Fair answer....not only is my footprint very low, i must say that if i voted for the next Democrat or Marco Rubio next time around, that the emissions of the USA would be no different after 4-8 years of them being in office. You see....people like me do care alot and we are good hearted people. We are not going to vote for dirty water and air bud. We are normal just like most of your friends. We are not evil and we dont want black smoke up in the air. We just think that some of it is driven for political purposes and some of it is exaggerated and bs. However, in the end....there are no politicians that can save the world and lower the oceans. Also, companies that are involved with it, can be just as corrupt for the wrong reasons.
My final answer....we cannot save the world from the threat that YOU say is coming! So my answer is to unleash the entrepreneur....not to shackle him!
who the heck thinks a democrat can fix anything!? ... they are equally part of the problem ...
the problem with people like you is that you take an issue that has nothing to do with politics and allow it to be politicized ... the reality is that the world you say that can't be saved can indeed be saved while at the same time allowing for a flourishing economy ...
but it takes a willingness to think for oneself and not let corporations and agendas bias one's viewpoint ... saving the planet is not anti-economy ... it's a myth ... by believing that it's either the economy or the environment - you are preconditioned to accept the lies being spewed by those who profit by exploiting the planet ...
Hang on me and you are closer than one might think....see we do have common ground. I "DO" I "ACT" and my footprint is low! I do think that politicians policize it for a platform use! I dont politicize it....THEY DO!
So we arent that far apart....and I do agree with you that its not anti-economy....but Democrats have USED it for their desires!
Theres no time like the present
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
climate change responsible for bushfires? i don't even know where to start to reply to that! :fp:
"The average maximum temperature across Australia reached 40.33 degrees on Monday, beating the previous record of 40.17 degrees set in 1972..."... yep it has been scorching here before.
"Hobart recorded its hottest day in 120 years on Friday, when the temperature peaked at 41.8 degrees..."
so tasmania saw heat of 41 degrees in 1890, too. must have been climate change! :?
"Hay, in southwest NSW, climbed to 47.7 degrees on Saturday - its highest in 56 years..." see above.
if only a carbon tax was introduced in 1850. we'd be saved!
ha sorry tim. i'll stop now.
you been home lately? we went to NY a year or so ago. absolutely loved it, cant wait to go back, maybe winter next time.
Yeh I've seen Pearl Jam, too. But I can't remember the dates.
...
BTW, I think Australia should look into banning matches and anything else that lights fires. :corn:...
how will we ban lightning strikes??? cause you know fires have been known to start that way.
Well, if we put Mother Nature in jail, maybe we can solve the entire problem!!! To me, she's the issue. If she would just stop turning up the oven, sit back and chill with a nice cool Pina Colada, the world would apparently be a better place.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Hang on me and you are closer than one might think....see we do have common ground. I "DO" I "ACT" and my footprint is low! I do think that politicians policize it for a platform use! I dont politicize it....THEY DO!
So we arent that far apart....and I do agree with you that its not anti-economy....but Democrats have USED it for their desires!
then how is it that you have come to the belief that global warming is a fraud?
fuck democrats ... they are part of the problem ...
Hang on me and you are closer than one might think....see we do have common ground. I "DO" I "ACT" and my footprint is low! I do think that politicians policize it for a platform use! I dont politicize it....THEY DO!
So we arent that far apart....and I do agree with you that its not anti-economy....but Democrats have USED it for their desires!
then how is it that you have come to the belief that global warming is a fraud?
fuck democrats ... they are part of the problem ...
Congrats to Chicago!!! The liberals are doing something right!!
Why they didn't do something in 1899 or 1939 to stop this madness is beyond me.
As Eric Dickerson said - I don't want him breaking my record, but if it happens, it happens.
uhhh ... what point are you trying to make here?
There's no snow in Chicago!!! Isn't that concerning to you? They are breaking or about to break long standing records. Sorry if the jokey liberal comment got in the way of that (you know - Chicago is run by Democrats - hardy, har, har).
I thought it was pretty obvious.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
There's no snow in Chicago!!! Isn't that concerning to you? They are breaking or about to break long standing records. Sorry if the jokey liberal comment got in the way of that (you know - Chicago is run by Democrats - hardy, har, har).
I thought it was pretty obvious.
well ... the problem is trying to interpret sarcasm not only within the confines of a somewhat public forum but also within the context of what i believe you to understand ...
yes ... any abnormalities in weather patterns are troubling and further indicative of the consequences of global warming ... how that relates to a particular gov't is mind-boggling in so much as I would hope that even if you don't fully comprehend global warming you do know that it is a global phenomenon and that chicago could be run by the yogic flying carpet party and it still would suffer the same fate ...
There's no snow in Chicago!!! Isn't that concerning to you? They are breaking or about to break long standing records. Sorry if the jokey liberal comment got in the way of that (you know - Chicago is run by Democrats - hardy, har, har).
I thought it was pretty obvious.
well ... the problem is trying to interpret sarcasm not only within the confines of a somewhat public forum but also within the context of what i believe you to understand ...
yes ... any abnormalities in weather patterns are troubling and further indicative of the consequences of global warming ... how that relates to a particular gov't is mind-boggling in so much as I would hope that even if you don't fully comprehend global warming you do know that it is a global phenomenon and that chicago could be run by the yogic flying carpet party and it still would suffer the same fate ...
Forget the politics. I'm sorry I included that as a joke, as I should have realized that would become the focus.
They are about to break a record that was set in 1899!!!! Wondering why there was no alarm then. They should have stopped using their cars immediately!
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Forget the politics. I'm sorry I included that as a joke, as I should have realized that would become the focus.
They are about to break a record that was set in 1899!!!! Wondering why there was no alarm then. They should have stopped using their cars immediately!
soo ... the point you are trying to make is that because chicago experienced a similar shortfall in snow over a century ago that this phenomenon has happened before and is simply part of the natural climate cycle?
i guess you can not solve something that you do not believe in. especially if you do not view it as a real problem.
I do believe fires are a problem. They should (And have) find the people responsible and hold them accountable.
Linking it to one's unrelated belief is the problem.
so you are saying the unusually hot temperatures combined with dry vegetation caused by climate change is not contributing to the fires and making them worse? interesting.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
i guess you can not solve something that you do not believe in. especially if you do not view it as a real problem.
I do believe fires are a problem. They should (And have) find the people responsible and hold them accountable.
Linking it to one's unrelated belief is the problem.
so you are saying the unusually hot temperatures combined with dry vegetation caused by climate change is not contributing to the fires and making them worse? interesting.
I agree that the drought made things worse. But, the fire wouldn't have happened in the first place if someone(s) hadn't lit them.
As for the rest of your conjecture - interesting!
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
of course you try and find those responsible for lighting the fires but someone will do it again next summer or the summer after that when climate change has really kicked in... how about in 30 years. if climate change is tackled the fires that are started by people will not be as bad.
I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
of course you try and find those responsible for lighting the fires but someone will do it again next summer or the summer after that when climate change has really kicked in... how about in 30 years. if climate change is tackled the fires that are started by people will not be as bad.
You do realize in the 70's and 80's they were calling it global cooling, right? Ask your parents about it (assuming your age here). I was only a kid, but I remember that and the fact that climbing under a desk would save me from a nuclear bomb somehow. :shock:
I'll be happy to talk to you in 30 years when YOUR kids are asking about the warming stuff of the roaring teens!
As someone else has said, none of this negates doing stuff like not throwing carcinogens in the air unnecessarily, etc. Nobody's advocating for that (which is the humor of many of the arguments). It's also not saying the climate is not changing. It is. Has been for billions of years (or so I've been told). But, then again, there's always impending doom, and I'm not turning into a prepper, either.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
You do realize in the 70's and 80's they were calling it global cooling, right? Ask your parents about it (assuming your age here). I was only a kid, but I remember that and the fact that climbing under a desk would save me from a nuclear bomb somehow. :shock:
I'll be happy to talk to you in 30 years when YOUR kids are asking about the warming stuff of the roaring teens!
As someone else has said, none of this negates doing stuff like not throwing carcinogens in the air unnecessarily, etc. Nobody's advocating for that (which is the humor of many of the arguments). It's also not saying the climate is not changing. It is. Has been for billions of years (or so I've been told). But, then again, there's always impending doom, and I'm not turning into a prepper, either.
DO YOU realize you are taking a small article from Time magazine as using it as a basis for discrediting what is a scientific consensus ... the global cooling article was published by a few scientists ... it's not even remotely the same thing ... the fact you keep bringing this up to try and discredit what is evident is what makes your posts so frustrating ...
it's like one of the first things the anti-global warming crowd pulls out and is a clear indication to everyone that you have no idea what you are talking about ...
You do realize in the 70's and 80's they were calling it global cooling, right? Ask your parents about it (assuming your age here). I was only a kid, but I remember that and the fact that climbing under a desk would save me from a nuclear bomb somehow. :shock:
I'll be happy to talk to you in 30 years when YOUR kids are asking about the warming stuff of the roaring teens!
As someone else has said, none of this negates doing stuff like not throwing carcinogens in the air unnecessarily, etc. Nobody's advocating for that (which is the humor of many of the arguments). It's also not saying the climate is not changing. It is. Has been for billions of years (or so I've been told). But, then again, there's always impending doom, and I'm not turning into a prepper, either.
DO YOU realize you are taking a small article from Time magazine as using it as a basis for discrediting what is a scientific consensus ... the global cooling article was published by a few scientists ... it's not even remotely the same thing ... the fact you keep bringing this up to try and discredit what is evident is what makes your posts so frustrating ...
it's like one of the first things the anti-global warming crowd pulls out and is a clear indication to everyone that you have no idea what you are talking about ...
it doesn't take but a bit of research and critical thinking ... but we do live in times where people don't do those things anymore ...
Honestly, I don't read Time and have no idea what you are talking about. I look at the data myself and looked at the trends and lived in the 70s and 80s. Sorry. You may have the same conclusion of me, but I don't want to be labeled as reading that drivel.
Love when folks quote Wikipedia, though.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Honestly, I don't read Time and have no idea what you are talking about. I look at the data myself and looked at the trends and lived in the 70s and 80s. Sorry. You may have the same conclusion of me, but I don't want to be labeled as reading that drivel.
i guess you can not solve something that you do not believe in. especially if you do not view it as a real problem.
HEY!!! i can joke about this problem cause ive been dealing with it my whole life. i know the cycles of my country. i dont take them anymore lightly cause i feel the need to alleviate the heaviness of the issue.. BUT what i wont do is freak the fuck out cause an already extremely dry continent is catching fire like shes been doing her entire life. having said that, do not think for a second i dismiss mankinds contribution.
p.s. the other day it was predicted to be mother fucking hot here and guess what??? it fell double digits below the expected forecast. so you all will have to forgive me if sometimes i shrug at what the chicken littles say.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Comments
Hang on me and you are closer than one might think....see we do have common ground. I "DO" I "ACT" and my footprint is low! I do think that politicians policize it for a platform use! I dont politicize it....THEY DO!
So we arent that far apart....and I do agree with you that its not anti-economy....but Democrats have USED it for their desires!
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
All people need to do more on every level!
now now lets not go crazy.. australia is a very dry continent and has ALWAYS been prone to wildfires...
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
how will we ban lightning strikes??? cause you know fires have been known to start that way.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
as if a single penis isnt bad enough.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"The average maximum temperature across Australia reached 40.33 degrees on Monday, beating the previous record of 40.17 degrees set in 1972..."... yep it has been scorching here before.
"Hobart recorded its hottest day in 120 years on Friday, when the temperature peaked at 41.8 degrees..."
so tasmania saw heat of 41 degrees in 1890, too. must have been climate change! :?
"Hay, in southwest NSW, climbed to 47.7 degrees on Saturday - its highest in 56 years..." see above.
if only a carbon tax was introduced in 1850. we'd be saved!
ha sorry tim. i'll stop now.
you been home lately? we went to NY a year or so ago. absolutely loved it, cant wait to go back, maybe winter next time.
then how is it that you have come to the belief that global warming is a fraud?
fuck democrats ... they are part of the problem ...
Congrats to Chicago!!! The liberals are doing something right!!
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01 ... ecord?lite
Why they didn't do something in 1899 or 1939 to stop this madness is beyond me.
As Eric Dickerson said - I don't want him breaking my record, but if it happens, it happens.
uhhh ... what point are you trying to make here?
There's no snow in Chicago!!! Isn't that concerning to you? They are breaking or about to break long standing records. Sorry if the jokey liberal comment got in the way of that (you know - Chicago is run by Democrats - hardy, har, har).
I thought it was pretty obvious.
well ... the problem is trying to interpret sarcasm not only within the confines of a somewhat public forum but also within the context of what i believe you to understand ...
yes ... any abnormalities in weather patterns are troubling and further indicative of the consequences of global warming ... how that relates to a particular gov't is mind-boggling in so much as I would hope that even if you don't fully comprehend global warming you do know that it is a global phenomenon and that chicago could be run by the yogic flying carpet party and it still would suffer the same fate ...
Forget the politics. I'm sorry I included that as a joke, as I should have realized that would become the focus.
They are about to break a record that was set in 1899!!!! Wondering why there was no alarm then. They should have stopped using their cars immediately!
soo ... the point you are trying to make is that because chicago experienced a similar shortfall in snow over a century ago that this phenomenon has happened before and is simply part of the natural climate cycle?
deflecting from a real problem.
i guess you can not solve something that you do not believe in. especially if you do not view it as a real problem.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I do believe fires are a problem. They should (And have) find the people responsible and hold them accountable.
Linking it to one's unrelated belief is the problem.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I agree that the drought made things worse. But, the fire wouldn't have happened in the first place if someone(s) hadn't lit them.
As for the rest of your conjecture - interesting!
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
You do realize in the 70's and 80's they were calling it global cooling, right? Ask your parents about it (assuming your age here). I was only a kid, but I remember that and the fact that climbing under a desk would save me from a nuclear bomb somehow. :shock:
I'll be happy to talk to you in 30 years when YOUR kids are asking about the warming stuff of the roaring teens!
As someone else has said, none of this negates doing stuff like not throwing carcinogens in the air unnecessarily, etc. Nobody's advocating for that (which is the humor of many of the arguments). It's also not saying the climate is not changing. It is. Has been for billions of years (or so I've been told). But, then again, there's always impending doom, and I'm not turning into a prepper, either.
DO YOU realize you are taking a small article from Time magazine as using it as a basis for discrediting what is a scientific consensus ... the global cooling article was published by a few scientists ... it's not even remotely the same thing ... the fact you keep bringing this up to try and discredit what is evident is what makes your posts so frustrating ...
it's like one of the first things the anti-global warming crowd pulls out and is a clear indication to everyone that you have no idea what you are talking about ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
it doesn't take but a bit of research and critical thinking ... but we do live in times where people don't do those things anymore ...
Honestly, I don't read Time and have no idea what you are talking about. I look at the data myself and looked at the trends and lived in the 70s and 80s. Sorry. You may have the same conclusion of me, but I don't want to be labeled as reading that drivel.
Love when folks quote Wikipedia, though.
HEY!!! i can joke about this problem cause ive been dealing with it my whole life. i know the cycles of my country. i dont take them anymore lightly cause i feel the need to alleviate the heaviness of the issue.. BUT what i wont do is freak the fuck out cause an already extremely dry continent is catching fire like shes been doing her entire life. having said that, do not think for a second i dismiss mankinds contribution.
p.s. the other day it was predicted to be mother fucking hot here and guess what??? it fell double digits below the expected forecast. so you all will have to forgive me if sometimes i shrug at what the chicken littles say.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say