Page 5 of 90
Re: Politics
Posted: December 9th, 2009, 7:48 pm
by gyourkoshaven
I say economy (My parents both having money-related degrees does NOT mean that I'm biased). The environment will follow eventually, because it will be cheaper to be green in the relatively near future.
EDIT:
amerikestrel wrote:gyourkoshaven wrote:I find it sort of like Cash for Clunkers. Cash for Clunkers was bad for the well-being of the car companies, but good for consumer confidence. Cap and Trade is good for the environment, but is bad for the economy in the same way.
Hmm... so now it's a choice between the environment and the economy?
That wasn't what I meant. Cash for Clunkers was bad from a general economic standpoint, because it was basically a bribe to consumers, pressuring them to make a serious investment on something they wouldn't buy without the bribe. It's sort of the same thing with Cap and Trade.
Re: Politics
Posted: December 10th, 2009, 2:30 pm
by blue cobra
Basically, with cap and trade, the government puts a "cap" on carbon emissions. In the US, this would be capped to only 20% of current emissions by 2050! Then carbon credits are sold to polluting companies. Of course brokered by your friends over at Enron and Goldman Sachs. But then a lot of the credits are just given away anyway. Add in fraud with offset credits, and you're not really reducing emissions anyway, but our buddies over at the banks get rich.
AlphiTauri, I start at 1850 because around then was when we started having reliable temperature readings.
I don't see how this is Constitutional either
Besides, the climate fluctuates wildly
on its own. EDIT:
It's almost like the Earth's climate is based off the Sun.
But sure. Go ahead and eliminate all of our advancements of the past 200 years and send us plummeting into an economic collapse. Yeah, and I'm the one against progress.
EDIT: If we're done, then let's move on to students' rights for privacy.
By the way, sorry if this seems unorganized. I'm in a rush.
Re: Politics
Posted: December 15th, 2009, 3:17 pm
by denmarksoccer
blue cobra wrote:
None of these have been completely proven. Call me crazy, but I'd like to prove what's going on before resigning our sovereignty and our money to a world government.
So you would prefer to wait until half of Florida is underwater?
blue cobra wrote:
And what the researchers at East Anglia did is hide the Medieval Warm Period, which definitely would mean the warming today is nothing to be alarmed about. Now, there is debate about the MWP, but if you average the data from different areas, there is still a MWP. A much better explanation of all this is found
here.
This article contradicts the idea of a MWP, instead saying that the Earth may have, overall, slightly cooled during that time period.
Also, the indictment of the East Anglia Institute does not necessarily mean that all of climate science is wrong, as so many people are readily willing to believe. I can almost sympathize with their motives; it was the only way for them to spur anybody into action.
Re: Politics
Posted: December 19th, 2009, 7:11 pm
by blue cobra
Half of Florida is not going to be underwater. I'm interested in knowing what scientist is saying that, however. But okay, let's be controlled by a global communist government to protect us from the ocean.
There's always debate, but many studies show that there was indeed as MWP and the Little Ice Age. This brings me to an important point: Dissenting opinions, especially in schools. The "climategate" emails have shown that those researchers tried to silence scientists who's studies contradicted the theory of global warming. But, probably worse, a one-sided view is being preached in schools, sometimes at the expense of the truth.
Kids are absolutely terrified that global warming is going to destroy the world. I remember a teacher of mine saying that category 5, 6, or even 7 hurricanes would be common due to global warming. In actuality, there has been no increase in hurricane number or wind speed. I'd be willing to bet our schools would never mention peer reviewed research
such as this, or about the
31,000 scientists that say human activities do not contribute to climate change and that an increase in CO2 levels may be good for the environment. You may think these people are insignificant, but, "In PhD scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC process. The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it."
Source.
Scientific corruption is
never justified or worthy of your sympathy.
Re: Politics
Posted: December 19th, 2009, 7:46 pm
by gyourkoshaven
You can't factually present this stuff with such a huge bias.
Re: Politics
Posted: December 19th, 2009, 7:55 pm
by gyourkoshaven
Anyway, how awful is this health care bill?
Re: Politics
Posted: December 20th, 2009, 8:21 am
by AlphaTauri
blue cobra wrote:Half of Florida is not going to be underwater. I'm interested in knowing what scientist is saying that, however. But okay, let's be controlled by a global communist government to protect us from the ocean.
No, Florida might not be underwater, but Vanatu might be (it's only a few feet about sea level, after all) and we might all be growing pinapples in Alaska. And how does fighting climate change lead to a communistic government? Last time I checked, I was still in the US, not China.
blue cobra wrote:The "climategate" emails have shown that those researchers tried to silence scientists who's studies contradicted the theory of global warming.
Emails are meant to be
private correspondence. People are usually express their opinions a little more when speaking to someone in private then when making a public statement.
And while I'm at it, the scientists did not fake the data they gathered, they only added in the real temperatures for the past few decades to show the actual temperatures, not just the predicted ones. blue cobra wrote:But, probably worse, a one-sided view is being preached in schools, sometimes at the expense of the truth. Kids are absolutely terrified that global warming is going to destroy the world. I remember a teacher of mine saying that category 5, 6, or even 7 hurricanes would be common due to global warming. In actuality, there has been no increase in hurricane number or wind speed.
However, there has been an increase in the average intensity of hurricanes (
"Since 1990 an average of 18 Category 4 and 5 storms, of similar strength to Hurricane Katrina, have occurred every year, compared with an average of 10 in the 1970s, US scientists have found.")
Climate change is real. It is happening and it's happening now. But feel free to ignore the facts and deny it.
Re: Politics
Posted: December 20th, 2009, 6:15 pm
by cypressfalls Robert
Definition of politics:
poli~ poly: many, tics: blood sucking pests
= politics~ many blood sucking pests
Re: Politics
Posted: December 20th, 2009, 6:44 pm
by AlphaTauri
Does everyone want to move on to privacy rights and that kind of stuff?
If yes, then do you think schools should have "probable cause" instead of just a "reasonable suspicion" before searching a student's private property?
If no, then ignore this post and continue arguing about climate change.
Re: Politics
Posted: December 20th, 2009, 6:55 pm
by gyourkoshaven
gyourkoshaven wrote:Anyway, how awful is this health care bill?
