Al Gore's garbage further disproved

[iSkylla]

Whatever you view on Global Warming may be, that still shouldn't stop you from wanting to help the environment. My personal opinion is that if you want to drive a low MPG vehicle, you are free to do so as long as your pay your gas guzzler tax when you purchase it and you pay for the gas, currently at $4.00 a gallon. If the government wants to take a stand against global warming, then they can do several things including, taxation of gas, and efficiency standards for car manufacturers.

 

I don't understand why people even argue about this because certainly very few people on the internet have the knowledge to prove it one way or the other, and if someone were to prove it, then they would probably win a nobel prize

 

Here's an idea, lets crack down on the polluters because we want clean air to breathe, and clean water to drink. I don't want some factory dumping mercury into water that I have to drink and I don't want to breathe in harmful pollutants.

[JonTheSavage]

Whatever you view on Global Warming may be, that still shouldn't stop you from wanting to help the environment. My personal opinion is that if you want to drive a low MPG vehicle, you are free to do so as long as your pay your gas guzzler tax when you purchase it and you pay for the gas, currently at $4.00 a gallon. If the government wants to take a stand against global warming, then they can do several things including, taxation of gas, and efficiency standards for car manufacturers.I don't understand why people even argue about this because certainly very few people on the internet have the knowledge to prove it one way or the other, and if someone were to prove it, then they would probably win a nobel prize Here's an idea, lets crack down on the polluters because we want clean air to breathe, and clean water to drink. I don't want some factory dumping mercury into water that I have to drink and I don't want to breathe in harmful pollutants.

You emit CO2. Your car does not. That is science. People should have learned that in 4th grade. Obviously Al Gore didn't graduate grade school. Its a scam.The ONLY approach people should have to the environment is LEAVE IT THE {censored} ALONE! It was that way 100 years ago, and it worked perfectly fine. If you cut down a pine, leave the mother {censored} pine cones alone. They will grow another tree. If you burn a forrest, leave it alone, it will start to grow back in a couple of years.Strip mining is terrible, they should have a law to where it has to be recovered with dirt/top soil, and not left with bare clay. That way, it can re-germinate in a few years, and {censored} starts growing up everywhere again.Keep some plants in your house to filter the air. You need them to breath anyway.

On technology forums you tend to get politically and world perspective ignorant people....

I couldn't agree more.

[iSkylla]

You emit CO2. Your car does not. That is science. People should have learned that in 4th grade. Obviously Al Gore didn't graduate grade school. Its a scam.The ONLY approach people should have to the environment is LEAVE IT THE {censored} ALONE! It was that way 100 years ago, and it worked perfectly fine. If you cut down a pine, leave the mother {censored} pine cones alone. They will grow another tree. If you burn a forrest, leave it alone, it will start to grow back in a couple of years.Strip mining is terrible, they should have a law to where it has to be recovered with dirt/top soil, and not left with bare clay. That way, it can re-germinate in a few years, and {censored} starts growing up everywhere again.Keep some plants in your house to filter the air. You need them to breath anyway.I couldn't agree more.

 

I'm not sure where you heard that cars don't emit CO2 but I will be happy to show you data.

 

See exactly how much CO2 a specific vehicle emits: http://www.smmtco2.co.uk/co2search2.asp

You might refute that site, and that's fine as long as you have a valid reason of doing so.

 

That being said, it is quite easy to prove that the vehicles that we drive today emit CO2 because of chemistry. When a hydrocarbon, that is anything made from crude oil, is burned, a natural byproduct of that reaction is CO2. You might want to read up on the combustion and more specifically, the internal combustion engine, hopefully that will give you a better idea on how cars work and what are the byproducts of burning gasoline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine

 

Let me just say, please don't swear when attempting to refute a statement. All it does is show intellectual bankruptcy on your part and a limited vocabulary.

[Paranoid Marvin]

I know Jonthesavage.. the goverment dumps DHMO into our water and lives every day! DMHO is the only molecular compound found in EVERY cancerous tumor... Global warning is a farce as well, just an excuse for the hippie liberals to take my money!

 

More information on this harmful DHMO

• It is an industrial coolant
  
• It can be deadly
  
• Deadly if inhaled
  
• It is a major component in acid rain
  
• It can cause burns
  

Let's see who's smart enough to work this one out, eh?

[killbot1000]

I don't think theres a big conspiracy out there for liberal "hippie" types to take all your money. It's just a difference in the way liberals (modern liberals) and conservatives (modern conservatives) think.

 

Conservatives are ruled by money, they want to keep all of it, and they say they don't want any help from ANYBODY in getting by in life, they just want to keep all their money, and they will worry about healthcare, sewage, streets, and nanny laws later.

 

Liberals on the other hand have the idea that they want to help EVERYBODY succeed. Sometimes this is done through unsavory means such as excessive taxation. However, we haven't even gotten close to that point yet, people still mostly get to keep a good chunk of their money.

 

The problem that the US has is that we haven't chosen a viable future for ourselves, it seems as if we want to help anybody, but we don't want ANY taxes at all. This (like many other things American) is irrational, and illogical. In a small town setting it can work, but if we want to have a huge continent as a country we have to make some compromises, and taxes is one of them.

 

Environmentalists, and hippies don't care about taking your money (I know, I have tons of hippies living in my town), but they do feel that humans have been harming the environment, and they will use any action to help the environment (and that includes taking your money).

 

At the same time though, your money is not on their mind, the environment is. Paranoia about money being taken away is a conservative thing, and the people conservatives have elected have taken their money the most, and these people don't even know it, sad...

 

DONT LOOK AT TAXES, you will not find any reliable social indicator there.

 

You must look at social injustice and whether it affects the society as a whole or not.

 

Under George W Bush, we have less taxes, but more social inequality, because his policies have encouraged companies to move overseas, pay workers here less, and to use low cost, unskilled labor. All while at the same time cutting taxes only for people who are rich. If people vote for this guy because they think he's going to give a {censored} about them and their taxes, they are sadly mistaken.

 

If however we had a system of heavy taxation, but a system in which there were incentives in place to pay people a lot more, hire skilled labor, etc. We could tax people more AND they could have better lives, AND everybody else could have better lives too (even if they don't deserve it). What's wrong with that?

[djet]

Jon, the next time I'm downtown and see a person with a megaphone and screaming apocalypse I'll be sure to imagine you as him and push him in front of a bus. Seriously, grow up and being so.... so.... foolish. Sure we all have our opinions, but you are definitely the most closed-minded person I have EVER met. You scream bloody murder whenever the slightest injustice (in your eyes) occurs.... it's frustrating and frankly immature. Now I'm not trying to start a crusade against JonTheSavage, I deal with the same stuff, but please, for the rest of the forums sake, show some brains.

[JonTheSavage]

I'm not sure where you heard that cars don't emit CO2 but I will be happy to show you data.See exactly how much CO2 a specific vehicle emits: http://www.smmtco2.co.uk/co2search2.aspYou might refute that site, and that's fine as long as you have a valid reason of doing so.That being said, it is quite easy to prove that the vehicles that we drive today emit CO2 because of chemistry. When a hydrocarbon, that is anything made from crude oil, is burned, a natural byproduct of that reaction is CO2. You might want to read up on the combustion and more specifically, the internal combustion engine, hopefully that will give you a better idea on how cars work and what are the byproducts of burning gasoline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engineLet me just say, please don't swear when attempting to refute a statement. All it does is show intellectual bankruptcy on your part and a limited vocabulary.

 

3 questions.

 

You exhale what?

Plants inhale what?

Did you graduate the 4th grade?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide

 

I don't think theres a big conspiracy out there for liberal "hippie" types to take all your money. It's just a difference in the way liberals (modern liberals) and conservatives (modern conservatives) think.Conservatives are ruled by money, they want to keep all of it, and they say they don't want any help from ANYBODY in getting by in life, they just want to keep all their money, and they will worry about healthcare, sewage, streets, and nanny laws later.Liberals on the other hand have the idea that they want to help EVERYBODY succeed. Sometimes this is done through unsavory means such as excessive taxation. However, we haven't even gotten close to that point yet, people still mostly get to keep a good chunk of their money.The problem that the US has is that we haven't chosen a viable future for ourselves, it seems as if we want to help anybody, but we don't want ANY taxes at all. This (like many other things American) is irrational, and illogical. In a small town setting it can work, but if we want to have a huge continent as a country we have to make some compromises, and taxes is one of them.Environmentalists, and hippies don't care about taking your money (I know, I have tons of hippies living in my town), but they do feel that humans have been harming the environment, and they will use any action to help the environment (and that includes taking your money).At the same time though, your money is not on their mind, the environment is. Paranoia about money being taken away is a conservative thing, and the people conservatives have elected have taken their money the most, and these people don't even know it, sad...DONT LOOK AT TAXES, you will not find any reliable social indicator there.You must look at social injustice and whether it affects the society as a whole or not.Under George W Bush, we have less taxes, more more social inequality, because his policies have encouraged companies to move overseas, pay workers here less, and to use low cost, unskilled labor. All while at the same time cutting taxes only for people who are rich. If people vote for this guy because they think he's going to give a {censored} about them and their taxes, they are sadly mistaken.If however we had a system of heavy taxation, but a system in which there were incentives in place to pay people a lot more, hire skilled labor, etc. We could tax people more AND they could have better lives, AND everybody else could have better lives too (even if they don't deserve it). What's wrong with that?

 

LIBERALS, or Neo-Cons (Bush & Clinton), same thing. Like to take away rights from others, and give themselves "Special Rights", at the expense of others. Conservatives want to be left the {censored} alone. Liberals are so dumb, that they don't know that they already have those rights under the Constitution. They want the government to do everything for them, because they are too {censored}-poor lazy to do it themselves. They want to bend over backwards and lobby the government to give them something at the expense of others. They like to give money to people in other countries when there are people starving in their own. They talk about "{censored} rights" because they are so stupid, that they don't know the constitituion already gives them those rights, so they want special "Priviledges". They want the government to protect them from their worst fears because they are too chicken to face them themselves. Conservatives say {censored} the government. We would be better off without them, because the few of us, that actually are conservative, maybe one out of a hundred, look after ourselves, and want the government out of our lives. But liberals want to step in and oppress us. Then the government calls for the statist nationalists to come in, and fight the liberals on "rights" that both already have. They are just to stupid to know it. They want specail priviledges. So I say {censored} them both.

 

You say liberals are kind, when they are really greedy little twinkle toed government worhsiping bastards that hate everything that freedom is. Liberals are so {censored} blind, that they can't see who their real enemy is... the government.

 

The answer to 1984, is 1776.

 

One day, when liberals pull their head out of their ass, it will be to late, and they will be lying dead in a concentration camp because they douldn't defend themselves from their real enemy... the government.

 

It happens all the time, everywhere, around the world. Too bad you won't realise that before its too late. The Germans thought the same way you did when they gave up their guns for the "common good" under Hitler... a true democracy in action.

[antaholics]

3 questions.

 

You exhale what?

Plants inhale what?

Did you graduate the 4th grade?

 

Is 4th grade the furthest you got?

 

In first year chemistry we learn that hydrocarbons (which is what gasoline is made of) combusts to produce CARBON DIOXIDE and WATER (among other things from additives). he didn't say that you don't exhale carbon dioxide, all he was saying was cars emit FAR MORE into the atomosphere. Why do you think the CO2 levels have gone WAY up since the industrial age? maybe burning natural gases and fossil fuels produce lots and lots of CO2? Have you heard of CFCs? You should have if you took any geography in high school.

 

Also, the link you posted on the top of the second page of this thread... it's a BS site... half of the site is covered with ads, and tons of popups... not to mention a quick look around states that it's a conspiracy site. Please find more "credible" sources.

 

may I suggest that you also check out DHMO?

[Paranoid Marvin]

3 questions.

 

You exhale what?

Plants inhale what?

Did you graduate the 4th grade?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide

 

We exhale carbon monoxide?

 

[iSkylla]

3 questions.

 

You exhale what?

Plants inhale what?

Did you graduate the 4th grade?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide

 

People exhale CO2 and plants absorb, not inhale, CO2. That is not Carbon Monoxide, but Carbon Dioxide.

 

Now, I see that you haven't responded to the main part of my response, but this release and absorption of carbon dioxide from plants and people gives a net gain of carbon dioxide on the planet of zero. For every gigaton of CO2 that is released, a gigaton is absorbed. Global warming has nothing to do with the CO2 absorbed and released from plants and humans, it has to do with the massive amounts of CO2 released from industrialization. Part of which are cars, that release CO2 through the burning of hydrocarbons. Look to my last post to read about them.

 

LIBERALS, or Neo-Cons (Bush & Clinton), same thing. Like to take away rights from others, and give themselves "Special Rights", at the expense of others. Conservatives want to be left the {censored} alone. Liberals are so dumb, that they don't know that they already have those rights under the Constitution. They want the government to do everything for them, because they are too {censored}-poor lazy to do it themselves. They want to bend over backwards and lobby the government to give them something at the expense of others. They like to give money to people in other countries when there are people starving in their own. They talk about "{censored} rights" because they are so stupid, that they don't know the constitituion already gives them those rights, so they want special "Priviledges". They want the government to protect them from their worst fears because they are too chicken to face them themselves. Conservatives say {censored} the government. We would be better off without them, because the few of us, that actually are conservative, maybe one out of a hundred, look after ourselves, and want the government out of our lives. But liberals want to step in and oppress us. Then the government calls for the statist nationalists to come in, and fight the liberals on "rights" that both already have. They are just to stupid to know it. They want specail priviledges. So I say {censored} them both.

 

You say liberals are kind, when they are really greedy little twinkle toed government worhsiping bastards that hate everything that freedom is. Liberals are so {censored} blind, that they can't see who their real enemy is... the government.

 

The answer to 1984, is 1776.

 

One day, when liberals pull their head out of their ass, it will be to late, and they will be lying dead in a concentration camp because they douldn't defend themselves from their real enemy... the government.

 

It happens all the time, everywhere, around the world. Too bad you won't realise that before its too late. The Germans thought the same way you did when they gave up their guns for the "common good" under Hitler... a true democracy in action.

 

I would like to see evidence that correlates between the believes of the neo-conservatism movement and Clinton. The political beliefs of the two are completely opposite. I'm not going to reply to every little thing in there, but the one thing that jumped out at me, and I am paraphrasing, is that you think think that "conservatives," are for personal rights and freedom and "liberals" want to censor? Might I remind you of the Patriot Act, and essentially every "anti-terrorist" bill that was signed. Those take away freedoms and the best of the bunch is the bill that allowed unwarranted wiretapping and gave retroactive immunity to phone companies. That's not protecting people, that's censoring them.

 

One last thing, you should calm down, you seem to have a bad case of argumentum ad hominem. You should stop it.

[Paranoid Marvin]

Also, plants only inhale CO2 when they are photosynthesising.

At night, they exhale CO2

 

I'm not a biologist, but if someone could back me up on that

[iSkylla]

Marvin, I believe we scared him away

[dark4181]

I trust this link will be reliable enough for everyone

 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...ty.SenateReport

 

Basically shows actual scientists not in line with the "consensus" regarding global warming, listed by name, field, country and affiliation, and gives quotes and references to their studies

 

I'm not gonna make quotes, because this is really long

 

Oh, and lets not forget that Mr. Gore has refused to take his own pledge

 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...Minority.Pledge

 

Could that be because he knows there is not a grain of truth in it?

 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...49-EE9098538277

 

What? Coercion and suppression tactics against detractors?

[iSkylla]

This is all the same thing, Jim Inhofe. Regardless, I assume the point that you're is against the so called "hockey stick." The correlation between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature. Here's an interesting article posted on RealClimate describing this lag of CO2 and a GMT rise.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...n-temp-and-co2/

[dark4181]

I believe I read somewhere about each PPU of co2 having less of an effect than the previous PPU, with a point at which that further accumulation would have no further effect. I'll try to dig up the link, but I can't remember where I read it.

 

The point still remains that Al Gore declined to take his own pledge to "go green." I can't think of a reason for him not to, other than knowing that he is promoting falsehoods.

 

As for the link you posted.. if I'm reading right, then the temperature rise we're seeing now is an effect of geological events that occured hundreds of years ago. Obviously before man made pollution could have been a factor. In my opinion, that would lend credence to the idea that "climate change" (funny how they change the name when things don't add up) is naturally occurring.

 

Remember the big flap about the hole in the Ozone a few years back? I wonder why we don't hear about that any more.. Wait, isn't that because that more recent studies confirmed that the Ozone hole is a naturally occurring phenomenon that acts as a global thermostat?

[iSkylla]

I think you mean PPB (parts per billion), is that correct? I apologize but I'm not sure what PPU means.

 

I remember the entire, "Al Gore's house uses xxx amount of energy," scandal, and I also seem to remember that at that time, his house was undergoing construction which would account for some of the extra energy use. I also seem to remember that his house is bigger than the average house, the comparison in the article of which you linked and if you were to put the energy use in proportion to the size of the place, it uses proportionally, the same amount of energy. One thing that I personally would like to know is who provides the energy for his estate. Is his energy supplier using coal to produce the electricity or is it produced by other means such as solar, wind or nuclear power which have a very small environmental impact.

 

 

Regarding your statement that global warming is naturally occurring, you are partially correct. Many things on this planet emit CO2 and other greenhouse gases such as methane, for instance, the methane output of cows and other livestock makes up as much as 18% of greenhouse gases which in turn would cause some global warming. However, the massive amounts of CO2 that humans are releasing in the forms of car emissions, factories and other polluters continues that global warming trend. That increase that we're seeing today could have been from an increase in agriculture a hundred years ago plus all of the CO2 that we're releasing is also now having an effect. Remember, we were industrialized a hundred years ago, and now we're seeing the effect of it.

[JonTheSavage]

Is 4th grade the furthest you got?

 

In first year chemistry we learn that hydrocarbons (which is what gasoline is made of) combusts to produce CARBON DIOXIDE and WATER (among other things from additives). he didn't say that you don't exhale carbon dioxide, all he was saying was cars emit FAR MORE into the atomosphere. Why do you think the CO2 levels have gone WAY up since the industrial age? maybe burning natural gases and fossil fuels produce lots and lots of CO2? Have you heard of CFCs? You should have if you took any geography in high school.

 

Also, the link you posted on the top of the second page of this thread... it's a BS site... half of the site is covered with ads, and tons of popups... not to mention a quick look around states that it's a conspiracy site. Please find more "credible" sources.

 

may I suggest that you also check out DHMO?

 

Now the air you exhale is going to be taxed dummy. You exhale CO2. Now your government wants to tax it. God damn you are dumb.

 

Whats "Credible" in YOUR humble opinion? The mainstream media? the sites owned by the 5 richest men in the world? What makes the 5 richest men in the world "Credible"? Because they own %95 of the media? Sounds like liberal propaganda to me. You are faaaarrrr too trusting young yuppie. Please explain what a "Credible" site is! I want a solid definition based on facts. That is something YOU believe in. Facts. Right? Don't be a {censored} hippcrite. If you are using a browser that supports pop-ups, then you can't be too "Credible", or smart for that matter. "Credible", in YOUR OPINION, is just someone that YOU AGREE with. You do this because you hate the truth, and want to accept the same opinion as your liberal friends because you don't want to look different in their eyes. You want to THINK the same way as your friends, because you don't want to be attacked by them. You stand for NOTHING, so you fall for anything.

 

Or maybe some other stupid liberal yuppie can explain how the air you exhale is causing global warming. Cars produce carbon monoxide (CO), not CO2.

[iSkylla]

Now the air you exhale is going to be taxed dummy. You exhale CO2. Now your government wants to tax it. God damn you are dumb.

 

Whats "Credible" in YOUR humble opinion? The mainstream media? the sites owned by the 5 richest men in the world? What makes the 5 richest men in the world "Credible"? Because they own %95 of the media? Sounds like liberal propaganda to me. You are faaaarrrr too trusting young yuppie. Please explain what a "Credible" site is! I want a solid definition based on facts. That is something YOU believe in. Facts. Right? Don't be a {censored} hippcrite. If you are using a browser that supports pop-ups, then you can't be too "Credible", or smart for that matter.

 

Or maybe some other stupid liberal yuppie can explain how the air you exhale is causing global warming. Cars produce carbon monoxide (CO), not CO2.

 

You really aught to stop with the personal attacks, it doesn't do your already weak argument any good. Credible means a source that is backed up by facts, government released data or scientific data. Sites where bias is obvious does not constitute a credible site.

 

No one said that air exhaled has a significant effect on the climate but any greenhouse gas released, that means CO2 among other things, will cause a slight, albeit insignificant, increase in temperature. That CO2 released from humans is kept in check by plants which use that CO2 to produce O2 through photosynthesis. I've already posted this before and I would rather not write it again.

 

Cars produce CO, carbon monoxide, but CO plays a very very small role as in the greenhouse effect. Concentrations of CO in the atmosphere are anywhere from 30 to 200 ppb, at the highest. We're talking about CO2, carbon dioxide, which is 76% of greenhouse gases present in our atmosphere. CO2 is a much larger player in the greenhouse effect and as I said before, vehicles emit CO2, it's part of the internal combustion engine. When you burn a hydrocarbon like gasoline, one of the byproducts is CARBON DIOXIDE.

[JonTheSavage]

You really aught to stop with the personal attacks, it doesn't do your already weak argument any good. Credible means a source that is backed up by facts, government released data or scientific data. Sites where bias is obvious does not constitute a credible site.

 

No one said that air exhaled has a significant effect on the climate but any greenhouse gas released, that means CO2 among other things, will cause a slight, albeit insignificant, increase in temperature. That CO2 released from humans is kept in check by plants which use that CO2 to produce O2 through photosynthesis. I've already posted this before and I would rather not write it again.

 

Cars produce CO, carbon monoxide, but CO plays a very very small role as in the greenhouse effect. Concentrations of CO in the atmosphere are anywhere from 30 to 200 ppb, at the highest. We're talking about CO2, carbon dioxide, which is 76% of greenhouse gases present in our atmosphere. CO2 is a much larger player in the greenhouse effect and as I said before, vehicles emit CO2, it's part of the internal combustion engine. When you burn a hydrocarbon like gasoline, one of the byproducts is CARBON DIOXIDE.

 

So you support the government taxing CO2... The air you exhale... YOUR LIFE? Why not make the bees, plankton, and all the anmimals pay the tax too? They exhale it as well! Just make the trees pay for it, they inhale it, and they are also cut down to make money with too! SO in actuallity, the trees are being taxed, with their lives. So you want to put your life in the hands of a few rich elites in government? You want to pay money for your life? After all that is what Al Gore wants!

 

Government? HAHAHAHA. You really are retarted aren't you? The same people that ship in the drugs, the fortune 500, yeah. Bush, and the military industrial complex, the new democrat congress that won't impeach Bush. Yeah, I find that total {censored} "Credible". Why don't get your little liberal-government-loving ass on Google, and find out what "PDD 51" is. Tell me then that the "government" is "Credible". What {censored} part of "We the People" do you not understand? Yeah, I find this regime "Credible". "They attack us because they hate our freedom". Thats the dumbest {censored} thing I have ever heard. {censored} Bush. And {censored} his followers.

[iSkylla]

Government? HAHAHAHA. You really are retarted aren't you? The same people that ship in the drugs, the fortune 500, yeah. Bush, and the military industrial complex, the new democrat congress that won't impeach Bush. Yeah, I find that total {censored} "Credible". Why don't get your little liberal ass on Google, and find out what "PDD 51" is. Tell me then that the "government" is "Credible". What {censored} part of "We the People" do you not understand?

 

You really need to calm down, I'm not making any personal remarks towards you regardless of how I feel about your or your views, I suggest you do the same.

 

I'm not sure what you have against scientific data, but please, humor me. Economic information released by the government is far more reliable than most things you will find on google. Anything credible found on google is going to be backed by some scientific data or agency releasing quarterly or yearly stats, hardly sources that can be discredited.

[JonTheSavage]

You really need to calm down, I'm not making any personal remarks towards you regardless of how I feel about your or your views, I suggest you do the same.

 

I'm not sure what you have against scientific data, but please, humor me. Economic information released by the government is far more reliable than most things you will find on google. Anything credible found on google is going to be backed by some scientific data or agency releasing quarterly or yearly stats, hardly sources that can be discredited.

 

So you want facts huh? Tell me what agencies are "Credible"? You mean the EPA? The same people that dump Sodium Fluoride in your drinking water. It has been "Scientificly" proven that even 1ppm can cause a 20 point IQ reduction, kidney failure, bone fractures, and cancer. It is industrial waste. Yeah, I trust a agency like that. Where are your facts? Don't post propaganda from rich media. Show me the facts. And please tell me why you want the air you exhale taxed?

 

NO. You gobble on about "science". I want PROOF. Prove it, using science.

 

EDIT: Sorry, I was editing when you replied.

[iSkylla]

So you support the government taxing CO2... The air you exhale... YOUR LIFE? Why not make the bees, plankton, and all the anmimals pay the tax too? They exhale it as well! Just make the trees pay for it, they inhale it, and they are also cut down to make money with too! SO in actuallity, the trees are being taxed, with their lives. So you want to put your life in the hands of a few rich elites in government? You want to pay money for your life? After all that is what Al Gore wants!Government? HAHAHAHA. You really are retarted aren't you? The same people that ship in the drugs, the fortune 500, yeah. Bush, and the military industrial complex, the new democrat congress that won't impeach Bush. Yeah, I find that total {censored} "Credible". Why don't get your little liberal-government-loving ass on Google, and find out what "PDD 51" is. Tell me then that the "government" is "Credible". What {censored} part of "We the People" do you not understand? Yeah, I find this regime "Credible". "They attack us because they hate our freedom". Thats the dumbest {censored} thing I have ever heard. {censored} Bush. And {censored} his followers.

I see that you've edited with something new about taxation, let me just reply to that. Nowhere have I ever seen, heard or read that Al Gore wants to tax the air that I exhale, I would like to see a source or it's just more propaganda from you.

So you want facts huh? Tell me what agencies are "Credible"? You mean the EPA? The same people that dump Sodium Fluoride in your drinking water. It has been "Scientificly" proven that even 1ppm can cause a 20 point IQ reduction, kidney failure, bone fractures, and cancer. It is industrial waste. Yeah, I trust a agency like that. Where are your facts? Don't post propaganda from rich media. Show me the facts. And please tell me why you want the air you exhale taxed?NO. You gobble on about "science". I want PROOF. Prove it, using science.

Any peer reviewed science journal. Anyways, we're not talking about sodium fluoride, I'm not exactly sure where that came from. The EPA had tolerance exceptions to sodium fluoride, something I disagree with but that doesn't make the agency any less credible when it comes to data. You're basically saying that if one thing is bad, the entire agency is bad. That simply makes no logical sense.Again, no one wants to tax exhaled air, I'm not sure where you ever heard that.

[JonTheSavage]

I see that you've edited with something new about taxation, let me just reply to that.

 

No where have I ever seen, heard or read that Al Gore wants to tax the air that I exhale, I would like to see a source or it's just more propaganda from you.

 

Then you need to get some paint thinner, and unstick your head from your ass, and get in the real world.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38OSkoi023Q...feature=related

[iSkylla]

Then you need to get some paint thinner, and unstick your head from your ass, and get in the real world.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38OSkoi023Q...feature=related

 

A carbon tax on emissions from cars, factories, not people

 

Again, get control of your argumentum ad hominem.

[JonTheSavage]

I see that you've edited with something new about taxation, let me just reply to that. Nowhere have I ever seen, heard or read that Al Gore wants to tax the air that I exhale, I would like to see a source or it's just more propaganda from you.Any peer reviewed science journal. Anyways, we're not talking about sodium fluoride, I'm not exactly sure where that came from. The EPA had tolerance exceptions to sodium fluoride, something I disagree with but that doesn't make the agency any less credible when it comes to data. You're basically saying that if one thing is bad, the entire agency is bad. That simply makes no logical sense.Again, no one wants to tax exhaled air, I'm not sure where you ever heard that.

Scientific Journal. Why don't you look into who is paying the people that talk, who they work for, and what their interest is instead of just taking their word for it? Google their name. YOU show me proof. I don't want some paid-for talking head's opinion. YOU prove it. Scientificly.

A carbon tax on emissions from cars, factories, not peopleAgain, get control of your argumentum ad hominem.

So you do not emit CO2? What kind of creature are you? You just got done saying that Al Gore didn't want to tax CO2. Now you lie for him, and say its for something else? Why should I believe you? You couldn't have watched 3 videos that take up about 15 minutes that fast! You didn't even look.