Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Todd, here is the link:
Deforestation
disclaimer: i don't agree or disagree with any conclusions found on that page except the bit about forests in America having dwindled by 90% of its original concentration. Of course they can grow back but that would mean we pick up and leave our suburbs and resource extraction so they are allowed to regenerate.
You really dont know the definition of virgin forest do you? Larger question is --- WHO DID THIS TO YOU? Who took the money to educate you and left you so damaged? I can find 30 people today that will even the score and make certain they never teach again.. So tell me why you think more than 10% of the ORIGINALtrees That were here in 1600 should still be around?.. Should it be 25%? 100%? Should we drop everything and all serve the trees so that they live forever?
FORESTS HAVE NOT DWINDLED BY 90% IN AMERICA.. Give us the names of who stole your brain. AND probably robbed you and your parents for the theft.
More on the pretzel logic from the far left up to their eyeballs in stoopid..........
So let me get t his straight........here we have China exporting massive amounts of pollution across the Pacific >>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/w...pollution-to-western-us-study-finds.html?_r=0
......and these brilliant assholes are just fine with slamming the American taxpayer with tens of billions in taxes to combat AGW??!!! And who is hurt the most with this level of genius?
The poor........that's who.
How Obama?s green energy policies are bad for the poor | WashingtonExaminer.com
Do they care worth a crap? Nope.......perpetuating a myth and sticking to the established narrative are far more important......."We need to dispose of fossil fuels NOW and go with renewables!!!"......"close the coal plants"......."so what if 2.2 million Americans in the coal industry become unemployed"......"if the electric bills of Americans double, so be it!!!"......."fuck the poor".
Meanwhile........China opens 4 billion coal plants/week.
Now......ask me why I get giddy knowing the skeptics are dominating??
"Offshore leaks" found over $ 4 billion that China`s communist party apparatchiks have diverted into their private Carribean bank accounts.Angehörige von Chinas Machtelite haben laut Berichten mehrerer Medien offenbar systematisch immense Geldsummen in karibische Steueroasen verschoben. Das legen Unterlagen der sogenannten Offshore-Leaks nahe. Es geht demnach um bis zu vier Billionen Dollar.
4 hours later it was up again but the "offshore leaks" data could not be seen any more in China.China offline: Experten vermuten Zensurfehler hinter Netzausfall
It isn`t quite as bad in the US as it is in China, but the libtards are working on it.U.N. climate chief: Communism best method of dealing with global warming
So far the only TV channel that aired this crap was Al Gore`s, which he sold off to Al Jazeera:Senate Democrats pledging to get more aggressive on climate change will soon pressure the major TV networks to give the topic far greater attention on the Sunday talking-head shows.
Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, are gathering colleagues' signatures on a letter to the networks asserting that they're ignoring global warming.
But the climate does not want to cooperate with the libtard propaganda effortCable news channel Al Jazeera America attracted attention in its first week on the air in August when it dedicated 24 minutes to covering climate change in a single day. But in the network's limited debut, it could not have had the same impact as a major network. And lawmakers who support legislation addressing climate change won't be happy until ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox are covering it in-depth.
Arguing the poor are hurt by green movement is one sided. Green sector CREATES JOBS, which you demand the poor either work or die off. If there is anything we can agree on its WE NEED MORE JOBS!
Conservatives often don't care about the poor, they focus on their income and family: anything that indirectly affects them, like climate change is illusory. Hence the poor are used as a prodding stick: they don't matter, but when they do, it's to WIN!
Score another for the white middle class who never wondered where their next meal would come from.
The American democratic system is a democracy in name only. It is undeniably a plutocracy where the rich get lotsa TAX BREAKS n' subsidies that help them afford the 50 million dollar renovation they've been dying to do. Why should subsidies and tax dollars support their whims of renovation? They earned it, fair and square, through insider trading and other loopholes. Now that's "a hard day's worth of work" which the poor are incapable of doing. Poor people need to be shot.
However, when it comes to the dying poor, we denounce subsidies and breaks i.e. welfare system. It takes money from white middle class pockets and helps those who don't/can't work. Or are working but are not paid enough: McDonalds and other employers recommend welfare to help supplement their income. Why? McDonalds and similar jobs simply pay too little.
Helping others is wrong in principle, it burdens the white middle class male who has his own issues of making payment on their 3rd car or paying for their 3rd child's college.
But when it comes to another group, they deserve to receive millions through various subsidy programs. Tax cuts for the other group enables them to renovate their 4th mansion, which white middle class conservatives are happy to oblige. Or think of that money as a gift to keep the economy operating. Conservatives are not aware that the economy can operate so as to not produce poverty but this is not the way of American capitalism so don't even think about making changes to the system!
When it comes to helping those who've been in poverty for generations, ANY amount of money is too much. Although they seek work, as required by welfare law, week in and week out, they cannot find work. Just because there aren't jobs available doesn't mean you can ask the state for money. We consider them the most vile to the economy and indeed our private lives.
Humans are not machines. They require attention and love. The more we tell them fuck off and earn your way without offering any legitimate work or opportunities, the more we damage their esteem, their humanity and motivation. Machines can work through depression; humans kill themselves because too much debt, no work, and no forseeable future.
Arguing the poor are hurt by green movement is one sided. Green sector CREATES JOBS, which you demand the poor either work or die off. If there is anything we can agree on its WE NEED MORE JOBS!
Conservatives often don't care about the poor, they focus on their income and family: anything that indirectly affects them, like climate change is illusory. Hence the poor are used as a prodding stick: they don't matter, but when they do, it's to WIN!
Score another for the white middle class who never wondered where their next meal would come from.
The American democratic system is a democracy in name only. It is undeniably a plutocracy where the rich get lotsa TAX BREAKS n' subsidies that help them afford the 50 million dollar renovation they've been dying to do. Why should subsidies and tax dollars support their whims of renovation? They earned it, fair and square, through insider trading and other loopholes. Now that's "a hard day's worth of work" which the poor are incapable of doing. Poor people need to be shot.
However, when it comes to the dying poor, we denounce subsidies and breaks i.e. welfare system. It takes money from white middle class pockets and helps those who don't/can't work. Or are working but are not paid enough: McDonalds and other employers recommend welfare to help supplement their income. Why? McDonalds and similar jobs simply pay too little.
Helping others is wrong in principle, it burdens the white middle class male who has his own issues of making payment on their 3rd car or paying for their 3rd child's college.
But when it comes to another group, they deserve to receive millions through various subsidy programs. Tax cuts for the other group enables them to renovate their 4th mansion, which white middle class conservatives are happy to oblige. Or think of that money as a gift to keep the economy operating. Conservatives are not aware that the economy can operate so as to not produce poverty but this is not the way of American capitalism so don't even think about making changes to the system!
When it comes to helping those who've been in poverty for generations, ANY amount of money is too much. Although they seek work, as required by welfare law, week in and week out, they cannot find work. Just because there aren't jobs available doesn't mean you can ask the state for money. We consider them the most vile to the economy and indeed our private lives.
Humans are not machines. They require attention and love. The more we tell them fuck off and earn your way without offering any legitimate work or opportunities, the more we damage their esteem, their humanity and motivation. Machines can work through depression; humans kill themselves because too much debt, no work, and no forseeable future.
It doesn't reduce reliability of energy. Coal and natural gas provide most of the energy--how does adding energy (more watts available) make energy less reliable? Using your logic, energy has become less reliable as renewables have grown during the last decade. Does this sound right to you?
I shouldnt have to explain such simple economics. It's the same reason we subsidize oil: so we can make it readily available and when there is increased demand, there's a job to be done.
By subsidizing the green sector, it opens up money flow allowing companies to be created or allows pre-existing companies to hire more employees. Result: unemployed and underemployed find a new avenue for work, and satisfying work if you believe in it. That's a blessing since most service and labor jobs are soul crushing monotony.
The green sector contains thousands of operations like ZipCar, Bike-share programs, improving waste management, and of course what you're think of: solar and wind. It's much larger than just solar and wind; it's an approach on how to manage society more sensibly than we are, just like cutting millions of acres of old growth forests around the world is an approach to sustaining the demands of a consumer economy.
kook, I never said I was morally superior or righteous. I've noted I know next to nothing about the world. Sorry you view this as supporting your stereotypes that liberals are egotistical madmen.
Arguing the poor are hurt by green movement is one sided. Green sector CREATES JOBS, which you demand the poor either work or die off. If there is anything we can agree on its WE NEED MORE JOBS!
.
It doesn't reduce reliability of energy. Coal and natural gas provide most of the energy--how does adding energy (more watts available) make energy less reliable? Using your logic, energy has become less reliable as renewables have grown during the last decade. Does this sound right to you?
I shouldnt have to explain such simple economics. .
It doesn't reduce reliability of energy. Coal and natural gas provide most of the energy--how does adding energy (more watts available) make energy less reliable? Using your logic, energy has become less reliable as renewables have grown during the last decade. Does this sound right to you?
I shouldnt have to explain such simple economics. It's the same reason we subsidize oil: so we can make it readily available and when there is increased demand, there's a job to be done.
By subsidizing the green sector, it opens up money flow allowing companies to be created or allows pre-existing companies to hire more employees. Result: unemployed and underemployed find a new avenue for work, and satisfying work if you believe in it. That's a blessing since most service and labor jobs are soul crushing monotony.
The green sector contains thousands of operations like ZipCar, Bike-share programs, improving waste management, and of course what you're think of: solar and wind. It's much larger than just solar and wind; it's an approach on how to manage society more sensibly than we are, just like cutting millions of acres of old growth forests around the world is an approach to sustaining the demands of a consumer economy.
