On November 27 2011 06:32 Bigtony wrote: Not worth replying if you just completely ignore what I'm saying and continue to do the exact same thing I pointed out in my first post. You are making a massive assumption about what is a right - ex 'it is a fact that.' No, it's a "fact" according to people who share your position! I believe that it is within the bounds of a society to decide what is a right. What is morally ok and what is not morally ok (which is not always a 'logical' decision) and when they feel inclined, make laws regarding those issues. This is how our entire government is set up. I also don't think the world is a homogenous place, nor does it need to be. This is why we have different countries and states, so that you can live in a place with like minded people who more or less agree on how society should be run.
Okay, if you want to have a retarded opinion, go for it. However: your own constitution guarantees that people have rights. You're not part of a society that says rights don't exist, or that rights are subjective. If they were, then you wouldn't be able to forbid gay marriage on the same grounds! It would be just someone's opinion!
Again, let me put it this way: you seem like the sort of fellow who probably thinks the Holocaust was bad. However, you may be interested to know that everything Hitler did was completely and totally legal according to German law, and that Hitler acquired power in a manner that's actually less illegal than you probably thought. There was no uprising against him by the vast majority of Germans, so clearly not many people were terribly opposed. So, is the Holocaust something that the rest of us should have just been "okay" with because a different culture of like-minded people thought killing Jews was okay? I mean, according to you that society is well within their bounds to conclude such a thing.
Morality is ALWAYS based on logic. If it isn't, it's non-sensible and you have no reason whatsoever to abide by it. Provide for me a consistent, logical argument against gay marriage that abides by the principles of your nation. Show me why it's immoral or should be made illegal. If you can't think of a good reason, then perhaps you need to reconsider your opinion about the Holocaust.
Morality is based on Assumptions... things like continued existence of the species is good or pain is bad many people can agree with those, but those are ASSUMPTIONS about goodness or badness with absolutely NO basis in logic.
5) gay marriage is a non-issue. you are not going to overturn this, and trying to give the states the right to do so under the guise of "constitutionality" is underhanded and bigoted and everyone knows it. stop trying to subtly undermine the rights of citizens, or, if you're going to, come right out and preach it. don't hide behind legalistic nonsense.
I'm always amused when gay marriage (or any similar issues) gets talked about as if it should be automatically accepted. People of any given country have the right to determine collectively what they think is good or bad, acceptable or not, prudent or not. Just like you said you don't get ton control where every cent of your taxes goes, just because you think something is a great idea doesn't mean everyone has to think so. Clearly the issue is not as black and white as you think, because a cursory web search will reveal that different countries have different laws and rulings on the subject. Who are YOU to say that your opinion is the best one? It is well within the confines of an orderly society to make these kinds of decisions.
Basically what you're doing is what pilgrims and explorers did hundreds of years ago - "oh these people have different beliefs from me. They must be retarded savages. We better beat our philosophies into them."
I disagree with your belief, however, that states shouldn't have power. I believe the states should have a majority of the power in deciding what is best for their own state, and that there should be a FEW federally mandated laws that are just common sense. Things like, equality, no slavery, no murder, teaching of proper science, etc. Things that are objectively good, no matter what.
My primary reason for wanting states to have a lot of power to make their own laws is this: The US is geographically larger than all of Europe combined. We have more variation in climate than Europe. We also have more concentrated urban areas, and more rural areas. With this in mind, the cultural, social, and economic differences between any given part of the US are often substantially larger than any area within Europe. As such, you can't just apply "blanket law" at a federal level because it wouldn't always be the best for certain portions of the country. Similarly, you wouldn't be able to just apply a "blanket law" across all of Europe because of geographically, social, cultural, and economic differences.
Excellent points that many people outside of the US do not understand. California and Kansas are like two different countries.
And you buddy better wake up and realize you are being manipulated and start worrying about real environmental issues like toxic materials being dumped into the water, genetically modified foods and too little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that would cause all life on earth to die.
I tried to keep an open mind about this until you got to GM foods. Do some research. GM foods are not a problem, they are a problem solver. Or, if you really believe what you say, you should stop eating the iodized salt that was developed only within the last century, and enjoy all the health problems that come along with the iodine deficiency. GM crops are the easiest and best way to solve problems like vitamin A deficiency, which in the developing world causes approximately 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind, roughly half of whom die within a year of going blind.
GM foods come with other problems like promotion of 1 crop farming (rather than crop rotation), which leads to soil depletion, erosion, insect infestations, rampant disease/fungal infections, etc. They can be great but they also promote styles of farming that are completely unsustainable.
Even if "global warming" is not "real" there are a host of other serious environmental issues that are rapidly getting out of hand.
Because its not about saving the rainforests and sustainability and health, its the opposite. You forgot that that is a two way picture and you posted the one side of it.
The other side is being taxed to starvation for something that doesn't even exist, for a scam. You realize we exhale carbon dioxide so that means we as humans release it in small amounts, although over the course of the lifetime you can say its pretty significant and I'm sure we've always joked at some point about politicians taxing us for breathing, well this is surely a big giant leap in that direction.
But lets for the sake of argument say there is global warming and its man made, although here winters are always pretty chilly, but never really too cold, same as ALWAYS! But lets say we take the example of Australia where they tax carbon dioxide. It means the only alternative to oil is being taxed and will lead to higher energy prices, destruction of the industry and with that monopolies of the oil companies over the energy sources and thus even more higher prices. Higher prices mean higher costs of production of all our stuff like bread, milk, whatever and that means huge increases in the cost of living, lower standards and outright the destruction of entire economies.
But I am to find yet one simple data that carbon dioxide is bad and that having it is actually killing the earth as opposed to actually having it. In fact from 2nd grade school we learn about photo-synthesis and how much plants love carbon dioxide. Its only the life source on earth and if its gone everything would be dead on this planet !!! Hello, its not rocket science its common sense.
If they went for smog I've probably believed all this crap and be like yeah tax everyone, do whatever you want to save us from the evil smog, save the planet and of course that is going to be used to tax us all to death, while the problems are actually going to increase.
Its like throwing wood at a fire to extinguish it, its like impossible.
5) gay marriage is a non-issue. you are not going to overturn this, and trying to give the states the right to do so under the guise of "constitutionality" is underhanded and bigoted and everyone knows it. stop trying to subtly undermine the rights of citizens, or, if you're going to, come right out and preach it. don't hide behind legalistic nonsense.
I'm always amused when gay marriage (or any similar issues) gets talked about as if it should be automatically accepted. People of any given country have the right to determine collectively what they think is good or bad, acceptable or not, prudent or not. Just like you said you don't get ton control where every cent of your taxes goes, just because you think something is a great idea doesn't mean everyone has to think so. Clearly the issue is not as black and white as you think, because a cursory web search will reveal that different countries have different laws and rulings on the subject. Who are YOU to say that your opinion is the best one? It is well within the confines of an orderly society to make these kinds of decisions.
Basically what you're doing is what pilgrims and explorers did hundreds of years ago - "oh these people have different beliefs from me. They must be retarded savages. We better beat our philosophies into them."
I disagree with your belief, however, that states shouldn't have power. I believe the states should have a majority of the power in deciding what is best for their own state, and that there should be a FEW federally mandated laws that are just common sense. Things like, equality, no slavery, no murder, teaching of proper science, etc. Things that are objectively good, no matter what.
My primary reason for wanting states to have a lot of power to make their own laws is this: The US is geographically larger than all of Europe combined. We have more variation in climate than Europe. We also have more concentrated urban areas, and more rural areas. With this in mind, the cultural, social, and economic differences between any given part of the US are often substantially larger than any area within Europe. As such, you can't just apply "blanket law" at a federal level because it wouldn't always be the best for certain portions of the country. Similarly, you wouldn't be able to just apply a "blanket law" across all of Europe because of geographically, social, cultural, and economic differences.
Excellent points that many people outside of the US do not understand. California and Kansas are like two different countries.
And you buddy better wake up and realize you are being manipulated and start worrying about real environmental issues like toxic materials being dumped into the water, genetically modified foods and too little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that would cause all life on earth to die.
I tried to keep an open mind about this until you got to GM foods. Do some research. GM foods are not a problem, they are a problem solver. Or, if you really believe what you say, you should stop eating the iodized salt that was developed only within the last century, and enjoy all the health problems that come along with the iodine deficiency. GM crops are the easiest and best way to solve problems like vitamin A deficiency, which in the developing world causes approximately 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind, roughly half of whom die within a year of going blind.
GM foods come with other problems like promotion of 1 crop farming (rather than crop rotation), which leads to soil depletion, erosion, insect infestations, rampant disease/fungal infections, etc. They can be great but they also promote styles of farming that are completely unsustainable.
Even if "global warming" is not "real" there are a host of other serious environmental issues that are rapidly getting out of hand.
Its like throwing wood at a fire to extinguish it, its like impossible.
I'm glad you said "like impossible" because I'm sure there is some obscene amount of wood that you could drop on a fire at the same time to smother it.
5) gay marriage is a non-issue. you are not going to overturn this, and trying to give the states the right to do so under the guise of "constitutionality" is underhanded and bigoted and everyone knows it. stop trying to subtly undermine the rights of citizens, or, if you're going to, come right out and preach it. don't hide behind legalistic nonsense.
I'm always amused when gay marriage (or any similar issues) gets talked about as if it should be automatically accepted. People of any given country have the right to determine collectively what they think is good or bad, acceptable or not, prudent or not. Just like you said you don't get ton control where every cent of your taxes goes, just because you think something is a great idea doesn't mean everyone has to think so. Clearly the issue is not as black and white as you think, because a cursory web search will reveal that different countries have different laws and rulings on the subject. Who are YOU to say that your opinion is the best one? It is well within the confines of an orderly society to make these kinds of decisions.
Basically what you're doing is what pilgrims and explorers did hundreds of years ago - "oh these people have different beliefs from me. They must be retarded savages. We better beat our philosophies into them."
I disagree with your belief, however, that states shouldn't have power. I believe the states should have a majority of the power in deciding what is best for their own state, and that there should be a FEW federally mandated laws that are just common sense. Things like, equality, no slavery, no murder, teaching of proper science, etc. Things that are objectively good, no matter what.
My primary reason for wanting states to have a lot of power to make their own laws is this: The US is geographically larger than all of Europe combined. We have more variation in climate than Europe. We also have more concentrated urban areas, and more rural areas. With this in mind, the cultural, social, and economic differences between any given part of the US are often substantially larger than any area within Europe. As such, you can't just apply "blanket law" at a federal level because it wouldn't always be the best for certain portions of the country. Similarly, you wouldn't be able to just apply a "blanket law" across all of Europe because of geographically, social, cultural, and economic differences.
Excellent points that many people outside of the US do not understand. California and Kansas are like two different countries.
And you buddy better wake up and realize you are being manipulated and start worrying about real environmental issues like toxic materials being dumped into the water, genetically modified foods and too little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that would cause all life on earth to die.
I tried to keep an open mind about this until you got to GM foods. Do some research. GM foods are not a problem, they are a problem solver. Or, if you really believe what you say, you should stop eating the iodized salt that was developed only within the last century, and enjoy all the health problems that come along with the iodine deficiency. GM crops are the easiest and best way to solve problems like vitamin A deficiency, which in the developing world causes approximately 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind, roughly half of whom die within a year of going blind.
GM foods come with other problems like promotion of 1 crop farming (rather than crop rotation), which leads to soil depletion, erosion, insect infestations, rampant disease/fungal infections, etc. They can be great but they also promote styles of farming that are completely unsustainable.
Even if "global warming" is not "real" there are a host of other serious environmental issues that are rapidly getting out of hand.
Because its not about saving the rainforests and sustainability and health, its the opposite. You forgot that that is a two way picture and you posted the one side of it.
The other side is being taxed to starvation for something that doesn't even exist, for a scam. You realize we exhale carbon dioxide so that means we as humans release it in small amounts, although over the course of the lifetime you can say its pretty significant and I'm sure we've always joked at some point about politicians taxing us for breathing, well this is surely a big giant leap in that direction.
But lets for the sake of argument say there is global warming and its man made, although here winters are always pretty chilly, but never really too cold, same as ALWAYS! But lets say we take the example of Australia where they tax carbon dioxide. It means the only alternative to oil is being taxed and will lead to higher energy prices, destruction of the industry and with that monopolies of the oil companies over the energy sources and thus even more higher prices. Higher prices mean higher costs of production of all our stuff like bread, milk, whatever and that means huge increases in the cost of living, lower standards and outright the destruction of entire economies.
But I am to find yet one simple data that carbon dioxide is bad and that having it is actually killing the earth as opposed to actually having it. In fact from 2nd grade school we learn about photo-synthesis and how much plants love carbon dioxide. Its only the life source on earth and if its gone everything would be dead on this planet !!! Hello, its not rocket science its common sense.
If they went for smog I've probably believed all this crap and be like yeah tax everyone, do whatever you want to save us from the evil smog, save the planet and of course that is going to be used to tax us all to death, while the problems are actually going to increase.
Its like throwing wood at a fire to extinguish it, its like impossible.
Let me make this Really simple No Carbon dioxide=bad (no photosynthesis, world too cold) little carbon dioxide =good lots of carbon dioxide=bad (world too hot)
This can be applied to most things... if our atmosphere was 90% oxygen instead of 20-25% then we would have serious problems.
Now exactly how bad X amount of carbon dioxide is... that can be uncertain.. and a small amount of global warming might actually be beneficial for some areas of the world. However, there are large scale changes to a world that we have already adapted to, means we have to readapt. (and species will have to readapt, it will be bad for the majority of them)
And taxing carbon dioxide is the best way to prevent it [oil, natural gas, and coal energy gets more expensive] so they are used less and other forms of energy is used more, or les energy is used. (ps because of photosynthesis, and the fact that you eat plants they won't have to tax your breathing... or if they do then food will get an equal tax discount because it absorbs co2 when it is produced)
The intelligent debate is not over if extra co2 is bad. You can have an intelligent debate over whether it is more expensive to replace fossil fuels / go low energy OR more expensive to just adapt to the climate change. Either one is Very expensive.
On November 26 2011 04:49 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Please consider Ron Paul.
Add me to the list that would prefer Paul or Huntsman over Obama, but my first choice will always be Nader and the Greens after that.
:3
That bit at the end is why I prefer Nader, but I think that if Paul somehow DID get the nomination, Ralph would probably not run. In that case I'd support him against Obama.
Carbon dioxide also cause ocean acidification (which is a very real and very bad thing) among other things. I actually am not interested in a carbon tax or carbon trading. They're scams as you said.
5) gay marriage is a non-issue. you are not going to overturn this, and trying to give the states the right to do so under the guise of "constitutionality" is underhanded and bigoted and everyone knows it. stop trying to subtly undermine the rights of citizens, or, if you're going to, come right out and preach it. don't hide behind legalistic nonsense.
I'm always amused when gay marriage (or any similar issues) gets talked about as if it should be automatically accepted. People of any given country have the right to determine collectively what they think is good or bad, acceptable or not, prudent or not. Just like you said you don't get ton control where every cent of your taxes goes, just because you think something is a great idea doesn't mean everyone has to think so. Clearly the issue is not as black and white as you think, because a cursory web search will reveal that different countries have different laws and rulings on the subject. Who are YOU to say that your opinion is the best one? It is well within the confines of an orderly society to make these kinds of decisions.
Basically what you're doing is what pilgrims and explorers did hundreds of years ago - "oh these people have different beliefs from me. They must be retarded savages. We better beat our philosophies into them."
I disagree with your belief, however, that states shouldn't have power. I believe the states should have a majority of the power in deciding what is best for their own state, and that there should be a FEW federally mandated laws that are just common sense. Things like, equality, no slavery, no murder, teaching of proper science, etc. Things that are objectively good, no matter what.
My primary reason for wanting states to have a lot of power to make their own laws is this: The US is geographically larger than all of Europe combined. We have more variation in climate than Europe. We also have more concentrated urban areas, and more rural areas. With this in mind, the cultural, social, and economic differences between any given part of the US are often substantially larger than any area within Europe. As such, you can't just apply "blanket law" at a federal level because it wouldn't always be the best for certain portions of the country. Similarly, you wouldn't be able to just apply a "blanket law" across all of Europe because of geographically, social, cultural, and economic differences.
Excellent points that many people outside of the US do not understand. California and Kansas are like two different countries.
And you buddy better wake up and realize you are being manipulated and start worrying about real environmental issues like toxic materials being dumped into the water, genetically modified foods and too little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that would cause all life on earth to die.
I tried to keep an open mind about this until you got to GM foods. Do some research. GM foods are not a problem, they are a problem solver. Or, if you really believe what you say, you should stop eating the iodized salt that was developed only within the last century, and enjoy all the health problems that come along with the iodine deficiency. GM crops are the easiest and best way to solve problems like vitamin A deficiency, which in the developing world causes approximately 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind, roughly half of whom die within a year of going blind.
GM foods come with other problems like promotion of 1 crop farming (rather than crop rotation), which leads to soil depletion, erosion, insect infestations, rampant disease/fungal infections, etc. They can be great but they also promote styles of farming that are completely unsustainable.
Even if "global warming" is not "real" there are a host of other serious environmental issues that are rapidly getting out of hand.
Because its not about saving the rainforests and sustainability and health, its the opposite. You forgot that that is a two way picture and you posted the one side of it.
The other side is being taxed to starvation for something that doesn't even exist, for a scam. You realize we exhale carbon dioxide so that means we as humans release it in small amounts, although over the course of the lifetime you can say its pretty significant and I'm sure we've always joked at some point about politicians taxing us for breathing, well this is surely a big giant leap in that direction.
But lets for the sake of argument say there is global warming and its man made, although here winters are always pretty chilly, but never really too cold, same as ALWAYS! But lets say we take the example of Australia where they tax carbon dioxide. It means the only alternative to oil is being taxed and will lead to higher energy prices, destruction of the industry and with that monopolies of the oil companies over the energy sources and thus even more higher prices. Higher prices mean higher costs of production of all our stuff like bread, milk, whatever and that means huge increases in the cost of living, lower standards and outright the destruction of entire economies.
But I am to find yet one simple data that carbon dioxide is bad and that having it is actually killing the earth as opposed to actually having it. In fact from 2nd grade school we learn about photo-synthesis and how much plants love carbon dioxide. Its only the life source on earth and if its gone everything would be dead on this planet !!! Hello, its not rocket science its common sense.
If they went for smog I've probably believed all this crap and be like yeah tax everyone, do whatever you want to save us from the evil smog, save the planet and of course that is going to be used to tax us all to death, while the problems are actually going to increase.
Its like throwing wood at a fire to extinguish it, its like impossible.
Let me make this Really simple No Carbon dioxide=bad (no photosynthesis, world too cold) little carbon dioxide =good lots of carbon dioxide=bad (world too hot)
This can be applied to most things... if our atmosphere was 90% oxygen instead of 20-25% then we would have serious problems.
Now exactly how bad X amount of carbon dioxide is... that can be uncertain.. and a small amount of global warming might actually be beneficial for some areas of the world. However, there are large scale changes to a world that we have already adapted to, means we have to readapt. (and species will have to readapt, it will be bad for the majority of them)
And taxing carbon dioxide is the best way to prevent it [oil, natural gas, and coal energy gets more expensive] so they are used less and other forms of energy is used more, or les energy is used. (ps because of photosynthesis, and the fact that you eat plants they won't have to tax your breathing... or if they do then food will get an equal tax discount because it absorbs co2 when it is produced)
The intelligent debate is not over if extra co2 is bad. You can have an intelligent debate over whether it is more expensive to replace fossil fuels / go low energy OR more expensive to just adapt to the climate change. Either one is Very expensive.
Got any scientific articles to back up your opinions?
On November 27 2011 10:31 Bigtony wrote: Carbon dioxide also cause ocean acidification (which is a very real and very bad thing) among other things. I actually am not interested in a carbon tax or carbon trading. They're scams as you said.
Yeah and lightning can sometimes kill a person and set forest fires, lets tax metal producing factories and metal buildings because they attract lightning.
Volcanos release huge amount of it, lets tax volcano's.
You do realize you have a better chance of dying from choking on your meat than you have from acidification. And its probably 100% needed and useful for various life forms like bacteria and stuff that are used to create more beneficial products for us.
But yes I agree with you on the others.
@Krikittone Let me make this Really simple No Carbon dioxide=bad (no photosynthesis, world too cold) little carbon dioxide =good lots of carbon dioxide=bad (world too hot)
This can be applied to most things... if our atmosphere was 90% oxygen instead of 20-25% then we would have serious problems.
Now exactly how bad X amount of carbon dioxide is... that can be uncertain.. and a small amount of global warming might actually be beneficial for some areas of the world. However, there are large scale changes to a world that we have already adapted to, means we have to readapt. (and species will have to readapt, it will be bad for the majority of them)
And taxing carbon dioxide is the best way to prevent it [oil, natural gas, and coal energy gets more expensive] so they are used less and other forms of energy is used more, or les energy is used. (ps because of photosynthesis, and the fact that you eat plants they won't have to tax your breathing... or if they do then food will get an equal tax discount because it absorbs co2 when it is produced)
The intelligent debate is not over if extra co2 is bad. You can have an intelligent debate over whether it is more expensive to replace fossil fuels / go low energy OR more expensive to just adapt to the climate change. Either one is Very expensive.
No, no, no and no.
We have 0.0360% of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, 100k years ago it was 1% and hundreds of millions years ago it was as much as 40%. In the last 10 years carbon dioxide has actually reduced strangely enough. So in a way we are starved for carbon dioxide, I think it may be because of all the frequent atmosphere breaches from all the space travel, basically ozone, carbon dioxide and other materials are probably getting away from our atmosphere.
If not that then something strange is happening to have reducing numbers of carbon dioxide.
And I am all for alternative energy, it still doesn't mean we need to be taxed for this scam. You can actually not tax people for carbon dioxide and still have alternative energy.
But yeah I'm actually glad that Australia has started taxing carbon dioxide and in the next few years when all the money is taken out of the economy through taxes and put into carbon trading schemes and people like al gore and people get hurt real bad then people will wake up and we can put this scam in the grave!
On November 27 2011 10:31 Bigtony wrote: Carbon dioxide also cause ocean acidification (which is a very real and very bad thing) among other things. I actually am not interested in a carbon tax or carbon trading. They're scams as you said.
carbon tax would not be a scam (assuming it applied to all sources). carbon trading probably would.
The big problems are 1. global nature of the problem, what the US does doesn't just affect the US (like most pollution.. which might also affect Canada and Mexico, but not Europe or Asia) 2. the tremendous costs involved 3. the uncertainties about the costs involved
The ozone-CFC problem was able to be solved because it didn't have #2 (even though it had #1).
So a carbon tax would be good if most governments on Earth had it, however, because it would hurt local economies for a global benefit, there has to be an agreement on what would be fair... and that just doesn't happen.
You do realize you have a better chance of dying from choking on your meat than you have from acidification. And its probably 100% needed and useful for various life forms like bacteria and stuff that are used to create more beneficial products for us.
Actually it destroys fish populations and kills all that good shit, so not really good at all.
On November 27 2011 10:31 Bigtony wrote: Carbon dioxide also cause ocean acidification (which is a very real and very bad thing) among other things. I actually am not interested in a carbon tax or carbon trading. They're scams as you said.
Yeah and lightning can sometimes kill a person and set forest fires, lets tax metal producing factories and metal buildings because they attract lightning.
Volcanos release huge amount of it, lets tax volcano's.
You do realize you have a better chance of dying from choking on your meat than you have from acidification. And its probably 100% needed and useful for various life forms like bacteria and stuff that are used to create more beneficial products for us.
@Krikittone Let me make this Really simple No Carbon dioxide=bad (no photosynthesis, world too cold) little carbon dioxide =good lots of carbon dioxide=bad (world too hot)
This can be applied to most things... if our atmosphere was 90% oxygen instead of 20-25% then we would have serious problems.
Now exactly how bad X amount of carbon dioxide is... that can be uncertain.. and a small amount of global warming might actually be beneficial for some areas of the world. However, there are large scale changes to a world that we have already adapted to, means we have to readapt. (and species will have to readapt, it will be bad for the majority of them)
And taxing carbon dioxide is the best way to prevent it [oil, natural gas, and coal energy gets more expensive] so they are used less and other forms of energy is used more, or les energy is used. (ps because of photosynthesis, and the fact that you eat plants they won't have to tax your breathing... or if they do then food will get an equal tax discount because it absorbs co2 when it is produced)
The intelligent debate is not over if extra co2 is bad. You can have an intelligent debate over whether it is more expensive to replace fossil fuels / go low energy OR more expensive to just adapt to the climate change. Either one is Very expensive.
No, no, no and no.
We have 0.0360% of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, 100k years ago it was 1% and hundreds of millions years ago it was as much as 40%.
100 k years ago there was no agriculture, no cities, and nothing beyond 'stone age' society.
Hundreds of millions of years ago there was no life on the earth (only in the oceans). [depending on how many hundreds of millions of years you go there were also no animals in existence]
And during those times the sun was dimmer (generally dimmer the farther back you go).
(as a side note billions of years ago our atmosphere had less than 1% oxygen, so obviously that is not important either)
Human civilization is built on the climate the world has had for the past few thousand years. If that climate changes significantly over the next century, then we have to make significant changes over the next century.
Also many species will have to change more rapidly than they would have otherwise, and so they will go extinct.
@The Bomb In the last 10 years carbon dioxide has actually reduced strangely enough.
I would really like to see any source for that (note: if it means co2 concentrations in the atmosphere worldwide. co2 in other sinks ... soil, ocean, etc. could decline, the greenhouse effect only really concerns co2 in the atmosphere.)
Can you guys all shut up, seriously. Like whatever. We can all agree to disagree about Global Warming, Gay Marriage, Communism whatever.
This thread is about the candidates ffs, unless one of them goes on a crusade to stop global warming or something it shouldn't be getting this much discussion.
Hmm... Why would he treat Israel so differently from all the other countries? Like what is so special of Israel?
All those money spend on military could have been used to buy Israel a nice piece of land somewhere, maybe an island or something and live happily ever after.
Hmm... Why would he treat Israel so differently from all the other countries? Like what is so special of Israel?
All those money spend on military could have been used to buy Israel a nice piece of land somewhere, maybe an island or something and live happily ever after.
It's not about "just land" for Israel though. It's fucking "holy land". They claim it's their religious right to that particular set of land because of Jerusalem and all that stupid ass bullshit. Yet another problem caused by religion.
Hmm... Why would he treat Israel so differently from all the other countries? Like what is so special of Israel?
All those money spend on military could have been used to buy Israel a nice piece of land somewhere, maybe an island or something and live happily ever after.
It's not about "just land" for Israel though. It's fucking "holy land". They claim it's their religious right to that particular set of land because of Jerusalem and all that stupid ass bullshit. Yet another problem caused by religion.
LOL. TL forums never fail to take a jab at religion.
We have 0.0360% of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, 100k years ago it was 1% and hundreds of millions years ago it was as much as 40%. In the last 10 years carbon dioxide has actually reduced strangely enough. So in a way we are starved for carbon dioxide, I think it may be because of all the frequent atmosphere breaches from all the space travel, basically ozone, carbon dioxide and other materials are probably getting away from our atmosphere.
If not that then something strange is happening to have reducing numbers of carbon dioxide.
And I am all for alternative energy, it still doesn't mean we need to be taxed for this scam. You can actually not tax people for carbon dioxide and still have alternative energy.
But yeah I'm actually glad that Australia has started taxing carbon dioxide and in the next few years when all the money is taken out of the economy through taxes and put into carbon trading schemes and people like al gore and people get hurt real bad then people will wake up and we can put this scam in the grave!
First, could you show us the source that claims atmospheric CO2 has dropped in the last decade?
The Earth was significantly different hundreds of millions of years ago. The Sun was dimmer (a helium atom exerts more pressure than two hydrogen atoms) and the balance of gases shifted a lot through different time periods, to name a couple of things. While it may be true that there was much more CO2 in the air ages ago, that's irrelevant because the Earth has changed much since then and human civilization has adjusted itself to the current climate.
A global shift in temperature in a relatively short amount of time would have great consequences for both humans and other forms of life. While I'm not sure if I support a carbon tax, the majority of our best scientists are in agreement that global warming is a real phenomenon. I can't understand how anyone could dispute this.
I think it may be because of all the frequent atmosphere breaches from all the space travel, basically ozone, carbon dioxide and other materials are probably getting away from our atmosphere.
I want to look at this specifically. Even if there has been a drop in CO2 in the past ten years, this is a silly reason for it. The surface area of the Earth is 510,072,000 km2. Let's say that a regular satellite has a surface area of 5m2, and some quick googling gives a generous figure of 1000 satellites launched per year. That would mean that objects with a total of 50km^2 surface area would pass through the atmosphere, which has a surface area even larger than the surface area of the Earth. Even if lobbing objects through the atmosphere did make gases escape to space somehow (and that isn't the case since even a rocket doesn't deliver the right kind of force in the right way to do that), we'd need to be launching millions of satellites every year to see an effect.
Hmm... Why would he treat Israel so differently from all the other countries? Like what is so special of Israel?
All those money spend on military could have been used to buy Israel a nice piece of land somewhere, maybe an island or something and live happily ever after.
It's not about "just land" for Israel though. It's fucking "holy land". They claim it's their religious right to that particular set of land because of Jerusalem and all that stupid ass bullshit. Yet another problem caused by religion.
LOL. TL forums never fail to take a jab at religion.
It might be a jab, but it's a factually correct jab.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/images/image_map_images/the_forgotten_man.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/o5OM4.png)
