We, as Atheists, affirm that once life appeared as a very basic form of joint C-H-O-N molecules...
Why must you be an Atheist to believe in evolution? Who am I, as a Christian, to say that God didn't create the creatures of the world via evolution, or the universe via the big bang? All I can be sure of is that I don't know much of anything beyond my own existence, and even then I sometimes have my doubts.:-) It's like the time I asked Descartes if he could prove MY existence. He started by saying, "Well, I don't think..." and vanished.
I guess my only point is that don't assume you have to be an Atheist to believe in evolution. Personally, I don't see Creationism (ID) and Evolution as mutually exclusive.
If you really feel that Republicans are THAT bad, and you honestly believe the tripe that you type (They did all of these things with malice aforethought and with no possibility of any sort of positive outcome from their cowardly treasonous actions.), then it is DUTY as a patriotic American to gather other true patriots like yourself and put your Second Amendment rights to the use they are intended for and overthrow the tyranny that has entrenched itself in Washington. Otherwise, you are coward hiding behind a keyboard.
So, STFU until your revolution is complete. You have better things to do.
I realize you're probably joking, but I'd like to make it clear that "related to" != "evolved from." Saying that we evolved from some species just because we are related to it would be like suggesting that your aunt gave birth to you.
Excellent analogy. I hope you don't mind if I extend it one step further by saying it would be more like cousin gave birth to you, since both we and modern monkeys are of the same evolutionary generation.
Although I would hope that there would be more democrats than republicans who would support consumer rights over corporate profits, I don't expect to see any progressive entertainment legislation anytime soon, if ever. There is just too much influence in our fourth branch of government to enact any meaningful change. Meet the new boss... same as the old boss.
Am I the only one that notices when an anti-republican or anti-Bush article is posted, most of the replies focus on how evil Republicans/Bush/Rove are, but when an anti-democrat article is linked, the closest thing to criticism is "both parties suck!"
Ah yes, except instead of "blowjob,"... One of those "blowjobs" was while the Prez was on the phone discussing Bosnia. My brother was a soldier in Bosnia at that time. So while you think that it was just an innocent "blowjob", it put my brother's life in more danger than it needed to be in. When our troops are in harms way, I expect the prez to give his undivided attention when the issue comes up.
we instead are dealing with the rigging of elections via bogus "voter fraud" They didn't do a very good job this last election did they? Looks to me that they should have been investigating voting fraud on the other side of the aisle. Wasn't it a democrat who said, "vote early, vote often"?
cases and U.S. attorneys more loyal to the GOP than they are to the country. Is that fact or your opinion? Considering that all I've seen the Democrats do since 2000 is try to bring down the prez, even if it means bringing down the country, I can't blame him for wanting a few loyal attorneys!
And WMD lies that led us into a now-four year war. Lies or passing on misinformation. Keep in mind that those "lies" were reported by leaders around the world. If we find a way to go faster than the speed of light, does that make Einstein a liar? It makes him wrong, but not a liar. I think you need to get your terminology straight. Truth is, I would rather have a prez that acts on "slam dunk" information than one who sits in his office getting a blowjob waiting for the cyclohexylsarin cloud to form in a NY subway. But that's just my opinion.
But yeah, exactly the same as Clinton. Not even close.
Clinton/UN intervened in Bosnia/Kosovo as well, and helped stop a genocide.
Sorry, but the UN had nothing to do with it. Remember, Milosovich has the Russians in his pocket and Russians wield veto power. No, the UN was as powerless in Kosovo as it is anywhere else. Kosovo was a NATO operation.
How will changing our energy policy destroy the economy and enslave us all?" There is never an answer for that.
Because it appears to me that the majority of the Global Warming alarmist have an anti-capitalist, and therefor anti-American agenda. Here are a few quotes from government employees and environmentalists hoping to push their agenda via GW:
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister
Your Majesty, Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organisation which France and the European Union would like to see established.
The time has come for an effort of the will. Admittedly, we won't solve every problem in The Hague. But we must go as far forward as possible in inventing mechanisms to guarantee that our efforts are effective and enduring.
This is a time for clear-sightedness and solidarity. It is for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren that we are working here. Our responsibility is to make decisions that will safeguard the chances of future generations. Let us revive the pioneering spirit that inspired the Hague Declaration of 1989.
This is a time for collective ambition. It is up to us to mobilise all of the different actors in society, starting by giving greater effect to our fellow-citizens involvement. As consumers, employees and shareholders, they are perfectly equipped to ensure the triumph of new life styles and less polluting modes of production. That is why, from the very earliest age, we should make environmental awareness a major theme of education and a major theme of political debate, until respect for the environment comes to be as fundamental as safeguarding our rights and freedoms.
By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace. We are demonstrating our capacity to assert control over our fate in a spirit of solidarity, to organise our collective sovereignty over this planet, our common heritage. We are working to give practical expression to the ethical demands of our peoples. That is the measure of the immense issues entailed by an agreement, here, in The Hague. It is the measure of the burning obligation on us to succeed.
Your Majesty, Mr. Chairman, Ladies, Gentlemen, I thank you. --SPEECH BY MR. JACQUES CHIRAC, FRENCH PRESIDENT
People are the case of all the problems, we have too many of them; we need to get rid of some of them, and this (ban of DDT) is as good a way as any. Charles Wurster of the Environmental Defense Fund
This is a political game. It has nothing to do with science. It has nothing to do with health and safety. Sherry Neddick of Greenpeace
Protecting the environment is a ruse. The goal is the political and economic subjugation of most men by the few, under the guide of preserving nature. J.H. Robbins
A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect. Richard Benedict, State Dept./Conservation Foundation
While you are free to continue to use incandescent bulbs on the basis of them doing less mercury damage to the environment than CFCs, domestic energy production remains the largest uncontrolled source of mercury. Wouldn't cleaner energy, such as nuclear, wind, solar and even clean coal be a better idea then? This way, you are combating both pollution, such as mercury and sulfur as well as combating global warming gases. Last I heard, environmentalists are fighting most "clean" energy solutions as well, accepting only extreme conservation and recycling. (Recycling, another example of good intentions gone bad. Most recycled goods use more energy and cause more pollution than simply creating "new" stuff. Paper, which comes from a renewable resource that has a negative carbon footprint is a fine example)
It seems to me that, in this case, the environmentalists have a point, and thus your positing that they're batting 0% is, in fact, erroneous.
I'd hardly call mercury pollution a "doomsday prediction", although I will agree that it is a serious problem on a global scale. However, it will not result in the environmental devastation I hear thrown around over global warming/cooling, mass starvation, ozone depletion, fresh water depletion, mass sea-life extinction and so on. I guess I'll call mercury predictions a "walk" as opposed to a base hit.
-->"UNICEF reports that over half a million children under the age of five died due to preventable diseases." How many of those died during the embargo?
All of them. The "Oil for Food Program" was not the problem. It was corruption within the Iraqi government and the UN itself that was the problem. While children were dieing from lack of medicine, dirty water and malnutrition, the Iraqi government was building palaces and buying off government officials around the world.
Had we not invaded Iraq, the program would have ended, as would have all sanctions against Iraq, leaving the government that allowed its people to starve more powerful and entrenched than when the whole thing started. I have a hard time calling that justice.
I am constantly surprised at people who claim others are insane for worrying about environmental damage until something actually happens. How many ever doomsayers and shrieking drama queens the environmental movement attracts, you have to concede that human damage to the environment can have severe - and as in the example above, lethal - consequences to humans. It is not unreasonable to look at the possible sources for catastrophic events and eliminate them before those events occur.
Awesome! This is the best example of man's impact on the environment anyone has given me... ever! Now let's take your example and apply it the Global Warming thingie. The article I quoted from was from a scientist that claims that our efforts to fight global warming can be worse than GW itself. For example, California has recently passed a law that will ban incandescent light bulbs. This all but forces everyone in California to use florescent bulbs. Florescent bulbs contain mercury. From here:
Mercury is an essential ingredient for most energy-efficient lamps. Fluorescent lamps and high intensity discharge (HID) lamps are the two most common types of lamps that utilize mercury. Fluorescent lamps provide lighting for most schools, office buildings and stores. HID lamps, which include mercury-vapor, metal halide and high-pressure sodium lamps, are used for street lights, floodlights and industrial lighting. A typical fluorescent lamp is composed of a phosphor-coated glass tube with electrodes located at either end. The tube contains mercury, of which only a very small amount is in vapor form. When a voltage is applied, the electrodes energize the mercury vapor, causing it to emit ultraviolet (UV) energy. The phosphor coating absorbs the UV energy, causing the phosphor to fluoresce and emit visible light. Without the mercury vapor to produce UV energy, there would be no light. A four-foot fluorescent lamp has an average rated life of at least 20,000 hours. To achieve this long life, lamps must contain a specific quantity of mercury. The amount of mercury required is very small, typically measured in milligrams, and varies by lamp type, date of manufacture, manufacturing plant and manufacturer.
So, in order to fight GW, which some scientists claim has its benefits if true, that may or may not be caused by man, we employ light bulbs that, when discarded, will pollute our environment with mercury, that has known and proven negative effects. While I don't mean to turn your example around, I find it is the best argument against global warming measures. It seems, in this case, that the cure is worse than the disease!
That is classic ad-hominem, you are attacking the messanger rather than discussing the issue. This is especially irrelevant since we are discussing a scientific issue, you are talking about war and conflict areas. Attacking the messenger is valid when no one can think of three successes in 25 years. I mean, it seems to be that betting AGAINST the UN would be a safer bet because the odds are heavily skewed against the UN! Past performance is an indicator of the future.
If by doomsday, you mean end of the earth, then.... *looks around* nope. Seems not. On the other hand, if you mean heavy human impact on the environment, then yes, there are plenty of examples. The Newfoundland cod stock collapse for instance. Plenty of environmentalists were warning for years that a collapse was happening. Warnings were ignored, then it happened.
Or take the deforestation of Easter Island, or this list of disasters. It happened on a local scale, yes, but with the population and technology we have today, we MIGHT affect ecology on a larger, perhaps even global scale.
All local examples, but the best that anyone has come up with so far. Still, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if I keep chopping down trees that deforestation would occur. Or maybe even Rachel Carson's example of dumping flammable chemicals into a river might cause it to ignite if fire is added! Still, good examples, but nothing compared to the Global Warming scare tactics of today or the Ozone depletion, global cooling or mass starvation tactics of yesteryear. I want a prediction that is global, permenant and devestating like... well, man-made global warming leading to world-wide devastation, only true.
Fact is that the climate changes all the time. We have global cooling and enter ice ages and then we have global warming to get us out. Sometimes we cool form within an ice age and warm we are not in one. It's 100% natural.
Besides, RTFA is about the possibility that the main source of heat in our solar system may be responsible for all this heat. Why is that such a far fetched idea?
More ad-hominmens. Random quotes by fringe nutters does not a coherent argument make.
Those are examples from former leading environmentalists to show how wrong they've been in the past and to show their true agenda (the end of capitalism)
I belive the GP was looking for a scientific rebuttal, a poltical rant is not a substitute for science. Sticking your fingers in your ears whilst cutting and pasting anti-science drivel will only result in your fingertips meeting in the middle.
Why would I place a scientific rebuttal to a political document? I mean, the friggin title of the damn thing is "Summary for Policy Makers". It is "Cliff note for the Corrupt". OK, here is a scientific rebuttal (from a scientist, not me)
Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators--and many scientists--seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature--a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week. --snip-- Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle--Al Gore's supposed mentor--is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn't warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
Yes, I know more cutting and pasting, this time, though, real science from a real scientists, not the anti-science drivel I posted before from honest to goodness environmentalists
By the way, rather than insulting me, have you been able to come up with a single environmental doomsday prediction that has come true? The way I see it, alarmist climatologists are batting at exactly 0%. Why should I believe them now?
Scary stuff. Here are the last few paragraphs from the speech sumdumass linked to:
Your Majesty, Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen,
For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organisation which France and the European Union would like to see established.
The time has come for an effort of the will. Admittedly, we won't solve every problem in The Hague. But we must go as far forward as possible in inventing mechanisms to guarantee that our efforts are effective and enduring.
This is a time for clear-sightedness and solidarity. It is for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren that we are working here. Our responsibility is to make decisions that will safeguard the chances of future generations. Let us revive the pioneering spirit that inspired the Hague Declaration of 1989.
This is a time for collective ambition. It is up to us to mobilise all of the different actors in society, starting by giving greater effect to our fellow-citizens involvement. As consumers, employees and shareholders, they are perfectly equipped to ensure the triumph of new life styles and less polluting modes of production. That is why, from the very earliest age, we should make environmental awareness a major theme of education and a major theme of political debate, until respect for the environment comes to be as fundamental as safeguarding our rights and freedoms.
By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace. We are demonstrating our capacity to assert control over our fate in a spirit of solidarity, to organise our collective sovereignty over this planet, our common heritage. We are working to give practical expression to the ethical demands of our peoples. That is the measure of the immense issues entailed by an agreement, here, in The Hague. It is the measure of the burning obligation on us to succeed.
Your Majesty, Mr. Chairman, Ladies, Gentlemen, I thank you.
No one is saying, "Consume, consume, consume for a better tomorrow!". But before we all lose our jobs due to drastic measures, maybe we should consider that the only heat source in our solar system is responsible for all the heat. Is that such a crazy idea?
Wow! Who do I believe? A magazine by politicians or the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government, and receives no funding from any energy companies.
Do you really think that going against the group-think would win Libertarians any votes?
1) I think that debunking anything with the title Summary for Policymakers should be pretty simple. Anything that has a title that means, "The short version for politicians" can't be that accurate to begin with!
2) This is a UN body. Can you name for me three UN successes in the past 25 years? Just three. I can name three failures in about two seconds... Rwanda, Darfur, Oil for Food program, 17 Iraqi resolutions, Lebanon, Iran, North Korea... Oh, I was only supposed to stop at three?
3) Can anyone list a single doomsday environmental prediction that has come true? Just one. That's all I ask. One single doomsday prediction that has come true. (I guess THIS time they're right)
And now for some environmentalist quotes:
The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state.
--Kenneth Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept (as quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)
We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion--guilt-free at last!
--Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue).
Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process.... Capitalism is destroying the earth.
--Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists
We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects.... We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.
--David Foreman, Earth First!
Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed.
--Pentti Linkola
If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won't give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.
--Amory Lovins in The Mother Earth-Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p.22
The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world.
--John Shuttleworth
What we've got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.
--Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)
I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.
--John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.
--John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing....This is not to say that the rise of human civilization is insignificant, but there is no way of showing that it will be much help to the world in the long run.
--Economist editorial
We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity's sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.
--David Foreman, Earth First!
Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.
--Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!
If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS
We have a lot bigger things to worry about. I doubt there is much of an issue with America being too afraid of going into pointless wars. $.40 of every $1 going to the government goes towards our military right now. Think about that when you pay taxes and buy "cheap" gasoline. http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesVie w/sid/22108/
As a former soldier, I see the need for a strong defense. You don't have to look very far beyond Rwanda or Darfur to see what can happen when good people either can't or won't act. That said, I don't see how you can be good and not act in such a situation. Still, someone has to maintain the might to fight off bullies and thugs. Having met and talked with those who felt the wrath of Saddam (and seen the stubs and scars), I have a unique perspective on tyranny and mid-eastern politics. I've also seen first hand how the media distorts or ignores the news, sometimes for the better, but most of the time, not.
Troops at home does = peace. Apparently, I missed the history lesson where Persia (Iraq) EVER, attacked America.
Persia is Iran. I don't know if Persia included modern day Iraq or not. (OK I looked it up and at its height, the Persian empire did encompass all of Iraq) And yes, Iraq did attack America. They attacked US warplanes enforcing UN mandates and attempted to assassinate a former US president. However, none of that matters to me as much as what he did to his own people. UNICEF reports that over half a million children under the age of five died due to preventable diseases. Over half a million!!! I don't consider the life of an American any more or less important than that of someone who happened to be born somewhere else in the world, especially when they are as innocent as 5-year-old. Of course, that half a million number was just the Iraqis under 5. It does not take into account the adults or children as young as six. So THAT's why I support the war in Iraq. Not to, IMHO is either racist, elitist or just plain ignorant... again, IMHO. Also troops at home!=peace when the war is at home.
Doesn't sound too bad a starting point. Most wars I know about have been wrong. There have been only two that made some sense; the Revolutionary War (getting rid of kings) and perhaps WW II. And I'm starting to suspect WW II because we seem to have many of the financial backers of that war's decendents, running things here in the US. Most wars start with noble intentions but get corrupted along the way. However, any level of corruption would be worth overthrowing Nazi Germany and Japan. The US got hood-winked into WWI. As far as more local history, the War for Texas Independence was just:-)
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this stuff.
My kids are in public school, and (sigh) this pretty much sums it up. Add to this the fundie teachers who use the classroom to echo superstition, e.g., they have Time For Kids (a Time Magazine joint) handouts, meant to provide talking points in a Letter to the President--but instead, give their own twisted narratives, e.g., "The Iraqis want to blow themselves up so they can be with their false gods," and "It would be a sin not to finish God's War." Add to this the attendant anxiety that my nerdy kids are already experiencing in elementary school, and...
Wow! Where are your kids going to school?!!? I'm in Texas and the teachers are teaching that war is ALWAYS wrong and that the kids should be praying... I mean hoping (can't pray unless you are a Muslim)... hoping that the evil war ends by bringing our troops home, I guess because troops at home=peace.
Then they go on to teach about the heroes of the Boston Tea Party, Revolutionary War and The Alamo and pass out candy flavored condoms.
-->Those that want to get ahead, can't. They are left in a class where to learn at the level of the slowest student in the class.
I went to a public high school and was able to double up on classes in order to graduate at 16. I think that that is what these kids who think they get it should do.
First you point out a hole in my logic and then you prove me wrong! Thanx alot!
Seriously, it's good to see your school would let you get ahead. The only way I could double up on work or even doing school-work from home (not homework) would be if I were to get pregnant. That would be quite a trick since I don't have the plumbing for that!
However, I could have signed up for community college classwork that would have transferred to a "real" college or used it toward a high-school degree. Still, these options were limited to a few classes that would have saved me a semester at best.
So if a student falls behind, he gets left behind. But the class is being taught at the rate of the slowest learner - how would the slowest learner ever be left behind? It appears you have contradicted yourself.
Good to see you're paying attention! OK, if a student falls WAY behind, they get left behind, usually in the "special learning" classes. Those that don't fall far enough behind to get removed from the class are left to slow down the rest of the class. I guess I should have put this way:
Those that want to get ahead, can't. They are left in a class where to learn at the level of the slowest student in the class.
The new goal should be the total opposite: decentralisation, community sovereignty, individual freedoms. Instead of creating a centralized state to control everything, lets create global networks of autonomous local communities and workplaces. No central authority, no presidents, effectively no nation-states. Democracy works best when people can meet in real life, face to face. Direct democracy, or horizontal democracy (no hierarchy) means everyone can have a say on issues that effect them. That means small scale is best.
You mean where tribal leaders control everything. How's that working out in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Do the people there have a high quality of life?
You fuck with the middle classes at your peril. A large, prosperous middle-class is the best guarantee of social stability -- unfortunately in the past it has accompanied appalling treatment of classes below, and neglect of the classes above.
If you can somehow engineer middle-class contentment along with opportunity and encouragement for those less fortunate, and keep the rich or aristocratic in their place at the same time as letting them use their wealth, you'll have solved it. But somehow I don't see either a surveillance UK or a fundamentalist USA as the places for this Brave New World to arise.
We have such a world now in the US. It's called the public school system. The rich can afford to send their kids to private schools, where discipline is enforced and kids are motivated, almost guaranteeing entry into college, which they can also afford. All the kid has to do is put forth the slightest effort. Meanwhile, public schools suck. There is no discipline and if a kid falls behind, they get left there. The kids that "get it" have to sit there and wait while the teacher has to explain it over and over to the kids that don't understand or don't care. Teachers have no choice but to teach to the lowest common denominator in every class, ensuring the entire class learns at the pace of the slowest minds. Granted, if a students wants it bad enough, he or she can learn. They do more than is required of the class and learn all the material before the class is even held. For these kids, the class itself is a waste of time, but they still have to be there. These kids graduate high in their class and score well enough on standardized tests to get admitted to college on scholarship or loans. This is where the middle/lower class opportunity comes in. It's rare, but it happens and it allows for poor kids to climb out of their "class".
Of course, you have the occasional entrepreneur that makes it as well, but even Gates dropped out of Harvard. Not a whole lot of community college drop-outs make it to the billionaire club.
Besides global warming, there are other excellent reasons to reduce CO2 output (and that of other undesirable emissions.) Probably the most serious issue at the moment is the acidification of the oceans. Remind me again how carbonation=acidification? To the best of my knowledge, club soda has a neutral PH. (disclaimer: I am not a chemist, but I did marry one)
We've already been killing off oceanic algae with pollution, like oil spills. The ocean floor is already belching more oil than have spilled. It is a natural process.
Oceanic algae produces the vast majority of the oxygen that we need to survive. Yes! Algae takes CO2 and expels O2 as a byproduct of photosynthesis. Animals do the opposite. High CO2 concentrations are GOOD for plants, including algae.
CO2 is also toxic and even small increments in the percentage of the atmosphere it makes up causes health problems including dizziness, nausea, and general malaise. This is only true when CO2 displaces O2, which we need to breath.
We are quite simply living beyond the means of the Earth to sustain us Where have I head that before... let me look this up:
The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)
I don't mean to rag on you, and you make some good points. However this battle against CO2 has led environmentalists away from REAL pollution, such as mercury, which causes dain brammage, and sulfur, which really does cause acid rain and the "acidification of the oceans". Even on the CO2 front, environmentalists have knee-jerk reactions and implement stupid ideas, like paper recycling. Paper is made entirely from farmed trees. Growing trees produce more O2 and consume more CO2 than mature trees. Recycling paper, which uses quite a bit of energy to collect and recycle, actually prevents new trees from being planted, making the CO2 problem worse.
Slashdot Mirror
We, as Atheists, affirm that once life appeared as a very basic form of joint C-H-O-N molecules...
:-) It's like the time I asked Descartes if he could prove MY existence. He started by saying, "Well, I don't think..." and vanished.
Why must you be an Atheist to believe in evolution? Who am I, as a Christian, to say that God didn't create the creatures of the world via evolution, or the universe via the big bang? All I can be sure of is that I don't know much of anything beyond my own existence, and even then I sometimes have my doubts.
I guess my only point is that don't assume you have to be an Atheist to believe in evolution. Personally, I don't see Creationism (ID) and Evolution as mutually exclusive.
As I have said to you many times before:
If you really feel that Republicans are THAT bad, and you honestly believe the tripe that you type (They did all of these things with malice aforethought and with no possibility of any sort of positive outcome from their cowardly treasonous actions.), then it is DUTY as a patriotic American to gather other true patriots like yourself and put your Second Amendment rights to the use they are intended for and overthrow the tyranny that has entrenched itself in Washington. Otherwise, you are coward hiding behind a keyboard.
So, STFU until your revolution is complete. You have better things to do.
I realize you're probably joking, but I'd like to make it clear that "related to" != "evolved from." Saying that we evolved from some species just because we are related to it would be like suggesting that your aunt gave birth to you.
Excellent analogy. I hope you don't mind if I extend it one step further by saying it would be more like cousin gave birth to you, since both we and modern monkeys are of the same evolutionary generation.
Like we really evolved from *monkeys*.
Pffft.
Well, at least not chocolate and peanut butter monkeys!
Although I would hope that there would be more democrats than republicans who would support consumer rights over corporate profits, I don't expect to see any progressive entertainment legislation anytime soon, if ever. There is just too much influence in our fourth branch of government to enact any meaningful change. Meet the new boss... same as the old boss.
Am I the only one that notices when an anti-republican or anti-Bush article is posted, most of the replies focus on how evil Republicans/Bush/Rove are, but when an anti-democrat article is linked, the closest thing to criticism is "both parties suck!"
Ah yes, except instead of "blowjob,"...
One of those "blowjobs" was while the Prez was on the phone discussing Bosnia. My brother was a soldier in Bosnia at that time. So while you think that it was just an innocent "blowjob", it put my brother's life in more danger than it needed to be in. When our troops are in harms way, I expect the prez to give his undivided attention when the issue comes up.
we instead are dealing with the rigging of elections via bogus "voter fraud"
They didn't do a very good job this last election did they? Looks to me that they should have been investigating voting fraud on the other side of the aisle. Wasn't it a democrat who said, "vote early, vote often"?
cases and U.S. attorneys more loyal to the GOP than they are to the country.
Is that fact or your opinion? Considering that all I've seen the Democrats do since 2000 is try to bring down the prez, even if it means bringing down the country, I can't blame him for wanting a few loyal attorneys!
And WMD lies that led us into a now-four year war.
Lies or passing on misinformation. Keep in mind that those "lies" were reported by leaders around the world. If we find a way to go faster than the speed of light, does that make Einstein a liar? It makes him wrong, but not a liar. I think you need to get your terminology straight. Truth is, I would rather have a prez that acts on "slam dunk" information than one who sits in his office getting a blowjob waiting for the cyclohexylsarin cloud to form in a NY subway. But that's just my opinion.
But yeah, exactly the same as Clinton.
Not even close.
Clinton/UN intervened in Bosnia/Kosovo as well, and helped stop a genocide.
Sorry, but the UN had nothing to do with it. Remember, Milosovich has the Russians in his pocket and Russians wield veto power. No, the UN was as powerless in Kosovo as it is anywhere else. Kosovo was a NATO operation.
Otherwise, your post is 100% correct.
Because it appears to me that the majority of the Global Warming alarmist have an anti-capitalist, and therefor anti-American agenda. Here are a few quotes from government employees and environmentalists hoping to push their agenda via GW:
While you are free to continue to use incandescent bulbs on the basis of them doing less mercury damage to the environment than CFCs, domestic energy production remains the largest uncontrolled source of mercury.
Wouldn't cleaner energy, such as nuclear, wind, solar and even clean coal be a better idea then? This way, you are combating both pollution, such as mercury and sulfur as well as combating global warming gases. Last I heard, environmentalists are fighting most "clean" energy solutions as well, accepting only extreme conservation and recycling. (Recycling, another example of good intentions gone bad. Most recycled goods use more energy and cause more pollution than simply creating "new" stuff. Paper, which comes from a renewable resource that has a negative carbon footprint is a fine example)
It seems to me that, in this case, the environmentalists have a point, and thus your positing that they're batting 0% is, in fact, erroneous.
I'd hardly call mercury pollution a "doomsday prediction", although I will agree that it is a serious problem on a global scale. However, it will not result in the environmental devastation I hear thrown around over global warming/cooling, mass starvation, ozone depletion, fresh water depletion, mass sea-life extinction and so on. I guess I'll call mercury predictions a "walk" as opposed to a base hit.
-->"UNICEF reports that over half a million children under the age of five died due to preventable diseases."
How many of those died during the embargo?
All of them. The "Oil for Food Program" was not the problem. It was corruption within the Iraqi government and the UN itself that was the problem. While children were dieing from lack of medicine, dirty water and malnutrition, the Iraqi government was building palaces and buying off government officials around the world.
Had we not invaded Iraq, the program would have ended, as would have all sanctions against Iraq, leaving the government that allowed its people to starve more powerful and entrenched than when the whole thing started. I have a hard time calling that justice.
I am constantly surprised at people who claim others are insane for worrying about environmental damage until something actually happens. How many ever doomsayers and shrieking drama queens the environmental movement attracts, you have to concede that human damage to the environment can have severe - and as in the example above, lethal - consequences to humans. It is not unreasonable to look at the possible sources for catastrophic events and eliminate them before those events occur.
Awesome! This is the best example of man's impact on the environment anyone has given me... ever!
Now let's take your example and apply it the Global Warming thingie. The article I quoted from was from a scientist that claims that our efforts to fight global warming can be worse than GW itself. For example, California has recently passed a law that will ban incandescent light bulbs. This all but forces everyone in California to use florescent bulbs. Florescent bulbs contain mercury. From here:
So, in order to fight GW, which some scientists claim has its benefits if true, that may or may not be caused by man, we employ light bulbs that, when discarded, will pollute our environment with mercury, that has known and proven negative effects. While I don't mean to turn your example around, I find it is the best argument against global warming measures. It seems, in this case, that the cure is worse than the disease!
That is classic ad-hominem, you are attacking the messanger rather than discussing the issue. This is especially irrelevant since we are discussing a scientific issue, you are talking about war and conflict areas.
Attacking the messenger is valid when no one can think of three successes in 25 years. I mean, it seems to be that betting AGAINST the UN would be a safer bet because the odds are heavily skewed against the UN! Past performance is an indicator of the future.
If by doomsday, you mean end of the earth, then.... *looks around* nope. Seems not. On the other hand, if you mean heavy human impact on the environment, then yes, there are plenty of examples. The Newfoundland cod stock collapse for instance. Plenty of environmentalists were warning for years that a collapse was happening. Warnings were ignored, then it happened.
Or take the deforestation of Easter Island, or this list of disasters. It happened on a local scale, yes, but with the population and technology we have today, we MIGHT affect ecology on a larger, perhaps even global scale.
All local examples, but the best that anyone has come up with so far. Still, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if I keep chopping down trees that deforestation would occur. Or maybe even Rachel Carson's example of dumping flammable chemicals into a river might cause it to ignite if fire is added! Still, good examples, but nothing compared to the Global Warming scare tactics of today or the Ozone depletion, global cooling or mass starvation tactics of yesteryear. I want a prediction that is global, permenant and devestating like... well, man-made global warming leading to world-wide devastation, only true.
Fact is that the climate changes all the time. We have global cooling and enter ice ages and then we have global warming to get us out. Sometimes we cool form within an ice age and warm we are not in one. It's 100% natural.
Besides, RTFA is about the possibility that the main source of heat in our solar system may be responsible for all this heat. Why is that such a far fetched idea?
More ad-hominmens. Random quotes by fringe nutters does not a coherent argument make.
Those are examples from former leading environmentalists to show how wrong they've been in the past and to show their true agenda (the end of capitalism)
Why would I place a scientific rebuttal to a political document? I mean, the friggin title of the damn thing is "Summary for Policy Makers". It is "Cliff note for the Corrupt". OK, here is a scientific rebuttal (from a scientist, not me)
Yes, I know more cutting and pasting, this time, though, real science from a real scientists, not the anti-science drivel I posted before from honest to goodness environmentalists
By the way, rather than insulting me, have you been able to come up with a single environmental doomsday prediction that has come true? The way I see it, alarmist climatologists are batting at exactly 0%. Why should I believe them now?
It would be funny if it were not so damn popular.
No one is saying, "Consume, consume, consume for a better tomorrow!". But before we all lose our jobs due to drastic measures, maybe we should consider that the only heat source in our solar system is responsible for all the heat. Is that such a crazy idea?
Wow! Who do I believe? A magazine by politicians or the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government, and receives no funding from any energy companies.
Do you really think that going against the group-think would win Libertarians any votes?
Oooh... mod down -5 for calling Fox a "news" channel, even in jest! I've hear less slanted coverage from the White House!
Yes! We must mod down, silence and ridicule all those that disagree with us! Brownshirts of the world, UNITE!!!
2) This is a UN body. Can you name for me three UN successes in the past 25 years? Just three. I can name three failures in about two seconds... Rwanda, Darfur, Oil for Food program, 17 Iraqi resolutions, Lebanon, Iran, North Korea... Oh, I was only supposed to stop at three?
3) Can anyone list a single doomsday environmental prediction that has come true? Just one. That's all I ask. One single doomsday prediction that has come true. (I guess THIS time they're right)
And now for some environmentalist quotes:
We have a lot bigger things to worry about. I doubt there is much of an issue with America being too afraid of going into pointless wars. $.40 of every $1 going to the government goes towards our military right now. Think about that when you pay taxes and buy "cheap" gasoline. http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesVie w/sid/22108/
:-)
As a former soldier, I see the need for a strong defense. You don't have to look very far beyond Rwanda or Darfur to see what can happen when good people either can't or won't act. That said, I don't see how you can be good and not act in such a situation. Still, someone has to maintain the might to fight off bullies and thugs. Having met and talked with those who felt the wrath of Saddam (and seen the stubs and scars), I have a unique perspective on tyranny and mid-eastern politics. I've also seen first hand how the media distorts or ignores the news, sometimes for the better, but most of the time, not.
Troops at home does = peace. Apparently, I missed the history lesson where Persia (Iraq) EVER, attacked America.
Persia is Iran. I don't know if Persia included modern day Iraq or not. (OK I looked it up and at its height, the Persian empire did encompass all of Iraq)
And yes, Iraq did attack America. They attacked US warplanes enforcing UN mandates and attempted to assassinate a former US president. However, none of that matters to me as much as what he did to his own people. UNICEF reports that over half a million children under the age of five died due to preventable diseases. Over half a million!!! I don't consider the life of an American any more or less important than that of someone who happened to be born somewhere else in the world, especially when they are as innocent as 5-year-old. Of course, that half a million number was just the Iraqis under 5. It does not take into account the adults or children as young as six. So THAT's why I support the war in Iraq. Not to, IMHO is either racist, elitist or just plain ignorant... again, IMHO.
Also troops at home!=peace when the war is at home.
Doesn't sound too bad a starting point. Most wars I know about have been wrong. There have been only two that made some sense; the Revolutionary War (getting rid of kings) and perhaps WW II. And I'm starting to suspect WW II because we seem to have many of the financial backers of that war's decendents, running things here in the US.
Most wars start with noble intentions but get corrupted along the way. However, any level of corruption would be worth overthrowing Nazi Germany and Japan. The US got hood-winked into WWI. As far as more local history, the War for Texas Independence was just
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this stuff.
My kids are in public school, and (sigh) this pretty much sums it up. Add to this the fundie teachers who use the classroom to echo superstition, e.g., they have Time For Kids (a Time Magazine joint) handouts, meant to provide talking points in a Letter to the President--but instead, give their own twisted narratives, e.g., "The Iraqis want to blow themselves up so they can be with their false gods," and "It would be a sin not to finish God's War." Add to this the attendant anxiety that my nerdy kids are already experiencing in elementary school, and...
Wow! Where are your kids going to school?!!? I'm in Texas and the teachers are teaching that war is ALWAYS wrong and that the kids should be praying... I mean hoping (can't pray unless you are a Muslim)... hoping that the evil war ends by bringing our troops home, I guess because troops at home=peace.
Then they go on to teach about the heroes of the Boston Tea Party, Revolutionary War and The Alamo and pass out candy flavored condoms.
-->Those that want to get ahead, can't. They are left in a class where to learn at the level of the slowest student in the class.
I went to a public high school and was able to double up on classes in order to graduate at 16. I think that that is what these kids who think they get it should do.
First you point out a hole in my logic and then you prove me wrong! Thanx alot!
Seriously, it's good to see your school would let you get ahead. The only way I could double up on work or even doing school-work from home (not homework) would be if I were to get pregnant. That would be quite a trick since I don't have the plumbing for that!
However, I could have signed up for community college classwork that would have transferred to a "real" college or used it toward a high-school degree. Still, these options were limited to a few classes that would have saved me a semester at best.
So if a student falls behind, he gets left behind. But the class is being taught at the rate of the slowest learner - how would the slowest learner ever be left behind? It appears you have contradicted yourself.
Good to see you're paying attention!
OK, if a student falls WAY behind, they get left behind, usually in the "special learning" classes. Those that don't fall far enough behind to get removed from the class are left to slow down the rest of the class. I guess I should have put this way:
Those that want to get ahead, can't. They are left in a class where to learn at the level of the slowest student in the class.
Better?
Thanx for the catch!
The new goal should be the total opposite: decentralisation, community sovereignty, individual freedoms. Instead of creating a centralized state to control everything, lets create global networks of autonomous local communities and workplaces. No central authority, no presidents, effectively no nation-states. Democracy works best when people can meet in real life, face to face. Direct democracy, or horizontal democracy (no hierarchy) means everyone can have a say on issues that effect them. That means small scale is best.
You mean where tribal leaders control everything. How's that working out in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Do the people there have a high quality of life?
You fuck with the middle classes at your peril. A large, prosperous middle-class is the best guarantee of social stability -- unfortunately in the past it has accompanied appalling treatment of classes below, and neglect of the classes above.
If you can somehow engineer middle-class contentment along with opportunity and encouragement for those less fortunate, and keep the rich or aristocratic in their place at the same time as letting them use their wealth, you'll have solved it. But somehow I don't see either a surveillance UK or a fundamentalist USA as the places for this Brave New World to arise.
We have such a world now in the US. It's called the public school system. The rich can afford to send their kids to private schools, where discipline is enforced and kids are motivated, almost guaranteeing entry into college, which they can also afford. All the kid has to do is put forth the slightest effort.
Meanwhile, public schools suck. There is no discipline and if a kid falls behind, they get left there. The kids that "get it" have to sit there and wait while the teacher has to explain it over and over to the kids that don't understand or don't care. Teachers have no choice but to teach to the lowest common denominator in every class, ensuring the entire class learns at the pace of the slowest minds. Granted, if a students wants it bad enough, he or she can learn. They do more than is required of the class and learn all the material before the class is even held. For these kids, the class itself is a waste of time, but they still have to be there. These kids graduate high in their class and score well enough on standardized tests to get admitted to college on scholarship or loans. This is where the middle/lower class opportunity comes in. It's rare, but it happens and it allows for poor kids to climb out of their "class".
Of course, you have the occasional entrepreneur that makes it as well, but even Gates dropped out of Harvard. Not a whole lot of community college drop-outs make it to the billionaire club.
Remind me again how carbonation=acidification? To the best of my knowledge, club soda has a neutral PH. (disclaimer: I am not a chemist, but I did marry one)
We've already been killing off oceanic algae with pollution, like oil spills.
The ocean floor is already belching more oil than have spilled. It is a natural process.
Oceanic algae produces the vast majority of the oxygen that we need to survive.
Yes! Algae takes CO2 and expels O2 as a byproduct of photosynthesis. Animals do the opposite. High CO2 concentrations are GOOD for plants, including algae.
CO2 is also toxic and even small increments in the percentage of the atmosphere it makes up causes health problems including dizziness, nausea, and general malaise.
This is only true when CO2 displaces O2, which we need to breath.
We are quite simply living beyond the means of the Earth to sustain us
Where have I head that before... let me look this up:
I don't mean to rag on you, and you make some good points. However this battle against CO2 has led environmentalists away from REAL pollution, such as mercury, which causes dain brammage, and sulfur, which really does cause acid rain and the "acidification of the oceans". Even on the CO2 front, environmentalists have knee-jerk reactions and implement stupid ideas, like paper recycling. Paper is made entirely from farmed trees. Growing trees produce more O2 and consume more CO2 than mature trees. Recycling paper, which uses quite a bit of energy to collect and recycle, actually prevents new trees from being planted, making the CO2 problem worse.