Cobalt60 Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 A portion of my hard earned money is spent in many ways worse than helping the environment. Id rather my money be spent helping people and the environment than spent fighting wars that dont need to be fought. Obviously people want to do things for selfish reasons, I dont mind doing things for the benefit of others. As for your climate change comment, so you want man made global cooling to counter act man made global warming? Great so lets just dump as many chemicals and pollutants into the environment as we want, hopefully we can get it just right and not effect climate and hope nobody gets poisoned from all the pollution. Yeah or we can just try to keep the air clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDX87Starion Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 (edited) I just don't understand why you don't get it. This post isn't about whether the earth is warming or cooling, its about you losing your liberty in the name of Global Climate Change. Do you like working your life away to support your family or the rest of the world??? Wake up man, its right in your face. First off, that site has no credibility and is full of BS. That whole story is a fabrication. Unless you can produce the tready that he "read" I have to call BS on the whole world government takeover conspiracy. "Associated Content ("AC") does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any articles, videos or other posted information on the AC Website (collectively, "AC Content"). All AC Content is provided by AC Contributors in the AC community, like you. None of the content on AC is written, or edited by AC employees. You agree that any use you make of such AC Content is at your own risk and that AC is not responsible for any losses resulting from your reliance on any AC Content on the AC Website." "The depth and breadth of our library is the perfect match for our partners who desire authentic content for their own websites or to advertise against at AssociatedContent.com. If we don't have the content you need, our Contributors can quickly and affordably generate credible, engaging content on any topic." Business: Pays users to contribute news stories on popular topics, which are then optimized for search-engine discovery. "I worked for Associated Content from July of 2007 to July of 2008. There is no doubt about it, Associated Content turned out to be one big writing scam on a wide scale. I find this to be quite unfortunate for writers and everyone associated with Associated Content. They play themselves out to be professional, when actually they are nothing more than professional scam artists" Go ahead and believe complete BS if you want. Secondly you have a link on the first post that says global warming is a lie. Edited October 30, 2009 by PDX87Starion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jszucs Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 it's got nothing to do with reduceing the eminsions but every thing to do with createing a world government ,,we have no need of such a thing , unless we are viset'd by a ship from another world ,,thats why i don't like the proposal That I totaly agree with. It temp raise is because we have goten to good an energy conversion, and heat exstraction. The energy was is and always will be here in one form or another. We just make to much power now, and creat alot of heat doing it we also try and cool everything AC in homes work cars etc. That is why the temp is going up not the gasses. And I did my part I took my AC off to go MPI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiniSRT4 Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 the point he is trying to make is that with this "treaty" we will do away with all national sovereignty, constitution and basic rights. Allowing more policing of civilians and whatnot. Even if this treaty isnt "real" and is just a consparicy, there are many other things that have been/are going on to move the planet to a single world government. There is always a bigger motive, its never just what they put out there in the mainstream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlattopMike Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 the point he is trying to make is that with this "treaty" we will do away with all national sovereignty, constitution and basic rights. Allowing more policing of civilians and whatnot. Even if this treaty isnt "real" and is just a consparicy, there are many other things that have been/are going on to move the planet to a single world government. There is always a bigger motive, its never just what they put out there in the mainstream. Just because it turned out to be only a nut falling from a tree that hit me on the head doesn't mean that the sky isn't falling! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dstar88 Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 well this thread sure did get chopped up... i agree with Brian..theres always more to in then what the mainstream is feeding us. and if you want to get into global warming and what not.. i do believe that it is a natural thing and we do take a...small..part in speeding up the process.. but i would not really count NASA as a credible source either.. lets put it this way..NASA uses how much fuel and creats how much non regulated emissions every time they send someone to the moon or in space?? they use how many tanks of fuel? and how many rockets and extra rockets to get the ship out of the atmosphere?..but the military can build a spy plane that can fly at around the tip of the atmosphere at moch 3, and travel up to or over 3000 miles on a single tank of gas....how does that happen...?? whose polluting more..?? NASA?? or the military?? i wouldnt count NASA as a credible source until they figure out how to make a ufo...to me..they are way behind technology for where we are at....using rockets to propel someone to space still...comon..seriously.. just because its been tried and true, and its been around for how ever long.. Id like to see California tell NASA to register and smog their ship and rockets for its flights to space.. Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrazilBoy Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Global Warming the New Global ReligionIn the long history of mankind one thing has forever been true..Human kind has always had a need to believe in something, this has been proven as far back as written history allows, its part of human nature.. In the modern age this desire to believe still is as strong as ever..The latest religion is "Global Warming"...Think about it has its prophets, i.e. Al Gore, that say thier point of view is right and true like many religions...http://xcomputerman.com/pages/images/al_gore.jpg Like many faiths anyone with an opposing view is seen as ignorant and as a hypocrite.. People are willing to change thier lifestyle according to thier beliefs, they seek out further information to expand upon thier knowledge of thier "religion"...They are willing to donate to thier cause...They want to spread the word and seek to socialize with others of the "faith"...http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_l5NEThrZHhc/Sa24SYvw2vI/AAAAAAAAAP8/qbRSDjJV_Do/s320/Warming+1.jpg They desire to celebrate holidays in accordance to thier beliefs, i.e. green week, earth day..They promote thier beliefs with slogans and symbols to propagate thier views..http://www.inkcanada.ca/uploaded_images/earth-day-final-714896.gif They are convinced that if one doesn't abide by thier beliefs that the world will be "condemned" for thier global "sins"... When challenged on thier beliefs they respond with strong emotions, they recite thier "doctrine" to backup thier claims...They site other believers as evidence that thier view point is correct.... So this is my view of global warming...my belief is different than yours and I will do my best as will you to "keep the faith" of our opposing views.. Sincerely Roberto P.S. Al Gore who started all this "Global Warming" propaganda has made several millions from it, and thats a fact....Perhaps his true "green" movement is a bit different from what he preaches... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dstar88 Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 lol good one fanta! .. its still cold as frik during the winter(reaching record lows), and still hot as frick during the summer( reaching record highs). Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt60 Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 In the modern age this desire to believe still is as strong as ever..The latest religion is "Global Warming"...Im pretty sure Scientology is the latest religion...http://nimis540.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/th-scientology.jpg They want to spread the word and seek to socialize with others of the "faith"...Like these people?http://www.tchevalier.com/fallingangels/bckgrnd/suffrage/img/march.jpg They desire to celebrate holidays in accordance to thier beliefs, i.e. green week, earth day..They promote thier beliefs with slogans and symbols to propagate thier views..Why teach our kids about the importance of a clean environment when we can teach them the importance of, umm...http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/heritage/img/cokelore_santa_1931.jpg They are convinced that if one doesn't abide by thier beliefs that the world will be "condemned" for thier global "sins"...Yes fear of condemnation is why I do what I dohttp://blogs.venturacountystar.com/democracy_watch/global_warming.jpg When challenged on thier beliefs they respond with strong emotionsYes why have emotions about important things?http://americatop100.com/fotos/albums/userpics/10001/youtube-star-chris-crocker-glitter.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redzone Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 man this website needs a tinfoil hat emoticon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrazilBoy Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 (edited) Animal Sacrifice is now required for your Global Warming Religion A group of architects from New Zealand have calculated that a pet dog has an environmental footprint twice that of an SUV. The calculations are based on how much land is required to grow enough food to feed a dog throughout its lifetime. "Time to Eat the Dog" is the title of a new book by two architects from New Zealand. Robert and Brenda Vale have calculated that a medium-sized dog has twice the environmental impact of a large four-wheel drive vehicle, when all factors are considered. The calculations are based on how much land is required to grow enough food to feed a dog throughout its lifetime compared to the comparable amount of energy and resources, converted to hectares of cultivated land, required for a large gas-guzzling vehicle. The calculations include both the construction of the vehicle as well as its running costs. On average, a medium sized dog will eat 164kg (361.5lbs) of meat and 95kg (209.4lbs) of grain per year. Meat production is extremely resource consumptive, requiring on average 7kg (15.4 lbs) of grain and about 100,000 liters (26,417 gallons) of water to produce 1kg (2.2lbs) of beef. All in all, the authors calculated that in all 0.84 hectares (2.08 acres) are required to produce enough dog food for Fido. A large dog will have an environmental footprint of 1.1 hectares (2.7 acres). This is compared to the 0.41 hectares (1.01 acres) required to build and drive a 4.6 liter Land Cruiser for one year, less than half that required by a dog. Cats don't pollute nearly as much, with a footprint of only 0.15 hectares (0.37 acres), ten times that of a hamster. In comparison, a human in the West will require 1.8 hectares (4.4 acres) while a person from the Third World needs up to 6 hectares (14.8 acres). The study sheds light on the environmental impact of some of the human activities we don't usually think of as environmentally unfriendly. While transportation is the leading cause of air pollution, there are many other sources which are less apparent than the cars driving down your street. These include coal power plants, oil refineries, plastic and metal factories, and not least large livestock farms and agriculture which not only emit greenhouse gases but also pollute groundwater, clear-cut forests and consume enormous quantities of petroleum based fertilizers. So if you want to save the environment, skip the Prius and just eat Fido for dinner In other words Cobalt how far are willing to go for yoiur faith? Edited October 30, 2009 by BrazilBoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt60 Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Instead of trying to eat more animals you could try eating less: http://global-warming-truth.com/images/eco-footprint.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrazilBoy Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Instead of trying to eat more animals you could try eating less: http://global-warming-truth.com/images/eco-footprint.jpg You missed my point, a pet dog is worse than a land crusier...Are you willing to have your dog put to sleep to save your planet? BTW After looking at your graph I must admit that a steak will be in order tonight.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlattopMike Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 well this thread sure did get chopped up... i agree with Brian..theres always more to in then what the mainstream is feeding us. and if you want to get into global warming and what not.. i do believe that it is a natural thing and we do take a...small..part in speeding up the process.. but i would not really count NASA as a credible source either.. lets put it this way..NASA uses how much fuel and creats how much non regulated emissions every time they send someone to the moon or in space?? they use how many tanks of fuel? and how many rockets and extra rockets to get the ship out of the atmosphere?..but the military can build a spy plane that can fly at around the tip of the atmosphere at moch 3, and travel up to or over 3000 miles on a single tank of gas....how does that happen...?? whose polluting more..?? NASA?? or the military?? i wouldnt count NASA as a credible source until they figure out how to make a ufo...to me..they are way behind technology for where we are at....using rockets to propel someone to space still...comon..seriously.. just because its been tried and true, and its been around for how ever long.. Id like to see California tell NASA to register and smog their ship and rockets for its flights to space.. Daniel Your argument for not believing that NASA is credible when it comes to backing the global warning theory is that they have an agenda because of the pollution they cause???Isn't that thinking just a tad backwards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SQF Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 man this website needs a tinfoil hat emoticon Awesome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt60 Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 BTW After looking at your graph I must admit that a steak will be in order tonight.... Tube steak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dstar88 Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Your argument for not believing that NASA is credible when it comes to backing the global warning theory is that they have an agenda because of the pollution they cause???Isn't that thinking just a tad backwards? Thats my point exactly..the people talking about global warming in this thread is thinking backwards as well. Brian said that "global warming" is not the reason this thread was brought up. This thread was made because there are talks or could be talks of a Global Climate Change Comity or Treaty. This thread went so far off topic almost right from the get go. And your still missing the point and or message that Brian was trying to tell you guys/us/most of us/everyone. So since everyone is still talking about that subject,.. why not have NASA deal with emissions?? all the car companies have to in order to sell in the US and make more environmentally friendly cars( do they have to do it in other countrys??!?). why not have NASA make a rocket that can do the same job as 2 with less fuel?? maybe they wont have to have that huge red tank strapped to the space shuttle anymore..and what do you know?! there goes a huge weight reduction and one less object to retrieve once the shuttle finally gets into outer space. do you know how much fuel is burnt (green house gases) to get that shuttle to go into space?? or even just to get the heavy shuttle and tanks of fuel strapped to it, 10 feet in the air.? i dont...but i know its probably way more then my car consumes in a year, maybe even 5 years. its not necessarily thinking backwards...its sort of like asking..if they are supporting that "global warming" is true..what are they doing to help?other then donating money (tax write off..as if they need to), and using the same type of rockets that they used 20+ years ago? ohh but wait...their a federal agency or what not, everyone went to school for that kind of stuff, they can do what ever they want..i didnt i just work my ars off every day and stroll around in my starquest...polluting the earth.. Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt60 Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 I dont know why you people keep focusing on this driving cars thing. There are way more things that cause greenhouse gas buildup than cars. Any governing put in place would affect companies, not individuals. I highly doubt your life would change at all. But wealthy corporations will have to spend their money more responsibly. There seems to be this thinking that corporations dont need to be regulated. That simply isnt the case. Corporations have regulations about things a lot more silly than pollution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianpaul98 Posted October 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 It amazes me how far one will go all in the name of some cause (global climate change) that is said to be for the greater good of humanity but in reality to achieve this cause will strip away the freedoms that our founders and millions of American died to preserve and protect. While you have your eyes on charts, graphs, theories and articles written by so called experts you continue to miss the point that the life you know is disappearing right in front of you. Here is what the enviro-statists would love to see for all of us, not themselves of course because they are not one of us peons : http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9853581-54.html This is a life where everyone can be accounted for and controlled. No cars or little Smart cars so you can't just go wandering all around the place doing things that big brother doesn't want you to do. All your electricity is controlled so you can't be a little wasteful citizen because if you are they can just shut it off on you. Smart Grid Technology I know some of you are just beyond getting through to but I'm hoping that the hundreds that do get it will understand where this is all going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrazilBoy Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Tube steak?Thanks for the offer but I like girls....I don't judge, you can be anyway you like its still a free country... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt60 Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Thanks for the offer but I like girls.... Your statements get more outrageous with each post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianpaul98 Posted October 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) Your statements get more outrageous with each post... Not really sure how his statements are getting outrageous when your the one instigating it with your derogatory "tube steak " comment. Edited October 31, 2009 by brianpaul98 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 Whether or not human beings have "caused this round of climate change" is beside the point. Human beings will be present for this round of climate change, and could therefore suffer massive loss of life if not risk extinction during "this round of climate change", so the question we need to ask is simple. Is it happening, and if so, can we do ANYTHING about it. We've all skipped straight to step 25 and started arguing about whether we're causing it. That step should come way down the road after we've answered questions one and two. If the answer to question one is "yes", then one of the questions we ask while attempting to answer question two might be "are we causing or contributing to the rate of global climate change?" Both sides of this argument have made this same mistake. I blame the smart side for letting the dumb side drag them into a diversionary debate that has nothing to do with the real issue. Is it going to be 50 degrees at the equator in 200 years or not? As for those of you who have convinced yourselves that global climate change is just the next vehicle for government expansion and taking your rights, keep regurgitating the bunk spewed at you by your conspiracy theory pushing media "personalities". It makes it easy to identify the ones among you who aren't doing any independent analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwolf Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 As far as the comment "can we do anything about it" Nope. If we can't colonize another planet or make one heck of a space station then eventually the sun is going to consume the earth anyways. Ill bet anything in the world that we don't live to that point though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrazilBoy Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 Chip if you truely believe in global warming have your cars destroyed and recycled..Get a bus pass or rollerskate to work.. Have your dog put to sleep he is doing as much damage as a 4.2 Landcruiser...get a hamster that a Prius of animals you know.....lol Also aren't flyovers at football games killing the enviroment, why not take your arguement to your superiors and explain how when you do flyovers which is completely without warrant and the polar bears will die because of it.... If you do not then I assume you aren't a true believer in global warming... Sincerely Roberto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts