calfoxwc Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 he's an idiot community organizer savant. He says since their daughter got asthma at 4 yrs old, in LOS ANGELES.... that that now proves that global warming is important to address NOW. Pollution is a whole different deal. What is really means is, "we need the tax and fine and license and carbon trading for more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to pay entitlements and to redistribute wealth around the globe." https://gma.yahoo.com/obama-says-climate-changes-impact-health-personal-him-100124762--abc-news-health.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opal312 Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 Free Ebook "Goodbye Amerika" by David Leon Leazenby. You'll love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 Pollution has nothing to do with global warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 They keep his grades under lock and key because part of the hype is that he is supposed to be brilliant and probably was ushered into Harvard through affirmative action. The reason Harvard is considered as elite as it is is an extremely strict Eligibility level. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 Exactly. I mean, If I were brilliant as proclaimed, I would gladly post my grades and flaunt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 Pollution has nothing to do with global warming? Chris ************************************************** Well, go with that line of reasoning, then realize that the worst polluters on earth, say, China and India, for example... were exempt from the Kyoto treaty. What say you now about that? I never met a conservative who was for pollution. It's a disgrace, pollution. but the political trappings of mmgw, and $$$$$$$$$$$$ to be involved if Al Gorish had his way, among others.... different deal. Did the Ice Age melt away because of pollution in big cities? Wait, don't answer that - I don't want you to embarrass yerself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 Pollution has nothing to do with global warming? Chris ************************************************** Well, go with that line of reasoning, then realize that the worst polluters on earth, say, China and India, for example... were exempt from the Kyoto treaty. What say you now about that? I never met a conservative who was for pollution. It's a disgrace, pollution. but the political trappings of mmgw, and $$$$$$$$$$$$ to be involved if Al Gorish had his way, among others.... different deal. Did the Ice Age melt away because of pollution in big cities? Wait, don't answer that - I don't want you to embarrass yerself. Do you know the top 3 co2 producing countries in absolute terms, and per capita? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 Gee, let me guess - the ones with the fewest TREES ????? Do you know how many co2 producing cities caused the Ice Age to melt away? (I think you are confusing CO2 with carbon monoxide, Chris.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 Gee, let me guess - the ones with the fewest TREES ????? (I think you are confusing CO2 with carbon monoxide, Chris.) I'd love to be inside your mind for just a day. It must be so comforting to know without doubt that you're right about everything. No, emissions have nothing to do with trees. We aren't talking about offset co2, we're also not talking about carbon monoxide. So let me help you out: carbon dioxide per country: 1) China ~ 10 million kt 2) USA ~ 5 million 3) India ~ 2 million carbon dioxide per capita: 1) Australia ~ 16.9t 2=) USA ~ 16.6t 2=) Saudi Arabia ~ 16.6t ... China - 7.4t India - 1.7t No doubt China and India are massive polluters, though at a per capita level it's a much different story. They are developing countries that have their eyes on economic growth rather than environmental and social responsibility. What's the USA's excuse? And Australia's, for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 carbon dioxide per country: 1) China ~ 10 million kt 2) USA ~ 5 million 3) India ~ 2 million ************************** Which makes the kyoto treaty a farce. Because China and India would be exempt from the Kyoto Treaty agreements. Again, CO2 is used by plants and trees, and they exude oxygen. http://www.botany.org/PlantTalkingPoints/CO2andTrees.php Now, read up on who has the world's most dense forests, and how much of those forests have been cut down for profit: http://relivearth.com/articles/nature-facts-articles/top-5-most-dense-forests-in-the-planet/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 Therefore, the solution to what you are talking pointing about, is to stop the wanton destruction of these forests, and stop pollution, both, as much as possible. Unless you want to send the entire civilized world back to the stone age, you need alternative energies, which have not been developed yet, to practical degrees. What is happening, is with the POLITICAL and FINANCIAL aspects of global pollution dominating liberals emotional knee-jerking, not much is being done about the pollution problems on the planet. And "carbon trading" ???????? Just money redistributed to the poor countries.... It's all bs. All about the money and political advantage. You want to battle pollution, I figure our entire country could rally behind that. But, the liberal wacko ulterior motive behind jibberjabber nonsense about "mmgw" is just redirecting the conservation away from the real problems on the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 Hey, we've got to the "but the trees!!!!" part of your global warming rhetoric. And once again, I'm in complete agreement - more trees are better. Less deforestation is better, not only for air purity and co2 absorption, but also habitat maintenance and preservation of cultures. Again, what's the USA's excuse for that level of co2 emission? "We have trees?" Well, you have about 10 square kilometres per thousand people compared with Australia's 80 square kilometres. China and India are pretty terrible for pollution, we know this. They are developing countries with short sighted visions of the future, focusing on economic short term gain as opposed to environmental and social responsibility - we also know this. What's the USA's excuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 Hey, we've got to the "but the trees!!!!" part of your global warming rhetoric. And once again, I'm in complete agreement - more trees are better. Less deforestation is better, not only for air purity and co2 absorption, but also habitat maintenance and preservation of cultures. Again, what's the USA's excuse for that level of co2 emission? "We have trees?" Well, you have about 10 square kilometres per thousand people compared with Australia's 80 square kilometres. China and India are pretty terrible for pollution, we know this. They are developing countries with short sighted visions of the future, focusing on economic short term gain as opposed to environmental and social responsibility - we also know this. What's the USA's excuse? We're just evil bastards. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 We're just evil bastards. WSS Well...that made me laugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 We're just evil bastards. WSS We're gun toting, shoot first, polluting mother fuckers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/where-does-the-carbon-really-come-from/question-3785986/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 Now it's the volcanoes! Typical liberal, never stands by his point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 wait, liberals are getting in the way of environmental efforts now? I guess there might be something to that theory that earth exists in infinite dimensions and every manner of perturbations could be represented in all of those realities. Fascinating we're getting some cross dimensional interaction here at the browns board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 *ring ring ring* "good morning, this is Chicken Little; could I speak to Cocky Locky please? Yes I'll hold." WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 LOL...that's hilarious, Steve ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.