In short - stuff it.

"A funny thing happened on the way to saving the world’s poor from the
ravages of global warming. The poor told the warming alarmists to get
lost."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main

Guru of Woodstock wrote:
In short - stuff it.

"A funny thing happened on the way to saving the world’s poor from the
ravages of global warming. The poor told the warming alarmists to get
lost."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main

I'll bet this is the first time in your luddite life you are aligned
with the poor. :)

H the K wrote:
Guru of Woodstock wrote:
In short - stuff it.

"A funny thing happened on the way to saving the world’s poor from the
ravages of global warming. The poor told the warming alarmists to get
lost."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main


I'll bet this is the first time in your luddite life you are aligned
with the poor. :)

You missed your calling, you should have been a comedian.

Guru of Woodstock wrote:
In short - stuff it.

"A funny thing happened on the way to saving the world’s poor from the
ravages of global warming. The poor told the warming alarmists to get
lost."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main

Yep, like the Republicans, they are afraid that if someone puts
restrictions on pollution, they won't be able to keep on living and
working in open sewers and air so bad that they need oxygen masks.

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:17:48 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Guru of Woodstock wrote:
In short - stuff it.

"A funny thing happened on the way to saving the world’s poor from the
ravages of global warming. The poor told the warming alarmists to get
lost."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main

Yep, like the Republicans, they are afraid that if someone puts
restrictions on pollution, they won't be able to keep on living and
working in open sewers and air so bad that they need oxygen masks.

Strange...I know a lot of Republicans and not is afraid of
restrictions on polution or those other fears you mention.

Just think, by going to nuclear energy we could restrict a *lot* of
pollution. Paying for pollution isn't a restriction, it's simply a way
to get the population to unwittingly pay more taxes.
--

John H

Little John wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:17:48 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Guru of Woodstock wrote:
In short - stuff it.

"A funny thing happened on the way to saving the world’s poor from the
ravages of global warming. The poor told the warming alarmists to get
lost."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main
Yep, like the Republicans, they are afraid that if someone puts
restrictions on pollution, they won't be able to keep on living and
working in open sewers and air so bad that they need oxygen masks.

Strange...I know a lot of Republicans and not is afraid of
restrictions on polution or those other fears you mention.

Just think, by going to nuclear energy we could restrict a *lot* of
pollution. Paying for pollution isn't a restriction, it's simply a way
to get the population to unwittingly pay more taxes.
--

John H
I don't know if I've ever conversed with a conservative who was for
implementing pollution restrictions for anything. That's what the whole
*there is no such thing as global warming* is about.

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:58:04 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Little John wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:17:48 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Guru of Woodstock wrote:
In short - stuff it.

"A funny thing happened on the way to saving the world’s poor from the
ravages of global warming. The poor told the warming alarmists to get
lost."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main
Yep, like the Republicans, they are afraid that if someone puts
restrictions on pollution, they won't be able to keep on living and
working in open sewers and air so bad that they need oxygen masks.

Strange...I know a lot of Republicans and not is afraid of
restrictions on polution or those other fears you mention.

Just think, by going to nuclear energy we could restrict a *lot* of
pollution. Paying for pollution isn't a restriction, it's simply a way
to get the population to unwittingly pay more taxes.
--

John H
I don't know if I've ever conversed with a conservative who was for
implementing pollution restrictions for anything. That's what the whole
*there is no such thing as global warming* is about.

Well, you're conversing with one now. However, we don't share the same
*opinions* regarding the source of global warming. At least count, the
scientists supporting your view were about 1/16 of the scientists
supporting the opposing view.

I would love to see plastic water bottles banned from sale.

I noticed no comment on the use of nuclear energy, which would greatly
reduce pollution, and, in your eyes anyway, global warming.
--

John H

Little John wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:58:04 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Little John wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:17:48 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Guru of Woodstock wrote:
In short - stuff it.

"A funny thing happened on the way to saving the world’s poor from the
ravages of global warming. The poor told the warming alarmists to get
lost."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main
Yep, like the Republicans, they are afraid that if someone puts
restrictions on pollution, they won't be able to keep on living and
working in open sewers and air so bad that they need oxygen masks.
Strange...I know a lot of Republicans and not is afraid of
restrictions on polution or those other fears you mention.

Just think, by going to nuclear energy we could restrict a *lot* of
pollution. Paying for pollution isn't a restriction, it's simply a way
to get the population to unwittingly pay more taxes.
--

John H
I don't know if I've ever conversed with a conservative who was for
implementing pollution restrictions for anything. That's what the whole
*there is no such thing as global warming* is about.

Well, you're conversing with one now. However, we don't share the same
*opinions* regarding the source of global warming. At least count, the
scientists supporting your view were about 1/16 of the scientists
supporting the opposing view.

I would love to see plastic water bottles banned from sale.

I noticed no comment on the use of nuclear energy, which would greatly
reduce pollution, and, in your eyes anyway, global warming.
--

John H
I'm all for nuclear energy. Have never stated otherwise.

On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:17:48 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Guru of Woodstock wrote:
In short - stuff it.

"A funny thing happened on the way to saving the world’s poor from the
ravages of global warming. The poor told the warming alarmists to get
lost."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main

Yep, like the Republicans, they are afraid that if someone puts
restrictions on pollution, they won't be able to keep on living and
working in open sewers and air so bad that they need oxygen masks.

You didn't read the article did you?

"But what about all the pollution in India and particularly China? In
Mr. Leslie’s telling, CO2 emissions are part-and-parcel with common
pollutants such as particulate matter, toxic waste, and everything
else typically associated with a degraded environment. They’re not.
The U.S. and China produce equivalent quantities of carbon dioxide.
But try naming a U.S. city whose air quality is even remotely as bad
as Beijing’s, or an American river as polluted as the Han: You can’t.
America, the richer and more industrialized country, is also by far
the cleaner one."

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:17:48 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Guru of Woodstock wrote:
In short - stuff it.

"A funny thing happened on the way to saving the world’s poor from the
ravages of global warming. The poor told the warming alarmists to get
lost."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main
Yep, like the Republicans, they are afraid that if someone puts
restrictions on pollution, they won't be able to keep on living and
working in open sewers and air so bad that they need oxygen masks.

You didn't read the article did you?

Yes.

"But what about all the pollution in India and particularly China? In
Mr. Leslie’s telling, CO2 emissions are part-and-parcel with common
pollutants such as particulate matter, toxic waste, and everything
else typically associated with a degraded environment. They’re not.
The U.S. and China produce equivalent quantities of carbon dioxide.
But try naming a U.S. city whose air quality is even remotely as bad
as Beijing’s, or an American river as polluted as the Han: You can’t.
America, the richer and more industrialized country, is also by far
the cleaner one."

Goes to show that environmental laws DO help.