"Global warming research"

it costs the US about 2 billion per year (the same amount we give to Israel, but at least they use it to kill palestinians) to do this "research", most of it is politicised leftist guess-work about how humanity is horrible and destructive and how we should spend $100 trillion on Kyoto to lower the global temperature by 0.07C by 2050 (!).

>>17
Wow, what a retard.  Where to begin..

"You aren't allowed to use that defense since everyone here is pretty certain that if you don't give a fuck about your own environment, that you most definately don't give a flying fuck about quote-unquote "poor people"."

I care more for poor people than I do for the environment.  Thus, if a given law that benefits the environment but raises the cost of living, negatively affecting standard of living of working class and poor people, I will oppose it to provide a higher standard of living for said people whom I favor over having a greener world.  I *do* care for the poor, and I, unlike the elitist-environmentalists, care for the poor before I care for the environment.

"Your argument is wack as fuck; the cost of environmentalism wouldn't be kicked down to the lower class if our economy was restructured in the first place like >>6 said"

I don't know whether the economic restructurization would help or not, but this is besides the point.  Environmentalism *does* hurt low-average income people, and doesn't affect upper class elitists at all.

"Cut the bullshit, if you don't care about the planet just fucking say that already and cut it with the "it'll hurt poor peeps" crap. No one should be subjected to your unbelievable bullshit."

Its not that I don't care about the planet.  I do.  However, I put low-income people before I put my concerns about the environment.