Why we should listen to the 97%

[PMZ]

You forgot to answer what other groups favor risking the earth's future.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you know of other groups in favor of risking the earth's future?

The vote on Kyoto was 95-0, looks like the entire US Senate.

Cap & Trade hasn't been introduced, so Obama must be in on it too.

I don't know how the details if Kyoto reflect the simple threat of our additions to GHGs.

You are reflecting on a time when conservatives had misled Congress. That's been cleared up. Cap and trade will pass before 2016.

You are reflecting on a time when conservatives had misled Congress.

Clinton was President and Kyoto received zero votes in the Senate.

Why will Obama bring up Cap & Trade in the last 2 years of his term?
He'll be an even lamer duck than he is now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You forgot to answer what other groups favor risking the earth's future.

Everyone who doesn't want to waste tens of trillions for a tiny reduction in CO2.

Still think reprocessing spent fuel creates fissile materials?
Or that Plutonium isn't for reactors?

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

I've been meaning to ask - do you support subsidies paid to energy companies?

 

[PMZ]

The vote on Kyoto was 95-0, looks like the entire US Senate.

Cap & Trade hasn't been introduced, so Obama must be in on it too.

I don't know how the details if Kyoto reflect the simple threat of our additions to GHGs.

You are reflecting on a time when conservatives had misled Congress. That's been cleared up. Cap and trade will pass before 2016.

You are reflecting on a time when conservatives had misled Congress.

Clinton was President and Kyoto received zero votes in the Senate.

Why will Obama bring up Cap & Trade in the last 2 years of his term?
He'll be an even lamer duck than he is now.

Why do you keep bringing up things unrelated to the topic of this thread?

 

[PMZ]

You forgot to answer what other groups favor risking the earth's future.

Everyone who doesn't want to waste tens of trillions for a tiny reduction in CO2.

Still think reprocessing spent fuel creates fissile materials?
Or that Plutonium isn't for reactors?

Yes. I proved it to you. Why do you think that we don't do it?

 

[Snookie]

You forgot to answer what other groups favor risking the earth's future.

Everyone who doesn't want to waste tens of trillions for a tiny reduction in CO2.

Still think reprocessing spent fuel creates fissile materials?
Or that Plutonium isn't for reactors?

Plutonium is the by product of nuclear reactors. It is one of the most toxic substances known to man. It takes a hundred thousand years to break down.

 

[PMZ]

You forgot to answer what other groups favor risking the earth's future.

Everyone who doesn't want to waste tens of trillions for a tiny reduction in CO2.

Still think reprocessing spent fuel creates fissile materials?
Or that Plutonium isn't for reactors?

Plutonium is the by product of nuclear reactors. It is one of the most toxic substances known to man. It takes a hundred thousand years to break down.

A good article on why nuclear reprocessing is so debatable.

http://www.psmag.com/environment/eprocessing-nuclear-fuel-3694/

 

[westwall]

You forgot to answer what other groups favor risking the earth's future.

There has been no compelling evidence that a warm Earth is bad. In fact the historical record is very clear that number one the Earth has been MUCH warmer for the vast period of its existence (75% of the Earths life has been much warmer than today) and secondly the time when it was much warmer in the past, the PETM witnessed, an explosion of life all over the planet.

The claim that a warmer world is bad, is simply not born out by fact. On the other hand, the asteroid impact possibility is very real and that we know has the ability to do exactly what you claim warm will do. And you idiots whistle Dixie about it because you can't make money off of it.

 

[westwall]

You forgot to answer what other groups favor risking the earth's future.

Everyone who doesn't want to waste tens of trillions for a tiny reduction in CO2.

Still think reprocessing spent fuel creates fissile materials?
Or that Plutonium isn't for reactors?

Plutonium is the by product of nuclear reactors. It is one of the most toxic substances known to man. It takes a hundred thousand years to break down.

It also occurs naturally.

Do transuranic elements such as plutonium ever occur naturally? : Scientific American

 

[westwall]

Todd -

I've been meaning to ask - do you support subsidies paid to energy companies?

No, we don't. They don't get subsidies, they get tax breaks, but we don't approve of those either.

 

[skookerasbil]

green energy.....just another progressive ruse in an effort to reach the ultimate goal: destruction of capitalism and power to the statists.

'Clean Energy' Is Cooling The Economy And Damaging The Environment - Forbes

 

[Snookie]

Everyone who doesn't want to waste tens of trillions for a tiny reduction in CO2.

Still think reprocessing spent fuel creates fissile materials?
Or that Plutonium isn't for reactors?

Plutonium is the by product of nuclear reactors. It is one of the most toxic substances known to man. It takes a hundred thousand years to break down.

It also occurs naturally.

Do transuranic elements such as plutonium ever occur naturally? : Scientific American

That's misleading. They do not occur in potent quantities, naturally.

 

[PMZ]

You forgot to answer what other groups favor risking the earth's future.

There has been no compelling evidence that a warm Earth is bad. In fact the historical record is very clear that number one the Earth has been MUCH warmer for the vast period of its existence (75% of the Earths life has been much warmer than today) and secondly the time when it was much warmer in the past, the PETM witnessed, an explosion of life all over the planet.

The claim that a warmer world is bad, is simply not born out by fact. On the other hand, the asteroid impact possibility is very real and that we know has the ability to do exactly what you claim warm will do. And you idiots whistle Dixie about it because you can't make money off of it.

The compelling evidence is that the more the climate changes from what we built civilization around the more we'll spend adapting to the new one.

You hope that by denying that proven fact you can get others to pay for your lifestyle.

Your plot to overthrow the country by denial lies, to impose that BS on all of us, is obvious now.

It's not happening.

 

[Snookie]

Holston's home sweet home.

 

[Abraham3]

I could make money off the fear of asteroid impact. I have helmets. You're worried about it, Dave. I think we can do business.

 

[Abraham3]

Holston's home sweet home.

Sorry to be dense, but can we assume that you oppose this fellow's attempt to take over this town? It's not obvious from your post. But, like I said, I may be too dense here for the subtleties.

 

[Snookie]

picture of holston.

http://news.yahoo.com/guy-wants-build-neo-nazi-colony-north-dakota-105600657.html

 

[PMZ]

green energy.....just another progressive ruse in an effort to reach the ultimate goal: destruction of capitalism and power to the statists.

'Clean Energy' Is Cooling The Economy And Damaging The Environment - Forbes

Conservatism is the current in a long line of ism's that believe that the democracy that the American people constructed over the last, 230+ years is flawed by the fact that they don't have complete control.

They will be taught the same lessons that the others were.

 

[daveman]

I could make money off the fear of asteroid impact. I have helmets. You're worried about it, Dave. I think we can do business.

Good Gaea's gargantuan gazongas, but you're a dumb bastard.

I haven't discussed asteroid impact.

If you were as smart as you think you are, you wouldn't keep confusing posters.

Dumbass.