blogs.telegraph.co.uk — So many new developments: which story do we pick? Maybe best to summarise, instead. After all, it's not like you're going to find much of this reported in the MSM. 1. Australia's Senate rejects Emissions Trading Scheme for a second time.
Dec 2, 2009 View in Crawl 4
brownsound00Dec 3, 2009
I agree. My only issue is that, even if you don't think global warming is manmade or not... you shouldn't be against clean running cars and reducing pollution. That just makes sense to maintain.I can see people arguing about green taxes and the less clean cut "solutions" proposed recently though.
andyd273Dec 4, 2009
This is very true.There used to be dairy farms in Greenland (and it actually used to be green) before the little ice age. You can still see their ruins under 10 meters of ice.The world is warming, and has been for the last 200-300 years, since the little ice age ended. Thats a little bit before the industrial revolution, and so it could be that there may be other contributing factors.I think that we need to do something to protect the planet. I just don't trust the government to not mess it up with their self interest.
fiatfauxDec 5, 2009
A Wonderful Idea of what to do with soon-to-be retired proverbial pseudo-science Hockey Stick!Like Al Gore's recent "Inconvenient Poot" and Cancellation of a certain appearance in Copenhagen though...It may cause Obama to Cancel his planned trip via Fuel-Hog 1 with it Plowed up his UN-comfortable Polluter.MSMedia TV News (except Fox) won't touch the sacred cow of pseudo-science; so Comedy Central News: <a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8</a>
willanthonyDec 5, 2009
you bring up an interesting point.. maybe the world is outgrowing the economic structure. there is a chance now for lots of development for greener jobs and leading to something more positive then just being profit driven and not caring about preserving natural resources in the process. i realize i'm sounding like a hippie here, but giving estimates by 2050 and 2020 to have things figured out is merely passing the buck.
Closed AccountDec 9, 2009
! while for certain hundreds of billions are at risk for oilslave-holders and their stoneage technology.when I ask someone here "are you dense ?"; a lot of replies withpalpable uselessness will occur, if I check for "follow the money" it will do the trick of avoiding innecessary contacts much better. 8)
Closed AccountDec 10, 2009
Using words like 'denial' in a scientific debate makes environmentalists sound as retarded as fox news.
Closed AccountDec 10, 2009
"Well who is arguing for MORE pollution anyway?"Nobody. People are arguing that giving away billions of dollars won't reduce pollution. If we actually want to improve the environment, spend that money on alternative energy sources instead.
Closed AccountDec 10, 2009
I want to create a communist regime. Now if you excuse me I'm off to abort babies.NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING LIBERALS ARE LIKE THAT. I'm just pointing out that acting that way makes your arguments retarded no matter where you're coming from.
lookmaitssantaDec 11, 2009
Big Oil is in on it. Check out the people supporting Cap and Trade. The liberals got had. They're preaching an ideology that no one will support once the pieces are down. No one actually cares about the environment. Look at the Club of Rome, they outline this entire thing back in the 70s. The myth must be sustained if the big money is to be made.However, I still stand by a bountiful, energy rich clean energy future. I look forward to being able to live my current lifestyle (which isn't even that energy intensive to begin with) without the threats and scams of energy barons who will shake the foundation of our sense of reality to make a quick buck. f**k all the liars.