Climate change or Pollution?

[Redfish]

Agreed, pollution as such is ugly and degrading to human spirit. That is enough to justify all measures to end it. Especially polluting the air.

and virtually everyone on earth would agree with that, but when the libs try to tie it to an unproven theory of man-made climate change, it loses its momentum.

libs are trying use pollution to find ways to control the actions of individual humans, because liberals do not think that the average human is capable of making his or her own decisions. Only they are capable to telling the rest of us how to live.

They have successfully sold this bullshit for a while, but more and more people are waking up to it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which is it? the libs say the actions of human beings are changing the climate of planet earth. Intelligent people say that man is polluting planet earth, Ok so far?

so, libs are saying that pollution directly causes climate change, but they do not want to attack pollution as their cause celeb.

Libs say that CO2 is a pollutant, but the % of CO2 in the atmosphere has been consistent at .039% since we were capable of measuring it and was the same millions of years ago based on ice cores etc.

So the question of the day is:

Why don't libs make pollution their cause and forget the climate change bullshit?

no one likes pollution, everyone would hop on the anti-pollution bandwagon.

So what is really going on here?

My take: climate change is a hoax but libs are using it to control the activities of humans who are doing things that liberals don't like. Like riding in private planes----------oh wait, liberals do that. or living in huge mansions that suck up tons of electricity---------------oh wait, liberals do that.

So, it seems that liberals want to control our lives but not theirs. Got it.

Everyone won't hop on the pollution bandwagon. Polluters fight the government every step of the way, if there's more money in polluting than not.

what you are really saying is that the EPA is not doing its job. Why is that?

I didn't say anything even remotely resembling that.

you certainly implied it. you said polluters fight the government (and win). The EPA is charged with enforcing pollution laws, if the polluters are fighting and winning, then the EPA is not doing its job-----------right?

I said no such thing.

Why don't you tell us why pollution will decrease if the EPA is abolished.

 

[Wildman]

Of course the point is to go after pollution, especially from fossil fuels.

Obama scheme aims to wipe out 1 entire industry

Read more at Obama scheme aims to wipe out 1 entire industry

...and put thousands of people out of work, plus create ghost towns.

FUCK that son-of-a-bitch (and she was!!)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Agreed, pollution as such is ugly and degrading to human spirit. That is enough to justify all measures to end it. Especially polluting the air.

and virtually everyone on earth would agree with that, but when the libs try to tie it to an unproven theory of man-made climate change, it loses its momentum.

libs are trying use pollution to find ways to control the actions of individual humans, because liberals do not think that the average human is capable of making his or her own decisions. Only they are capable to telling the rest of us how to live.

They have successfully sold this bullshit for a while, but more and more people are waking up to it.

Which is it? the libs say the actions of human beings are changing the climate of planet earth. Intelligent people say that man is polluting planet earth, Ok so far?

so, libs are saying that pollution directly causes climate change, but they do not want to attack pollution as their cause celeb.

Libs say that CO2 is a pollutant, but the % of CO2 in the atmosphere has been consistent at .039% since we were capable of measuring it and was the same millions of years ago based on ice cores etc.

So the question of the day is:

Why don't libs make pollution their cause and forget the climate change bullshit?

no one likes pollution, everyone would hop on the anti-pollution bandwagon.

So what is really going on here?

My take: climate change is a hoax but libs are using it to control the activities of humans who are doing things that liberals don't like. Like riding in private planes----------oh wait, liberals do that. or living in huge mansions that suck up tons of electricity---------------oh wait, liberals do that.

So, it seems that liberals want to control our lives but not theirs. Got it.

Everyone won't hop on the pollution bandwagon. Polluters fight the government every step of the way, if there's more money in polluting than not.

what a cop out. Pollution is the problem, but you libs have erroneously tied it to an imaginary problem of man made climate change. Why? because you are scared of the evil polluters? because people won't "jump on board"?

This is typical liberal circular logic. Instead of attacking the real problem, make up one that you think is more politically correct. Kinda like obozocare, the fix for a problem that did not exist.

Go back and read post 24.

goes back to another thread, I am not going to read through that entire thread to discern with you believe.

You lie AGAIN. It goes back to post 57 in that thread, where I say that global warming is irrelevant.

 

[Redfish]

Which is it? the libs say the actions of human beings are changing the climate of planet earth. Intelligent people say that man is polluting planet earth, Ok so far?

so, libs are saying that pollution directly causes climate change, but they do not want to attack pollution as their cause celeb.

Libs say that CO2 is a pollutant, but the % of CO2 in the atmosphere has been consistent at .039% since we were capable of measuring it and was the same millions of years ago based on ice cores etc.

So the question of the day is:

Why don't libs make pollution their cause and forget the climate change bullshit?

no one likes pollution, everyone would hop on the anti-pollution bandwagon.

So what is really going on here?

My take: climate change is a hoax but libs are using it to control the activities of humans who are doing things that liberals don't like. Like riding in private planes----------oh wait, liberals do that. or living in huge mansions that suck up tons of electricity---------------oh wait, liberals do that.

So, it seems that liberals want to control our lives but not theirs. Got it.

Everyone won't hop on the pollution bandwagon. Polluters fight the government every step of the way, if there's more money in polluting than not.

what you are really saying is that the EPA is not doing its job. Why is that?

I didn't say anything even remotely resembling that.

you certainly implied it. you said polluters fight the government (and win). The EPA is charged with enforcing pollution laws, if the polluters are fighting and winning, then the EPA is not doing its job-----------right?

I said no such thing.

Why don't you tell us why pollution will decrease if the EPA is abolished.

first: what did you mean by this

"Everyone won't hop on the pollution bandwagon. Polluters fight the government every step of the way, if there's more money in polluting than not."

second: I never said that the EPA should be abolished or that doing so would decrease pollution. I think the EPA should enforce reasonable pollution limitations.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course the point is to go after pollution, especially from fossil fuels.

Obama scheme aims to wipe out 1 entire industry

Read more at Obama scheme aims to wipe out 1 entire industry

...and put thousands of people out of work, plus create ghost towns.

FUCK that son-of-a-bitch (and she was!!)

Really? You're funny.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Everyone won't hop on the pollution bandwagon. Polluters fight the government every step of the way, if there's more money in polluting than not.

what you are really saying is that the EPA is not doing its job. Why is that?

I didn't say anything even remotely resembling that.

you certainly implied it. you said polluters fight the government (and win). The EPA is charged with enforcing pollution laws, if the polluters are fighting and winning, then the EPA is not doing its job-----------right?

I said no such thing.

Why don't you tell us why pollution will decrease if the EPA is abolished.

first: what did you mean by this

"Everyone won't hop on the pollution bandwagon. Polluters fight the government every step of the way, if there's more money in polluting than not."

second: I never said that the EPA should be abolished or that doing so would decrease pollution. I think the EPA should enforce reasonable pollution limitations.

So why are you going to vote for a presidential candidate who wants to abolish the EPA?

Are you also admitting that the EPA is constitutional, contrary to the rants by your RW pals?

 

[Redfish]

Agreed, pollution as such is ugly and degrading to human spirit. That is enough to justify all measures to end it. Especially polluting the air.

and virtually everyone on earth would agree with that, but when the libs try to tie it to an unproven theory of man-made climate change, it loses its momentum.

libs are trying use pollution to find ways to control the actions of individual humans, because liberals do not think that the average human is capable of making his or her own decisions. Only they are capable to telling the rest of us how to live.

They have successfully sold this bullshit for a while, but more and more people are waking up to it.

Which is it? the libs say the actions of human beings are changing the climate of planet earth. Intelligent people say that man is polluting planet earth, Ok so far?

so, libs are saying that pollution directly causes climate change, but they do not want to attack pollution as their cause celeb.

Libs say that CO2 is a pollutant, but the % of CO2 in the atmosphere has been consistent at .039% since we were capable of measuring it and was the same millions of years ago based on ice cores etc.

So the question of the day is:

Why don't libs make pollution their cause and forget the climate change bullshit?

no one likes pollution, everyone would hop on the anti-pollution bandwagon.

So what is really going on here?

My take: climate change is a hoax but libs are using it to control the activities of humans who are doing things that liberals don't like. Like riding in private planes----------oh wait, liberals do that. or living in huge mansions that suck up tons of electricity---------------oh wait, liberals do that.

So, it seems that liberals want to control our lives but not theirs. Got it.

Everyone won't hop on the pollution bandwagon. Polluters fight the government every step of the way, if there's more money in polluting than not.

what a cop out. Pollution is the problem, but you libs have erroneously tied it to an imaginary problem of man made climate change. Why? because you are scared of the evil polluters? because people won't "jump on board"?

This is typical liberal circular logic. Instead of attacking the real problem, make up one that you think is more politically correct. Kinda like obozocare, the fix for a problem that did not exist.

Go back and read post 24.

goes back to another thread, I am not going to read through that entire thread to discern with you believe.

You lie AGAIN. It goes back to post 57 in that thread, where I say that global warming is irrelevant.

so now you are turning in your liberal membership card and saying that man made global warming is irrelevant? Good for you.

 

[Redfish]

what you are really saying is that the EPA is not doing its job. Why is that?

I didn't say anything even remotely resembling that.

you certainly implied it. you said polluters fight the government (and win). The EPA is charged with enforcing pollution laws, if the polluters are fighting and winning, then the EPA is not doing its job-----------right?

I said no such thing.

Why don't you tell us why pollution will decrease if the EPA is abolished.

first: what did you mean by this

"Everyone won't hop on the pollution bandwagon. Polluters fight the government every step of the way, if there's more money in polluting than not."

second: I never said that the EPA should be abolished or that doing so would decrease pollution. I think the EPA should enforce reasonable pollution limitations.

So why are you going to vote for a presidential candidate who wants to abolish the EPA?

Are you also admitting that the EPA is constitutional, contrary to the rants by your RW pals?

I am going to vote against Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders----------that is my voting priority for 2016.

Whether the EPA is constitutional is not the question. The question is whether it is effectively limiting pollution without destroying our economy. Destroying the coal industry is neither effective or good for the economy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I didn't say anything even remotely resembling that.

you certainly implied it. you said polluters fight the government (and win). The EPA is charged with enforcing pollution laws, if the polluters are fighting and winning, then the EPA is not doing its job-----------right?

I said no such thing.

Why don't you tell us why pollution will decrease if the EPA is abolished.

first: what did you mean by this

"Everyone won't hop on the pollution bandwagon. Polluters fight the government every step of the way, if there's more money in polluting than not."

second: I never said that the EPA should be abolished or that doing so would decrease pollution. I think the EPA should enforce reasonable pollution limitations.

So why are you going to vote for a presidential candidate who wants to abolish the EPA?

Are you also admitting that the EPA is constitutional, contrary to the rants by your RW pals?

I am going to vote against Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders----------that is my voting priority for 2016.

Whether the EPA is constitutional is not the question. The question is whether it is effectively limiting pollution without destroying our economy. Destroying the coal industry is neither effective or good for the economy.

I asked you how abolishing the EPA would decrease pollution. You added that to you many question dodges.

 

[Wildman]

Stop lying about what I believe:

you are welcome to believe all the lies you want to, none of us truth telling honest conservatives will try to stop your belief of pure

 

[Redfish]

you certainly implied it. you said polluters fight the government (and win). The EPA is charged with enforcing pollution laws, if the polluters are fighting and winning, then the EPA is not doing its job-----------right?

I said no such thing.

Why don't you tell us why pollution will decrease if the EPA is abolished.

first: what did you mean by this

"Everyone won't hop on the pollution bandwagon. Polluters fight the government every step of the way, if there's more money in polluting than not."

second: I never said that the EPA should be abolished or that doing so would decrease pollution. I think the EPA should enforce reasonable pollution limitations.

So why are you going to vote for a presidential candidate who wants to abolish the EPA?

Are you also admitting that the EPA is constitutional, contrary to the rants by your RW pals?

I am going to vote against Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders----------that is my voting priority for 2016.

Whether the EPA is constitutional is not the question. The question is whether it is effectively limiting pollution without destroying our economy. Destroying the coal industry is neither effective or good for the economy.

I asked you how abolishing the EPA would decrease pollution. You added that to you many question dodges.

since I never said that abolishing the EPA would decrease pollution, your question is moot.

 

[konradv]

Of course the point is to go after pollution, especially from fossil fuels.

Oil is NOT a fossil fuel. You really believe that oil is dead dinosaurs???

It's dead plant material. The dinosaur meme is just fodder for the scientifically ignorant.

 

[konradv]

the earth is making oil as we speak.

Love coming across people that are able to think for themselves....

Creating fiction IS thinking for oneself, but it isn't science.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Of course the point is to go after pollution, especially from fossil fuels.

Get real, its densely populated liberal inner cities spewing the pollution. Pouring raw sewage into waterways. Exporting mountains of garbage and waste. Fouling the air. Paving over nature and overloading the ecosystem. Liberal run inner cities are pollution factories.

no more than the suburbs or country folk that have their own private junk yards and burn their garbage .
that is if that worry about garbage at all, septic systems are far worse than sewage.

Septic systems are not worse then sewege systems shit for brains...

With sewege systems you have to rely on the government to handle them correctly and not fuck up anything like they did with the flints water supple

With septic systems the individual takes care of it and they are fine.



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Oil, gas and uranium/plutonium was put on earth for us to use for energy, drill baby drill...

Solar, wind and what ever other so called "green" renewable energy are decades away from being practical...

In 1900, the airplane was a long time away from being practical as either in war or peace. That was hardly a good reason to put it on the shelf.

In the late 1800s electric cars were more popular then gasoline ones, So what's your point?



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Oil, gas and uranium/plutonium was put on earth for us to use for energy, drill baby drill...

Solar, wind and what ever other so called "green" renewable energy are decades away from being practical...

In 1900, the airplane was a long time away from being practical as either in war or peace. That was hardly a good reason to put it on the shelf.

no one has said that we should stop looking for, and developing, alternate energy sources. But its foolish to drop the ones we have before that alternates are economically viable.

Are you serious? People here and everywhere bitch about putting money into solar, for example.

Who bitches about that? I have solar panel lights, a solar panel phone battery charger?

Oh you mean subsidies to make it appear solar and wind is as cheap as coal or gas?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oil, gas and uranium/plutonium was put on earth for us to use for energy, drill baby drill...

Solar, wind and what ever other so called "green" renewable energy are decades away from being practical...

In 1900, the airplane was a long time away from being practical as either in war or peace. That was hardly a good reason to put it on the shelf.

no one has said that we should stop looking for, and developing, alternate energy sources. But its foolish to drop the ones we have before that alternates are economically viable.

Are you serious? People here and everywhere bitch about putting money into solar, for example.

Who bitches about that? I have solar panel lights, a solar panel phone battery charger?

Oh you mean subsidies to make it appear solar and wind is as cheap as coal or gas?

There's nothing new or wrong about the government subsidizing the development of important businesses.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oil, gas and uranium/plutonium was put on earth for us to use for energy, drill baby drill...

Solar, wind and what ever other so called "green" renewable energy are decades away from being practical...

In 1900, the airplane was a long time away from being practical as either in war or peace. That was hardly a good reason to put it on the shelf.

In the late 1800s electric cars were more popular then gasoline ones, So what's your point?



.

WTF?

 

[Redfish]

Of course the point is to go after pollution, especially from fossil fuels.

Oil is NOT a fossil fuel. You really believe that oil is dead dinosaurs???

It's dead plant material. The dinosaur meme is just fodder for the scientifically ignorant.

and plants are dying today just as they were millions of years ago. So it is true that the earth is making oil as we speak. It will be many years before it is usable, but it is being created now.

Oil is a natural substance, it is leaking out of the bottom of the ocean constantly and being consumed by bacteria and normal bio degradation. Oil is not a pollutant except in very high concentrations, and even then it eventually dissipates. The gulf has recovered completely from the spill, it was not destroyed as many on the left hoped.