ow this thread was already getting pretty stupid and then you topped it. Yeah and the worst thing fossil fuels produce is CO2. Right, which is why I point out that CO2 is not bad, if GW is not an issue. That sarcastic comment pretty much tops the stupid-meter. Don't sweat it though. You outdid yourself with:
And seriously wtf does this have to do with soda? Its not like they pump the CO2 from your car into coke... Um... Why do you think they call in "carbonated water"? What do you think those little bubbles are?
But people don't love it...too much, and it's pretty bad for us (Carbon Dioxide poisoning anyone?). First, CO2 levels that required for CO2 poisoning are so far off the chart compared to what is in our atmosphere that I don't think it's worth considering. Next, water poisoning (also called "drowning") can be pretty bad too. Should we ban water?
And besides, the point is that the other pollutants released along with CO2 (the ones everyone loves to ignore) are bad no matter what you are. OK, now we are getting somewhere. If it's the other stuff that's released with CO2, then mention those. Don't just blame CO2.
First, lack of sunspots corresponds to lowered solar output. Right, and the sun is coming off its heightened sunspot activity cycle, which peaked in 2000. Strange that that it's been cooling since then. Of course, don't let the facts get in the way of your preconceived notions.
Second, while the warming of Jupiter can be explained by increases in solar output, the warming of Earth can not. Do you honestly think climate scientists don't take this into account? That's either bordering on a tinfoil hat level of crazy conspiracy theory, or it represents an equally crazy level of disdain for other people's intellect.
I can't understand why anyone falls for this argument, it represents a complete lack of respect for science. So, if I assume that increases solar output leads to a warmer climate, that is "either bordering on a tinfoil hat level of crazy conspiracy theory, or it represents an equally crazy level of disdain for other people's intellect."
Wow! And here I thought I was just applying common sense! Does it not get warmer during the day when the sun is out? Does it not get cooler when the sun is NOT out? I guess that's just crazy talk to assume that sun has something to do with temperature.
I'm not a scientist, so I can only use common sense, research and observation draw my conclusions. Why don't you read this little article and be sure to write the scientist that wrote it and tell them how you know so much more than they do. Be sure to explain to them how temperature and sunspot cycle length rise and fall together EXACTLY, as referenced in figure 5.
HERE is another from CERN (PDF warning). I guess those guys have "a complete lack of respect for science." Maybe they are conspiracy theorists are on the payroll of big oil.
A striking correlation has recently been observed between global cloud cover and the flux of incident cosmic rays. The effect of naturalv ariations in the cosmic ray flux is large, causing estimated changes in the Earthâ(TM)s energy radiation balance that are comparable to those attributed to greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution.
While you probably don't agree with most of his stances on the myriad issues, his position on global warming is spot on. Even if all the hullaballoo surrounding whether humans are the primary cause of global climate change or not, if we take actions now to stem wholesale dumping of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, whether it turns out that we have a huge impact on the global ecosystem or not, at least the world we leave behind will be cleaner and more hospitable for our children and future generations.
With new data pointing to a possible solar cause to global climate change, it does not change the fact that sucking up all the available fuels and dumping CO2 into the atomsphere is making the world a worse place to live.
Hopefully we can make the right changes whether or not the science backs us up. You write that with the assumption the CO2 is bad in ways other than as a greenhouse gas. How is CO2 bad? Sodas love it. Breath mints love it. Plants love it. Hell, higher levels of CO2 actually make plants grow better, increasing crop yields, helping to feed the world (provided we don't use it all for bio fuels in an attempt to combat CO2).
Yeah, everybody knows that it's sunspots that cause climate change. Or maybe its absence of sunspots. Yeah, must be that, cause that's what we've got. It certainly isn't my SUV! Not unless you've been driving your SUV on Jupiter, which is also experiencing warming...
Couldn't be the sun causing GW. Why would anyone even think that the primary source of heat in the solar system would be responsible for warming?
The fourth, second, and tenth amendments all contraindicate the very existence of TSA. What was ok for a private company to make a condition of sale is not ok for the federal government to demand on it's whim. Airlines don't have to make you go through TSA. They could treat all flights as chartered flights and walk you straight to the tarmac. Airlines could also take off from private airports where they could set up their own security requirements, or have none at all. It's airlines that choose to let the government handle security. It's the airlines that choose to operate out of publicly owned airports. The airlines prefer TSA because it takes the responsibility off their shoulders, sets national standards, and is much cheaper than handling security on their own.
Also, does the fourth and tenth prevent TSA from searching (either manually or via x-ray) your carry-on luggage? What about making you walk through a metal detector, waving the wand over you and searching your shoes? If these violate the fourth and tenth, then why all the bitching about showing ID? Showing ID is the least intrusive search the TSA does. Why all the hub-bub over it?
Because I'm a FUCKING AMERICAN CITIZEN, and I shouldn't have to prove who I am just to peacefully move around the country
Lemmy said it as well as I could. How do the ticket counter people know that you are an American citizen? Also, you are free to move about the country as you wish. Charter your own flight or rent a private plane and you can travel as you wish, ID free. I would have mentioned driving, but you need an ID to do that. Is that a violation of your rights? Also, requiring you to show ID does not stop you from traveling, unless, there is some legal reason that prevents you from traveling, you are a wanted criminal for example.
Unless the authorities have some reason to believe I'm doing something wrong, I should not have to let anyone look through my private belongings. Are you saying that TSA has no right to go through your bags looking for a bomb or whatever? Sorry, but the day they stop searching luggage and carry-ons is the day that I stop flying. Many other people would stop as well. The airlines are aware of this, which is why they like the security provided by TSA. Airlines do, however, charter flights. You are free to charter one and board without having your luggage searched and without TSA asking for ID.
I especially shouldn't have to produce easily forgable identification, to check whether my name is on some secret list of "dangerous people" who aren't going to be flying under their real name anyway. People are caught trying to fly every day that shouldn't be flying. The idea works to some degree. Sure, it's not full proof, but it is effective. Nothing is full proof. Are you saying we should do nothing?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Um, I don't see anything about ID or privacy in here. What I do see is a statement that says that the Bill of Rights is not all the rights you may have. The previous eight amendments are not all inclusive.
What this does NOT say is, "These are examples of the rights you have. Everything else is also a right."
I'm not sure I get your argument here...flying on a plane is just another form of transportation, nothing special except is it usually faster than a bus, train or car. Why should you argue you are free to travel by all other means except for air flight? It doesn't make sense... You are free to fly without ID. You are free to carry loaded weapons onto the flight with you. You can even sit in the cockpit and make airplane noises. You just have to charter the flight and/or book a private plane and you can do as you like. It's no different than chartering a bus or hiring a driver, just much faster and more expensive.
However, if you want to book on a national carrier and leave from a publicly owned airport, then you have to get searched and show ID. Of course, the airlines could easily whisk you past security and directly to you flight, but they won't unless you charter the flight or make some other special arrangements. Airlines are also free to set up their own airports or take off and land from rented space at a private airport where they could make the rules, but again, they don't. When the government owns something, like an airport, they get to make the rules (this is why I'm against government health care). You are free to use some other private forms of travel. Same goes for roads. The government owns the road, they make the rules. Don't like it? Build your own road and you free to travel as fast as you want with no laws whatsoever.
And there ARE rules that the govt is not supposed to be able to impede a US citizen from traveling amongst the various states.. They don't. You are free to set up your own transportation. Set up a group of traveling libertarians like yourself and charter your own flights.
First, asking who you are is a search. And you're generally welcome to refuse such searches. Apparently just not at airports. If asking for ID constitutes a search, is it an unreasonable search? We allow TSA to literally search our bodies and our luggage. Is that unreasonable? Evidently not. Why not? If we allow that search, and consider it to be reasonable, isn't asking or ID THAT much more reasonable. I think it's clear that the interrogation and SEARCH truly is a SEARCH without a doubt. Whether asking for ID is a search is debatable. So how can it be OK to get SEARCHED, and somehow not be OK to ask for ID because it constitutes a SEARCH?
So, if the TSA wanted to issue me a card that said "Not a terrorist, OK to fly" and had my picture on it, I'd be happy to show them that. But they don't need to know who I am, and they don't need to be able to tie me to any other databases or identifying information. Then what is the point of no-fly lists? If they don't know who you are, how can they possibly check your name against such a list. Do you expect the ticketing counter clerk to be able to recognize every such person on that list? (Regardless of how you feel about no fly lists or how well they are handled, the idea is necessary to keep people who shouldn't be traveling from traveling. Wanted criminals or those awaiting trial for example)
The fact that I want to leave my immediate geographic area does not make me suspicious. Millions upon millions of people who aren't committing crimes (let alone flight-related crimes) travel every year; that by it's nature makes travel a "typical" behavior, which by definition is not suspicious. No, traveling does not make you suspicious. Driving to work every day does not make me suspicious either, yet I have to have a visible plate on my vehicle that identifies my vehicle and me as the owner. Is THAT unreasonable? Of course, I could rent a car every day, but I need ID to do that as well.
But to get to the bottom of this, it's not that it is impossible to fly without and ID. You are free to gather several like minded individuals and charter your own flights, ID free. You can hire a pilot and rent a plane and travel pretty much wherever you like. You can even get your own license and buy your own plane and travel anywhere at any time weather permits, ID free. But if you want to fly on a national carrier, from a publicly owned airport, you must show ID. When the government owns something, the airport in this case, they get to make the rules. (This is why I'm against government health care). Those rules are made with the full support from the airline industry, who, if they wish, could easily walk you past security and onto your own plane, even at a public airport. But the airlines like security more than anyone, and fully support and pay TSA for providing it.
Asking who you are is not a search True, and I can be asked who I am. However, viewing an ID is a search. Um, wouldn't the actual SEARCH be a search as well? You know, the part where they go through your luggage, ask you to empty your pockets, feel you up... You know THAT search.
Um.. isn't that a SEARCH? Is that search not OK? So, if THAT search is OK, where they actually search you, then wouldn't asking for your ID be OK too?
I mean, if SEARCHhing you and SEIZing your luggage is not an is not unreasonable SEARCH AND SEIZURE, then how is asking for ID?
The excuse is that driving is not a right. Neither is flying.
There is a need to control who fishes to maintain a proper balance of fishing and conservation. There is a need to control who flies on a plane. Those "no-fly" lists aren't just for fun, you know.
Travel, including interstate travel, is a constitutionally protected right. But the method of travel is not mentioned. You are free to leave your ID at home and walk wherever you would like to go.
Please don't even respond to any of this except the first point (how can you allow them to search you and then claim that asking for ID is a search?). I don't care to argue the rest of it.
I believe right to privacy comes to mind... Which amendment would that be, exactly?
(Before you say the fourth, keep in mind that no one has a problem with them truly searching you before you board the plane... so if searching your person and belongings is not a violation of the fourth, then how is asking for ID a violation)
...but currently without reasonable articulable suspicion i don't have to answer.
it's called "at liberty" or BEING FREE. you have no legitimate legal authority to demand anything from me absent such a suspicion of crime afoot in which you suspect me and can articulate exactly why, other than your "hunch" or instant allegation in a court of law. Right. You are free. You are free to drive, walk, take the bus, train, hitchhike or use whatever method of travel your free ass desires. But to get on a plane, you must show ID. You are FREE to make your choice.
got that? see, as an american, i DO NOT have to prove my innocence to avoid more than a slight (Terry v. Ohio) detention and i DO NOT have to answer any questions, nor provide any specific ID or any at all, nor can i be punished for NOT answering/doing so. And TSA has no legal obligation to allow you onto the plane. See how these things work? So you still have a choice. You don't have to show people shit if you don't want to. There, see, your rights are in tact.
Here is where your logic fails. Using your logic, until you do something wrong, like shooting a gun, then TSA has no right to stop you from carrying a loaded gun onto the plane. You have committed no crime, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is literally spelled out quite clearly in the Second Amendment. So are you implying that everyone should be allowed to carry on loaded guns?
Of course not. I'll assume you'll also say that it's OK for TSA to search your bags and person for bombs and/or other weapons. Is that not a violation of the Fourth? Why is it OK for TSA to pat you down and make you empty your pockets, but saying, "may I see your ID" is a violation!??!
Being secure in my person and papers implies that you can't look at those papers unless I feel like showing them to you. No warrants without probable cause means that if you want to see my ID so bad, get a judge to tell me I have to show it to you because it's mine and mine alone that you want to look at since you think I've committed some crime or other. You're 100% right. You DO NOT have to show your ID (papers, as you call them) to TSA. And TSA does not have to let you on the plane.
Next, the Fourth states "...against unreasonable searches..." If you are boarding a plane, then it is reasonable to ask you for ID, just as it is reasonable to pat you down or make you walk through a metal detector.
Seriously. You go the the airport and drop off your bags to an agent who asks you questions about them. Then you take your carry on to the checkpoint where another agent goes through your carry on bag and a third literally searches your person. I mean REALLY searches you, feels you up, does the metal detector wand thing, makes you empty your pockets and asks you about the pills you are carrying onto the plane.... AND YOU THINK SOMEONE ASKING YOU FOR ID IS A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH?!!?
Absolutely not. By asking this question, you've demonstrated that you're ALREADY under their control. Nope, I can turn around and walk out, or I can show them my ID and board the plane. I have a choice, and thus, I am in control. However, you must give up SOME control before boarding the plane. You can't demand that you get to land the damn thing. You also give up control when you ride in a cab, bus, train, or drive your car. So, yeah, you give some control to TSA and the airline, the whole thing wouldn't work otherwise. But just because there are rules that must be followed, doesn't mean that you have forfeited your rights.
And as far as what constitutional rights have been violated, you are ignorant and misunderstanding the bill of rights. The bill of rights is not an enumeration of what rights you have - it's merely a list of a few of your rights that the framers thought so important as to merit special mention.
In fact, some were against a bill of rights for the very reason that they felt that the ignorant would see them as your only rights. As a compromise, the ninth amendment was added to make sure people understood this fact:
Ninth Amendment - Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
As you have demonstrated, it didn't fucking work. First, the Bill or Rights states what government may NOT do to you. "Congress shall make no law..." or "...shall not be infringed"
Next, um, while I'm no Constitutional scholar, I'm pretty sure that the Ninth Amendment doesn't mean translate to "Everything not mentioned here is also a right".
You could have made a more convincing case by going with Amendment X, anyway.
You dismiss his "source" out of hand, but then waive around what? Newsweek? Really? That's your awesome source beyond all reproach? No wait, you also included the Times. Yes, two sources which are the pinnacle of peer reviewed scientific literature. Yep, no chance that they could've been publishing sensational stories intended to drive sales. No chance of that at all.
Methinks you need to find qualified sources. Pot, meet Kettle. Nice to meet you...
Seriously, he the GP stated "In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing."
I showed that they were, even if it were published in Newsweek and NYT. HERE is a better one. Does "American Association for the Advancement of Science" qualify as a better source?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Asking who you are is not a search. Otherwise, the whole passport system is unconstitutional. The whole drivers license thing is unconstitutional. The whole library card system is unconstitutional. The whole fishing license...
See where I'm going with the this? If the Fourth applies to ID here, then it has to apply EVERYWHERE!
Now, I understand that we don't want federal police officers asking us for ID at every corner. (Not that they don't have better things to do) I think it has something to do with the fact that you wanting to travel makes it reasonable.
Papiere, bitte. That didn't answer my question, so I'll ask again:
And again, please, show me how making you show ID keeps you from doing any one of the things listed in the Bill of Rights. Just one... That is all I ask. Show me what Constitutional Right is stomped on by making you show ID. If you can't, then whip out your ID and STFU. Antwort, bitte
As to your simple FUD response, can you tell me which amendment in the Bill of Rights states that you are free to travel without ID?
Have already bought all of the fake IDs that they need to do their jobs because they are well-trained and financed. Nothing done here would capture the caliber of terrorists capable of actually pulling off another 9-11. All of the original 9-11 terrorists had their IDs in order. WHAT?!!? We can't stop the next 9-11? Oh, shit! Why try anything at all then?
Hudson: "Oh that's just great man, that's just great. Now what the fu*k are we supposed to do now man?" Burke: "why don't we build a campfire? sing some songs? huh?" Hudson: "It's game over now man, it's game over. Now what are we supposed to do? we're in some pretty sh*t now man." No seriously, if requiring ID won't solve the world's problems, then we should do away with ID's all together! Hell, requiring a driver's license won't stop people from speeding, so let's ban them all! Me not driving an SUV won't save the climate, so fuckit! I'm getting a Cadillac Escalade!
It won't solve the problem 100%, so let's not do it. I guess we should shut down the airlines until we can find the single solution that will prevent all terrorists attacks, 100% of the time.
that refuse to go along with the pack and surrender all of their rights when asked in a confident voice by an authority figure.
Bingo. They could not have made the intention any more transparent. It's not about security - otherwise why is pat-down good enough for people who just make up an excuse? It's about control and making the population submissive. We learn to bend over at the airport and it makes it easier to do it at the checkpoint, the federal building, the state border, or while jogging in a neighborhood in which they think you don't belong.
I don't get it. When someone says, "May I see your ID, sir" and I show it to them, am I suddenly under their control? Have I suddenly lost the right to... I don't know.. speak freely when I show ID? People all over the world have had to show ID (passport) to travel from country to country. How is this different?
I'm sorry, I can't keep up that charade any more. If you lose all self control because someone asks you for ID, you are fucking idiot and you shouldn't be leaving your town anyway.
Seriously, WHAT CONSTITUTION RIGHT IS INFRINGED ON BY HAVING TO SHOW ID?
Indeed. Will people really feel safer in an "Ihre Papieren, bitte" society? If so, there's something seriously screwed up with the people, not just the government. I'm sorry, but people have had to show their passports when leaving the country for decades. Sorry, but I don't feel like I live in some type of tyrannical Papieren, bitte society.
Will someone kindly explain how this is somehow different? How making me show ID before boarding a plane will somehow strip me of my right to travel, speak freely or take advantage of any other Constitutional right?
It's also amazing how conservatives claim to strive for less state control by not regulating the market and by not taxing the rich and powerful, but they sure don't have a problem regulating the lives of the many by imposing "security measures" and by ignoring human rights in the name of national security. First, making you show ID in no way, shape or form, regulates your life or somehow violates human rights. Just show the fucking ID and move on. Is it really that fucking hard?
But you say that terrorists carry ID too. True. But seriously, the gov't spends a LOT of time and money making no fly lists. Some of those people on that list are people that you and I don't want to be on a plane with. This is not imaginary, this is fact. See 9-11-01 for an example. What's the point of making all these lists if you are not going to require people to show ID before boarding the plane?
And again, please, show me how making you show ID keeps you from doing any one of the things listed in the Bill of Rights. Just one... That is all I ask. Show me what Constitutional Right is stomped on by making you show ID. If you can't, then whip out your ID and STFU.
No, we are not talking about child porn. We are talking about computer generated porn. No children involved, just pixels. So if no children were harmed, then it's OK, right? So I guess it would be OK to hide a camera in a Jr. High school locker room and trade those pics?
I'm so terribly sorry that you are so wrapped up in yourself that you expect everyone else to give up their freedom, just so you can have the OPTION to ignore your children. Sorry, but not everything is free. I know it's hard to grasp, but on occasion, we don't get to do what we want. If your parents had raised YOU, you'd have learned that lesson.
Hey, here is a thought. Be a fucking adult and act like the responsible parent by actually paying attention to your kid instead of trying make everyone live in a disneyfied world I never said that. You're making shit up. I'm just asking that people don't wank off to pictures of kids. Real or not. Sorry, but if you find yourself looking at pictures of naked children and liking it, I don't want to enable you. I want you getting help.
Fuck you and your children. I am an adult, I am single, I don't have kids, and I should not have to live my life as if I am 13 because you and your ilk are too lazy and too stupid to actually be parents and protect your children. I take care of my kids. My kids are not the issue. It's kids in general. Besides, how well I take care of my kids is not at issue here. Bad things happen to the children of great parents all the time. It's not about parenting, it's about predators. I find it sad that you don't seem to have a problem with them.
And sorry, but you can't do whatever you want. I know it's a hard lesson to learn, but there is no such thing as a 100% free society. If you want that, you must go to a place that has no government. You better hurry as those societies don't tend to last that long. Which makes me wonder, why do want to turn society in to such a place?
NOW GO BACK TO YOUR NAMBLA MEETING, YOU SICK PEDOPHILE FUCK!
Here is a quote from your first RealClimate link:
In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing. Really? Did they not read Newsweek April 28, 1975? It contained an article called "The Cooling World". Here is a quote:
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree â" a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. So they were doing no such thing, eh? Well, either the article I'm quoting from was never really written or realclimate.org is dead fucking wrong. I wonder which one it is? I'm sure that realclimate.org has fact-checkers and all. I mean, it took me about 120 seconds to find, maybe we expect too much of them. Or maybe they have an agenda to push and don't see a problem with lying to get that agenda pushed through.
Here are some more predictions for your reading pleasure:
The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be âoewiped outâ or lower crop yields would mean âoebillions will die.â
Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting â" blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.
Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, âoeGeologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.â
Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earthâ(TM)s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning âoethe earth is steadily growing warmer.â
After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled âoeClimate â" the Heat May Be Off.â As the United States and the old Soviet Union faced off, the media joined them with reports of a more dangerous Cold War of Man vs. Nature.
The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but it too came around to the new fears. Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: âoeA Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.â Methinks you need to find qualified sources.
The sad thing is - you are NOT joking and actually believe that bullshit. Yeah. And you believe yours, which is not as sad as the following:
What really gets me is how you, one who claims that environmentalists are always right, is sitting there, using a computer, which uses a LOT of energy, to post about how right the environmentalists are. Really, there you are, wasting energy, contributing to the problem, defending those that would gladly take your computer power plug away from you because you use it for frivolous things and it contributes to global warming. Since, you know, they are right and YOU are wrong. Trust me, taking your plug will contribute the greater good and save the world. See, no floods yet. It must be working.
You are both a hypocrite and a useful idiot. Here is some light reading for you:
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."
C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."
In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich's predictions about England were gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."
Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."
It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't understand why anyone falls for this argument, it represents a complete lack of respect for science. So, if I assume that increases solar output leads to a warmer climate, that is "either bordering on a tinfoil hat level of crazy conspiracy theory, or it represents an equally crazy level of disdain for other people's intellect."
Wow! And here I thought I was just applying common sense! Does it not get warmer during the day when the sun is out? Does it not get cooler when the sun is NOT out? I guess that's just crazy talk to assume that sun has something to do with temperature.
I'm not a scientist, so I can only use common sense, research and observation draw my conclusions. Why don't you read this little article and be sure to write the scientist that wrote it and tell them how you know so much more than they do. Be sure to explain to them how temperature and sunspot cycle length rise and fall together EXACTLY, as referenced in figure 5.
HERE is another from CERN (PDF warning). I guess those guys have "a complete lack of respect for science." Maybe they are conspiracy theorists are on the payroll of big oil. A striking correlation has recently been observed between global cloud cover and the flux of incident cosmic rays. The effect of naturalv ariations in the cosmic ray flux is large, causing estimated changes in the Earthâ(TM)s energy radiation balance that are comparable to those attributed to greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution.
With new data pointing to a possible solar cause to global climate change, it does not change the fact that sucking up all the available fuels and dumping CO2 into the atomsphere is making the world a worse place to live.
Hopefully we can make the right changes whether or not the science backs us up. You write that with the assumption the CO2 is bad in ways other than as a greenhouse gas. How is CO2 bad? Sodas love it. Breath mints love it. Plants love it. Hell, higher levels of CO2 actually make plants grow better, increasing crop yields, helping to feed the world (provided we don't use it all for bio fuels in an attempt to combat CO2).
Couldn't be the sun causing GW. Why would anyone even think that the primary source of heat in the solar system would be responsible for warming?
Also, does the fourth and tenth prevent TSA from searching (either manually or via x-ray) your carry-on luggage? What about making you walk through a metal detector, waving the wand over you and searching your shoes? If these violate the fourth and tenth, then why all the bitching about showing ID? Showing ID is the least intrusive search the TSA does. Why all the hub-bub over it?
Because I'm a FUCKING AMERICAN CITIZEN, and I shouldn't have to prove who I am just to peacefully move around the country
Lemmy said it as well as I could. How do the ticket counter people know that you are an American citizen?Also, you are free to move about the country as you wish. Charter your own flight or rent a private plane and you can travel as you wish, ID free. I would have mentioned driving, but you need an ID to do that. Is that a violation of your rights? Also, requiring you to show ID does not stop you from traveling, unless, there is some legal reason that prevents you from traveling, you are a wanted criminal for example. Unless the authorities have some reason to believe I'm doing something wrong, I should not have to let anyone look through my private belongings. Are you saying that TSA has no right to go through your bags looking for a bomb or whatever? Sorry, but the day they stop searching luggage and carry-ons is the day that I stop flying. Many other people would stop as well. The airlines are aware of this, which is why they like the security provided by TSA. Airlines do, however, charter flights. You are free to charter one and board without having your luggage searched and without TSA asking for ID. I especially shouldn't have to produce easily forgable identification, to check whether my name is on some secret list of "dangerous people" who aren't going to be flying under their real name anyway. People are caught trying to fly every day that shouldn't be flying. The idea works to some degree. Sure, it's not full proof, but it is effective. Nothing is full proof. Are you saying we should do nothing?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Um, I don't see anything about ID or privacy in here. What I do see is a statement that says that the Bill of Rights is not all the rights you may have. The previous eight amendments are not all inclusive.
What this does NOT say is, "These are examples of the rights you have. Everything else is also a right."
However, if you want to book on a national carrier and leave from a publicly owned airport, then you have to get searched and show ID. Of course, the airlines could easily whisk you past security and directly to you flight, but they won't unless you charter the flight or make some other special arrangements. Airlines are also free to set up their own airports or take off and land from rented space at a private airport where they could make the rules, but again, they don't. When the government owns something, like an airport, they get to make the rules (this is why I'm against government health care). You are free to use some other private forms of travel. Same goes for roads. The government owns the road, they make the rules. Don't like it? Build your own road and you free to travel as fast as you want with no laws whatsoever. And there ARE rules that the govt is not supposed to be able to impede a US citizen from traveling amongst the various states.. They don't. You are free to set up your own transportation. Set up a group of traveling libertarians like yourself and charter your own flights.
But to get to the bottom of this, it's not that it is impossible to fly without and ID. You are free to gather several like minded individuals and charter your own flights, ID free. You can hire a pilot and rent a plane and travel pretty much wherever you like. You can even get your own license and buy your own plane and travel anywhere at any time weather permits, ID free. But if you want to fly on a national carrier, from a publicly owned airport, you must show ID. When the government owns something, the airport in this case, they get to make the rules. (This is why I'm against government health care). Those rules are made with the full support from the airline industry, who, if they wish, could easily walk you past security and onto your own plane, even at a public airport. But the airlines like security more than anyone, and fully support and pay TSA for providing it.
Um.. isn't that a SEARCH? Is that search not OK? So, if THAT search is OK, where they actually search you, then wouldn't asking for your ID be OK too?
I mean, if SEARCHhing you and SEIZing your luggage is not an is not unreasonable SEARCH AND SEIZURE, then how is asking for ID? The excuse is that driving is not a right. Neither is flying. There is a need to control who fishes to maintain a proper balance of fishing and conservation. There is a need to control who flies on a plane. Those "no-fly" lists aren't just for fun, you know. Travel, including interstate travel, is a constitutionally protected right. But the method of travel is not mentioned. You are free to leave your ID at home and walk wherever you would like to go.
Please don't even respond to any of this except the first point (how can you allow them to search you and then claim that asking for ID is a search?). I don't care to argue the rest of it.
(Before you say the fourth, keep in mind that no one has a problem with them truly searching you before you board the plane... so if searching your person and belongings is not a violation of the fourth, then how is asking for ID a violation)
...but currently without reasonable articulable suspicion i don't have to answer.it's called "at liberty" or BEING FREE. you have no legitimate legal authority to demand anything from me absent such a suspicion of crime afoot in which you suspect me and can articulate exactly why, other than your "hunch" or instant allegation in a court of law. Right. You are free. You are free to drive, walk, take the bus, train, hitchhike or use whatever method of travel your free ass desires. But to get on a plane, you must show ID. You are FREE to make your choice. got that? see, as an american, i DO NOT have to prove my innocence to avoid more than a slight (Terry v. Ohio) detention and i DO NOT have to answer any questions, nor provide any specific ID or any at all, nor can i be punished for NOT answering/doing so. And TSA has no legal obligation to allow you onto the plane. See how these things work? So you still have a choice. You don't have to show people shit if you don't want to. There, see, your rights are in tact.
Here is where your logic fails. Using your logic, until you do something wrong, like shooting a gun, then TSA has no right to stop you from carrying a loaded gun onto the plane. You have committed no crime, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is literally spelled out quite clearly in the Second Amendment. So are you implying that everyone should be allowed to carry on loaded guns?
Of course not. I'll assume you'll also say that it's OK for TSA to search your bags and person for bombs and/or other weapons. Is that not a violation of the Fourth? Why is it OK for TSA to pat you down and make you empty your pockets, but saying, "may I see your ID" is a violation!??!
Next, the Fourth states "...against unreasonable searches..." If you are boarding a plane, then it is reasonable to ask you for ID, just as it is reasonable to pat you down or make you walk through a metal detector.
Seriously. You go the the airport and drop off your bags to an agent who asks you questions about them. Then you take your carry on to the checkpoint where another agent goes through your carry on bag and a third literally searches your person. I mean REALLY searches you, feels you up, does the metal detector wand thing, makes you empty your pockets and asks you about the pills you are carrying onto the plane....
AND YOU THINK SOMEONE ASKING YOU FOR ID IS A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH?!!?
In fact, some were against a bill of rights for the very reason that they felt that the ignorant would see them as your only rights. As a compromise, the ninth amendment was added to make sure people understood this fact:
Ninth Amendment - Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
As you have demonstrated, it didn't fucking work. First, the Bill or Rights states what government may NOT do to you. "Congress shall make no law..." or "...shall not be infringed"
Next, um, while I'm no Constitutional scholar, I'm pretty sure that the Ninth Amendment doesn't mean translate to "Everything not mentioned here is also a right".
You could have made a more convincing case by going with Amendment X, anyway.
Seriously, he the GP stated "In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing."
I showed that they were, even if it were published in Newsweek and NYT. HERE is a better one. Does "American Association for the Advancement of Science" qualify as a better source?
See where I'm going with the this? If the Fourth applies to ID here, then it has to apply EVERYWHERE!
Now, I understand that we don't want federal police officers asking us for ID at every corner. (Not that they don't have better things to do) I think it has something to do with the fact that you wanting to travel makes it reasonable.
As to your simple FUD response, can you tell me which amendment in the Bill of Rights states that you are free to travel without ID?
Antwort, bitte
Burke: "why don't we build a campfire? sing some songs? huh?"
Hudson: "It's game over now man, it's game over. Now what are we supposed to do? we're in some pretty sh*t now man." No seriously, if requiring ID won't solve the world's problems, then we should do away with ID's all together! Hell, requiring a driver's license won't stop people from speeding, so let's ban them all! Me not driving an SUV won't save the climate, so fuckit! I'm getting a Cadillac Escalade!
It won't solve the problem 100%, so let's not do it. I guess we should shut down the airlines until we can find the single solution that will prevent all terrorists attacks, 100% of the time.
that refuse to go along with the pack and surrender all of their rights when asked in a confident voice by an authority figure.
Bingo. They could not have made the intention any more transparent. It's not about security - otherwise why is pat-down good enough for people who just make up an excuse? It's about control and making the population submissive. We learn to bend over at the airport and it makes it easier to do it at the checkpoint, the federal building, the state border, or while jogging in a neighborhood in which they think you don't belong.
I don't get it. When someone says, "May I see your ID, sir" and I show it to them, am I suddenly under their control? Have I suddenly lost the right to... I don't know.. speak freely when I show ID? People all over the world have had to show ID (passport) to travel from country to country. How is this different?I'm sorry, I can't keep up that charade any more. If you lose all self control because someone asks you for ID, you are fucking idiot and you shouldn't be leaving your town anyway.
Seriously, WHAT CONSTITUTION RIGHT IS INFRINGED ON BY HAVING TO SHOW ID?
Will people really feel safer in an "Ihre Papieren, bitte" society?
If so, there's something seriously screwed up with the people, not just the government. I'm sorry, but people have had to show their passports when leaving the country for decades. Sorry, but I don't feel like I live in some type of tyrannical Papieren, bitte society.
Will someone kindly explain how this is somehow different? How making me show ID before boarding a plane will somehow strip me of my right to travel, speak freely or take advantage of any other Constitutional right?
But you say that terrorists carry ID too. True. But seriously, the gov't spends a LOT of time and money making no fly lists. Some of those people on that list are people that you and I don't want to be on a plane with. This is not imaginary, this is fact. See 9-11-01 for an example. What's the point of making all these lists if you are not going to require people to show ID before boarding the plane?
And again, please, show me how making you show ID keeps you from doing any one of the things listed in the Bill of Rights. Just one... That is all I ask. Show me what Constitutional Right is stomped on by making you show ID. If you can't, then whip out your ID and STFU.
And sorry, but you can't do whatever you want. I know it's a hard lesson to learn, but there is no such thing as a 100% free society. If you want that, you must go to a place that has no government. You better hurry as those societies don't tend to last that long. Which makes me wonder, why do want to turn society in to such a place?
NOW GO BACK TO YOUR NAMBLA MEETING, YOU SICK PEDOPHILE FUCK!
Ahhhh... Moving right along:
Here is a quote from your first RealClimate link: In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing. Really? Did they not read Newsweek April 28, 1975? It contained an article called "The Cooling World". Here is a quote: The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree â" a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. So they were doing no such thing, eh? Well, either the article I'm quoting from was never really written or realclimate.org is dead fucking wrong. I wonder which one it is? I'm sure that realclimate.org has fact-checkers and all. I mean, it took me about 120 seconds to find, maybe we expect too much of them. Or maybe they have an agenda to push and don't see a problem with lying to get that agenda pushed through.
Here are some more predictions for your reading pleasure: The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be âoewiped outâ or lower crop yields would mean âoebillions will die.â
Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting â" blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.
Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, âoeGeologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.â
Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earthâ(TM)s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning âoethe earth is steadily growing warmer.â
After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled âoeClimate â" the Heat May Be Off.â As the United States and the old Soviet Union faced off, the media joined them with reports of a more dangerous Cold War of Man vs. Nature.
The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but it too came around to the new fears. Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: âoeA Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.â Methinks you need to find qualified sources.
What really gets me is how you, one who claims that environmentalists are always right, is sitting there, using a computer, which uses a LOT of energy, to post about how right the environmentalists are. Really, there you are, wasting energy, contributing to the problem, defending those that would gladly take your computer power plug away from you because you use it for frivolous things and it contributes to global warming. Since, you know, they are right and YOU are wrong. Trust me, taking your plug will contribute the greater good and save the world. See, no floods yet. It must be working.
You are both a hypocrite and a useful idiot. Here is some light reading for you: At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."
C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."
In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore's hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the 1970s
In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."
Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "... civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "... somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."
It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there's a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.