Reply With Quote
We, the World . . . we humanity . . . we the people . . . we the dudes who populate this planet . . . we tha nations of the world . . .
And no, the US is not doing enough.
Yeah, it's like
GWB, or Rick Perry, or CEO of TXU will say "we're going to cut emissions" but then they take 5 years, and never reach their goal, and just because they say "we are still working on it" all the sheeple just follow
We, the World . . . we humanity . . . we the people . . . we the dudes who populate this planet . . . we tha nations of the world . . .
And no, the US is not doing enough.
You people are obviously re ed.
Since 1970, carbon monoxide emissions in the U.S. are down 55%, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Particulate emissions are down nearly 80%, and sulfur dioxide emissions have been reduced by half. Lead emissions have declined more than 98%. All of this has been accomplished despite a doubling of the number of cars on the road and a near-tripling of the number of miles driven, according to Steven Hayward of the Pacific Research Ins ute.
Name one country that's done more. Canada, a Kyoto signatory, had their emissions go up.
Some do; some jabber about doing.
So if we have a million terrorists, and "reduce them by 50% over the course of 36 years", do you think neocons will approve or dissaprove of the fact that 500,000 terrorists remain?
Therein lies the fallacy of your argument.
How about a protocol that requires us to seriously hurt our economy to cut terrorists in our country down to 30% of their current levels but lets other countries triple theirs?
That make any more sense?
No, it doesn't. All I was trying to say is that it's silly to argue with the statement:
"U.S. has made actions and reduced emissions" or even "U.S. leads the globe in reducing emissions"
And the reason is because reduction does not mean we've really acheived or accomplished anything. It can...but chances are it doesnt.
if there's 1mil particles of smog per unit air in the country, and we're down to 500thousand particles of smog per unit air (over the course of THIRTY SIX YEARS), are we still doing any better?
It's the year 2006. Greed and sheeple are preventing our race from acheiving what should already be done.
It means we've cut the terrorist population in half and will continue until they're all dead...what have the other countries done?
No, here's the fallacy of your argument.
Terrorists are not a by-product of progress and therefore, are not something that must be tolerated. They can all be killed without harming the economic security of any nation.
Reducing emissions beyond what we've already accomplished will take exponentially more innovation and money than can be expended right now without seriously compromising technological progress or economic security. I say we wait until the rest of the world does their part, we've done enough and, besides, we have other priorities right now.
Let Canada comply with their commitment under the Kyoto Protocol. Go Harass India, China, and that Chavez guy down in Venezuela for a change but, for God's sake, leave the U.S. alone for change.
For once, I want the enviro-whackoes to quit driving us into expensive, ineffective emissions-control measures while letting the rest of the developing world off the hook. We've cleaned up our air, let everyone else clean theirs while you pricks harangue them.
Terrorists are not the by product of progress?
So I guess its easier to say they're a byproduct of the west totally douching their country and ignoring their religious zeal and holy sites, all in the name of "advancing" their own agenda (not progressing, that would be fundamentally semantically different....)
I did not mean to invoke your neoconness with my terrorist comment. And your very first sentence of your response proved what I was getting at: We will not and should not stop until all is eliminated. Just cuz we've cut them in half, does not mean we're saints.
Yes, even ultra ultra LEFTY left leftist lefttty liberals like me can pat america on the back and say "good job guys" for cutting those emissions 50% in Thirty Six Years. However, anyone besides sheeple neocons will realize that it should not stop there.
50%? Big ing deal...it's 2006 and we're supposed to be the best country in the world.
And "best" applies to other facets of reality besides waging war and changing cultures.
We should be leading the globe in reducing emissions by such an outstanding degree that other countries look to us as an inspiration (you know, like the kinda crap they fed me while i was a kid, the facade they implanted in my brain of what my country truely stood for)
[/END]
No, they're a byproduct of insanity that preys on an oppressed, uninformed, brainwashed mass of middle east youth.
No, that'd be wrong too. For that to be true, all Muslims and Arabs would be terrorists.
Who says we're stopping? Just because we don't spend every penny of GDP on environmental concerns doesn't mean we're stopping.
Who's done more? No one...that means we are leading the world in reducing emissions. Back to my doing instead of talking about doing thing, you know?
We are leading the globe in reducing emissions by such an outstanding degree that other countries [should] look to us as an inspiration. Again, I ask, who's done more?
I work for a ing oil company and I not even I can get a boner about defending pollution like some of you quacks.
Who's defending pollution?
Who's defending pollution?
I think scott was drunk last night. Look at his sentence composition.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/Jef...&tstamp=200604There have been a number of sharp debates on the hurricane/global warming issue, and this controversy has really been difficult for the hurricane science community. There were some rather uncomfortable arguments between some of the scientists at talks on Monday, but a more civilized debate last night during a panel discussion featuring four of the experts who've published papers on the subject. The discussion lasted nearly three hours, and could have lasted much longer, as only about 20 of the 60 questions posed by the audience of over 300 were answered. I'll have a detailed look at what was said in a blog next week. Contrary to what one might expect from the headline of yesterday's CNN story from Reuters (Experts: Global warming behind 2005 hurricanes), hurricane experts at this conference are very divided about this issue. There is a lot of very confusing and conflicting information to consider, and the science is a long way from being settled.
I didn't see this post untill now, but there you go.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
