I'm a libertarian, you're a liberal who picks and chooses his facts to appear right. :winkwink:

or, appear libertarian? :1orglaugh

I'm in Montreal, Quebec. There is tracking going on here but it is being met with tons of resistance. New laws will hopefully make it clean or keep it out of Canada permanently.

The Quebec government also just announced extensive environmental studies: http://www.montrealgazette.com/techn...756/story.html

Quebec is actually a very green place and Montreal itself has over 50 large parks. I'm hoping that Fracking will be banned here altogether but in case I don't get my wish, I hope very strong, tough laws & punishments will be in place to stop these companies from destroying everything.


I get that, but at the same time, he's still a bastard.

Black Lung Disease is rising in Kentucky:
http://www.post-gazette.com/business...s/201307290141

How Coal companies hide the threat of black lung disease:
http://www.post-gazette.com/business...s/201307290141

Why doesn't he try to protect the people while protecting jobs?

so you ignore scaled timelines then? Is that what you are saying? I don't speak gif...

www.zipcar.com just set-up there. Take a look at where their parking lots are and see if they work for you, this is a very powerful way for individuals to reduce their pollution.

If you sign up, holler at me first and I can give you my account credentials there for a referral, we'll both get zip credits.:thumbsup

So now according to right wingers the more C02 the better and hotter temps simply mean better gardens. Worked out well for Venus, why not here? :1orglaugh

gifs don't speak Glen.

there's no historical correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Nice try from the peanut gallery.

weird, this seems to show correlation between co2 and temperature..

not amongst people who went to school

I think I found the proof you were looking for
http://www.anthonynotes.com/wp-conte...00-300x225.png

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Exactly. Here is a better example of a great correlation:

Per capita consumption of cheese (US)
correlates with
Number of people who died by becoming tangled in their bedsheets

http://i.imgur.com/N4YfC8W.png

:1orglaugh

More awesome correlations here: http://www.tylervigen.com/

Quebec is not Canada. If the Quebec government wants to ban it then that is there business. The other provinces can make their own decisions on it and you, and the rest of Quebec, can keep your noses out of the business of other provinces.

Quebec is the most leftist, socialist and corrupt jurisdiction north of Cuba and the less influence it has on the rest of the country the better.

Not true. CO2 was declared a pollutant. The EPA lumped carbon dioxide with five other gases -- methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride -- into a single class for regulatory purposes. That's because they share similar properties: All are long-lived and well-mixed in the atmosphere; all trap heat that otherwise would leave the earth and go into outer space; and all are "directly emitted as greenhouse gases" rather than forming later in the atmosphere.

Hopefully not. There are plenty of green alternatives.


I'm not a hypocrite. I don't want tracking anywhere, not in Canada and not in the US, at least not in its current highly unregulated state. The council of Candians is calling for a country-wide halt on fracking operations. , and the practice has also been banned in Quebec. Read http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/what-is...sial-1.1505246


The EPA is, By Law, making the coal industry reduce emissions so that you and your future kids can breathe. IF the price of coal goes up, isn't it worth the price? And you do know that not all of your electricity comes from coal, right? In the US, only 37% of electricity comes from coal. 93% of electricity in Kentucky comes from Coal, which is very disturbing. Kentucky can do like the rest of the world, and and balance their own power grid out by getting electricity from other sources including renewable energy. They have over 15 years to make it happen.

There are plenty of reasons why things change. The Sarah desert changed because of the Earth's Orbit around the sun: http://www.messagetoeagle.com/greensahara.php

The change occurring on the earth today is caused in part at least, by man.

The cool thing is, we can do something to stop this change from making things worse.

Peace.

**********, should "WE" Americans do this before or after we spend $20 trillion on the solar roadway you want us to buy?

I certainly trust your judgement. :1orglaugh

Oh look, a bottom runger tried to make a funny




And failed

Not by law, son, and not so my children can breath. My children breath just fine now and despite the hysteria you've bought into, our air has gotten cleaner and cleaner.
Oh, and the 39% of our energy derived from coal is the largest amount derived from any source.
Here amongst the intelligent we understand that you can't magically replace 39% of your energy output with another source. Especially since nuclear isn't on the table.

I'm sure that you, American hater that you are, applaud this because it weakens us but let me clue you in, we've had enough of the idiot left. These standards will be blocked by people with common sense.

Just because they declare it a pollutant does not make it so. If they declared oxygen a pollutant would you believe them then too? The only reason they declared it a pollutant is to help drive their leftist agenda forward. It's bullshit.

I hope all of you agitators and alarmists are around in 5 to 10 years when all of this is revealed for the nonsense that it is. You should all be sent to live in caves without any of the modern comforts and amenities currently provided to you by the emissions of the harmless trace gas CO2.

Dude, they HAVE been here 10 years after Al Gore told them there would be no more polar ice cap.
They don't care if they're wrong, they just move in to the next idiot idea.
It never matters to the idiot left that facts aren't on their side

I just can't believe that people of intelligence are believing this crap.

"Climate Change" happens NATURALLY.

Mankind is a flea on the ass of the Earth.

And scientists with agendas have been making these kind of predictions for a while.

Did you know:
That in 1970 Daniel Patrick Moynihan advised Pres. Richard Nixon that scientists said that IF the U.S. did not IMMEDIATELY address the "problem" that by the year 2000...New York, Washington D.C. , Los Angeles would all be underwater?

Doesn't that sound familiar to the same exact bullshit they are saying now?

Only it's 2014. And not one inch of any of those cities are underwater.

Oh, and by the way...in the later part of the 1970's those SAME scientists claimed that mankind was bringing on an ICE AGE.

What a crock of shit.

So the rest of the country has to suffer with bad air quality so Kentucky & West Virginia can destroy entire mountain sides and mountain tops digging out coal? Perhaps if these states did things to attract investors and did things to encourage people to work in new industries they might not be in this situation.

Both of those states are like the Welfare queens whom have 5 kids to get govt substitutes.. They do nothing to advance their states and just expect the govt to give them handouts. Why is it bootstraps never apply to states that are welfare queens?

There are places around the world that are flooding. Also it's not just "some scientist with a mysterious agenda" as you say but almost all scientists.. The most ironic thing about your sentence is the very few scientists whom think global warming is a fairytale more than often have ties to big oil & gas. Meaning there is a higher percentage of deniers with a hidden agenda than those that agree it's real.

Holy Christ! Someone alert Noah! Tell him the first flood in history is coming!


I love when you guys get home from the day job with your $30k a year insight into the world.:1orglaugh

Just get home from the roofing job did ya?

Awwwww, does that make the hurt of your failure feel better?:1orglaugh

Crockett...no pun intended...but that's a crock!

There are NO places that are permanently underwater from global warming.

And it was never a "mysterious agenda" from ONE scientist. It's ALWAYS been a group of scientists who are on the payroll of companies with the agenda.

Scientists prove what they are paid to approve. Otherwise they go from having big funding and grant money...to nothing.

I've shown you that over the last 40 years they have claimed the same things and then contradicted themselves and now they are back to their 1970 claims again.

I'm sorry, but the entire East Coast of the U.S. did not end up submerged by the year 2000.

And it won't be submerged in the year 2100 either.

If and when it ever happens...it will be because of a huge change in the Earth that mankind has no power of changing or stopping. And it definitely won't be because of CO2

I've already posted before that NEW data is showing that the ocean is now consuming all the excess CO2 and the levels are dropping.

Doesn't have a damn thing to do with Mark Prince getting a chevy volt either. :1orglaugh

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

in your garage, start you car ... and breathe ... come and tell me later how you feel ....


NOTE: he does not have a car and obviously no garage ... he can use the one of his mommy tough ...

You do realize that is carbon MONOXIDE. Not carbon dioxide. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Why are you always so argumentative and one sided? One sided to the point you will take a statement out of context just to make a point and troll.

Please show us the scientist s whom are on a payroll with an agenda. You seem to know a lot about it, so how about some names and proof? or is this just more fox news hearsay.. (most probable answer)

Also it doesn't have to be permanently underwater to be uninhabitable. It's called rising tides due to the water expanding as the average ocean temperature increases and extra volume due to melting poles.

Islands around the world are already seeing the damage and they of course are on the front lines. But of course because you don't believe it, it must not be happening.

Of course he doesn't.
He's one of the great unwashed idiots that politicians count on

yes , but he should still try it ...

I think we should open new plants just to produce CO2 , as it is a healthy element of our planet :2 cents:

Australia introduced a carbon tax and to be honest, I have no idea what it has done for the environment, all I know is that it has increased my power costs.

Now it looks like power is set to be deregulated - so all Australians are now bent over clenching awaiting the astronomical prices that are going to become a reality...

And there it is... your knee-jerk bullshit reaction. Fox News. Really? Again?

Why don't YOU link me to info showing that the oceans have risen and flooded anywhere on Earth due to "global warming"?

And which "islands around the world" are you talking about?

Crockett, you're dead wrong on this.

And as for scientists being on payrolls and reporting what they are told...isn't that EXACTLY what you far left people claimed about scientists in the past who were on oil company payrolls?
And now that scientists are on the payrolls of companies looking to cash in on "green energy" you suddenly believe that scientists just magically get money from thin air and don't answer to their boss?

You need to rethink this with some logic.

And AGAIN...the data you are using has already been shown to be wrong. All the data is based on computer models that were using WRONG data.
The new models are taking the new data of the ocean absorbing the CO2 into account.

And guess what? Global warming ain't gonna happen because of CO2.

Now what's your answer to that?

Or are you going to take your info from MSNBC? And of course if you don't believe the new data...then it isn't true!
(Doesn't feel good to have some asshole insult your intelligence like that does it? Then maybe you should stop doing it to me)

Because I get tired of seeing the results of the great dumbing down of America here on these forums.

No, you get tired of people not seeing things exactly like you do.

Goodnight.

So what you are telling me is that you have no scientist names and how they are linked to some massive conspiracy to make some unkown people rich.. Instead you try to charge the argument in order to avoid answering the simple question.

Meanwhile I will provide you with a research paper that links almost all climate denial to funding from big oil, gas and friends..

http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/...%20Change.ashx

btw that link comes from here.. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...denial-effort/

I'll be holding my breath for similar proof that shows the thousands of scientists from all around the world are linked to some great conspiracy to steal everyone's money..