EPA Announces new pollution controls. GOP says just what you expect. - GoFuckYourself.com

2MuchMark · 06-03-2014, 08:33 AM

EPA announces tougher pollution controls, especially on US power plants.

Republican turtle Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) said : "EPA Proposal is a Dagger in the heart of the middle class". Other republicans chime in with their usual nonsense.

Is anyone ever surprised anymore?

Come on Vendy, explain this one...

Sly · 06-03-2014, 08:33 AM

Those little flags are fracking sites.

Pretty cool interactive map, click here.

dyna mo · 06-03-2014, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

Those little flags are fracking sites.

Pretty cool interactive map, click here.

**********, which ones of these is closest to your place?

dyna mo · 06-03-2014, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Republican turtle Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) said : "EPA Proposal is a Dagger in the heart of the middle class". Other republicans chime in with their usual nonsense.

I like this nonsensical quote especially-

Mitch McConnell?s Democratic opponent, Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, is also running on a pro-coal platform.

Grimes said the EPA rule shows ?Washington isn?t working for Kentucky,? citing coal?s role in the state?s economy.

?When I'm in the U.S. Senate, I will fiercely oppose the president?s attack on Kentucky?s coal industry because protecting our jobs will be my number one priority.?

L-Pink · 06-03-2014, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

I like this nonsensical quote especially-

Mitch McConnell?s Democratic opponent, Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, is also running on a pro-coal platform.

Grimes said the EPA rule shows ?Washington isn?t working for Kentucky,? citing coal?s role in the state?s economy.

?When I'm in the U.S. Senate, I will fiercely oppose the president?s attack on Kentucky?s coal industry because protecting our jobs will be my number one priority.?

I can tell you first hand, the economy of Eastern Kentucky is at a standstill because of new coal regulations. The amount of poverty and government aid is staggering.

.

EonBlue · 06-03-2014, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

EPA announces tougher pollution controls, especially on US power plants.

Republican turtle Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) said : "EPA Proposal is a Dagger in the heart of the middle class". Other republicans chime in with their usual nonsense.

Is anyone ever surprised anymore?

Come on Vendy, explain this one...

They are only doing this to reduce CO2 emissions. CO2 is not pollution. Even if it were this will have no impact on a global scale.

All this is going to do is to lead to more of that awful fracking that you hate so much and drive up the cost of natural gas.

Well done.

dyna mo · 06-03-2014, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

I can tell you first hand, the economy of Eastern Kentucky is at a standstill because of new coal regulations. The amount of poverty and government aid is staggering.

.

oh, that's right eh, you spend time there. I'm looking forward to hitting Nashville someday soon.

I understand the goal of lowering pollution and I also play my part in helping achieve that goal but as I understand it, each state has their own EPA that's tasked with customizing pollution regs for that state based on its' unique situation. What's happening here is the PUSA is using an executive order to not only bypass the state's regulatory authority, but also skips congress on this.

It seems to me that each state needs to handle their own business, a shotgun blast federal approach to regulations like this seems myopic, especially when handled via exec authority.

L-Pink · 06-03-2014, 09:05 AM

Out of the 26 poorest counties in America, by median household income, Eastern Kentucky has 13, 50%.

dyna mo · 06-03-2014, 09:14 AM

Senate Democrats from energy-producing states blasted the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to rein in carbon emissions from power plants —

“While it is important to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, this should not be achieved by EPA regulations,” Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, D-La., said in a release. “Congress should set the terms, goals and timeframe.”

Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., also criticized the proposed rule.

“There is no doubt that seven billion people have had an impact on our world’s climate; however, the proposed EPA rule does little to address the global problem with global solutions,” Manchin said in a statement. “Instead, today’s rule appears to be more about desirability rather than reliability or feasibility, with little regard for rising consumer prices, the effects on jobs and the impact on the reliability of our electric grid.”

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., was also cautious in her response, saying she is still looking at the rule.

“Today, coal produces 40 percent of the electricity in the U.S., and nearly 80 percent of the electricity in North Dakota,” Heitkamp said, “I’m still reviewing this extensive rule to determine the impact on the U.S. and North Dakota.

Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, one of a group of vulnerable Democrats, “From the initial review of materials released today, this rule exempts all of rural Alaska, but could impact a handful of Railbelt power plants,” Begich continued. “I will work closely with both the EPA and the State of Alaska to ensure that any final rule is flexible and protects Alaska businesses and families.”

Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat who represents manufacturing-heavy Ohio, stressed that states need flexibility to address carbon emissions and climate change.

“Proposals to reduce climate change must give states the flexibility to increase energy efficiency, improve our air quality, and invest in clean energy technology at our power plants, homes, and businesses,”

Sly · 06-03-2014, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Senate Democrats from energy-producing states blasted the Environmental Protection Agency?s proposal to rein in carbon emissions from power plants ?

Confused. Mark said this was all about the GOP. Are you suggesting it's not?

dyna mo · 06-03-2014, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

Confused. Mark said this was all about the GOP. Are you suggesting it's not?

Moi? Certainly not! I would never question the authority of our gfy political correspondent from the North.

_Richard_ · 06-03-2014, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

Those little flags are fracking sites.

Pretty cool interactive map, click here.

since there seems to be a lot of US money in canadian policy on fracking..

perhaps he is doing his best to help his local area.. yes?

Sly · 06-03-2014, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

since there seems to be a lot of US money in canadian policy on fracking..

perhaps he is doing his best to help his local area.. yes?

You are suggesting that he is against United States fracking for environmental reasons, but okay with Canadian fracking for economic reasons. We finally agree on something. He is a hypocrite!

Rochard · 06-03-2014, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

Those little flags are fracking sites.

Pretty cool interactive map, click here.

Okay, that made me laugh. Hard.

12clicks · 06-03-2014, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

EPA announces tougher pollution controls, especially on US power plants.

Republican turtle Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) said : "EPA Proposal is a Dagger in the heart of the middle class". Other republicans chime in with their usual nonsense.

Is anyone ever surprised anymore?

Come on Vendy, explain this one...

Here amongst the intelligent, we understand that these regs will not only jack prices up for energy but also create a shortage where we won't even be able to meet demand.

_Richard_ · 06-03-2014, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

You are suggesting that he is against United States fracking for environmental reasons, but okay with Canadian fracking for economic reasons. We finally agree on something. He is a hypocrite!

i am suggesting his being against US Fracking Policies is a vote against Canadian fracking policies.

you can either infiltrate our government, or you can have us not care about your politics

you can't have both.

Robbie · 06-03-2014, 09:59 AM

I was watching the History Channel last night.

It was a documentary on one of the earliest great civilizations...The Egyptians.

They showed excavations of small "towns" back in 9000 B.C.
But these places are in the middle of The Sahara Desert. How could that be?

Then they showed bones from elephants, giraffes, antelopes, bison, etc.
How could that be?

Here's how and WHY:
9000 B.C. The Sahara Desert was a savannah. Full of green vegetation, fields of green for animals to graze on. And early humans were there as hunters and gatherers.

Somewhere around 5000 B.C. the rains stopped, the area dried up...and became a harsh desert that we know today.

Guess what? The Earth CHANGES. With or without human actions.

Unless Mark Prince would like to suggest that perhaps primitive people were racing around in their evil cars and burning coal to stay warm etc., etc.

That's the one thing I never see "climate change" nutcases ever explain...the world's climate CHANGES over time no matter what.

But that's always left out of the equation. It's always mankind driving everything.

I say...that's just plain egotistical nonsense.

Robbie · 06-03-2014, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

i am suggesting his being against US Fracking Policies is a vote against Canadian fracking policies.

you can either infiltrate our government, or you can have us not care about your politics

you can't have both.

How do you figure that Richard?

Companies are international. If they can't frack for new sources of energy here...they are going to go elsewhere...like Canada.

Quite frankly, I want them to do it HERE.

We've spent the last 50 years making a bunch of goat-herding crazy ass Muslims rich beyond their dreams by drilling oil in their countries instead of our own.

I have no desire to repeat that stupidity with Canada.

We need to keep it at home.

I've heard reports that we are sitting on reserves of oil here in the United States the dwarf the Middle Eastern oil countries.

I think it's stupid NOT to get it. And make the economy roar back to life.

_Richard_ · 06-03-2014, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I was watching the History Channel last night.

It was a documentary on one of the earliest great civilizations...The Egyptians.

They showed excavations of small "towns" back in 9000 B.C.
But these places are in the middle of The Sahara Desert. How could that be?

Then they showed bones from elephants, giraffes, antelopes, bison, etc.
How could that be?

Here's how and WHY:
9000 B.C. The Sahara Desert was a savannah. Full of green vegetation, fields of green for animals to graze on. And early humans were there as hunters and gatherers.

Somewhere around 5000 B.C. the rains stopped, the area dried up...and became a harsh desert that we know today.

Guess what? The Earth CHANGES. With or without human actions.

Unless Mark Prince would like to suggest that perhaps primitive people were racing around in their evil cars and burning coal to stay warm etc., etc.

That's the one thing I never see "climate change" nutcases ever explain...the world's climate CHANGES over time no matter what.

But that's always left out of the equation. It's always mankind driving everything.

I say...that's just pelain egotistical nonsense.

id have to dig it up, but there is a lot of evidence that a large portion of the nile delta was under water..

it's also said it will be underwater again:

http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/0...0-say-experts/

no one disputes that the earth changes. what is in contention, is how does human activity impact natural earth cycles? Cycles that are in, if you will forgive the poetic turn of phrase, 'a fine balance'

_Richard_ · 06-03-2014, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

How do you figure that Richard?

Companies are international. If they can't frack for new sources of energy here...they are going to go elsewhere...like Canada.

Quite frankly, I want them to do it HERE.

We've spent the last 50 years making a bunch of goat-herding crazy ass Muslims rich beyond their dreams by drilling oil in their countries instead of our own.

I have no desire to repeat that stupidity with Canada.

We need to keep it at home.

I've heard reports that we are sitting on reserves of oil here in the United States the dwarf the Middle Eastern oil countries.

I think it's stupid NOT to get it. And make the economy roar back to life.

you have no desire repeating the stupidity of making a bunch of goat-herding crazy ass muslims rich in canada?

12clicks · 06-03-2014, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

what is in contention, is how does human activity impact natural earth cycles? Cycles that are in, if you will forgive the poetic turn of phrase, 'a fine balance'

CO2 is not a pollutant. Infact, there's evidence that ALL plant life grows better at higher CO2 levels.

not sure how some parts of society allowed themselves to be convinced that that is a bad thing.

_Richard_ · 06-03-2014, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

CO2 is not a pollutant. Infact, there's evidence that ALL plant life grows better at higher CO2 levels.

not sure how some parts of society allowed themselves to be convinced that that is a bad thing.

we have been through this before

12clicks · 06-03-2014, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

we have been through this before

and you won't accept the truth. thats why you continue to post in these threads.

12clicks · 06-03-2014, 10:16 AM

a refresher.

_Richard_ · 06-03-2014, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

and you won't accept the truth. thats why you continue to post in these threads.

that's funny, what we have been through is a definition:

"the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects."

so while CO2 might be present in nature, human industries that adds more CO2 to the environment would be considered 'pollution', as the additional CO2 would be considered 'harmful'

now that we have recapped our previous conversations..

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

a refresher.

oh great. you're saying a time with giant fucking lizards is 'normal'

real sharp

and.. a theoretical massive fucking asteroid impact.

PornDiscounts-V · 06-03-2014, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

CO2 is not a pollutant. Infact, there's evidence that ALL plant life grows better at higher CO2 levels.

not sure how some parts of society allowed themselves to be convinced that that is a bad thing.

Problem is that if you are clearing out the plant life (Amazon rain forests) then you don't have plants to chew on the CO2... And it becomes a problem.

pornguy · 06-03-2014, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I was watching the History Channel last night.

It was a documentary on one of the earliest great civilizations...The Egyptians.

They showed excavations of small "towns" back in 9000 B.C.
But these places are in the middle of The Sahara Desert. How could that be?

Then they showed bones from elephants, giraffes, antelopes, bison, etc.
How could that be?

Here's how and WHY:
9000 B.C. The Sahara Desert was a savannah. Full of green vegetation, fields of green for animals to graze on. And early humans were there as hunters and gatherers.

Somewhere around 5000 B.C. the rains stopped, the area dried up...and became a harsh desert that we know today.

Guess what? The Earth CHANGES. With or without human actions.

Unless Mark Prince would like to suggest that perhaps primitive people were racing around in their evil cars and burning coal to stay warm etc., etc.

That's the one thing I never see "climate change" nutcases ever explain...the world's climate CHANGES over time no matter what.

But that's always left out of the equation. It's always mankind driving everything.

I say...that's just plain egotistical nonsense.

Robbie. It is soooo apparent that you have made a simple mistake here.. Somewhere around 5000BC Congress must have passed some sort of law that relaxed or tightened a law that caused this.

Must have.

Must have.

Robbie · 06-03-2014, 10:23 AM

Well here's a graph of the last 10,000 years.

I suppose if people with money in "Green Energy" had been around all along...they would have blamed mankind for all of that too:

Robbie · 06-03-2014, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornguy

Robbie. It is soooo apparent that you have made a simple mistake here.. Somewhere around 5000BC Congress must have passed some sort of law that relaxed or tightened a law that caused this.

Must have.

Must have.

I didn't even take that into account.
It was probably Republicans and financed by ancestors of the Koch brothers.

Obviously only man has the POWER to change the Earth's climate. Anyone who says different is a "climate change denier"

PR_Glen · 06-03-2014, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

oh great. you're saying a time with giant fucking lizards is 'normal'

real sharp

and.. a theoretical massive fucking asteroid impact.

it was 'normally' hotter a lot longer than this minor stint in time we call civilized society. where these giant lizards building a lot of factories in that time as well?

Robbie · 06-03-2014, 10:34 AM

It's no use.

The govt. has learned to use FEAR to control all of us.

From "Terrorism" to "Global Warming" to "Security". I guess that's just the way things are going to be from now on.

EonBlue · 06-03-2014, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

so while CO2 might be present in nature, human industries that adds more CO2 to the environment would be considered 'pollution', as the additional CO2 would be considered 'harmful'

Your problem is that you've let the alarmists convince you that it is harmful despite there being no proof that it is.

CO2 is not pollution. If you insist that it is then, using your logic, you will also have to classify water vapour as pollution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

oh great. you're saying a time with giant fucking lizards is 'normal'

What an absolutely ridiculous and obtuse comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Obviously only man has the POWER to change the Earth's climate. Anyone who says different is a "climate change denier"

Don't laugh. Apparently Emperor Obama has the power to "end climate change" with the stroke of a pen.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...climate-change

Quote:

Obama unveils historic rules to reduce coal pollution by 30%

• New EPA rules spur prospects for deal to end climate change

Robbie · 06-03-2014, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Don't laugh. Apparently Emperor Obama has the power to "end climate change" with the stroke of a pen.

I think the Earth's cycles of climate change may have a rude awakening for Pres. Obama and his green energy cronies.

dyna mo · 06-03-2014, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I didn't even take that into account.
It was probably Republicans and financed by ancestors of the Koch brothers.

Obviously only man has the POWER to change the Earth's climate. Anyone who says different is a "climate change denier"

It's cloudy here today. I'm going to spray some spray deodorant out the window to clear away the clouds and then I'm going to the beach!

_Richard_ · 06-03-2014, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

it was 'normally' hotter a lot longer than this minor stint in time we call civilized society. where these giant lizards building a lot of factories in that time as well?

_Richard_ · 06-03-2014, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EonBlue

Your problem is that you've let the alarmists convince you that it is harmful despite there being no proof that it is.

yea yea, tell us more of this grand conspiracy theory to fool the world.

12clicks · 06-03-2014, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

that's funny, what we have been through is a definition:

"the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects."

so while CO2 might be present in nature, human industries that adds more CO2 to the environment would be considered 'pollution', as the additional CO2 would be considered 'harmful'

sadly incorrect. Your take on CO2 is no different than saying releasing extra oxygen in the air would be pollution. Just because an agency wants to tax something and calls it "pollution" to accomplish the taxation does not mean serious people think its pollution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

oh great. you're saying a time with giant fucking lizards is 'normal'

real sharp

oh I'm sorry!
I forgot that liberals like yourself like to pick and choose their timeframes and facts to appear to have a point.
I forgot that for a sec.

dyna mo · 06-03-2014, 10:45 AM

the politics of climate.

It's in the papers
It's on your t.v. news
The application
It's just a point of view

Well you know you can't stop it
When they start to play
You gotta get out the way

The politics of dancing
The politics of ooo feeling good
The politics of moving
Is this message understood

_Richard_ · 06-03-2014, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

sadly incorrect. Your take on CO2 is no different than saying releasing extra oxygen in the air would be pollution. Just because an agency wants to tax something and calls it "pollution" to accomplish the taxation does not mean serious people think its pollution.

oh I'm sorry!
I forgot that liberals like yourself like to pick and choose their timeframes and facts to appear to have a point.
I forgot that for a sec.

im a liberal? does that mean you're a conservative?

everything in black and white eh

12clicks · 06-03-2014, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvvvv

Problem is that if you are clearing out the plant life (Amazon rain forests) then you don't have plants to chew on the CO2... And it becomes a problem.

so stop clearing out the plant life.

cheaper, easier, and much better outcome than choke pointing energy

12clicks · 06-03-2014, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

im a liberal? does that mean you're a conservative?

everything in black and white eh

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

_Richard_ · 06-03-2014, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

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

or, appear libertarian?

2MuchMark · 06-03-2014, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

**********, which ones of these is closest to your place?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

I like this nonsensical quote especially-

Mitch McConnell?s Democratic opponent, Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, is also running on a pro-coal platform.

Grimes said the EPA rule shows ?Washington isn?t working for Kentucky,? citing coal?s role in the state?s economy.

?When I'm in the U.S. Senate, I will fiercely oppose the president?s attack on Kentucky?s coal industry because protecting our jobs will be my number one priority.?

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?

PR_Glen · 06-03-2014, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

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

dyna mo · 06-03-2014, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

I'm in Montreal, Quebec.

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.

SuckOnThis · 06-03-2014, 11:32 AM

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?

_Richard_ · 06-03-2014, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

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

gifs don't speak Glen.

12clicks · 06-03-2014, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

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?

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

_Richard_ · 06-03-2014, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

a refresher.

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

12clicks · 06-03-2014, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

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

not amongst people who went to school

06-03-2014, 08:33 AM	#1
2MuchMark Videochat Solutions Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 48,996	EPA Announces new pollution controls. GOP says just what you expect. EPA announces tougher pollution controls, especially on US power plants. Republican turtle Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) said : "EPA Proposal is a Dagger in the heart of the middle class". Other republicans chime in with their usual nonsense. Is anyone ever surprised anymore? Come on Vendy, explain this one... __________________ Custom Coding \| Videochat Solutions \| Age Verification \| IT Help & Support www.2Much.net

06-03-2014, 08:33 AM	#2
Sly Let's do some business! Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 31,319	Those little flags are fracking sites. Pretty cool interactive map, click here. __________________ Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More - Paxum and BTC Accepted Windows VPS now available - 3 months free for GFY members - 3 slots available Great for TSS, Nifty Stats, remote work, virtual assistants, etc. Click here for more details.

06-03-2014, 09:59 AM	#17
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	I was watching the History Channel last night. It was a documentary on one of the earliest great civilizations...The Egyptians. They showed excavations of small "towns" back in 9000 B.C. But these places are in the middle of The Sahara Desert. How could that be? Then they showed bones from elephants, giraffes, antelopes, bison, etc. How could that be? Here's how and WHY: 9000 B.C. The Sahara Desert was a savannah. Full of green vegetation, fields of green for animals to graze on. And early humans were there as hunters and gatherers. Somewhere around 5000 B.C. the rains stopped, the area dried up...and became a harsh desert that we know today. Guess what? The Earth CHANGES. With or without human actions. Unless Mark Prince would like to suggest that perhaps primitive people were racing around in their evil cars and burning coal to stay warm etc., etc. That's the one thing I never see "climate change" nutcases ever explain...the world's climate CHANGES over time no matter what. But that's always left out of the equation. It's always mankind driving everything. I say...that's just plain egotistical nonsense. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

06-03-2014, 10:23 AM	#28
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	Well here's a graph of the last 10,000 years. I suppose if people with money in "Green Energy" had been around all along...they would have blamed mankind for all of that too: __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

06-03-2014, 10:34 AM	#31
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	It's no use. The govt. has learned to use FEAR to control all of us. From "Terrorism" to "Global Warming" to "Security". I guess that's just the way things are going to be from now on. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

06-03-2014, 09:05 AM	#8
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,151	Out of the 26 poorest counties in America, by median household income, Eastern Kentucky has 13, 50%.

06-03-2014, 09:14 AM	#9
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 64,779	Senate Democrats from energy-producing states blasted the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to rein in carbon emissions from power plants — “While it is important to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, this should not be achieved by EPA regulations,” Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, D-La., said in a release. “Congress should set the terms, goals and timeframe.” Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., also criticized the proposed rule. “There is no doubt that seven billion people have had an impact on our world’s climate; however, the proposed EPA rule does little to address the global problem with global solutions,” Manchin said in a statement. “Instead, today’s rule appears to be more about desirability rather than reliability or feasibility, with little regard for rising consumer prices, the effects on jobs and the impact on the reliability of our electric grid.” Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., was also cautious in her response, saying she is still looking at the rule. “Today, coal produces 40 percent of the electricity in the U.S., and nearly 80 percent of the electricity in North Dakota,” Heitkamp said, “I’m still reviewing this extensive rule to determine the impact on the U.S. and North Dakota. Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, one of a group of vulnerable Democrats, “From the initial review of materials released today, this rule exempts all of rural Alaska, but could impact a handful of Railbelt power plants,” Begich continued. “I will work closely with both the EPA and the State of Alaska to ensure that any final rule is flexible and protects Alaska businesses and families.” Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat who represents manufacturing-heavy Ohio, stressed that states need flexibility to address carbon emissions and climate change. “Proposals to reduce climate change must give states the flexibility to increase energy efficiency, improve our air quality, and invest in clean energy technology at our power plants, homes, and businesses,”

06-03-2014, 10:16 AM	#24
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,786	a refresher.

06-03-2014, 10:45 AM	#38
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 64,779	the politics of climate. It's in the papers It's on your t.v. news The application It's just a point of view Well you know you can't stop it When they start to play You gotta get out the way The politics of dancing The politics of ooo feeling good The politics of moving Is this message understood

06-03-2014, 11:32 AM	#46
SuckOnThis So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In my head Posts: 6,844	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?