![]() |
50 dead polar bears
Quote:
:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh |
Quote:
it's not so much an edjumacated choice of wordage :tongue: |
Quote:
Im an equal opportunity asshole... fuck face. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://myspace.com/myboringlife Haha NICE anyone that wants to meet Nick Sterling is OK in my book. HAHAHAHA. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
These arguments of 'the cost of goods will go up' and 'China/3rd World will continue to take our jobs' are decades old. Yet America appears to be doing okay. I'd worry about your massive trade defecit with China, something tells me that has more to do with the issues you are concerned about than CO2. I do find it interesting that you used 2 of the arguments I had predicted you would. Let's examine those: 1 - Greater controls on emissions would raise the prices on consumer goods. That's been said about every environmental policy affecting big business for literally decades. Who pays for the commercials and lobbying to tell you that? You guessed it. If big businesses spent the money on reform instead of lobbying, they'd be emission-free by now. This applies to a lot of countries, but especially to America because your policymakers are in the pockets of the big corporations. 2 - Countries who have less regulation will grow stronger. The cost of making a country cleaner is negligible. For less than 1% of the annual US military budget, auto makers could retrofit their cars with low emission devices. For less than 1% livestock farmers (livestock release more greenhouse gasses than automobiles) could work on reclamation and recycling devices. The amount of money to see a noticable change is so negligible, the only excuse for not doing it is ignorance, or the desire by money-laden interests to save pennies on the dollar. I think it is extremely arrogant when Americans deride policies widely accepted by the REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD and assume that because 50 other countries have examined the same data and reached the opposite conclusion, that we are clearly delusional. In other words, do some of your own research. You will find that the cost of making changes to CO2 and other emissions is negligible. Your country spends trillions on defense and weapons. Making the air cleaner and the environment more habitable would be a drop in the bucket. When all else fails and you realize that your leaders are more interested in protecting their corporate sponsors than they are their citizens, you can resort to the Cold War Era arguments that by weakening our corporations we are letting the Communists and Muslims win. |
Tell friend to try exoclick.com.
|
Quote:
If so, good for you man. I'd have to think, though, you shouldn't be posting here if you're that bad ass. |
i love how every thread splum posts in turns into a bullshit internet political debate.
|
However, I do have to give you credit for your unintentionally correct statement.
I found the article I was looking for. If you thought those Chinese were insidious, you were right! They are actually polluting your cities for you! http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...0,661397.story Quote:
In some European countries, endangering the lives of citizens via corporate pollution is a felony offense. Corporate leaders can be imprisoned. Making the penalties for screwing up our planet more severe is one step in the right direction to stopping all this B.S. spin and having a meaningful debate about protecting the environment. |
Quote:
You obviously have a completely different mindset, and probably one that doesnt have the American people in its best interests. Human induced global warming is a lie and not worthy of altering our policies wholesale. That being said like I mentioned before America has enough policies already in place to help with conservation, but it must not come at the cost of human productivity or advancement. |
Quote:
As you clearly don't have the intelect to read raw scientific data, who then can read it to you? |
Quote:
Some people cannot see the wood for the trees. And to boot, I'm a French liberal, according to my ICQ alias that Splum has for me in his 'buddies' list :1orglaugh |
Quote:
Oh also what kind of homo uses the word "tosser" lol? |
99.99% of the time it has to do with clicking their own ads.
|
Quote:
it must be true then |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I have the ICQ log from that conversation - I can't get you banned from a private accusation, but if you care to make it public.... |
I highly doubt that he was banned for his views on global warming.
|
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough For two Attenborough IS a broadcaster(aka guy who gets paid to make broadcasts) Just click on my sig to watch a movie that was made by REAL scientists who have no fiscal stake. Oh Im sorry I didnt speak your language here... Baaa baaa baaaa |
Quote:
|
Quote:
i mean does he seem like the type of guy to have friends who would do such a thing?!?!! |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://www.myspace.com/myboringlife |
Quote:
There are some that give it, others only take it. I have never backdoored anyone and if you care to accuse me otherwise, go ahead.... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://www.myboringlife.com |
Quote:
Well, a few months on and I still have a healthy 4-week backlog for programming lined up. Same way it's been for the last few years. So, when he says he just hit all those sites with false clicks, well, it's all just bullshit :2 cents: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
---edit Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh |
Quote:
:liebe028: |
Quote:
. a wut? . |
Quote:
Seeing as al gore invented the internet this should come as no surprise. |
Quote:
|
i think al gore called google after digg called him and complained about the blog
it's some kind of conspiracy |
Quote:
|
I'd hazard a guess that the webmaster was clicking his own ads and google caught him out. The site is not banned, just your adsense account.
|
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://www.socialfunds.com/news/release.cgi/6406.html And the clean coal technology which is leading the pack is coal gasification. GE And Bechtel are working on coal gasification together. When those two companies start working together, it's time to take notice. Bechtel have said that a new plant using coal gasification would cost $975 million compared to a conventional plant which would cost about $780 million. Not to mention higher operational costs which will be passed onto the consumer. I think clean coal is a great idea. Just don't go around saying it's something that's going to cost a few thousand dollars. Here in Queensland, Australia, we have enough coal to give us energy for something like 300 years, apparently. So clean coal technology is being looked at in a big way. It would be a non-issue if it were just a few thousand dollars per power station. |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:59 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123