Printable View
A town of just about 2,000 people vs 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
:scratchchin:
Geez what a hard choice to make :shakehead:
And again....the agreement would have "no discernible effect on global temperatures"....and you are never going to address that part are you? That "no discernible effect on global temperatures" part....you're just going to never talk about that and just hope it goes away.
Lol the huffington post what a fair and balanced news outletQuote:
Originally Posted by El KabongA town of just about 2,000 people vs 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
:scratchchin:
Geez what a hard choice to make :shakehead:
And again....the agreement would have "no discernible effect on global temperatures"....and you are never going to address that part are you? That "no discernible effect on global temperatures" part....you're just going to never talk about that and just hope it goes away.
Is it all really just about temperature? Maybe it's okay in your bubble, but out there in big cities across the world people are actually suffocating so that negligent corporations can carry on polluting and making a buck at everyone's expense. This is where the rich should cough up (pun intended) as they are making money from suffering. There is a very nice beach area out here, but it is made horrible by nearby heavy industry. I think there comes a point where you say "What are we as a society about? Making money for the few and making the rest suffer, or let's just have a little bit of moderation?" It's not such a lefty, radical suggestion to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongA town of just about 2,000 people vs 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
:scratchchin:
Geez what a hard choice to make :shakehead:
And again....the agreement would have "no discernible effect on global temperatures"....and you are never going to address that part are you? That "no discernible effect on global temperatures" part....you're just going to never talk about that and just hope it goes away.
http://resistancereport.com/politics...blicans-paris/
Here’s how much Exxon paid Republicans who urged Trump to ditch Paris climate deal
Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyoming): $728,766
Senator Roy Blunt (R-Missouri):$1,143,574
Senator John Boozman (R-Arkansas): $281,352
Senator Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi): $462,890
Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas): $3,031,956
Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho):$440,937
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas): $2,484,520
Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming): $513,733
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah): $772,179
Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah): $281,620
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky): $1,975,245
Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky): $286,465
Senator David Perdue (R-Georgia): $184,250
Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho): $209,900
Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas): $817,150
Senator Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota): $204,900
Senator Tim Scott (R-South Carolina): $523,276
Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama): $532,846
Senator Luther Strange (R-Alabama): (NO DATA AVAILABLE)
Senator Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina): $263,400
Senator Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi):$686,876
When people say "Climate Change" they mean temperature right until you make that a moot point and then it's goal post moving time.Quote:
Originally Posted by GandalfIs it all really just about temperature? Maybe it's okay in your bubble, but out there in big cities across the world people are actually suffocating so that negligent corporations can carry on polluting and making a buck at everyone's expense. This is where the rich should cough up (pun intended) as they are making money from suffering. There is a very nice beach area out here, but it is made horrible by nearby heavy industry. I think there comes a point where you say "What are we as a society about? Making money for the few and making the rest suffer, or let's just have a little bit of moderation?" It's not such a lefty, radical suggestion to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongA town of just about 2,000 people vs 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
:scratchchin:
Geez what a hard choice to make :shakehead:
And again....the agreement would have "no discernible effect on global temperatures"....and you are never going to address that part are you? That "no discernible effect on global temperatures" part....you're just going to never talk about that and just hope it goes away.
What cities? Where? Do list them off please.
Beanz your tattling on ExxonMobil is noted BUT the Paris Accords were never passed through Congress (thanks Obama) and therefore it was always President Trump's call alone. Also they urged Trump to leave? Dude read that Accord, see the terms and conditions and tell me not only are they 100% good for the climate they are 100% good for the economy AND other nations w were following suit in the exact same manner. Nations told members of the Paris Accord "Fuck you, pay me" but naaash man everything is equal.
Rather than having to type out all the counter facts that dismiss Trump's claims regarding job and economy losses to be caused by the Paris Accord, I'll just post this here.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7769826.html
Never mind whether or not one believes in climate change. That's a non-winnable argument. The point here is that Trump, like every other politician before him (yes... Trump is turning into quite the politician), uses numbers at his convenience. Use some, ignore others. Elementary, my dear Watson. Trumpet (no pun intended) the jobs lost in coal..... ignore the jobs NOW to be lost in the emerging clean energy industries. It's all a precarious balance. One FACT that screams out louder than any others, is that dozens of industry CEOs urged Trump NOT to withdraw from the agreement.
But again... the counterarguments about America first... nobody else is doing their share... blah, blah, blah.... will continue to rain down. Never mind that a strong US President would've reassured the world that America isn't abandoning its efforts to protect the environment, even if at the same time expressing concerns about other countries' roles in doing the same. Trump just takes the ball and goes home.... game over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emBY6phmn9E
MMMMMMMMM clean energy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NAAzBArYdw
CLEAN energy.....makes the environment so good, soooo good
Oh no! We have had a misfortunate accident, lets cancel the who programme and go back to fossil fuel.
Wind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds (some endangered and/or protected species as well) each year in North America (just in North America and they didn't even include dead bats in there either)Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...06320713003522
But I'm sorry you were being sarcastic and dismissive....
Do you care about the environment or not? Is this even about the environment or not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongWind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds (some endangered and/or protected species as well) each year in North America (just in North America and they didn't even include dead bats in there either)Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...06320713003522
But I'm sorry you were being sarcastic and dismissive....
Do you care about the environment or not? Is this even about the environment or not?
Ha! you are a fucking Riot Lyle. ;D
Literally seconds on the site you misquoted from turns up this from YOUR SOURCE
"The study estimates that wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh. While this paper should be respected as a preliminary assessment, the estimate means that wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 14.5 million."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...01421509001074
So Seven Thousand or 14.5 Million? which is the high number Lyle ?
:-X
Contextualizing avian mortality.
It is what you refuse to do with any of your arguments. It's not just me, why do you think most posters can not be bothered to TRY and debate with you?
OK Beanz, I give....I'll concede the pointQuote:
Originally Posted by Beanz
http://savetheeaglesinternational.or...y-thought.html
http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...nap-story.html
But hey I admire you greenies out there really caring about things, you CARE .....with your HEART
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-124537-9804r/
Which is why those fighting the "Let's use green energy" battles are so trustworthy and not preachy.
What about the other thousands of miles of US coastline you fucking idiot? And what 2.7 million jobs?Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongA town of just about 2,000 people vs 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
:scratchchin:
Geez what a hard choice to make :shakehead:
And again....the agreement would have "no discernible effect on global temperatures"....and you are never going to address that part are you? That "no discernible effect on global temperatures" part....you're just going to never talk about that and just hope it goes away.