Louis post-dispatch, i found an interesting editorial. A local microbiologist from the area's (if not the country's) leading university voiced his opinion on ethanol, and deforestation. his short editorial can be found here: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/new...F?OpenDocument

Points of interests:
1) To fill your suv with ethanol, in the US, you use enough corn to feed one person for a year. Currently 2 billion are going hungry.

2) As ethanol production in the US increases, the price of corn will rise, costing consumers, Ranchers (livestock) more money, and farmers will grow more corn, at the expense of wheat, soy, and of course cotton. You'll pay more for nearly all food.

3) more forests in the US will be cleared, a result of increased demand of agro-related products from the production of ethanol.

4)While Brazil has become a ethanol exporter, it's sugarcane farming has led to more devastation of the amazon rainforest. He says 80% of Brazil's greenhouse gases is from clearing rainforests. (i remember seeing a photo taken from the space shuttle where you can actually see the fires burning from outer space, all along the amazon basin.)

5)Malaysia and Indonesia are fortunate to grow palm, for palm oil gives the highest yield of ethanol. The result? you guessed it... one of the world's largest rainforests is dissappearing.

6) Back to the US, some of the country's largest polluters are ethanol producing plants. Producing ethanol is a smoggy job.

And peeps are starving, while we switch to ethanol production. There is an easy fix, chop down more forests for cropland.


Who has been following the "Iron-seeding" plan?

Counter Points:
1) Hemp
2) Hemp
3) Hemp
4) Hemp
5) Hemp
6) Hemp

[bladeway]

I think the last time i ate hemp, it was baked into some brownie batter.

By the way. I agree

And, anyhow... how much forest, iyo, will we level to grow the hemp to make ethanol, and still have enough cropland to grow corn, soy, wheat, and etc, to feed everyone, and cotton? We don't have ENOUGH crop land to make enough ethanol now, unless we sacrifice crop land or burn down forest.

Either way, we are sacrificing carbon credits. this is a simple math equation. Gimme an answer an win a Nobel. Gmme an answer to feed everyone, produce ethanol and provide carbon sinks.

Again, anyone who is familiar with Iron-Seeding: brief us.

[bladeway]

Do you know that you and I, as tax-payers, pay farmers to plant nothing, increasing our federal deficit? Our tax dollars become increasingly worthless, due to interest payments, currently at 17%.

Though some farmers plant nothing, due to our productivity, highest on the planet, we still have a surplus of food. So we spend more tax dollars buying the surplus up from our productive farmers... to keep prices at the profitable level... and ship this surplus to Bolivia to feed the hungry, thus destroying Bolivia's farming market, because our taxpayers are supplying Bolivia with free food. So Bolivians are layed-off. Thus Bolivians head to north-america, where jobs and food are plentyful, and health care a given, whether you have insurance or not, thus driving up insrance cost for you and I and the companies we work for,,,etc, blah blah blah.....

So, whoever said our farmers need to make $200,000 a year? SOMEONE did. Congress has practically gauranteed that to them. If you want an answer to this dilmna, ask your congressman why he/she took all that pac money from the agro-industry.

Immigration and the agro industry are draining our national budget. These are problems easily solved simply by allowing the natural laws of economics to take over. But that would be allowing capitalism to reign. So socialist would say we need to chop down our forest to feed the world, while the greenies will disagree, allowing millions to starve. Al Gore will have you believe there is an easy answer, when there really is not. We have tough choices to make.

Scientist would help us make to our policy, but they are too busy doing other things, like paying their mortages. and children's college tuition to be bothered with truth; the greenhouse dilmna pays the bills, it MUST be kept alive. Count them out. Scientists are just like you and I! They need a paycheck, and if we solve global warming, a significant majority won't have one.

[mrmrs]

So much can come from a picture! Try this one. It seems the polar bears have adapted to thier climate! Gee whiz, maybe they grew thick skins a long time ago but Liberals have skins of shear! As far as I learned from reading an Encyclopedia, POLAR BEARS are quite resouceful! Hells Bells they can even eat humans! It would not surprise me one bit that hey can even "SWIM" in the ocean! Stupid Liberals know what they feel but never think what they mean! There is no such a thing as "Man-Made" "Global Warming"! Its all a Political movement by solialists who want to control our government! The weather outside is and has been spectacular! Check it out man.....It rains, it snows, it gets hot, it gets cold and it get dry and it gets really stupid in the halls of congress! Does anyone want to brush upon their track record or thier approval ratings? HHHHHMMMMMM? Al Gore is the biggest "Chicken Little" idiot since time can remember! Why fall for a fools GOLD when you see the proof right in front of your very eyes! I am going to go play golf tomorrow on some over-fertalized stretch of land I call paradise! HA! HA! HA!

Originally Posted by RUSTY RUSTY

Could this be what's happening

I

[mrmrs]

These Polar Bears Are Roasting A Penguin! Is That Legal? Aren"t They Protected Too! Where The Hell Is Al Gore When You Really Need The Fool? This Stuff Is Too Easy! Idiot Liberals Are Too Many!

[stumbler]

Originally Posted by mrmrs

So much can come from a picture! Try this one. It seems the polar bears have adapted to thier climate! Gee whiz, maybe they grew thick skins a long time ago but Liberals have skins of shear! As far as I learned from reading an Encyclopedia, POLAR BEARS are quite resouceful! Hells Bells they can even eat humans! It would not surprise me one bit that hey can even "SWIM" in the ocean! Stupid Liberals know what they feel but never think what they mean! There is no such a thing as "Man-Made" "Global Warming"! Its all a Political movement by solialists who want to control our government! The weather outside is and has been spectacular! Check it out man.....It rains, it snows, it gets hot, it gets cold and it get dry and it gets really stupid in the halls of congress! Does anyone want to brush upon their track record or thier approval ratings? HHHHHMMMMMM? Al Gore is the biggest "Chicken Little" idiot since time can remember! Why fall for a fools GOLD when you see the proof right in front of your very eyes! I am going to go play golf tomorrow on some over-fertalized stretch of land I call paradise! HA! HA! HA!

I

You just couldn't resist it could you Mrmrs. Ok I'm real busy right now but I'll be back since you just had to drag it up.
Fuck you for now.

[zyzy]

On and on, on and on, on and on..................................the song you know, this thread too.

Why is everyone only thinking about burning things for energy?

[stumbler]

Ok then Mrmrs let's catch up on some of the latest news:
It says here that humans have the means to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions and avoid catastrophic consequences of global warming:
http://www.inform.kz/showarticle.php?lang=eng&id=151199

You’ll really like this one and the solutions it suggests. I’ll go ahead and post the whole article for you:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/localnews/ci_5825996
Solutions offered for global warming
White House insists preventive measures will harm economic growth
By Douglas Fischer, STAFF WRITER
Article Last Updated: 05/05/2007 02:36:51 AM PDT

Here's the state of global warming to date: Scientists generally agree the Earth is warming, that humans are driving this change, that the impact will have fundamental and far-reaching consequences to the environment, and that the tab for all this, while significant for all countries, will hit hardest those least able to afford it.
On Friday, scientists and delegates from 120 countries offered solutions. These cover a broad spectrum, from turning up a home's thermostat to redesigning power plants to charging industry $100 per ton of carbon sent up a smokestack. Delegates said an affordable arsenal of "anti-warming" measures are available and must be quickly applied to avert a disastrous increase in global temperatures.
One constant, however, has not changed: The White House's continued stance as the global holdout, fretting that preventive measures are too costly.
A United Nations network of about 2,000 scientists concluded Friday the world can and must make significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by in-creasing fuel efficiency of buildings and vehicles, shifting from fossil to renewable fuels and reforming the forestry and farming industries.
The document made clear that nations have the technology and money to act decisively avoid a sharp rise in temperatures that scientists say would wipe out species, raise ocean levels, wreak economic havoc and trigger droughts in some places and flooding in others.
While delegates applauded go-it-alone
approaches adopted by pioneering states such as California and cities such as Berkeley and San Francisco to trim emissions, they knocked them as inadequate without a cohesive national plan.
"We can bring down greenhouse emissions," said Ogunlade Davidson, the panel's co-chairman and an engineering professor at the University of Sierra Leone. But "it requires commitment, it requires policy action, it requires collective activity.
"If we continue doing what we are doing now, we are in deep trouble."
The report is the third in a series by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The first one, issued in February, assessed the science of climate change and concluded humans are "very likely" causing warming. The second, in April, warned that absence of corrective action will cook the planet beyond the ability of nature and society to adapt, and that rich nations must lead.
Friday's report offered a way out.
"This is a report about solutions," said Bert Metz, the panel's other co-chairman and a senior researcher at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. "There's a lot to be gained."
Delegates said the report's approval should conclusively debunk arguments by skeptics that combating global warming was too costly, that it would stifle development in poorer countries or that the temperature rise had gone too far to change.
If the Bush administration was listening, it didn't show it Friday.
Harlan Watson, head of the U.S. delegation, said he was pleased the report "highlights the importance of a portfolio of clean energy technologies consistent with our approach."
But the White House reiterated its stance against efforts to curb emissions at the cost of economic growth. James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, questioned the report's lowest proposed emission target, saying, "It would cause a global recession."
Nonetheless, delegates said science trumped politics, especially opposition from booming China, which wanted language inserted allowing for a greater buildup of greenhouse gases in the environment before action would be taken.
The world, delegates said, doesn't have that luxury. The amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has risen 70 percent in the past 30 years. Even if global action is taken now and the level stabilizes, global temperatures would be expected to rise almost 4 degrees, subjecting up to 2 billion people to water shortages by 2050 and threatening extinction for 20 percent to 30 percent of species, the IPCC said.
Enter the solutions. They ranged from lifestyle changes, such as taking more transit or adjusting the thermostat, to technological wonders such as storing carbon underground, to policy initiatives like a carbon tax or cap.
In the United States, policies to curb or even stabilize emissions are being led by the states, particularly California.
That's not enough, said Dennis Tirpak, a lead author of the report and chief of the Climate Change Program at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
"All these things are really good. They help stimulate innovative technologies and encourage in some cases policies," he said.
"But on their own, they generally will have a limited impact on national or regional emissions. And therefore you probably need, in many circumstances, to do more."
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its Working Group III report can be found on the Internet at http://www.ipcc.ch.

Now this one tells how as usual greed will probably win out over life saving common sense.
http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=352544&Category=24&subCategoryID=

Oh and by the way I just read an article the other day that said China actually has a more aggressive plan for cutting greenhouse gases than the United States does, and the whole point of the article was how those opposed to taking steps to deal with global warming no longer have the “why should we have to do it, if China doesn’t" card.anymore. I'll see if I can find that one for you also.

Glad you brought this tired old thread back up, I'd almost forgotten about the latest developments.

[Empress Lainie]

1. Stop BURNING stuff for energy.

2. Start using reversible chemical reactions in closed reactors to produce heat, to make steam, to drive turbines to drive vehicles, or just for heat.


3. The raw materials are rocks, and seawater, the energy to make the usable chemicals are solar power and geothermal energy.

4. It will never happen in the USA or the West, there is too much invested in the current system, and too much money to be made more easily.

An aside: With no justifiable excuse at the present, THE OIL COMPANY (there is really only one) is raising the price of gasoline 2 to 4 cents every few days, so they can hit $4.00 gallon by summer, and $5.00 gallon by fall.
The result of this unbridled greed will be to cause the prices of everything else (it all moves using gas or diesel fuel to get to market) with an unheard of inflation rate, causing massive unemployment, failed businesses, and bankruptcies. And for consumers only, the new and improved bankruptcy law, (unconstitutional as it does the exact opposite of what the constitution states it is to do) won't allow them to cancel their debts. Makes me wonder if the banking and oil industry are really out to destroy our economy on purpose. Look at what is going on. The fence at the Mexican border is a diversionary sideshow, so hopefully we won't notice.

5. There is absolutely nothing new that has to be invented, all the products and raw materials and finished chemicals are readily available. They just have to be put to use for the purpose stated.

[Empress Lainie]

I know I am preaching in the wrong church..........................but why doesn't anyone in industry or govt if they are REALLY SO CONCERNED ABOUT ENERGY even think of or mention this solution. I tried once to get the Ca dept of energy interested, they couldn't have cared less. They even turned down an energy efficient school design using solar heat to heat outside air because they were ignorant of the fact that this method is used all the time in the northern states and canada.

[mrmrs]

You know, the whole thing is that all of you are so worked up and worried about nothing. Earth sciences that Al Gore is "USING" and "MANIPULATING" to his political gain do not show that man is causing anything! Yes the temp has risen slightly as it has in the past. It has also dipped in the past. But to go as far as suggest major economic changes that will certainly wreck our economy is stupid! The proponents of the "Global Warming" debate are only after one thing! They want to shut down the American economy! Why aren't they over in China asking them top stop? When America stops using oil, do you think the rest of the world will? HELLO? My favorite stupid move is when someone says,"Hey lets all boycott buying gas on Mothers Day!" Brilliant! Einstein! What happens the next day "DUMBASS!" HA! HA! HA! This is really simple stuff if you people would just stop and think while you listen to the spoon-fed liberal hype from media! Ask yourself questions, then ask others questions. Like... How is it possible that the SUN is never, ever brought up as a possiible factor in this entire "Global Warming" debate?! I find that fact to be of paramount interest to anyone with half a GOD DAMNED BRAIN!

Originally Posted by stumbler

Ok then Mrmrs let's catch up on some of the latst news:
It says here that humans have the means to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions and avoid catastrophic consequences of global warming:
http://www.inform.kz/showarticle.php?lang=eng&id=151199

You’ll really like this one and the solutions it suggests. I’ll go ahead and post the whole article for you:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/localnews/ci_5825996
Solutions offered for global warming
White House insists preventive measures will harm economic growth
By Douglas Fischer, STAFF WRITER
Article Last Updated: 05/05/2007 02:36:51 AM PDT

Here's the state of global warming to date: Scientists generally agree the Earth is warming, that humans are driving this change, that the impact will have fundamental and far-reaching consequences to the environment, and that the tab for all this, while significant for all countries, will hit hardest those least able to afford it.
On Friday, scientists and delegates from 120 countries offered solutions. These cover a broad spectrum, from turning up a home's thermostat to redesigning power plants to charging industry $100 per ton of carbon sent up a smokestack. Delegates said an affordable arsenal of "anti-warming" measures are available and must be quickly applied to avert a disastrous increase in global temperatures.
One constant, however, has not changed: The White House's continued stance as the global holdout, fretting that preventive measures are too costly.
A United Nations network of about 2,000 scientists concluded Friday the world can and must make significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by in-creasing fuel efficiency of buildings and vehicles, shifting from fossil to renewable fuels and reforming the forestry and farming industries.
The document made clear that nations have the technology and money to act decisively avoid a sharp rise in temperatures that scientists say would wipe out species, raise ocean levels, wreak economic havoc and trigger droughts in some places and flooding in others.
While delegates applauded go-it-alone
approaches adopted by pioneering states such as California and cities such as Berkeley and San Francisco to trim emissions, they knocked them as inadequate without a cohesive national plan.
"We can bring down greenhouse emissions," said Ogunlade Davidson, the panel's co-chairman and an engineering professor at the University of Sierra Leone. But "it requires commitment, it requires policy action, it requires collective activity.
"If we continue doing what we are doing now, we are in deep trouble."
The report is the third in a series by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The first one, issued in February, assessed the science of climate change and concluded humans are "very likely" causing warming. The second, in April, warned that absence of corrective action will cook the planet beyond the ability of nature and society to adapt, and that rich nations must lead.
Friday's report offered a way out.
"This is a report about solutions," said Bert Metz, the panel's other co-chairman and a senior researcher at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. "There's a lot to be gained."
Delegates said the report's approval should conclusively debunk arguments by skeptics that combating global warming was too costly, that it would stifle development in poorer countries or that the temperature rise had gone too far to change.
If the Bush administration was listening, it didn't show it Friday.
Harlan Watson, head of the U.S. delegation, said he was pleased the report "highlights the importance of a portfolio of clean energy technologies consistent with our approach."
But the White House reiterated its stance against efforts to curb emissions at the cost of economic growth. James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, questioned the report's lowest proposed emission target, saying, "It would cause a global recession."
Nonetheless, delegates said science trumped politics, especially opposition from booming China, which wanted language inserted allowing for a greater buildup of greenhouse gases in the environment before action would be taken.
The world, delegates said, doesn't have that luxury. The amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has risen 70 percent in the past 30 years. Even if global action is taken now and the level stabilizes, global temperatures would be expected to rise almost 4 degrees, subjecting up to 2 billion people to water shortages by 2050 and threatening extinction for 20 percent to 30 percent of species, the IPCC said.
Enter the solutions. They ranged from lifestyle changes, such as taking more transit or adjusting the thermostat, to technological wonders such as storing carbon underground, to policy initiatives like a carbon tax or cap.
In the United States, policies to curb or even stabilize emissions are being led by the states, particularly California.
That's not enough, said Dennis Tirpak, a lead author of the report and chief of the Climate Change Program at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
"All these things are really good. They help stimulate innovative technologies and encourage in some cases policies," he said.
"But on their own, they generally will have a limited impact on national or regional emissions. And therefore you probably need, in many circumstances, to do more."
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its Working Group III report can be found on the Internet at http://www.ipcc.ch.

Now this one tells how as usual greed will probably win out over life saving common sense.
http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?ID=352544&Category=24&subCategoryID=

Oh and by the way I just read an article the other day that said China actually has a more aggressive plan for cutting greenhouse gases than the United States does, and the whole point of the article was how those opposed to taking steps to deal with global warming no longer have the “why should we have to do it, if China doesn’t" card.anymore. I'll see if I can find that one for you also.

Glad you brought this tired old thread back up, I'd almost forgotten about the latest developments.

[Old Tool]

Originally Posted by mrmrs

You know, the whole thing is that all of you are so worked up and worried about nothing(1). Earth sciences that Al Gore is "USING" and "MANIPULATING" to his political gain do not show that man is causing anything! Yes the temp has risen slightly as it has in the past. It has also dipped in the past. But to go as far as suggest major economic changes that will certainly wreck our economy(2) is stupid! The proponents of the "Global Warming" debate are only after one thing! They want to shut down the American economy! Why aren't they over in China asking them top stop? When America stops using oil, do you think the rest of the world will? HELLO? My favorite stupid move is when someone says,"Hey lets all boycott buying gas on Mothers Day!" Brilliant! Einstein! What happens the next day "DUMBASS!" HA! HA! HA! This is really simple stuff if you people would just stop and think while you listen to the spoon-fed liberal (3) hype from media! Ask yourself questions, then ask others questions. Like... How is it possible that the SUN is never, ever brought up as a possiible factor in this entire "Global Warming" debate(4)?! I find that fact to be of paramount interest to anyone with half (5) a GOD DAMNED BRAIN!

1) - you seemed awfully worried about people worrying about nothing - why so upset?
2) - introducing new technology, creating new businesses and new jobs is going to "wreck" an economy? This is a new theory I haven't heard about.
3) - better to listen to the spoon-fed conservative hype, right? Is Bill O'Reilly a good kisser?
4) - if you actually engaged in this discussion at any reasonable level, you would see a very common thread including the sun throughout.
5) - as someone with half a brain, you ought to know.

now, get back to work and make da man some more profits!

[billblondel344]

Originally Posted by mrmrs

These Polar Bears Are Roasting A Penguin! Is That Legal? Aren"t They Protected Too! Where The Hell Is Al Gore When You Really Need The Fool? This Stuff Is Too Easy! Idiot Liberals Are Too Many!

don't you remember in his run for president he said he helped invent the internet andhecreated the super fund to clean up the toxic dump sites. and now globle warming. he is more full of shit than a christmas goose.

[Cheltenham]

[AZRIEL]

horsetooth reservoir.jpg