CDZ Two-Thirds of Americans Want U.S. to Join Climate Change Pact

[Weatherman2020]

A solid majority of Americans say the United States should join an international treaty to limit the impact of global warming, but on this and other climate-related questions, opinion divides sharply along partisan lines, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Two-thirds of Americans support the United States joining a binding international agreement to curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but a slim majority of Republicans remain opposed, the poll found. Sixty-three percent of Americans — including a bare majority of Republicans — said they would support domestic policy limiting carbon emissions from power plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/w...-change-republicans-democrats.html?ref=europe

Frankly, I don't see what there is to be partisan about. What can possibly be the positive thing about doing nothing to lower the levels of carbon emissions on the only planet we know of capable of supporting life as we know it?

People in poverty can eat, have a roof over their heads, and work hard to prosper.

 

[TNHarley]

A solid majority of Americans say the United States should join an international treaty to limit the impact of global warming, but on this and other climate-related questions, opinion divides sharply along partisan lines, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Two-thirds of Americans support the United States joining a binding international agreement to curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but a slim majority of Republicans remain opposed, the poll found. Sixty-three percent of Americans — including a bare majority of Republicans — said they would support domestic policy limiting carbon emissions from power plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/w...-change-republicans-democrats.html?ref=europe

Frankly, I don't see what there is to be partisan about. What can possibly be the positive thing about doing nothing to lower the levels of carbon emissions on the only planet we know of capable of supporting life as we know it and that we have the ability to reach?

Its the way people go about it. The people that fund all of the Climate change research. It is several things, really. That being said, I see no problem with reasonable changes.

 

[320 Years of History]

A solid majority of Americans say the United States should join an international treaty to limit the impact of global warming, but on this and other climate-related questions, opinion divides sharply along partisan lines, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Two-thirds of Americans support the United States joining a binding international agreement to curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but a slim majority of Republicans remain opposed, the poll found. Sixty-three percent of Americans — including a bare majority of Republicans — said they would support domestic policy limiting carbon emissions from power plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/w...-change-republicans-democrats.html?ref=europe

Frankly, I don't see what there is to be partisan about. What can possibly be the positive thing about doing nothing to lower the levels of carbon emissions on the only planet we know of capable of supporting life as we know it?

People in poverty can eat, have a roof over their heads, and work hard to prosper.

And you are saying those are impossible achievements if we have lower levels of carbon emissions in our air?

 

[TNHarley]

I am all for rational and responsible ways to curb emissions and what-not but the rest is a fools party.

Not sure what you mean by "the rest," but what amazes me about the conversation is the assumption by some that efforts to provide clean air, clean water, and renewable resources to replace the inevitable End of Petroleum will somehow "mean we'll all have to give up our cars and end up eating bark and leaves."

I don't get that one...

There is no "inevitable End of Petroleum." Get over yourself and your ignorance.

I saw on Nat Geo a few weeks ago that with our population and current trends, we would be going through enough resources for 3 planets in 100 years. I understand the Earth makes oil but damn lol

Nat Geo is now run by LW kooks. Take everything they say with a grain of salt.

They got bought by Murdoch. lol
But I couldn't disagree with what the scientist wasn't talking about. A lot of it seemed like common sense and basic math.

 

[Arianrhod]

Then there are the diversionary tactics.

"I don't accept your source because Reasons."
"Hey, let's talk about Hillary or Obama or Hillary and Obama or anything except the topic..."

lol right? That reminds me of the Sierra Club telling cruz "you have to listen to people sometimes instead of facts" Or something to that effect

It would be interesting to have access to the entire conversation, not just a sound bite making the rounds among Cruz supporters, but in any case it's still just a sidebar to the actual topic.

Ultimately, facts don't care about people's feelings.

It's funny, no one here would argue that, for example, gravity is "just an opinion." But the longer I post here, the more I wonder whether, if Newton were retconned into a "libtard," some here would make that exact claim.

 

[Weatherman2020]

A solid majority of Americans say the United States should join an international treaty to limit the impact of global warming, but on this and other climate-related questions, opinion divides sharply along partisan lines, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Two-thirds of Americans support the United States joining a binding international agreement to curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but a slim majority of Republicans remain opposed, the poll found. Sixty-three percent of Americans — including a bare majority of Republicans — said they would support domestic policy limiting carbon emissions from power plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/w...-change-republicans-democrats.html?ref=europe

Frankly, I don't see what there is to be partisan about. What can possibly be the positive thing about doing nothing to lower the levels of carbon emissions on the only planet we know of capable of supporting life as we know it?

People in poverty can eat, have a roof over their heads, and work hard to prosper.

And you are saying those are impossible achievements if we have lower levels of carbon emissions in our air?

Electricity costs are skyrocketing in California. How does that help a family with 2 kids that makes $32,000 a year and pays $1,200 a month rent?

 

[TNHarley]

Then there are the diversionary tactics.

"I don't accept your source because Reasons."
"Hey, let's talk about Hillary or Obama or Hillary and Obama or anything except the topic..."

lol right? That reminds me of the Sierra Club telling cruz "you have to listen to people sometimes instead of facts" Or something to that effect

It would be interesting to have access to the entire conversation, not just a sound bite making the rounds among Cruz supporters, but in any case it's still just a sidebar to the actual topic.

Ultimately, facts don't care about people's feelings.

It's funny, no one here would argue that, for example, gravity is "just an opinion." But the longer I post here, the more I wonder whether, if Newton were retconned into a "libtard," some here would make that exact claim.

I saw the whole thing. There was no spinning lol.
No they don't. Someone actually told me the other day that truth is subjective. Can you believe that? lol

 

[Dot Com]

Global Warming was responsible for the PP Shooter, so yeah, we need to really take a look at it

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

A solid majority of Americans say the United States should join an international treaty to limit the impact of global warming, but on this and other climate-related questions, opinion divides sharply along partisan lines, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Two-thirds of Americans support the United States joining a binding international agreement to curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but a slim majority of Republicans remain opposed, the poll found. Sixty-three percent of Americans — including a bare majority of Republicans — said they would support domestic policy limiting carbon emissions from power plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/w...-change-republicans-democrats.html?ref=europe

Shrug. Another bogus NYT/CBS poll.

Sixty-three percent of Americans don't even know there's a meeting in Paris, much less what's in the "international agreement".

 

[MisterBeale]

I am all for rational and responsible ways to curb emissions and what-not but the rest is a fools party.

Not sure what you mean by "the rest," but what amazes me about the conversation is the assumption by some that efforts to provide clean air, clean water, and renewable resources to replace the inevitable End of Petroleum will somehow "mean we'll all have to give up our cars and end up eating bark and leaves."

I don't get that one...

There is no "inevitable End of Petroleum."

Evidence?

http://www.uamsibiu.ro/publicatii/Series A - Economic Sciences/Vol8no1 2015Ec/Articole/16-Rizea-Re-evaluation of.pdf

Oil is NOT a fossil fuel and AGW is non-science

Russians & NASA Discredit 'Fossil Fuel' Theory: Demise of Junk CO2 Science
Russians & NASA Discredit 'Fossil Fuel' Theory: Demise of Junk CO2 Science

But with that notion now exploded in the article 'NASA Finds Lakes of Hydrocarbons on Saturn's Moon, Titan' thanks to NASA’s Cassini spacecraft, energy scientists are now compelled to admit that petroleum oil is, in fact, substantially mineral in origin and occuring all through the galaxies.


Two Years ago it was reported that the Max Planck Institute, Germany have discovered that the Horse Head Nebula galaxy in the Orion constellation contains a vast field of hydrocarbon (see 'Top German Scientists Discover 'Fossil Fuel' in the Stars').


As such, long-held fears about Earth's shrinking 'fossil fuel' reserves may be bogus. These important new cosmological discoveries come coincidentally at a time when huge succeses in American oil drilling technology ('frakking') are bringing a glut of oil onto the energy markets, causing a slide in global oil prices. Fresh oil reserves are being struck all over - some miles beneath the oceans, where Dino the dinosaur never roamed.


Jesus, where have you been? Peak oil theory is SOOO 1990's. Are you seriously telling me you haven't heard of frakking?

 

[320 Years of History]

A solid majority of Americans say the United States should join an international treaty to limit the impact of global warming, but on this and other climate-related questions, opinion divides sharply along partisan lines, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Two-thirds of Americans support the United States joining a binding international agreement to curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but a slim majority of Republicans remain opposed, the poll found. Sixty-three percent of Americans — including a bare majority of Republicans — said they would support domestic policy limiting carbon emissions from power plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/w...-change-republicans-democrats.html?ref=europe

Frankly, I don't see what there is to be partisan about. What can possibly be the positive thing about doing nothing to lower the levels of carbon emissions on the only planet we know of capable of supporting life as we know it and that we have the ability to reach?

Its the way people go about it. The people that fund all of the Climate change research. It is several things, really. That being said, I see no problem with reasonable changes.

Who funds the research doesn't matter one bit. There are certain things that are really simple:

• From time to time, Mother Nature dumps huge quantities of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
• Higher levels of carbon in the air result in a warmer overall climate/planet.
• An overall warmer climate will result in some things concerning the natural world changing from what they are now.
• Mother Nature's periodic "carbon farts" plus the huge amounts people produce is a whole lot more than either one alone.
• When MN has her next big bout of flatulence happens, the planet will incur all that much greater an impact for that much longer a period given that it's combined with our our gas emissions.
• I'm really quite satisfied with how climate-related "things" are now, and how they were 40 years ago seems better.
  
• If there is some chance that humans can get the climate back to what it was 40 or 400 years ago, I'm all for it.
• A warmer planet means higher sea levels.
• Most major cities, and all the ones I can think of that matter most, are on or very near a body of water.
• HIgher sea levels means less land.
• Humans are land animals.

The short of it is that when it comes to the planet itself, I'm much more risk averse than I am about most everything else. I don't have a fallback planet available if this one goes to "shit" environmentally. If I did, I might feel differently, but I don't. Do you?

 

[Weatherman2020]

I am all for rational and responsible ways to curb emissions and what-not but the rest is a fools party.

Not sure what you mean by "the rest," but what amazes me about the conversation is the assumption by some that efforts to provide clean air, clean water, and renewable resources to replace the inevitable End of Petroleum will somehow "mean we'll all have to give up our cars and end up eating bark and leaves."

I don't get that one...

There is no "inevitable End of Petroleum."

Evidence?

http://www.uamsibiu.ro/publicatii/Series A - Economic Sciences/Vol8no1 2015Ec/Articole/16-Rizea-Re-evaluation of.pdf

Oil is NOT a fossil fuel and AGW is non-science

Russians & NASA Discredit 'Fossil Fuel' Theory: Demise of Junk CO2 Science
Russians & NASA Discredit 'Fossil Fuel' Theory: Demise of Junk CO2 Science

But with that notion now exploded in the article 'NASA Finds Lakes of Hydrocarbons on Saturn's Moon, Titan' thanks to NASA’s Cassini spacecraft, energy scientists are now compelled to admit that petroleum oil is, in fact, substantially mineral in origin and occuring all through the galaxies.


Two Years ago it was reported that the Max Planck Institute, Germany have discovered that the Horse Head Nebula galaxy in the Orion constellation contains a vast field of hydrocarbon (see 'Top German Scientists Discover 'Fossil Fuel' in the Stars').


As such, long-held fears about Earth's shrinking 'fossil fuel' reserves may be bogus. These important new cosmological discoveries come coincidentally at a time when huge succeses in American oil drilling technology ('frakking') are bringing a glut of oil onto the energy markets, causing a slide in global oil prices. Fresh oil reserves are being struck all over - some miles beneath the oceans, where Dino the dinosaur never roamed.


Jesus, where have you been? Peak oil theory is SOOO 1990's. Are you seriously telling me you haven't heard of frakking?

There are news stories that oil was going to run out in the 1920's.

 

[320 Years of History]

A solid majority of Americans say the United States should join an international treaty to limit the impact of global warming, but on this and other climate-related questions, opinion divides sharply along partisan lines, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Two-thirds of Americans support the United States joining a binding international agreement to curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but a slim majority of Republicans remain opposed, the poll found. Sixty-three percent of Americans — including a bare majority of Republicans — said they would support domestic policy limiting carbon emissions from power plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/w...-change-republicans-democrats.html?ref=europe

Frankly, I don't see what there is to be partisan about. What can possibly be the positive thing about doing nothing to lower the levels of carbon emissions on the only planet we know of capable of supporting life as we know it?

People in poverty can eat, have a roof over their heads, and work hard to prosper.

And you are saying those are impossible achievements if we have lower levels of carbon emissions in our air?

Electricity costs are skyrocketing in California. How does that help a family with 2 kids that makes $32,000 a year and pays $1,200 a month rent?

I really don't care what electricity costs. The price I'm unwilling to countenance paying is a planet.

 

[TNHarley]

A solid majority of Americans say the United States should join an international treaty to limit the impact of global warming, but on this and other climate-related questions, opinion divides sharply along partisan lines, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Two-thirds of Americans support the United States joining a binding international agreement to curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but a slim majority of Republicans remain opposed, the poll found. Sixty-three percent of Americans — including a bare majority of Republicans — said they would support domestic policy limiting carbon emissions from power plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/w...-change-republicans-democrats.html?ref=europe

Frankly, I don't see what there is to be partisan about. What can possibly be the positive thing about doing nothing to lower the levels of carbon emissions on the only planet we know of capable of supporting life as we know it and that we have the ability to reach?

Its the way people go about it. The people that fund all of the Climate change research. It is several things, really. That being said, I see no problem with reasonable changes.

Who funds the research doesn't matter one bit. There are certain things that are really simple:

• From time to time, Mother Nature dumps huge quantities of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
• Higher levels of carbon in the air result in a warmer overall climate/planet.
• An overall warmer climate will result in some things concerning the natural world changing from what they are now.
• Mother Nature's periodic "carbon farts" plus the huge amounts people produce is a whole lot more than either one alone.
• When MN has her next big bout of flatulence happens, the planet will incur all that much greater an impact for that much longer a period given that it's combined with our our gas emissions.
• I'm really quite satisfied with how climate-related "things" are now, and how they were 40 years ago seems better.
  
• If there is some chance that humans can get the climate back to what it was 40 or 400 years ago, I'm all for it.
• A warmer planet means higher sea levels.
• Most major cities, and all the ones I can think of that matter most, are on or very near a body of water.
• HIgher sea levels means less land.
• Humans are land animals.

The short of it is that when it comes to the planet itself, I'm much more risk averse than I am about most everything else. I don't have a fallback planet available if this one goes to "shit" environmentally. If I did, I might feel differently, but I don't. Do you?

Funding matters ALOT What happens if you don't produce the results they wanted?
The UN is one of the biggest contributors to the research. The UN are a bunch of globalists. What easier way to "bring us together"? Fear tactics, if you will. Lets not be naïve.
I said that I agree with reasonable changes/regulation.

 

[Weatherman2020]

A solid majority of Americans say the United States should join an international treaty to limit the impact of global warming, but on this and other climate-related questions, opinion divides sharply along partisan lines, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Two-thirds of Americans support the United States joining a binding international agreement to curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but a slim majority of Republicans remain opposed, the poll found. Sixty-three percent of Americans — including a bare majority of Republicans — said they would support domestic policy limiting carbon emissions from power plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/w...-change-republicans-democrats.html?ref=europe

Frankly, I don't see what there is to be partisan about. What can possibly be the positive thing about doing nothing to lower the levels of carbon emissions on the only planet we know of capable of supporting life as we know it and that we have the ability to reach?

Its the way people go about it. The people that fund all of the Climate change research. It is several things, really. That being said, I see no problem with reasonable changes.

Who funds the research doesn't matter one bit. There are certain things that are really simple:

• From time to time, Mother Nature dumps huge quantities of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
• Higher levels of carbon in the air result in a warmer overall climate/planet.
• An overall warmer climate will result in some things concerning the natural world changing from what they are now.
• Mother Nature's periodic "carbon farts" plus the huge amounts people produce is a whole lot more than either one alone.
• When MN has her next big bout of flatulence happens, the planet will incur all that much greater an impact for that much longer a period given that it's combined with our our gas emissions.
• I'm really quite satisfied with how climate-related "things" are now, and how they were 40 years ago seems better.
  
• If there is some chance that humans can get the climate back to what it was 40 or 400 years ago, I'm all for it.
• A warmer planet means higher sea levels.
• Most major cities, and all the ones I can think of that matter most, are on or very near a body of water.
• HIgher sea levels means less land.
• Humans are land animals.

The short of it is that when it comes to the planet itself, I'm much more risk averse than I am about most everything else. I don't have a fallback planet available if this one goes to "shit" environmentally. If I did, I might feel differently, but I don't. Do you?

So Marlboro funding a study on smoking does not matter to you as far as the study results? Riiiight....

 

[320 Years of History]

I am all for rational and responsible ways to curb emissions and what-not but the rest is a fools party.

Not sure what you mean by "the rest," but what amazes me about the conversation is the assumption by some that efforts to provide clean air, clean water, and renewable resources to replace the inevitable End of Petroleum will somehow "mean we'll all have to give up our cars and end up eating bark and leaves."

I don't get that one...

There is no "inevitable End of Petroleum."

Evidence?

http://www.uamsibiu.ro/publicatii/Series A - Economic Sciences/Vol8no1 2015Ec/Articole/16-Rizea-Re-evaluation of.pdf

Oil is NOT a fossil fuel and AGW is non-science

Russians & NASA Discredit 'Fossil Fuel' Theory: Demise of Junk CO2 Science
Russians & NASA Discredit 'Fossil Fuel' Theory: Demise of Junk CO2 Science

But with that notion now exploded in the article 'NASA Finds Lakes of Hydrocarbons on Saturn's Moon, Titan' thanks to NASA’s Cassini spacecraft, energy scientists are now compelled to admit that petroleum oil is, in fact, substantially mineral in origin and occuring all through the galaxies.


Two Years ago it was reported that the Max Planck Institute, Germany have discovered that the Horse Head Nebula galaxy in the Orion constellation contains a vast field of hydrocarbon (see 'Top German Scientists Discover 'Fossil Fuel' in the Stars').


As such, long-held fears about Earth's shrinking 'fossil fuel' reserves may be bogus. These important new cosmological discoveries come coincidentally at a time when huge succeses in American oil drilling technology ('frakking') are bringing a glut of oil onto the energy markets, causing a slide in global oil prices. Fresh oil reserves are being struck all over - some miles beneath the oceans, where Dino the dinosaur never roamed.


Jesus, where have you been? Peak oil theory is SOOO 1990's. Are you seriously telling me you haven't heard of frakking?

??? While it is so that petroleum is a hydrocarbon, not all hydrocarbons are petroleum.

What in the reference you provided asserts that scientists concur that petroleum oil is substantially mineral in origin?

What does a supposed "mineral in origin" nature for hydrocarbons have to do with burning the stuff and dumping it into our atmosphere?

 

[Weatherman2020]

A solid majority of Americans say the United States should join an international treaty to limit the impact of global warming, but on this and other climate-related questions, opinion divides sharply along partisan lines, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Two-thirds of Americans support the United States joining a binding international agreement to curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but a slim majority of Republicans remain opposed, the poll found. Sixty-three percent of Americans — including a bare majority of Republicans — said they would support domestic policy limiting carbon emissions from power plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/w...-change-republicans-democrats.html?ref=europe

Frankly, I don't see what there is to be partisan about. What can possibly be the positive thing about doing nothing to lower the levels of carbon emissions on the only planet we know of capable of supporting life as we know it?

People in poverty can eat, have a roof over their heads, and work hard to prosper.

And you are saying those are impossible achievements if we have lower levels of carbon emissions in our air?

Electricity costs are skyrocketing in California. How does that help a family with 2 kids that makes $32,000 a year and pays $1,200 a month rent?

I really don't care what electricity costs. The price I'm unwilling to countenance paying is a planet.

Obviously you don't care about poor people. No one pushing for more government regulations on the myth do.

 

[Weatherman2020]

A solid majority of Americans say the United States should join an international treaty to limit the impact of global warming, but on this and other climate-related questions, opinion divides sharply along partisan lines, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Two-thirds of Americans support the United States joining a binding international agreement to curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but a slim majority of Republicans remain opposed, the poll found. Sixty-three percent of Americans — including a bare majority of Republicans — said they would support domestic policy limiting carbon emissions from power plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/w...-change-republicans-democrats.html?ref=europe

Frankly, I don't see what there is to be partisan about. What can possibly be the positive thing about doing nothing to lower the levels of carbon emissions on the only planet we know of capable of supporting life as we know it?

People in poverty can eat, have a roof over their heads, and work hard to prosper.

And you are saying those are impossible achievements if we have lower levels of carbon emissions in our air?

Electricity costs are skyrocketing in California. How does that help a family with 2 kids that makes $32,000 a year and pays $1,200 a month rent?

I really don't care what electricity costs. The price I'm unwilling to countenance paying is a planet.

Did you know posting 62 messages is the equivilant to driving a car half a mile? I can find the link if you want. Shameful you choose to destroy the planet instead of no posting here.

 

[320 Years of History]

A solid majority of Americans say the United States should join an international treaty to limit the impact of global warming, but on this and other climate-related questions, opinion divides sharply along partisan lines, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Two-thirds of Americans support the United States joining a binding international agreement to curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but a slim majority of Republicans remain opposed, the poll found. Sixty-three percent of Americans — including a bare majority of Republicans — said they would support domestic policy limiting carbon emissions from power plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/w...-change-republicans-democrats.html?ref=europe

Frankly, I don't see what there is to be partisan about. What can possibly be the positive thing about doing nothing to lower the levels of carbon emissions on the only planet we know of capable of supporting life as we know it and that we have the ability to reach?

Its the way people go about it. The people that fund all of the Climate change research. It is several things, really. That being said, I see no problem with reasonable changes.

Who funds the research doesn't matter one bit. There are certain things that are really simple:

• From time to time, Mother Nature dumps huge quantities of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
• Higher levels of carbon in the air result in a warmer overall climate/planet.
• An overall warmer climate will result in some things concerning the natural world changing from what they are now.
• Mother Nature's periodic "carbon farts" plus the huge amounts people produce is a whole lot more than either one alone.
• When MN has her next big bout of flatulence happens, the planet will incur all that much greater an impact for that much longer a period given that it's combined with our our gas emissions.
• I'm really quite satisfied with how climate-related "things" are now, and how they were 40 years ago seems better.
  
• If there is some chance that humans can get the climate back to what it was 40 or 400 years ago, I'm all for it.
• A warmer planet means higher sea levels.
• Most major cities, and all the ones I can think of that matter most, are on or very near a body of water.
• HIgher sea levels means less land.
• Humans are land animals.

The short of it is that when it comes to the planet itself, I'm much more risk averse than I am about most everything else. I don't have a fallback planet available if this one goes to "shit" environmentally. If I did, I might feel differently, but I don't. Do you?

Funding matters ALOT What happens if you don't produce the results they wanted?
The UN is one of the biggest contributors to the research. The UN are a bunch of globalists. What easier way to "bring us together"? Fear tactics, if you will. Lets not be naïve.
I said that I agree with reasonable changes/regulation.

Funding matters a lot insofar as it is made available. Who makes it available is irrelevant for any objectively structured study. I care far more about the quality of the study than I do about who provided the money for it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

bs not many these days believe your phony poll

let alone the fake results