|
I don't know if you have kids or not, so why would I be talking about *your* kids? It's fine if you don't have, or like, kids. The point of that statement was to provide a timeframe of the effects of global warming. Yes, kids tugs on the heartstrings, but no, it's not the crux of the argument. I alluded to this with the "50 years or 500 years" statement.
> it doesn't. but YOU brought up the kids, homie. LOL
And you're still talking about kids without talking about my actual points.
> oh well let me acknowledge it here. > Obama vetoed to save face in international politics. as usual. > did i acknowledge it?
Thanks, you did. Note that it directly refutes your original point.
> that YOU made, homie. Still focused on the kids?
> you brought up the kids, pal.
And still focused on the kids. Point wasn't about the kids, point was about the timeframe.
> and it's been said that this Keystone veto won't have much impact on global warming, right? > i thought i read that. maybe didn't.
Wrong. You don't understand the issue. The Keystone pipeline *itself* has a disputable impact on global warming (depending on who you ask). The Keystone *VETO* has major impact regarding global policy. There is a massive difference here.
> if you can tell me that this veto means the weather won't get freakier for me here in Chicago > then i'm all for it. if you can show me that this veto means the polar ice will re-freeze then > i'm about to print some 'FUCK THAT KEYSTONE BULLSHIT' t-shirts. if you can show me that the veto > means an end to the drought conditions in Cali so i don't have to take 5 minute showers when i > visit my folks out there then i'll make some 'KEYSTONE IS CRAPSTONE' signs and we get it on and > popping.
Didn't I already address this before you typed all that anecdotal stuff? Like I said in my first post, the China accord was well received across the world, but it means squat if Obama turns around and approves Keystone. And in my second post, I talked about how it will take decades to fix global warming. So no, I'm sorry, the veto itself doesn't directly fix YOUR Chicago weather, but it's an impactful decision for decades to come.
> some ppl are so closed minded they think the only open minds are the ones that agree with them.
You don't have to agree with me. But you're not exactly providing actual evidence that is changing my mind. I'm sorry, like I said, your personal experiences have no bearing on national policy.
Here's some evidence right here:
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2014/12/09/us-china-global-warming-deal-could-signal-shift-on-climate-change
You want to provide some reputable links to support your position now?
|