Slashdot Mirror
Earth Day: 175 Nations Sign Historic Paris Climate Deal (usatoday.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from USA Today: World leaders from 175 countries signed the historic Paris climate accord Friday, using Earth Day as a backdrop for the ceremonial inking of a long-fought deal that aims to slow the rise of harmful greenhouse gases. The deal sets a target of limiting global warming by 2100 to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F), as compared to pre-industrial levels. To accomplish that, each nation sets its own target for reducing emissions and updates that mark each year. Friday's signing sets a record for the number of countries signing an agreement on the first available day, the Associated Press reported. The old record goes back to the Law of the Sea in Montego Bay, which was signed by 119 countries in 1982, according to AccuWeather. Signing the accord is only one step in the process. The leaders must now go back to their home countries' governments to ratify and approve the agreement, which could take months or years. The deal goes into effect once 55 countries representing at least 55% of global emissions formally join.
signing a piece of paper != actual results
Yeah, it's historic how well these deals fail to accomplish anything.
If the urban parts of the country would stop sending morons to Congress who oppose nuclear energy based upon pseudo-science we'll never be able to implement it.
If Americans stopped voting for morons from [insert geolocation], that yield to [insert big interest group], and represent [insert koolaid party], things might actually get done in the actual interest of the people. Until then, the divide and conquer is working out quite nicely.
-- Brought to you by Carl's JR
to ratify and approve the agreement, which could take months or years
More likely "never". You want seriously think 175 legislatures can agree to something?
Pretty sure it was the abortions and the guns that caused it all. The pork barrelling had nothing to do with it it at all, nosiree. Just like both the city dwelling bottom feeders and the rural bumpkin muck nuzzlers are all right upstanding politicians and have nothing but the best in mind for everyone.
On another note, the problems with nuclear energy are that it AND its science are regulated to death so no safer designs nor new science are forthcoming, AND the usual extremely selfish and short-sighted geopolitics, AND wilful fuckups in the past, like irradiating city populations with massive doses then insisting it was "only a little". The fear is very well founded, just not in facts. But then, if your leaders lie to you about the facts, what do you have?
Nothing except plenty of reasons to point fingers and bicker and argue and be very sure indeed nobody is going anywhere anytime soon. Buncha stuck-in-the-muds, the lot of you. Get with the program already.
Cities are by far the biggest drain on the world, climate included. There is not one single self-sufficient city on the planet, they are all wasteful cancerous parasites.
Climate change is a lie designed to get you to pay carbon taxes while reversing the industrial revolution (for you).
Forget the 1%. The top 100 wealthiest families in the world are using crap like this to enslave you. They need to be shot.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
Where I live, temperatures are *already* 10-15 degrees above average. Couple that with all of the earthquakes we've had the world over lately and it's easy to see we have an extremely serious problem on our hands that we need to deal with TODAY, not by year 2100.
Nope, cities have much lower resource needs per-person than either suburbs or rural areas. If you want to argue that there should be about 90% fewer people that's one thing, but to say it's the cities fault that we consume resource then you're simply wrong.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Even if China did implement it, each country sets their own targets so China will likely do nothing anyway.
Also, to clarify, the US is only ~15% of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. China is 30%.
You know, if signing non-binding treaties had any effect on the climate, we could have set the global thermostat to anything we wanted by now.
So this Earth Day, The Daily Caller News Foundation takes a look at predictions made by environmentalists around the original Earth Day in 1970 to see how they’ve held up.
Have any of these dire predictions come true? No, but that hasn’t stopped environmentalists from worrying. From predicting the end of civilization to classic worries about peak oil, here are seven green predictions that were just flat out wrong.
They are still waging their corrupt drug war in appeasement to the world's tin pot dictators. Whatever they are doing on climate can be no less corrupt. Fuck them all sideways!
Viva México!
Also to clarify, the US population is only 4.38% of the world population. China is 18.72%.
Even more meaningless because it isn't designed to be a ratified treaty in the US. No ratification = no force of law.
It's a feel good scam.
To quote RNZ,"New Zealand's target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 11 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 remains conditional on aspects of the Paris deal that have not yet been nailed down, namely that there are functioning and transparent carbon markets in place."
Add that to our the recent Morgan Foundation report labelling New Zealand a climate change cheat for dealing in dodgy Carbon Credits, the utter failure of our government to rein in our dairy industry and the widespread degradation of the environment here we are not really doing anything except making the rich richer.
What I don't get is that they are still, local bodies included, happily building infrastructure on land that their own people tell them will be be flooded or underwater in fifty years. They don't care, they don't believe, and they don't want to deal with it.
I reserve the write to mangle english.
Nope. Cities rely on rural, the opposite does not apply. What I am saying is that to work out the resource usage of a city you need to factor in the rural area that supplies it.
I reserve the write to mangle english.
But at least China is moving forward with thorium reactors.
Jesus fucking Christ what is this obsession with nuclear power. Yes, it's part of the solution, but nuclear power still requires nonrenewable resources in the form of radioactive elements to actually work.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I think history would indicate quite the opposite. The rise of urban dwelling was largely because having centralized centers for commerce and administration were to key agricultural success.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
has finally begun!
Wake me up later when something important happens. The fine article says: "The non-binding treaty, approved in Paris in December after years of U.N. climate negotiations, aims to slow the rise of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, blamed for putting Earth on a dangerous warming path." A "non-binding treaty" doesn't actually do anything, other than create photo opportunities.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Urban per person CO2 emissions 7 metric tons vs rural 19 metric tons annually
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Big snowstorm here, too. About 6 inches so far and still going strong. Should be a great powder ski day tomorrow.
(However, I am not so stupid as to equate weather with climate.)
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
because the United states of merkin kind will just ignore it like all treaties they don't like.
Nuclear is a hell of a lot closer to infinite than dino-juice, Australia alone has 1.1M tonnes of Uranium that is easily recoverable (under $80/kg). At 2.2GWh\kg for complete consumption that's almost as much all of the worlds known gas and oil reserves combined.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Just because the average temperature of the earth has increased overall, it doesn't mean you will see a higher temperature where you live. That's like not believing in an average increase in the crime rate because you haven't experienced crime personally.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Do they want to "slow the rise of harmful greenhouse gases"? Or, do they want to limit "global warming by 2100 to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F), as compared to pre-industrial levels"?
I think the latter is more desirable, and the former is not the best way to achieve it. However, there is no scientific consensus that either are more desirable than any of a host of alternatives.
Nevertheless, it seems they have made their futile decision.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
at least it works, rather than now and again (solar and farts)
None of which we use for power. our only reactor is for creating medical isotopes or somesuch.
So this is pretty misleading. The reason China's emissions are so high compared to everyone elses is that everyone else has moved their production to China. That Sony Playstation your buying is produced in China, so although it's emissions are going up, its actually because of the consumption of Europe and the collective West. Which is to say, China may be emitting, but it is emitting on everyone's behalf. Seconldy, China's per capita emissions are MUCH lower than the US - about 25%. Thirdly, China implemented the most effective emission program ever - the one child program. Historically, the country lease likely to ratify international conventions is the US (because of its congressional approval system). The reason Japan pulled out of Kyoto was because its main economic rival - China - wasn't a signatory. The US sets a bad example for everyone by not ratifying these things, yet insists on being involved.
Urban per person CO2 emissions 7 metric tons vs rural 19 metric tons annually
Okay, so you have direct production. How much of those 19 tonnes is produced in raising agricultural products consumed by urban residents versus rural residents? And is that net production, or is it gross production failing to account for the uptake of CO2 by growing crops? Single-value statistics are incredibly vague; points deducted for failing to show your work.
How can I believe the scientists who claimed snowfall would be a thing of the past, and now claim extremely late heavy snowfalls in the springtime are a result of the ... what is it, warm air pushing the cold air south. So there is enough cold air to distribute snow as far south as we have seen this year, but it aint cold enough to keep the arctic cool? There is no question that the earth has been in a warming trend since the last ice age. The rate of warming is the big debate. Climate voters and their consensus have gone through pain and woe to prop up their CO2 theory. They disagree on how much heat co2 can actually absorb.'sensitivity'
Now, for the fucktards who are afraid of big bad Co2. Without co2. YOU DIE. YOu fucking idiot. The food you eat depends on co2. the plants breath in co2, and put out humidity which absorbs vastly more heat than co2 ever will. If you increase the co2 levels to 1000ppm, vegitation will double its growth rate and thus take in more co2, and put out more moisture. Your precious farmlands will easily increase yeild 30% at minimum. Your breath put out 3000-4000 ppm co2.
Hopefully, CONgress will nix this one again.
What is needed is for America (if not every nation) to put a tax on all consumed goods based on where the worst part comes from (and with America, it should include our states). In doing this, it makes ALL nations bring their CO2 way down and keep it down.
The hard part is that it needs to be based on REAL NUMBERS, such as what OCO3 would give us, and a smart normalization, which would be CO2 per $ GDP.
If America, who is the world's largest importer, was to do this, it would force all nations to drop their emissions to being equal or better than nations like Sweden (who is one of the lowest emissions). In addition, it would force China to HONESTLY clean up.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Thanks for clarifying.
What is "give me an infinite budget and the ability to demand everyone do whatever I say, whenever I say it, because the crime rate increased... no, wait... changed", like, then?
Where do you live? I know, I know, the only place that counts
How can I believe the scientists who claimed snowfall would be a thing of the past
Would you name a few, with citations?
Without co2. YOU DIE.
Without water you die, too. Can I immerse you in water for an hour or two?
You are a damn Luddite; increasing world economic development is directly tied to increases in all measures of human welfare and quality of life.
I wouldn't normally have bothered with a bullshit rant like that, but this bit of misinformation needs to die:
If you increase the co2 levels to 1000ppm, vegitation will double its growth rate
That's not even remotely true. Plant growth is limited by any number of factors including water, sunshine, a whole range of soil nutrients, pests, symbiotes, genetic factors etc. You can double the CO2 all you like, but if irrigation is an issue like a lot of the US and desert belt counties, you won't increase yield. Much of Europe is limited by sunshine, not CO2.
What you will get is more CO2. Even if vegetation did double its growth rate then CO2 levels would still net increase, and so would the greenhouse effect. So would ocean acidity, and so would all the other consequences we're trying so hard to avoid.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
First Lady Michelle Obama didn’t accompany her husband on the first leg of his trip, opting instead to fly separately.
We’re losing count of how many planes, helicopters and vehicles are involved, but it looks like somebody’s trying to make the carbon footprint too large to calculate so as to ward off any charges of eco-hypocrisy.
And tomorrow, Earth Day, we’ll all be lectured about climate change.
Don't you think it's past time to finish the job, get off the 300 year dino juice addiction, and invest in cleaner power - solar, wind, wave, nuclear, whatever - so we can have our cake and eat it too, without getting poisoned in the process?
We "get off the dino juice" when doing something else has a better price/performance ratio.
Screwing around with the market to try to make that happen artificially just results in people finding ways around your screwing around.
Meanwhile: Ground-based solar is starting to cross-over versus grid power for stationary loads in sunny (and especially rural) areas - even without government subsidies and market fouling. Wind is to, for grid loads (and small wind has been cheaper than grid for some sites since before electrification.) Several approaches to fusion have the possibility that one might become game changer in the next couple decades. Space-based solar may also be becoming practical, thanks to technological advancement cutting the cost to orbit.
I could go on.
I fully expect the Invisible Hand to guide us to non-fossil-fuel energy sources well before the exploitable fossil fuels run out (in a few centuries at the current rate) or distort the environment dangerously. Assuming, of course, that government intervention, ripping off the public in the name of environmentalism, doesn't crash the economies and technological development needed to make it happen.
After that economic disaster scenario my second-tier concern is more a crash into another ice age in about 150 to 400 years than about "global warming".
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
To be honest I understand the concern with uranium fusion. Its part of the weapon enrichment cycle and Chenobyl and Fukushima have left a bad taste in the mouth, even if Fukushima really wasnt as bad as made out , and chenobyl (which WAS a genuinely bad turn of events) had more to do with the failings of a reactor (positive coeficient) design we simply dont make anymore for obvious reasons.
Thorium seems like the obvious way forward here. Its super abundant. The waste products have lifespans in the tens rather than tens-of-thousands of year half lifes, and should we derp up again, its not going to have the same meltdown characteristics which uranium reactors can.
It'll just take a bit more research. But not like Fusion which STILL seems like its decades away from being even remotely useful.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
You should not swear using the name of your savior.
Unless you are an Atheist.
If you are an Atheist, you should not swear using the names of deities of other peoples religions.
That is simply disrespectful.
Yes, I'm an Atheist. And I honour people who have in my eyes that "mental illness" that they need "believes in super natural beings".
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Nope, cities have much lower resource needs per-person than either suburbs or rural areas.
This is nonsense.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
you won't increase yield
Exactly. A field can only grow so much crop. The growth cycle is basically fixed, it takes X days from planting to harvest. The fruit is not ripe more early. Only the "over all" planet grows a bit bigger, that is all.
Higher CO2 levels are useful in a green house. For stuff like tomatoes and salad. Not for Apples or Grain in the "outside". Sure, Salad, Tomatoes, Cucumber, Aubergine etc. would profit from higher CO2 levels, but the amount is neglectible unless you are a farmer and want to live from it. For a normal person having them in a garden there is no big difference.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I don't think you know what you're talking about, AC.
If you have ever visited China, one this is "clear", growth is China is severely limited by use of Coal. They urgently need to switch to some other form of energy that doesn't invoke killing their own population. Hopefully they will adopt something that also stops breaking the biosphere but that's not their goal, it could just hopefully be a fortunate site effect .
Sure, but you have to mine it, refine it, transport it and secure it. Then you have to build nuclear plants to a high standard, run them safely for decades and finally decommission them and somehow deal with the high level waste. Or, you install renewables which are cheaper at every stage and much lower risk.
Nuclear just isn't competitive any more. It doesn't matter how many times people point to the advantages, investors and governments just don't want to pay for it in most cases.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
We know the remaining steps:
Corporations declare clean-up 'too hard'.
USA and China gives concessions to the country's biggest polluters
Rest of world refuses to hold the USA accountable, or sanction China
Rest of world refuses to pay clean-up costs when USA and China pay nothing
Nothing gets done
Or, you install renewables which are cheaper at every stage and much lower risk.
Solar isn't, but wind is about even with nuclear now, at least in the US...
But the real issue is that those costs don't include storage, which wind/solar will require, but nuclear will not...
Perhaps one day we'll have mass scale storage at cheap prices, but until that day, the choices are burn dead dinos or build nuclear.
But the real issue is that those costs don't include storage, which wind/solar will require, but nuclear will not...
How do you suppose cars will work on nuclear energy without storage ?
And they put tons and tons of CO2 in the air to get to their Paris junket!
Hypocrites.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
100% True. Plus you have to realize that all resources consumed by the city have to be transported in. I've looked at a few studies regarding city vs rural resource usage and pollution and they regularly misunderstand and/or misattribute resource usage.
If 90% of meat/grain/food consumption is in cities - where 90% of humans reside - then 90% of the production costs - including wastes and transportation/fuel - should be included on the 'city' side of the ledger, but it's often not.
Most city dwellers don't realize that if the shit were really ever to hit the fan in a TEOTWAWKI-type situation, they'd be the first to die. Resources like food/water would dry up before they managed to walk out of the city.
That they all were willing to burn all that fuel in their private jets, drink all that champagne and eat goose-liver and caviar shows how important the environment is to them!
But the real issue is that those costs don't include storage, which wind/solar will require, but nuclear will not...
Actually, nuclear requires a great deal of grid adjustment and accommodation, in fact, a plant can be shut down for weeks just because it doesn't have anywhere to dump its power.
Which is why my local electric utility is lucky enough that it has a handy geographic feature to use as a power reserve/buffer.
Love the sinner, hate the sin =
love the religionist, hate the religion
I cannot speak for other countries but Alberta, Canada has just instituted a serious carbon taxation regime in which as of Janiary we will pay essentially double for every gigajoule of natural gas we consume to heat our homes ..this will amount to 500 dollars or more per year and those on the lower end of the economic ladder will get rebated and others will be paying the full amount. As well there will be an increase in gasoline and diesel taxes at the pump of about 6.5 cents. Unlike those that criticize our province we are actually doing something about our carbon future. As well we are hoping to finance our new green technology such as solar and wind through this carbon taxation which will cost us billions and we voted in a governmentt who did not surprise us with this carbon tax but was voted in because of it. Add that to the additional federally mandated green Initiatives signed by Justin Trudeau at the Paris Conference and this country will be a leader in decarbonization. Considering we are a very cold country, we will have to sacrifice a lot more than Europeans and the United States to make it happen. I will sign in anonymously just to show that anon is not necessarily an energy dinosaur
Ppl that really want to see CO2 drop.
Please consider what is REALLY going on.
China's numbers are based on what China's gov tells you.
The west's numbers are based on real measurements.
Because of OCO2, china recently admitted that their coal burning was some 17% MORE, which is a HUGE amount.
BUT, according to OCO2, it remains lower than what it appears.
OCO3 is coming, along with a new sat from Japan. Both will measure in absolute values. China is scared to death of these sats. Why? Because they measure in ABSOLUTE VALUES AND ARE HONEST.
China's emission is much closer to 1/2 of the world's total, not 33% as they claim. Look at the graphs and data that OCO2 produces.
BUT, there is a way to fix this. America can puts an increasing tax on consumed goods based on where the worst sub-part comes from ( either nation and States ). In doing this, it will encourage production, and sub-parts to come from only good areas. Why? Because America is the world's largest importer. IOW, we can impact the world's economy, as well as by dropping the production in bad places, it will improve the air quickly.
In addition, this has to be true CO2 levels. So we use satellites to measure. There are 2 up there now, with oco3 coming later this year. Oco3 will give accurate emission levels of the world.
Then we need a decent normalization. The current pish is emissions / capitia. Worst idea going. All of the ppl's individual choices amount to nothing in terms of emissions. IOW, we do not control it. It is business and gov that do. As such, emissions is far more tied to GDP. And to keep nations from manipulating their money, we use co2/ $ GDP.
With the above, it would reward goods made in low emission areas, while taxing those goods that use even parts from high emissions. Nations and states like Sweden, France, and California would have a major up since their emissions / $GDP is low. OTOH, Obviously China would be at the bottom. They have more than 1TW of electricity being produced by coal. OTOH, if they quit investing into new coal plants and instead put their money into Wind, Solar, Geo-thermal, Nuke, hydro, they could clean up in 10-20 years.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Actually, nuclear requires a great deal of grid adjustment and accommodation, in fact, a plant can be shut down for weeks just because it doesn't have anywhere to dump its power.
Nuclear power simply runs resistors to turn that energy into heat if needed.
You can scale up and down the power output as needed by spinning large resistors.
Of course, that is wasteful, you could likely find a business that would be willing to take wildly swining power, such as a electrolysis plant.
How do you suppose cars will work on nuclear energy without storage ?
That has nothing to do with it...
The storage on cars is required regardless of power source, otherwise the cars run on gas.
The storage is needed for fixed locations such as homes and businesses.
Nuclear doesn't require this, it can run 24/7 without complaint, but wind and solar cannot.
Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
http://michellemalkin.com/2010...
Nuclear power simply runs resistors to turn that energy into heat if needed.
Oh, that's another problem, some plants have issues with water temperature for their cooling.
That's caused a few shutdowns as well. Though some of that can be blamed on a poor design for thermal buffering.
You can scale up and down the power output as needed by spinning large resistors.
What did I just say about a great deal of grid adjustment and accommodation? Are you trying to confirm me as right, without admitting it?
Of course, that is wasteful, you could likely find a business that would be willing to take wildly swining power, such as a electrolysis plant.
Doesn't help when the transmission lines go out and the plant is isolated, and suddenly...shutdown.
Thus spoke the wise
Might you words be heard
2C is already a done deal.
It'd pretty much take an overnight cessation of all fossil fuels to keep it at 2C and that's not going to happen.
Slashdotters might like to look up anoxic events and wonder if there will be enough of us left to consider global warming issues when sea levels start rising enough that people notice.
The _only_ way to get enough cheap energy to replace fossil fuels is nuclear energy. Wind and solar might just be able to match correct electrical demands but that''s less than half of total carbon generation. Moving to electric heating and transportation has to be taken into account.
If you are an Atheist, you should not swear using the names of deities of other peoples religions.
That is simply disrespectful.
Religions deserve no respect. I will respect a person, simply out of courtesy, unless they have proven they aren't worthy of my respect, but not the crazy beliefs they hold.
Solar and wind are intermittent meaning they only work part of the time. So if you want important things like hospitals to work at night you need reliable base power. Nuclear is the best option for that.
If the figures are done correctly, the CO2 produced raising animals and growing crops are attributed to the consumer of it. While crops do take up CO2 while growing, they release it again when consumed, I doubt any of that CO2 is stored long-term.
It would be good if there was a source for these statistics, however if you consider the differences in the way rural and urban people live, the disparity seems plausible. I.e, urban dwellers typically have smaller residences with lower heating and lighting requirements, particularly for those who live in apartments as heat that would be lost to the outside in a house, is instead lost to a neighbouring apartment, thus reducing the combined heating requirements. Urban dwellers are likely to have shorter commutes, and may not even need to drive a car, whereas a rural dweller will likely need to drive to get to the local shops. However these figures could be skewed, if wealthy people are disproportionately likely to live in rural areas as wealthy people will probably consume more and produce more CO2 regardless of where they live.
I would look for sources myself, expect I don't really care enough about what the figures are.
But where I live it is pretty warm for this time of year.
Global Warming is two words, don't concentrate on the second word to exclusion of the first. You also need to average out measurements not only geographically, but over time as well.
please explain why parts of Africa have greened, and far from the idiot predictions of harvests going down, they have actually gone up due to the increase in CO2 levels.
The Sahara was actually green about 15,000 years ago, when the temperature was higher, due to more moisture in the air due to more warmth allowing more rain, allowing plants to grow.
Cold is actually far more dangerous to all forms of life than than the warming we are seeing (in the last bad winter in the UK, 40,000+ extra deaths were caused by cold mainly due to people not being able to afford heating mainly due to increases caused by extra costs due to useless "green initiatives", extra warmth in summer has never killed that many).
Probably you are not aware that people have a brain region connected to religious 'feelings'.
I used 'feeling' for the lack of a better word in my mediocre english.
Many sins where committed in the name of religions. But bottom line the sins are commited by people.
I frankly don't care what people believe as long as the behave like human beings.
If there were not religions to be abused by 'leaders' they would find something different.
I hate the Christians for destroying cultures, like the Maya and actually the Teutons and the Vikings etc. so that we now have to dig and need PhD.s and research programs to figure anything usefull about them.
But for 'your deity' sake, if you ... or someone ... want to believe in a deity that is your/his business.
Don't mix up the King of Spain who introduced the inquisition with christianity.
You say e.g. islam did mothing good? No idea, Islam is a religion.
The muslims living in Spain rescued the country. The roman had it deforestated that the whole peninsula was about to become a desert. Without the irrigation and terracing techniques the muslims introduced, the country we call Spain today would be an insignificant poor area on the level of Morocco or Ethiopia.
Also I would suggest to refresh your school knowledge: words like Nadir, Algebra, Algorithm are arabic. The numbers you use are: arabic. Most of the stars in the sky have Sumerian/Babylonian or Arabic names. Yes, they were named long before they became muslims, but anyway. People tend to mix up race/language/religion. Every arab is a muslim .... actually: no.
Every religious guy is a jackass or nutcrack? Actually not. Did I suffer from religion? Yes. But with 14 I could leave mine and skip religion classes in school. Spent my time in the computer room, learning UCSD Pascal and Assembler ... if I would not have been 'forced' to have religion classes, I would had not been able too skip them with 14 and jump into something I was interested in.
The cruelty in Arabia, especially against women, has nothing to so with religion. If you could wipe out religion, out of the minds of all involved, they still would treat women like animals, kill, rape and maim them. It is 'culture'. Lack of ethic development, not religion, is what makes people do bad things.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
He and that article are talking about snowfall being rare in Britain. How dumb are you?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
People need to stop vote for morons. Period.