nok- your statement was plain idiotic. It's not about a fuckin flat screen. It's about them taking the first steps toward regressing us back to pre-industrialisation.
You are lucky I will not report your post. You have already called both statements by Commy and I "idiotic". You need to have your priorities straightened. You should also stop posting here and go buy a flat screen TV before they ban them.
ok, not even the hardcore environmentalists that's I've heard from are even suggesting this. where did you get this idea?
Plenty of them want this..Look at statements I've posted where they say things like "the only good technology is no technology"
energy rationing will be the single largest cause of regression ever seen.
You are both going back to the cherry picking. I have already stated how their "clean energy" solution is not really clean and will hurt the poor. Nuclear is abundant and cheap and there is absolutely zero reason for it to not be used. They want more expensive, more damaging alternatives, like windmills that kill birds, and E85 which pollutes 2.5x more than petrol. Not to mention they are expensive, making it so that the poor can afford less.
ok, not even the hardcore environmentalists that's I've heard from are even suggesting this. where did you get this idea?
Plenty of them want this..Look at statements I've posted where they say things like "the only good technology is no technology"
energy rationing will be the single largest cause of regression ever seen.
if there was a way to continue our lifestyle while lessening our impact on the environment would you support it? alternative fuel/transportation/production methods etc...
ok, not even the hardcore environmentalists that's I've heard from are even suggesting this. where did you get this idea?
Plenty of them want this..Look at statements I've posted where they say things like "the only good technology is no technology"
energy rationing will be the single largest cause of regression ever seen.
if there was a way to continue our lifestyle while lessening our impact on the environment would you support it? alternative fuel/transportation/production methods etc...
if there was a way to continue our lifestyle while lessening our impact on the environment would you support it? alternative fuel/transportation/production methods etc...
Yes.
me too. and to me that's what the debate is all about. why try to discredit these guys who are just trying to do things better, cleaner, more efficient? I'm all for that.
Cos they aren't. They are introducing harmful "solutions" instead, and enforcing policies that make energy too expensive for the poor to afford.
you're talking about Bechtel and international greed. that's something else. that's something called 'profit over people' where large international corporations charge people double for the basic necessities. things like water and power are seen as commodities...when they are necesities. blame Bechtel and capitalism, not environmentalists for outrageous power bills.
Cos they aren't. They are introducing harmful "solutions" instead, and enforcing policies that make energy too expensive for the poor to afford.
you're talking about Bechtel and international greed. that's something else. that's something called 'profit over people' where large international corporations charge people double for the basic necessities. things like water and power are seen as commodities...when they are necesities. blame Bechtel and capitalism, not environmentalists for outrageous power bills.
No, I'm talking about E85 (ever wonder why food, cotton, and soil are getting more expensive?) which is horrid in every which way possible. Those more expensive lightbulbs (being forced on us more and more as they stock less and less of the old bulbs) with mercury in them that also flicker (they are flourescent, after all) which triggers migraines, and also triggers seizures in people who suffer froom seizure disorders. Bamboo, while cheaper, the majority of it is brought here from south America where they hack down rainforest to grow it for us. The list is long..
And most importantly, the largest push behind the theory comes from Friend's of Earth, and environmentalist organisation. They are the ones pushing more expensive forms of energy, while attempting to discredit legitimate cheaper, cleaner forms with lies (nuclear, hydropower..), and really (and so far successfully) pushing for energy rationing. That would be detrimental to us all.
There are lots of good and truely helpfuly things that can be done, but the pro greens are trying to bury them cos they want more control, and the good solutions won't allow for that.
ok, not even the hardcore environmentalists that's I've heard from are even suggesting this. where did you get this idea?
Plenty of them want this..Look at statements I've posted where they say things like "the only good technology is no technology"
energy rationing will be the single largest cause of regression ever seen.
You are both going back to the cherry picking. I have already stated how their "clean energy" solution is not really clean and will hurt the poor. Nuclear is abundant and cheap and there is absolutely zero reason for it to not be used. They want more expensive, more damaging alternatives, like windmills that kill birds, and E85 which pollutes 2.5x more than petrol. Not to mention they are expensive, making it so that the poor can afford less.
You're so full of hate you're not thinking through your long winded argument. You seem to want to find a way to discredit all renewable energy. Windmills kill birds? What the fuck does a coal plant do, make us all pleasantly darker? Zero reason for nuclear to not be used? Ask the citizens of Chernobyl. Where would you like to store the waste? In your back yard? Not to say we shouldn't consider more nuclear plants, but there are plenty of problems with nuclear. Where do you suggest building another hydroelectric plant? Sounds to me like you're just looking to fight with environmentalist types. And E85 is a stupid idea. The way we're doing it now with corn, anyway. But maybe not on a more limited scale with non-food type crops and algae.
Full of hate? Only from having destructive "solutions" forced on me. What happened to "keep your laws off my body"? On a PJ board, no less..It's hypocritical for that to only count when it comes to abortion. In any case..I do think it thru, and research it thoroughly.
Coal plants supply the majority of our energy. Obama wants to limit it before we have a source to replace it with. That's retarded.
You are basing your dislike on one accident that happened in a communist country with a horrible record regarding the environment.
Nuclear waste can get recyled into fuel. stupid simple solution.
There are proposals for much smaller hydroelectric plants.
All biofuel produces more acetaldehyde.
Go to the CIA World factbook and have a look at what groups who influence, aka control, the government most. see whos number one on that list. They are part of the political machine.
ROFLMAO..
Do you even know who your source is? LMAO..Dude, you got it from the media, and the guy they got it from, like James Hansen, has no authority on the subject. He is a biologist, not a geophysicist. Meaning he studies biology, not sea levels and glacial melt
Come on people, is it really too much to ask for doom and gloom "data" to come from actual climate scientists, not biologists, or astronomers?
This study comes from Nature, the second highest impact factor Journal in the world and one of the most respected Scientific journals in the world.
Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year
Eric J. Steig1, David P. Schneider2, Scott D. Rutherford3, Michael E. Mann4, Josefino C. Comiso5 & Drew T. Shindell6
1. Department of Earth and Space Sciences and Quaternary Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA
2. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 80307, USA
3. Department of Environmental Science, Roger Williams University, Bristol, Rhode Island, USA
4. Department of Meteorology, and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
5. NASA Laboratory for Hydrospheric and Biospheric Sciences, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771, USA
6. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University, New York, New York 10025, USA
You can continue to act all high and mighty because that way you can fall flat on your face or perhaps roll even harder. Enjoy your laugh.
hey i had scott rutherford as a teacher. guy was all about global warming even in a basic core science class
PJ: Hartford 6/27/08 Mansfield 6/30/08 Philly 3 Oct. 30 2009
Philly 4 Oct. 31 2009 Hartford May 2010 Boston May 2010 MSG 1 May 2010
EV: Albany 1 and 2 June 2009 Providence June 15 2011 Hartford June 18 2011
Jumping in here, I belong to the camp that believes that Gore and some of the hardcore global warming police have purposely oversold human beings role in the changing climate for no other reason than financial profits. Do I think that we play a role in climate change? Sure, but to a smaller degree than we've been led to believe. I also believe that the planet can handle whatever we've thrown at it. I have no problem with attempts to live greener, because fundamentally it can only help, however I have a major problem with people making profits from it because they've knowingly lied and exaggerated findings and facts, especially whenever they don't practice what they preach. Al Gore has made millions while preaching from his "environmental pulpit", all the while treading the world in a private jet or bus. Then he returns from these engagements to his gigantic mansion that consumes enough energy to power a small town.
I understand that large businesses need to be policed concerning their environmental impacts, but whenever government starts to punish citizens at the personal level, due to these groups pushing their agendas through lobbyist and financial contributions, I have a real problem. Taxing people and hitting them in the wallet during such trying financial times is not going to help any situation.
On a side note, does anyone else find it odd that Obama keeps telling the public that we have to save the big three automotive corporations while at the same time pushing for more strict environmental controls on their vehicles, thus making them more expensive to produce and purchase, which will inevitably drive sells lower?
All science keeps proving is that we don't know shit on how things work. Don't get me wrong, I love reading about new descoveries, but one thing I've noticed about science is that what we know is constantly being challanged.......
people still trying to defend pollution and and adherence to the old ways.
why is it so hard for people to accept that
A)human beings are polluting this planet
B)it may be having an adverse affect on our environment
and
C)if we fuck this up we could all die.
the stakes are too high.
there is more money involved in trying to keep things the way the are than there is into trying to educate people about the dangers of pollution. so naturally scientist are going to switch sides. if there's more money to be made by not accepting a theory- like the idea that human being may be having adverse affect on the environment- than it does not surprise me in the least that they have done so.
what is surprising is that the majority of the scientific community still believes human beings are fucking up this planet. there's so much money in it for them if they just say, "global warming is bs, lets continue to pump mercury and toxins into the environment. lets build less fuel efficient cars, etc" because that's the cheaper way to do things for big business.
business is against the idea of global warming because it would cost them more money to be clean. that's what the argument comes down to. its the majority of the scientific community vs. the few hundred that have been bought off.
to me its not even an issue. human beings should stop polluting the environment. the end.
Comments
You are lucky I will not report your post. You have already called both statements by Commy and I "idiotic". You need to have your priorities straightened. You should also stop posting here and go buy a flat screen TV before they ban them.
I'm guessing funding cleaner energy will take us back to pre-industrialization.
energy rationing will be the single largest cause of regression ever seen.
You are both going back to the cherry picking. I have already stated how their "clean energy" solution is not really clean and will hurt the poor. Nuclear is abundant and cheap and there is absolutely zero reason for it to not be used. They want more expensive, more damaging alternatives, like windmills that kill birds, and E85 which pollutes 2.5x more than petrol. Not to mention they are expensive, making it so that the poor can afford less.
Yes.
No, I'm talking about E85 (ever wonder why food, cotton, and soil are getting more expensive?) which is horrid in every which way possible. Those more expensive lightbulbs (being forced on us more and more as they stock less and less of the old bulbs) with mercury in them that also flicker (they are flourescent, after all) which triggers migraines, and also triggers seizures in people who suffer froom seizure disorders. Bamboo, while cheaper, the majority of it is brought here from south America where they hack down rainforest to grow it for us. The list is long..
And most importantly, the largest push behind the theory comes from Friend's of Earth, and environmentalist organisation. They are the ones pushing more expensive forms of energy, while attempting to discredit legitimate cheaper, cleaner forms with lies (nuclear, hydropower..), and really (and so far successfully) pushing for energy rationing. That would be detrimental to us all.
There are lots of good and truely helpfuly things that can be done, but the pro greens are trying to bury them cos they want more control, and the good solutions won't allow for that.
You're so full of hate you're not thinking through your long winded argument. You seem to want to find a way to discredit all renewable energy. Windmills kill birds? What the fuck does a coal plant do, make us all pleasantly darker? Zero reason for nuclear to not be used? Ask the citizens of Chernobyl. Where would you like to store the waste? In your back yard? Not to say we shouldn't consider more nuclear plants, but there are plenty of problems with nuclear. Where do you suggest building another hydroelectric plant? Sounds to me like you're just looking to fight with environmentalist types. And E85 is a stupid idea. The way we're doing it now with corn, anyway. But maybe not on a more limited scale with non-food type crops and algae.
Coal plants supply the majority of our energy. Obama wants to limit it before we have a source to replace it with. That's retarded.
You are basing your dislike on one accident that happened in a communist country with a horrible record regarding the environment.
Nuclear waste can get recyled into fuel. stupid simple solution.
There are proposals for much smaller hydroelectric plants.
All biofuel produces more acetaldehyde.
Go to the CIA World factbook and have a look at what groups who influence, aka control, the government most. see whos number one on that list. They are part of the political machine.
hey i had scott rutherford as a teacher. guy was all about global warming even in a basic core science class
Philly 4 Oct. 31 2009 Hartford May 2010 Boston May 2010 MSG 1 May 2010
EV: Albany 1 and 2 June 2009 Providence June 15 2011 Hartford June 18 2011
I understand that large businesses need to be policed concerning their environmental impacts, but whenever government starts to punish citizens at the personal level, due to these groups pushing their agendas through lobbyist and financial contributions, I have a real problem. Taxing people and hitting them in the wallet during such trying financial times is not going to help any situation.
On a side note, does anyone else find it odd that Obama keeps telling the public that we have to save the big three automotive corporations while at the same time pushing for more strict environmental controls on their vehicles, thus making them more expensive to produce and purchase, which will inevitably drive sells lower?
http://www.myspace.com/christianjame (Music Page)
Myspace: http://www.myspace.com/19598996 (Personal Page)
why is it so hard for people to accept that
A)human beings are polluting this planet
B)it may be having an adverse affect on our environment
and
C)if we fuck this up we could all die.
the stakes are too high.
there is more money involved in trying to keep things the way the are than there is into trying to educate people about the dangers of pollution. so naturally scientist are going to switch sides. if there's more money to be made by not accepting a theory- like the idea that human being may be having adverse affect on the environment- than it does not surprise me in the least that they have done so.
what is surprising is that the majority of the scientific community still believes human beings are fucking up this planet. there's so much money in it for them if they just say, "global warming is bs, lets continue to pump mercury and toxins into the environment. lets build less fuel efficient cars, etc" because that's the cheaper way to do things for big business.
business is against the idea of global warming because it would cost them more money to be clean. that's what the argument comes down to. its the majority of the scientific community vs. the few hundred that have been bought off.
to me its not even an issue. human beings should stop polluting the environment. the end.