If your so worried about the enviroment, get off the computer and go live somewhere that doesn't use any fossil fuels, that should teach us American pigs.Vilham wrote:
americans need to face the fact that you are the main contributers to destroying our world. energy per head being double the europian countries. and the comment about energy cant be destroyed, this is because it is in the form of matter and energy that doesnt mean the energy is in the right form, u cant burn CO2 the bi product of combusion of carbon. O and if u did physics at a high lvl you would know that energy is lost, when anti-matter meets with normal matter they annilhilate ie completly disappear.
Feel that presence looming behind you? That is the reality that somewhere, a roundhouse kick is being FedEx'd by Chuck Norris, to your house. Upon opening it, you will be struck down for blaspheming the good name of Chuck Norris.spacepelle wrote:
hey dont talk trash, put norris and hasselhoff in the "cage of death" and youll see who comes out victorious! hasselhoff all the way!Erkut.hv wrote:
You're just jealous the US has Chuck Norris, and you don't. You have hasselhoff, and old faggy pop-stars who get busted for coke and blowing guys in restrooms.
That is of course, you can still read this after taking the name of Chuck in vain. Remember Chuck can smell fear. And hope... as in "I hope I don't get roundhoused by Chuck".
Crap, immediately after mis-spelling Chuck's name, i got roundhouse kicked. THis is the reas0n 4 my ed1t and pour grammtikall skeelz. Iz it hawt in heer?
Last edited by Erkut.hv (2006-03-09 13:08:14)
shitt...... my job is so far away i have to fly there
That's a pretty one sided analysis of Kyoto.
Kyoto sucks. The reasons why have been spelled out too many times on this forum for me to bother doing it again.
Kyoto sucks. The reasons why have been spelled out too many times on this forum for me to bother doing it again.
Do you have substantial proof that we're "fucking up the world". Thanks.Vilham wrote:
grats in the process of being selfish and making that money ur fucking up the world. you should be very proud.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/Swetter Than Wine wrote:
i see it coming this is another "no matter the facts" we americans are right..... and shure poor americans live better that the average european.. LOL.. IGNORANCE + ARROGANCE SHOULD BE IN YOUR FLAG.
pd.. last time i post i get to realize that a red ants are more rational that rednecks
Don't be hatin'.
I find it disturbing that you post links to left wing sites yet you criticize me for posting a link to a conservative site. I guess that falls under your misconception of tolerance. "I will tolerate you if you do this, this, and this."
they do create energy true, but the amount of energy that is created isnt equal to the energy value of the particles, which means energy is lost.whittsend wrote:
Wrong. When Matter and Anti-Matter meet, they are converted to heat and light energy. Energy can be converted to matter and vice versa, but neither just 'disappears'.Vilham wrote:
O and if u did physics at a high lvl you would know that energy is lost, when anti-matter meets with normal matter they annilhilate ie completly disappear.
the problem isnt the using energy, i completly understand that the amount of electricity we use cant decrease without economic loss. Its the way we make the energy, and the americans use huge amounts of fossil fuels you should be spending more money and time on renewable energys.wtf.panda wrote:
If your so worried about the enviroment, get off the computer and go live somewhere that doesn't use any fossil fuels, that should teach us American pigs.Vilham wrote:
americans need to face the fact that you are the main contributers to destroying our world. energy per head being double the europian countries. and the comment about energy cant be destroyed, this is because it is in the form of matter and energy that doesnt mean the energy is in the right form, u cant burn CO2 the bi product of combusion of carbon. O and if u did physics at a high lvl you would know that energy is lost, when anti-matter meets with normal matter they annilhilate ie completly disappear.
did you read the OP?wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Do you have substantial proof that we're "fucking up the world". Thanks.Vilham wrote:
grats in the process of being selfish and making that money ur fucking up the world. you should be very proud.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/
Don't be hatin'.
Of course, this is a left-wing site from the UK, and they are using the BBC for the majority of their sources. It's an outside mixed perspective as opposed to a left or right wing site from the US using sources from only within the US.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
I find it disturbing that you post links to left wing sites yet you criticize me for posting a link to a conservative site. I guess that falls under your misconception of tolerance. "I will tolerate you if you do this, this, and this."
Yes. The title states the "Top 10 Pollouters" [sic] but then he gave stats on energy consumption. Now, please explain.Vilham wrote:
did you read the OP?wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Do you have substantial proof that we're "fucking up the world". Thanks.Vilham wrote:
grats in the process of being selfish and making that money ur fucking up the world. you should be very proud.
Would you hold to the same standard a right wing perspective outside the US? Or will this be like your own definition of tolerance? "Only when I'm satisfied will I tolerate you."Marconius wrote:
Of course, this is a left-wing site from the UK, and they are using the BBC for the majority of their sources. It's an outside mixed perspective as opposed to a left or right wing site from the US using sources from only within the US.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
I find it disturbing that you post links to left wing sites yet you criticize me for posting a link to a conservative site. I guess that falls under your misconception of tolerance. "I will tolerate you if you do this, this, and this."
Yes, I would, if it were from outside the US.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Would you hold to the same standard a right wing perspective outside the US? Or will this be like your own definition of tolerance? "Only when I'm satisfied will I tolerate you."
No it isn't. You are wrong.Vilham wrote:
they do create energy true, but the amount of energy that is created isnt equal to the energy value of the particles, which means energy is lost.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … glob14.xmlMarconius wrote:
Yes, I would, if it were from outside the US.wannabe_tank_whore wrote:
Would you hold to the same standard a right wing perspective outside the US? Or will this be like your own definition of tolerance? "Only when I'm satisfied will I tolerate you."
Well I'm just gonna post 2 links.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/pollution.html#Pollution
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static … /china.stm
And I do belive USA should try to lower their waste imo....
http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/pollution.html#Pollution
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static … /china.stm
And I do belive USA should try to lower their waste imo....
Ok lets make it simple
USA is the third biggest country in the world, almost everyone has a car or two, you have couple of nuclear powerplants, some other powerplants and there are total of 295,734,134 people living in USA.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fac … os/us.html There is a good site about little info of your USA
USA is the third biggest country in the world, almost everyone has a car or two, you have couple of nuclear powerplants, some other powerplants and there are total of 295,734,134 people living in USA.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fac … os/us.html There is a good site about little info of your USA
I've already posted those links. The right-wingers don't like them very much; wannabe posted a link from the telegraph that explains how scientists are recording and reporting global warming stats wrong (though that was from 2001). The same Hadley Institute from wannabe's source, converseley, has stats and information of other forms of global warming evidence here. I also have a more recent article that speaks about a bit more than the improper measurements taken at sea back in 2001...this article is from last year.Zefar wrote:
Well I'm just gonna post 2 links.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/pollution.html#Pollution
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static … /china.stm
And I do belive USA should try to lower their waste imo....
The underlying issue is that the right-wing is more economically based, and they realize that adopting eco-friendly practices can cut into business revenue. America is a business, and as it grows more privatized and corporate, more people will frown upon anything that might have an impact on profits. Do you agree with that, wannabe?
Albeit the Kyoto Protocol and any environmental safeguard might definitely cut into the profits of businesses and could negatively affect our economy (not devastatingly negative, more like allocating funds to areas that rarely get to see a third of what goes into Defense, etc.), the Left side feels that it's an acceptable risk in the long run. Is it so unacceptable to at least compromise on environmental safeguards that will reduce our emissions and not harshly cut into our economy?
The sfgate isn't left wing at all...Marconius wrote:
I've already posted those links. The right-wingers don't like them very much; wannabe posted a link from the telegraph that explains how scientists are recording and reporting global warming stats wrong (though that was from 2001). The same Hadley Institute from wannabe's source, converseley, has stats and information of other forms of global warming evidence here. I also have a more recent article that speaks about a bit more than the improper measurements taken at sea back in 2001...this article is from last year.
The underlying issue is that the right-wing is more economically based, and they realize that adopting eco-friendly practices can cut into business revenue. America is a business, and as it grows more privatized and corporate, more people will frown upon anything that might have an impact on profits. Do you agree with that, wannabe?
Albeit the Kyoto Protocol and any environmental safeguard might definitely cut into the profits of businesses and could negatively affect our economy (not devastatingly negative, more like allocating funds to areas that rarely get to see a third of what goes into Defense, etc.), the Left side feels that it's an acceptable risk in the long run. Is it so unacceptable to at least compromise on environmental safeguards that will reduce our emissions and not harshly cut into our economy?
Ever wonder why a news outlet comes up with evidence supporting their ideology? Surprises me everytime.
What happens when the government starts believing the worst case scenario environmentalist and enacts legislation that severely restricts businesses from any 'waste'. Bottom line is that you wouldn't have the freedom to post on the Internet daily if the economy crumbled. You're looking for a job, right? Imagine that thousands more are job hunting and there are no jobs to be had. You still live at home right? Imagine if your parent(s) lost their jobs.
Last edited by wannabe_tank_whore (2006-03-10 08:55:16)
Nice stab in the dark there, wannabe...it's not a matter of "worst-case scenario legislation." I said it was a matter of compromise. There are two extremes...on one side, you have your worst-case scenario laws, and on the other, there are unrestricted business practices that blow their profit margins sky high, but severely compromise the environment in the mid-to-long run.
A Recent global warming article from your Telegraph site, and I also have a statement on Britain's growing emissions levels from the very same website, also from this year.
The BBC's stance on Global Warming
And for your information, I have a job and will be moving into a $120/hr career in a couple of months, I live on my own, and I fully understand the economic hit that extreme eco-practices can put on the country. Would you like to try to insult me more? Or are you going to stay on topic?
A Recent global warming article from your Telegraph site, and I also have a statement on Britain's growing emissions levels from the very same website, also from this year.
The BBC's stance on Global Warming
And for your information, I have a job and will be moving into a $120/hr career in a couple of months, I live on my own, and I fully understand the economic hit that extreme eco-practices can put on the country. Would you like to try to insult me more? Or are you going to stay on topic?
Global warming is not caused by CO2 emmisions... u dumb ppl... its coz by chuck norris's sweating and his movement since every inch he moves creates enough energy to power the entire united states. FACE THE FACTS PPL
The first article was not a global warming article. It stated that the Antarctic ice sheet was slowly melting. It gave no reasons. Just observations from pictures taken by satellites.
You can take both articles to mean anything you want... such as a predicted pole shift. Which could explain why Russia is having its coldest winter in over 30 years and why north america had a mild winter.
And what if, as the sun ages and gets closer to Red Giant status, it grows and emits more heat all the while its growth pushes itself closer to Earth? Hotter temperatures?
Why did you take it as an insult? It was hypothetical... just like people's hypothetical allusions of pollution destroying the planet.
You can take both articles to mean anything you want... such as a predicted pole shift. Which could explain why Russia is having its coldest winter in over 30 years and why north america had a mild winter.
And what if, as the sun ages and gets closer to Red Giant status, it grows and emits more heat all the while its growth pushes itself closer to Earth? Hotter temperatures?
Why did you take it as an insult? It was hypothetical... just like people's hypothetical allusions of pollution destroying the planet.
The Sun has been exhibiting some odd features lately, but it's Red Giant conversion is millions of years away. The heat coming from the Sun obviously contributes to the greenhouse effect here on Earth, but the recorded surface temperatures don't coincide at all with the rate of the Sun's heat output. While it's a contributor, you can see how the temperatures begin to raise almost exponentially during the advent of the Industrial Age, and continue to rise to present day:
These are stats from the NOAA
I also found a really good interview and discussion on the topic of cosmic interference, wannabe. Check it out here.
These are stats from the NOAA
I also found a really good interview and discussion on the topic of cosmic interference, wannabe. Check it out here.
I've always theorized that the sun is the cause of our warmer temperatures. Especially with it being the center of our universe and our source of heat. I remember the satellite problem in 2005. I would imagine that a huge solar flare on the sun's surface would take a while for the heat to get to earth and would tribute to temperatures not coinciding with surface activity. I don't remember how fast heat travels. The data of Mars heating up would substantiate my theory. We aren't the only ones getting hotter.Marconius wrote:
The Sun has been exhibiting some odd features lately, but it's Red Giant conversion is millions of years away. The heat coming from the Sun obviously contributes to the greenhouse effect here on Earth, but the recorded surface temperatures don't coincide at all with the rate of the Sun's heat output. While it's a contributor, you can see how the temperatures begin to raise almost exponentially during the advent of the Industrial Age, and continue to rise to present day:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories200 … dec_pg.jpg
These are stats from the NOAA
I also found a really good interview and discussion on the topic of cosmic interference, wannabe. Check it out here.
