My personal freedom allows me to kill a human being if they break into my house and threaten me. You know stand your ground. It doesn't matter to me if a fetus is a human being.
To me it's a matter of personal freedom. The woman's rights outweigh any rights the fetus may have until it's capable of living independently of her. That said I'd be happy if nobody ever felt they needed an abortion but I won't try to stand in the way of a woman's right to control her own body (really anyone's right to control their body).
So why don't you just ignore Al Gore and pay attention to actual climate scientists? If you reject the science simply because you think Gore is a hypocrite you've got it backwards.
The dividend is that the planet remains livable for 7+ billion people and our civilization doesn't collapse from an inability to keep up with the natural changes that are happening.
You know, the "global warming crowd" doesn't have to do anything to win the argument that it's happening. Just continuing business as usual will prove the truth in their argument. Ironically it's if we did get serious about doing something that the other side might get some traction because they'll be able to say "See, it's not as bad as you said it was going to be." Kind of like the folks that say Y2K was no big deal when the reason it wasn't a big deal is because we proactively did something about it.
Yes, you have to make some changes in your lifestyle if you don't want to wake up one day and find that you have to make *lots* of changes that are *far* less appealing because you've painted yourself into a corner that you cannot get out of.
This is exactly correct. You can voluntarily make changes today or have different and as AC says less appealing change forced on you by the changing physical conditions of the planet. For anyone under 30 or 40 years old the changes will be drastic later in their lives if they manage to avoid dying from some of the changes before they reach old age.
I can't answer for microbox but I hold the rights of a grown woman over the rights of a fetus and at least until said fetus is capable of living on it's own separate from the mother it has no rights and might be considered a parsite. As far as late term abortions, show me evidence that they aren't mostly done for the health of the mother rather than simply to terminate the pregnancy.
I had the same problem but then about a year ago I replaced the cheap toilet in my home with one that came highly recommended by Consumer Reports. It's a 1.3 gallon/flush model and it hasn't plugged once or even had any leftovers. IOW, if the toilet is properly designed the multiple flushes aren't required.
Water is essential to life on Earth too but somehow I doubt you'd enjoy being dropped in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
Sea level rise was about 1mm/year in the early part of the 20th Century, about 2 mm/year in the middle and since 1990 it's been around 3mm/year. That looks like acceleration to me. I think the physical oceanographers have a better idea than you what's going on.
Well, I don't "believe" in man made climate change either but I accept that the scientists who are studying it know what they're talking about. I guess what I believe in is the scientific method and it's proven worthy of that belief.
Well, you may be able to influence politicians with your money but you can't legally cast any more votes than I can. As I said it may not be much but I refuse to let cynicism take that away from me.
And the powers that be are glad you don't vote. The fewer people who vote, the more who are cynical about the process the more power they end up wielding. I personally refuse to let them make me that cynical.
PAC is short for Political Action Committee and it is a way of buying politicians. What is boils down to is a way for many people to combine their political contributions into one entity. (sarc) If the PAC supports your issues then that's ok. (/sarc)
I'm not against nuclear power per se but the more I learn the more it seems that it's just too expensive and won't be able to compete with other forms of power production. Many blame anti-nuke and environmental activists for the fact that no nuclear plants have been built in the US since the 1970's but I think most of the reason was that it was just too expensive compared to coal plants and now natural gas plants. They still can't be built without government guarantees for the loans to build them and government subsidies for liability insurance. I don't see how they're going to bring the cost down enough to be competitive.
Climate change may not hurt the rich much in the short run but if it gets to the point of the breakdown of our civilization all their wealth won't be worth enough to insulate them from the effects.
Am I the only one who read that headline and whose first thought was that they were talking about the remains of a real extraterrestrial from the supposed flying saucer crash in New Mexico in the 1950's? Maybe I should turn in my geek card. (BTW, I knew about the ET game cartridges in the land fill but I hadn't paid that much attention to the story so it didn't register that way at first.)
Oh please! This is not mathematics. Mann asserts what he writes in his published work. His scientific reputation stands or falls on that. All you have to do is show scientifically how he got it wrong. Failing that I guess all you left with is attacking Mann personally but that's a political argument that has nothing to do with science.
This decision has nothing to do with the lawsuit Mann filed against the National Review and Mark Steyn. The data that is relevant to Mann's scientific work is already available. If you want to discredit Mann then disprove the science he publishes.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually these guys learned a trick or two from Big Tobacco and some of them are the same guys (like Fred Singer).
My personal freedom allows me to kill a human being if they break into my house and threaten me. You know stand your ground. It doesn't matter to me if a fetus is a human being.
To me it's a matter of personal freedom. The woman's rights outweigh any rights the fetus may have until it's capable of living independently of her. That said I'd be happy if nobody ever felt they needed an abortion but I won't try to stand in the way of a woman's right to control her own body (really anyone's right to control their body).
I don't think the question matters given that there are already plenty of sanctioned ways that human beings are killed.
So why don't you just ignore Al Gore and pay attention to actual climate scientists? If you reject the science simply because you think Gore is a hypocrite you've got it backwards.
The dividend is that the planet remains livable for 7+ billion people and our civilization doesn't collapse from an inability to keep up with the natural changes that are happening.
You know, the "global warming crowd" doesn't have to do anything to win the argument that it's happening. Just continuing business as usual will prove the truth in their argument. Ironically it's if we did get serious about doing something that the other side might get some traction because they'll be able to say "See, it's not as bad as you said it was going to be." Kind of like the folks that say Y2K was no big deal when the reason it wasn't a big deal is because we proactively did something about it.
Enact a carbon tax and tax the goods China is selling us for the carbon embedded in their production.
Yes, you have to make some changes in your lifestyle if you don't want to wake up one day and find that you have to make *lots* of changes that are *far* less appealing because you've painted yourself into a corner that you cannot get out of.
This is exactly correct. You can voluntarily make changes today or have different and as AC says less appealing change forced on you by the changing physical conditions of the planet. For anyone under 30 or 40 years old the changes will be drastic later in their lives if they manage to avoid dying from some of the changes before they reach old age.
I can't answer for microbox but I hold the rights of a grown woman over the rights of a fetus and at least until said fetus is capable of living on it's own separate from the mother it has no rights and might be considered a parsite. As far as late term abortions, show me evidence that they aren't mostly done for the health of the mother rather than simply to terminate the pregnancy.
I had the same problem but then about a year ago I replaced the cheap toilet in my home with one that came highly recommended by Consumer Reports. It's a 1.3 gallon/flush model and it hasn't plugged once or even had any leftovers. IOW, if the toilet is properly designed the multiple flushes aren't required.
Water is essential to life on Earth too but somehow I doubt you'd enjoy being dropped in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
Sea level rise was about 1mm/year in the early part of the 20th Century, about 2 mm/year in the middle and since 1990 it's been around 3mm/year. That looks like acceleration to me. I think the physical oceanographers have a better idea than you what's going on.
Well, I don't "believe" in man made climate change either but I accept that the scientists who are studying it know what they're talking about. I guess what I believe in is the scientific method and it's proven worthy of that belief.
Well, you may be able to influence politicians with your money but you can't legally cast any more votes than I can. As I said it may not be much but I refuse to let cynicism take that away from me.
And I do do more than vote but casting a vote is the only thing where everyone has the same amount of power.
And the powers that be are glad you don't vote. The fewer people who vote, the more who are cynical about the process the more power they end up wielding. I personally refuse to let them make me that cynical.
PAC is short for Political Action Committee and it is a way of buying politicians. What is boils down to is a way for many people to combine their political contributions into one entity. (sarc) If the PAC supports your issues then that's ok. (/sarc)
I'm not against nuclear power per se but the more I learn the more it seems that it's just too expensive and won't be able to compete with other forms of power production. Many blame anti-nuke and environmental activists for the fact that no nuclear plants have been built in the US since the 1970's but I think most of the reason was that it was just too expensive compared to coal plants and now natural gas plants. They still can't be built without government guarantees for the loans to build them and government subsidies for liability insurance. I don't see how they're going to bring the cost down enough to be competitive.
Climate change may not hurt the rich much in the short run but if it gets to the point of the breakdown of our civilization all their wealth won't be worth enough to insulate them from the effects.
Am I the only one who read that headline and whose first thought was that they were talking about the remains of a real extraterrestrial from the supposed flying saucer crash in New Mexico in the 1950's? Maybe I should turn in my geek card. (BTW, I knew about the ET game cartridges in the land fill but I hadn't paid that much attention to the story so it didn't register that way at first.)
Portland does add chlorine to the water but that's about all.
They do add chlorine but the Bull Run water needs little treatment or filtering.
Oh please! This is not mathematics. Mann asserts what he writes in his published work. His scientific reputation stands or falls on that. All you have to do is show scientifically how he got it wrong. Failing that I guess all you left with is attacking Mann personally but that's a political argument that has nothing to do with science.
This decision had nothing to do with Mann's lawsuit against the National Review and Mark Steyn. They are two completely separate cases.
This decision has nothing to do with the lawsuit Mann filed against the National Review and Mark Steyn. The data that is relevant to Mann's scientific work is already available. If you want to discredit Mann then disprove the science he publishes.