1. The UN (did you hear that, lefties? The U-freakin'-N!) says that cow farts are the world's greatest threat to climate, forests, and wildlife. Didn't we hear this story in the 80s, and wasn't it poo-poo'd (pardon the pun) then?
2. Local pollution will destroy some pre-Aztec stone murals in "10, 20 or 100 years". Unless Mexico implements stricter pollution controls, this will continue. Acid rain was a topic of discussion in the US Northeast back in the early 80s, a topic that was sometimes discussed at West Point (with it's granite-like buildings).
13 comments:
lol bill o'reilly was on the colbert report? do u like him
I don't know about "like", but I don't find Colbert very funny.
But what does that have to do with these environmental stories?
I wonder how much PETA paid them to place that story. The more I hear these folks the more I think it's just one little group of quacks that like to speculate and distribute all this sort of stuff. Remember when kids weren't supposed to drink milk? Or when we were supposed to substitute margarine for butter for our health? I don't think they have a clue.
I was raised on a cattle farm (the midwestern equivalent of a ranch, as opposed to a dairy farm), and there are things more perilous on the farm than cow farts.
y dont u like colbert?
The few clips I've seen of him--including the "famous" one of him with the President--I didn't think he was funny. He didn't make me laugh.
Oh... the toast thing? That was hilarious... he got Bush so badly. I'm amazed they let him perform.
I thought it lame. I think I cracked a smile once.
Nowhere in the article does it state that methane from cows is more prevalent than carbon dioxide or poses more of a threat in its current state than carbon dioxide. In fact, a quick check on the EPA website shows that methane emissions are decreasing (and are ten times less prevalent), while CO2 is increasing. Also, with a study from the Food and Agriculture Organisation is obviously going to make their focus on livestock emissions. The study is highlighting the effects; it is not saying that they are more dangerous than carbon dioxide. Great straightforward reporting!
Man, it's gotta suck carrying the water for the anti-global warming crowd only to have W announce--at the State of the freakin' Union--that he's on board with the fact that human activity is the cause of the very real climate change going on here on the homeworld.
Sold out by you're own man. My sympathy to ya...
You must have heard a different SOTU address than I did. He *mentioned* global climate change, that's it.
Damn, you lefties will stop at nothing.
Bush: "America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."
Which Bush would say such a thing?
A. The one who thinks global warming is a hoax and isn't caused by human activity.
B. The one who delivered the SOTU this week.
The correct answer is B.
If human activity isn't the cause of the global warming that isn't even happening, it surely can't do anything to reverse the non-existent damage.
But please, sell us your spin on the line.
I disagree with your interpretation.
Additionally, your "gotcha" tone isn't consistent with reasoned debate on the topic. Since you've shown yourself not to be able to discuss this like an adult, go discuss it somewhere else.
Post a Comment