Anyone that claims that CNN is not corrupt, thoroughly corrupt, will find it hard to defend that headline. CNN is in the business of trying to influence people and votes not report the news.
Hahahaha CNN Headline: Trump to planet: Drop Dead
- Thread starter DvlDog4WVU
- Start date
Anyone that claims that CNN is not corrupt, thoroughly corrupt, will find it hard to defend that headline. CNN is in the business of trying to influence people and votes not report the news.
It's all that matters if you're trying to make a completely irrelevant comparison in order to downplay the ridiculousness of your position. Let's play math for a second and pretend our per capita carbon footprint is 2-1, ithat of China per 100 million people. It's not, but since we're already in absurdville oN this train, I'll spot you some points.
Carbon footprint in US (347 million)
2+2+2+.9= 6.9
Carbon footprint of China (1.37 billion)
1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+.7= 13.7
Carbon footprint of India 1.34 billion)
1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+.7= 13.4
Two countries doing **** all in the PCA when using my absurdly unfavorable ratio still double us in total carbon footprint. So yea, when you bring up per capita while trying to make a real argument, it's hilarious to me that A you think you've made a cogent point and B. Have the ignorance to double down on it.
Okay then, I guess if China killed a billion of their people then they'd be better than us. Makes sense.
I can't believe I'm actually having to argue about per capita being the right way to look at things. Where is Alan Funt and the hidden camera?
If China killed a billion of their people then we'd be worse than them. As it stands, they haven't and we aren't.
Look at it this way, since you're an enviro freak. You pour 1 gallon of toxic chemicals in a water source using the same logic. Which country is polluting more?
Total footprint is what matters not the ridiculous ratio.
Exactamundo. Well said. Obama entered this agreement to simply attain his usual goal of redistributing America's wealth to the rest of the world. F*k him and the rest of the America haters on this board and across the globe.
I'm not an enviro freak and that is the problem in all this for Trump, namely it's not extremists on the other side.
I'll pour 1 gallon of toxic chemical in a container containing 1 gallon of water and 2 gallons of toxic chemicals in a space containing the water of 100 Olympic swimming pools. Which do you want to drink from? I assume the first one because it has the lesser amount of toxic chemicals. For me, I'll choose the one with less toxic chemicals per unit.
Y
You won't get an answer. Leftists are NEVER held to account for or justify their 100% misses or false predictions on our imminent gloom and doom from man made interruption of the normal conditions of our climate.
NEVER.
All they do is make dire predictions unless the U.S. pays, and when their predictions don't turn out to be true or they don't get enough money from us, they just change the predictions and then demand more money.
You won't get an answer. Leftists are NEVER held to account for or justify their 100% misses or false predictions on our imminent gloom and doom from man made interruption of the normal conditions of our climate.
NEVER.
All they do is make dire predictions unless the U.S. pays, and when their predictions don't turn out to be true or they don't get enough money from us, they just change the predictions and then demand more money.
Wait.... I didn't realize that Global Warming was a per capita issue. Didn't realize that we measure Global Warming by the capita of a nation and not the temperature. [eyeroll]
The point is simple. Obama agreed to ****. Trump didn't. Trump has the power to undo it.
Doesn't mean the US can't work towards improving our emissions on our own.
Reminds me of the LEED certification ******** I see in Construction. As if we need special certifications to design and build "Green" buildings.
The point is simple. Obama agreed to ****. Trump didn't. Trump has the power to undo it.
Doesn't mean the US can't work towards improving our emissions on our own.
Reminds me of the LEED certification ******** I see in Construction. As if we need special certifications to design and build "Green" buildings.
I don't see the math error. Enlighten me. It looks to me like the 1st scenario is 2 gallons of liquid, 1 gallon or 50% of which is toxic chemicals and the 2nd scenario is about a million gallons of liquid, 2 gallons or about 0.005% of which is toxic chemicals.
And after looking up the size of an Olympic sized swimming pool (660,000 gallons) I can be more precise and say 100 of them have 66,000,000 million gallons of water so adding 2 gallons of toxic chemicals to that would make it about 0.000003% toxic chemicals.
I'm going to take my chances on the one that contains 2 gallons of toxic chemicals rather than the one that contains 1 gallon.