Comments 1 - 40 of 88 Next » Last » Search these comments
Yes it will be.
"There’s a political interest in determining climate change causes extreme weather" [Al Gore at annual Rhode Island energy and environment conference on Jun 11, 2013]
Well, Marcus settled it... It's global warming!!! We're done discussing it!!
Now, let me go put on my bathing suit and go jump into my pool, (which is frozen over!!)
That's not what they want you to pull out. Go get your wallet and cut somebody a check, no sense in letting a good ecological, geological calamity go to waste with out somebody getting paid.
Is The Record Cold Arctic Outbreak Tied To Global Warming?
No. It might be tied to global cooling.
Unfortunately the absolute truth cannot be known in one's lifetime.
While short term analysis certainly leans towards global warming induced by human actions, long term temperature patterns over hundreds of thousands of years indicate such warming/cooling cycles are the norm.
Whether we actually have a significant effect on long term patterns is not measurable, given the time sigma of pattern change over the millennium.
So who is doing this?
Stop interchanging the term
"Global Warming" with "Climate Change"
and you may have your answer.
So who is doing this?
Stop interchanging the term
"Global Warming" with "Climate Change"
and you may have your answer.
Al Gore?
Global warming should have never been used as a descriptor for what's happening to the world's weather patterns. "Climate Change" is more applicable. Its way to easy to those who think everything is hunky-dory and that global warming is some sort of liberal conspiracy theory to say:
" Oh lookie there... its cold! So it ain't global warming!"
Well... the effects of global warming is in fact erratic, unusual, and more frequent weather events as we've seen for the past several years... from the increased rate of devastating tornadoes, droughts, Tsunamis, and now frigid weather.
No. It might be tied to global cooling.
The cold comes from arctic air, correct?
Meaning some air from farther south must have moved to the arctic, right?
Well... the effects of global warming is in fact erratic, unusual, and more frequent weather events as we've seen for the past several years... from the increased rate of devastating tornadoes, droughts, Tsunamis, and now frigid weather.
LOL. Perhaps satellite video feed and inexpensive travel by air and cars in the past half century have increased people's exposure to natural disasters, especially for those sitting in the living room and have leisure time for TV news and previously newspapers.
Climate on this planet always changed, long before homo sapiens evolved. If not for global cooling, the dinosaurs would not have been out-competed by mammals. The halcyon days of the reptiles were obviously much warmer than today. Being warm blooded is a hugely expensive way of combating cold weather, preventing the tragedy of being eaten alive in the cold morning because your own biochemical enzymes are not at operating temperature. e.g. snakes eat rats in summer, but rats eat snakes in winter.
In case anyone doesn't know, arctic ice has expanded dramatically this past year, closing the "northwest passage" to many ships that tried to take that shortcut from the Atlantic to the Pacific in the summer. So the attempt at using "disappearing" arctic ice to explain cold weather in parts of north hemisphere is quite nonsensical.
Climate on this planet always changed, long before homo sapiens evolved.
There was also a time when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. So what?
Saying that "current changes must be natural since changes occur naturally" is the same as saying that "people die naturally of old age, therefore murders don't happen".
No. It might be tied to global cooling.
One should not brag about their stupidity. You embarrass yourself and you reflect poorly on your political party, although evidently that's what being a republican is supposed to be all about. Are you one of those who equates education and science with being liberal ? Wtf. Shame on you.
Have a little curiosity about things. Improve yourself. The republicans won't kick you out. Maybe you could help improve the party. Just say no to ignorance and emotion based ideology.
Saying that "current changes must be natural since changes occur naturally" is the same as saying that "people die naturally of old age, therefore murders don't happen".
His brain isn't set up for processing that much logic at one time.
I don't have a problem with the term global warming. Climate change is fine too.
"Climate Change" is more applicable. Its way to easy to those who think everything is hunky-dory and that global warming is some sort of liberal conspiracy theory to say:
" Oh lookie there... its cold! So it ain't global warming!"
True, and good point. And I agree that I'm not convinced this is an extinction event. but it might be, and if it is, it is specifically the warming trend that is the problem, not just the fact that climate is changing. Besides it's essentially warming that is causing climate change.
This is why I still use global warming. I'm more concerned about warming over the long term than I am about some nebulous change in climate patterns.
But yeah, the dimbulbs who buy the propaganda jump on every downtick in local and or short term temperatures as proof that global warming is bs. Some of these are people with nearly average intelligence, which I truly can not fathom. I guess they get some emotional affect from sticking with their team, that override any reasoning that informs them otherwise.
Still, I hold they need to learn that warming is happening.
Meaning some air from farther south must have moved to the arctic, right?
I don't know if that's how it works, but it is warmer than usual in the arctic.
See the red line versus the green average. Horizontal axis represents days in to the year (or 2014 for red line).
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
There goes my hope that this cold snap could cause drop in arctic ice to slow down, at least for this year. Then again, maybe arctic airtemp isn't all that tied to the ice change, I'm sure it's somewhat more complex, having to all the factors that affect surface water temperature up there.
So basically, it seems that global warming is worse than we thought, and happening faster than we thought, and one of the symptoms of this causes the whole Fox news watching crowd to say, "Yaayyy, we told you it was all BS."
wow....like....far out ...man....
Stop interchanging the term
"Global Warming" with "Climate Change"
and you may have your answer.
Global Warming was a term from the 1980's
STOP USING IT.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-6-2014/the-global-warming-hoax?xrs=share_copy
Climate on this planet always changed, long before homo sapiens evolved. If not for global cooling, the dinosaurs would not have been out-competed by mammals. The halcyon days of the reptiles were obviously much warmer than today. Being warm blooded is a hugely expensive way of combating cold weather, preventing the tragedy of being eaten alive in the cold morning because your own biochemical enzymes are not at operating temperature. e.g. snakes eat rats in summer, but rats eat snakes in winter.
Dinasaurs weren't going around driving in cars. Here's another obvious thing a lot of right-wingers miss in these debates: Its not just for the sake of climate change, but for their own health. A lot of conservatives were against and are still against environmental regulations- many drastically cleaned up the air and water in the US. If conservatives had had their way we would've been more like China, with smog and so on. Look up some pictures from Chinese cities these days: That's what you get with little to no regulations, and in turn it not only ruins the natural environment, but the human environment too.
Sticking heads in the sand, claiming that our pollutive activities don't have an impact on the environment-including our everyday living environment- is foolish and ridiculous.
What kind of person dislikes a post that's nothing more than a video of a weather expert talking about how jetstreams work ?
Oh, I get it. It's because I posted it and it's all about someone's feelings. God forbid you actually watched the video and learned something.
Don't forget to dislike this one too.
Climate on this planet always changed, long before homo sapiens evolved.
There was also a time when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. So what?
Saying that "current changes must be natural since changes occur naturally" is the same as saying that "people die naturally of old age, therefore murders don't happen".
A miniscule percentage of deaths are due to murder. It would be silly to focus on banning all tools that can be used for murder, like screw drivers and cars, for the purpose of increasing average life span. That's what the nonsense like the Kyoto Protocol are akin to.
Dinasaurs weren't going around driving in cars.
They were probably worse than cars as far as "global warming gas" production was concerned: they produced methane!
Here's another obvious thing a lot of right-wingers miss in these debates: Its not just for the sake of climate change, but for their own health. A lot of conservatives were against and are still against environmental regulations- many drastically cleaned up the air and water in the US.
The global warming agenda would take resources away from local pollution control measures that do actually matter. There is only a limited amount of resources available at any given time. If we focus on solving global warming, then there's less resources available for everything else.
If conservatives had had their way we would've been more like China, with smog and so on. Look up some pictures from Chinese cities these days: That's what you get with little to no regulations, and in turn it not only ruins the natural environment, but the human environment too.
China is a de jure socialist state. "A Socialist State" is actually written in their constitution. Many backwards aspect of that country is the result of their big government and system/culture of corruption as result of long experience with big government.
Sticking heads in the sand, claiming that our pollutive activities don't have an impact on the environment-including our everyday living environment- is foolish and ridiculous.
It's even dumber to waste resources on non-issues instead of solving real pollution problems.
What kind of person dislikes a post that's nothing more than a video of a weather expert talking about how jetstreams work ?
Oh, I get it. It's because I posted it and it's all about someone's feelings. God forbid you actually watched the video and learned something.
Don't forget to dislike this one too.
I watched the video, and did not bother with marking "dislike" on the post. However, the video presentation is factually false: the arctic ice cover has grown dramatically this past year, prior to the record-breaking cold we are experiencing in the northern atmosphere. Either the model that they are presenting in the video is false, or the global cooling is even more severe: it's cold despite their model predicting warmer weather for us if the arctic ice cover grows back.
The global warming agenda would take resources away from local pollution control measures that do actually matter. There is only a limited amount of resources available at any given time. If we focus on solving global warming, then there's less resources available for everything else.
Baloney. And again- the correct term is climate change. Pollution control measures have increased drastically in the past few decades, the biggest being the installation of catalytic converters, large particulate scrubbers for coal and power plants, diesel engine emission controls such as Urea injection and piezoelectric injection, the either removal or replacement of various CFCs and aromatic chemicals, the improvements and cost reduction of solar, wind, and hydroelectric generating sources, and so on.Reality says
China is a de jure socialist state. "A Socialist State" is actually written in their constitution. Many backwards aspect of that country is the result of their big government and system/culture of corruption as result of long experience with big government.
Wait a minute... weren't you the commentator that scientific programs, infrastructure, and other basic government functions in the US were all "Big Gubbermint"? So in that case you seem to be making a contradiction, seeing as how the EPA, OSHA, and other going concerns of the US government were in fact responsible for instilling these laws and regulations that drastically cleaned up the air and water? So in that case you must be agreeing to what these agencies do, seeing as how we are not in fact- China, and thus lack their pollution situation as a result?Reality says
It's even dumber to waste resources on non-issues instead of solving real pollution problems.
Exactly what do you think was meant by that statement made earlier? You see- climate change and the means to counteract it such as the implementation of standards such as particulate matter reduction go hand in hand.
correct term is climate change
That's funny. As if "global warming" is incorrect.
This guy agrees with you, although he doesn't suggest that one is correct (implying the other is not). He also seems at least slightly more aware than you are, that he is expressing an opinion when he states that "climate change" is more scientifically acurate. It's an editorial.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming.
I understand the reasons for CHOOSING to emphasize climate change rather than global warming. It has its advantages and its disadvantages.
Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.
The global warming agenda would take resources away from local pollution control measures that do actually matter. There is only a limited amount of resources available at any given time. If we focus on solving global warming, then there's less resources available for everything else.
Baloney. And again- the correct term is climate change. Pollution control measures have increased drastically in the past few decades,
And computers and smart phones have become more powerful over the past decade; do you think that's because of the rampant financial fraud and collapse in the real estate financing industry? The less resources are devoted to frauds like the real estate financing bubble and "combating" global-warming/"climate change," the more resources would be available for real productive pursuits.
China is a de jure socialist state. "A Socialist State" is actually written in their constitution. Many backwards aspect of that country is the result of their big government and system/culture of corruption as result of long experience with big government.
Wait a minute... weren't you the commentator that scientific programs, infrastructure, and other basic government functions in the US were all "Big Gubbermint"? So in that case you seem to be making a contradiction, seeing as how the EPA, OSHA, and other going concerns of the US government were in fact responsible for instilling these laws and regulations that drastically cleaned up the air and water? So in that case you must be agreeing to what these agencies do, seeing as how we are not in fact- China, and thus lack their pollution situation as a result?
China has a much more power-grabbing EPA and OSHA-equivalent than we do. It's not possible to open even a restaurant, much less a factory, there without having to bribe the local EPA and OSHA-equivalent officials. The US FDA has about 2000 bureaucrats, whereas the Chinese FDA has 200,000 bureaucrats . . . guess which country's food is safer? You are dreaming if you think bureaucrats make the country safer and cleaner. It is the society's respect for the relatively non-intrusive consistent minimalist laws and consequently people's desire to abide by them that makes a society efficient and functional.
It's even dumber to waste resources on non-issues instead of solving real pollution problems.
Exactly what do you think was meant by that statement made earlier? You see- climate change and the means to counteract it such as the implementation of standards such as particulate matter reduction go hand in hand.
No they do not. Particulate traps and SO2 traps were introduced in the 70's; the primary reason was for local pollution control. To the extent there's any connection to climate at all, one justification was for combating global cooling. With the new "need" to combat global warming, there are idiot scientists who suggest "we" should pump SO2 into the atmosphere just for the heck of it to cool down the planet.
Particulate traps and SO2 traps were introduced in the 70's; the primary reason
was for local pollution control. To the extent there's any connection to climate
at all, one justification was for combating global cooling.
Aaah, and here is the point where skeptics (who can't define albedo) cry out, "Well in the '70s 'they' said pollution was going to cause an ice age!" Suggesting that climate science is randomly made up as a justification to ignore science.
The fact is, pollution in America was different back then. The particulate and aerosol emissions blocked heat gain from sunlight more than rising CO2 was trapping it. These emissions were technically easier to clean than CO2, and getting rid of them made a HUGE difference in air quality. Eliminating these from the balance tipped the climate to gain much more heat. I'm just waiting for someone to say, "Well SEE, those smog controls CAUSED global warming, stupid hippies!" So the threat of global cooling was real and successfully addressed in the 70s- it was real then, not "a wrong guess by these scientists (who obviously don't know what they're talking about!)"
I've lived in Los Angeles all my life and can remember third stage smog alerts throughout the '70s and into the '80s. Today we have 20X the people and cars, and 1/20 the pollution in the air.
It would be silly to focus on banning all tools that can be used for murder, like screw drivers and cars, for the purpose of increasing average life span. That's what the nonsense like the Kyoto Protocol are akin to.
I made a remark about climate change and your answer is about the Kyoto Protocol.
Now climate change existence still says nothing about what to do about it. These are 2 separate things.
But let's face it: that's why a lot of republicans don't want to admit humans influence on climate.
It's: "I don't want to do anything about it, therefore it's not happening."
It's the logic implicit in your answer.
China has a much more power-grabbing EPA and OSHA-equivalent than we do. It's not possible to open even a restaurant, much less a factory, there without having to bribe the local EPA and OSHA-equivalent officials. The US FDA has about 2000 bureaucrats, whereas the Chinese FDA has 200,000 bureaucrats . . . guess which country's food is safer? You are dreaming if you think bureaucrats make the country safer and cleaner. It is the society's respect for the relatively non-intrusive consistent minimalist laws and consequently people's desire to abide by them that makes a society efficient and functional.
Here we go again... just like last week's biazzare conversation where well accepted and proven facts and history are ignored in order to conjur up some sort of right-wing wet dream about what amounts to no government at all. Dandy.
Comparing the EPA and OSHA to any Chinese equivalent is a joke. There is NO comparison because their efforts are clearly a far cry from the US. You are totally dreaming that somehow, we could get away without any government regulations, everyone would sing kum-ba-ya, and we would live in a peaceful, and utterly tranquil, clean environment. In that regard, why even have jails? In your theory the mystical powers of society without a government would somehow make everyone instantly become totally righteous, well-behaved individuals. Uh huh... what other strange ideas do you have to tell us?
But let me give you some historical context so you'll have a better understanding of what the EPA, OSHA, and other environmental agencies to not only for the environment, but you and me.In order to to so its important to look back at precisely what the US was like BEFORE there were widespread government regulations.
For example, electronics manufactures all up and down the Northeast directly dumped PCBs into the Hudson river. If you don't know what PCBs are, well they are a chemical that has incredible staying power, binds really well with fatty tissues, and has been linked to cancer and other health issues. To this day parts of the Hudson river is one of the largest superfund sites in the country. This is just one example. Companies of all kinds not only dumped toxic waste directly into rivers, lakes, and streams, but they had working environments that were also highly toxic. Companies that manufactured plastics used aromatic esters in their products and in many cases the smoke and gas produced from the molding machines wasn't vented properly, meaning workers were for years exposed to carcinogenic substances.
In 1969 the Cuyahoga river in Ohio actually caught on fire because of the high concentration of flammable pollutants floating on its surface. This is an example of just how bad things had become. Cities like LA routinely had health advisories over smog when the smog was particularly bad.
All of this happening at a time when there was little regulations. This totally disproves your theories of having no regulations and somehow believing people will do the "right thing". That simply doesn't happen.
The EPA was setup in 1970 under the Nixon administration and since then it has been a part of many landmark decisions that ultimately led to a vastly less polluted country. This list in part includes:
1: The implementation of regulations for car exhaust- aka, catalytic converters and emission controls.
2: The removal of leaded gasoline
3: The regulation and identification of toxic substances
4: The regulation of public drinking water
5: The identification and then management of superfund sites
The list goes on and on. Reality says
No they do not. Particulate traps and SO2 traps were introduced in the 70's; the primary reason was for local pollution control. To the extent there's any connection to climate at all, one justification was for combating global cooling. With the new "need" to combat global warming, there are idiot scientists who suggest "we" should pump SO2 into the atmosphere just for the heck of it to cool down the planet.
Particulate matter from diesel and coal plant exhaust is carcinogenic and by the nature of particles suspended in the air, will in fact retain and trap heat. Take anything thats black, like a trash bag, the lid off of a black spray can and sit it in the sun. What happens? It gets hot. So what do you think happens when many metric tons of black, sooty particles are suspended in the atmosphere? The same thing. Newer emission controls are helping to reduce diesel emissions even further.
So you lost last week's debate pretty good and you're on the right track for losing this one as well. Good job!
The real issue is that the climate models of the supposed "experts" have been greatly and consistently inaccurate. The urgency and panic is based on the projections of computer models and not on current temperatures. If the models however, fail to predict hemispheric temperatures over periods as long as 16 years - the screams of panic should be taken with a grain of road salt.
Do greenhouse gasses cause warming in laboratory conditions? Yes.
Is C02 a greenhouse gas? Yes.
Are humans increasing the amount of C02 they produce. Yes.
Has the earth been warming? Yes.
Has C02 been contributing to that warmth. Probably.
Have the computer models of climate scientists been statistically accurate in their predictions since the mid 90's. No.
Was it proven that Gore's C02 to Temperature graph was mathematically manipulated to produce the pronounced "hockey stick". Yes.
Should we panic based on the predictions of failed climate models? No.
On the other hand:
Do we have clean air problems worldwide not related to C02. Yes.
Are humans producing most of the polluted air? Yes
Have scientific studies accurately shown that polluted air is hazardous to our health. Yes.
Should we worry more about polluted air than specifically about C02? Absolutely.
Are there food problems worldwide due to populations in regions with poor cultivation? Yes.
Are there modern miracle fertilizers which can allow crops to grow in desert and difficult to cultivate regions? Yes.
Is nitrogen from modern nitrogen rich fertilizers 1000 times more potent as a greeenhouse gas (per millionth part of a cubic foot of atmosphere) than C02? Yes.
Has it been scientifically shown that these fertilizers increase crop production in the difficult regions by a factor of 10? Yes.
Do climate alarmists want to stop modern, nitrogen-rich fertilizers from helping to feed people in poor nations. (if they truly believe in the dangers of greenhouse gases, then...YES)
Have climate organizations tried to block their usage? Yes.
So, the alarmists believe it's better that people continue to go hungry rather than use nitrogen rich fertilizers? Apparently, yes.
Do climate alarmists want their efforts to block usage of nitrogen rich fertilizers to become widely publicized? Absolutely not.
Should we worry about issues which are proven to endanger human life both now and in the future? Yes. Has C02 production scientifically been shown to be one of these issues. No.
What is the most important single tree in the world? YAD06
It's: "I don't want to do anything about it, therefore it's not happening."
It's the logic implicit in your answer.
This is exactly correct. I think in many cases, they even know it's real and an effect of mans activity, but they will lie and deny it because they think their role is preventing regulations and protecting the interests of existing big business.
Fully accepting it, and therefore the (possible) risk it poses to humanity's future, means that maybe there should be more regulations and also government subsidy of clean energy or other new technologies. But this could disrupt the profitability of big oil and many other entrenched huge industries.
And besides, democrats are the enemy and must be prevented from doing anything, and since democrats tend to believe global warming is real and that it should be addressed that alone is (believe it or not) a reason to deny it.
A favorite cop out is, "hey we aren't even nearly the biggest polluter in the world, so we can't do anything about it.
This is 2014 in America.
Trees eat carbon dioxide and shit oxygen.
Yay, trees, more oxygen for flame throwers.
So the threat of global cooling was real and successfully addressed in the 70s- it was real then, not "a wrong guess by these scientists (who obviously don't know what they're talking about!)"
You are kidding right? Do you also believe that the sun rose this morning because somewhere in the world yesterday some criminal was murdering human for sacrifice to the pagan gods?
I've lived in Los Angeles all my life and can remember third stage smog alerts throughout the '70s and into the '80s. Today we have 20X the people and cars, and 1/20 the pollution in the air.
Like I said before, local pollution issues were real. Anthropogenic blobal cooling and anthropogenic global warming are nonsense. Don't conflate the two entirely different issues.
Is nitrogen from modern nitrogen rich fertilizers 1000 times more potent as a greeenhouse gas (per millionth part of a cubic foot of atmosphere) than C02?
IT may be a potent greenhouse gas. But The amount doesn't put it in the same league as C02.
Here are two sources for info on greenhouse gasses. One doesn't include nitrous Oxide (why ?). The other puts it at 6%. The EPA says 5%
https://www.ameslab.gov/sustainability/where-greenhouse-gases-come
http://knowledge.allianz.com/environment/climate_change/?651/ten-sources-of-greenhouse-gases-gallery
Just out of curiosity are you a republican ?
Should we worry about issues which are proven to endanger human life both now and in the future? Yes. Has C02 production scientifically been shown to be one of these issues. No.
What constitutes proof in your view ? What if it's not proven to your personal satisfaction until there are so many feedback loops in place that an irreversible extinction event is in motion ?
Why in hell is that a chance you are willing to take ?
Are you guys aware that our atmosphere is a SHOCKING 78% Nitrogen?
If it's a greenhouse gas, it's a pretty essential one.
Apparently he meant laughing gas (N20). Like C02, naturally occuring, but man cranks out additional amounts.
Here we go again... just like last week's biazzare conversation where well accepted and proven facts and history are ignored in order to conjur up some sort of right-wing wet dream about what amounts to no government at all. Dandy.
Funny that's how you remembered. What really happened was that you brought up a long list of alleged inventions by the NASA . . . and everyone of them turned out to have been invented by someone else or invented before NASA was created. You are the one espoused with false history . . . although possibly not your own personal fault but the result of poor public education and NASA bureaucratic scribes' influence on the public education.
Comparing the EPA and OSHA to any Chinese equivalent is a joke. There is NO comparison because their efforts are clearly a far cry from the US.
You were the one who brought up China, probably under the mistaken assumption that they do not have EPA or OSHA-equivalent. The reality is that they have far more intrusive EPA and far more intrusive OSHA-equivalent bureaucrats.
You are totally dreaming that somehow, we could get away without any government regulations, everyone would sing kum-ba-ya, and we would live in a peaceful, and utterly tranquil, clean environment. In that regard, why even have jails? In your theory the mystical powers of society without a government would somehow make everyone instantly become totally righteous, well-behaved individuals. Uh huh... what other strange ideas do you have to tell us?
I never said anything about people singing kum-ba-ya . . . that was a dream that your ilk had during your youth. My view is that people don't sing kum-ba-ya even after being put in the costumes of bureaucrats! So your theory about about creating more bureaucratic positions and throwing bureaucrats with coercive power at problems would solve them is destined to failure . . . just like the Chinese are facing: with mountains of bureaucratic enforcers, yet even greater mountains of problems.
let me give you some historical context so you'll have a better understanding of what the EPA, OSHA, and other environmental agencies to not only for the environment, but you and me.
So after so many years of regulating, do we have more environmental pollutions now than we did back then or less?
If the answer is more, then the regulations are clearly ineffective, so the bureaucracy should be reduced if not eliminated.
If the answer is less, then the bureaucracy should also be reduced because there is less problem now for it to solve. Lest it start looking for "problems" to justify its own existence and expansion, thereby causing the society real problems like the Chinese bureaucracy has evolved into.
Bureaucracy, being a hirarchical monopoly, has a tendency to expand itself until it is beyond the carrying capacity of the underlying society.
In that regard, why even have jails?
Funny how "liberals" have become advocates for more jails. LOL. In case it is not obvious, jail is the very antithesis of liberty. While at any given time, some jail may be unpleasant necessity, a just society should always strive to reduce the size of jails and the number of inmates . . . by removing irrational laws and regulations, for example.
Wow. I just checked this thread from incognito mode and saw this.
So after so many years of regulating, do we have more environmental pollutions now than we did back then or less?
If the answer is more, then the regulations are clearly ineffective, so the bureaucracy should be reduced if not eliminated.
Nominated.
The question isn't whether we have more than back then. The question is do we have more than if there were no regulations.
Don't strain yourself.
In 1980 crime in the US had been increasing rapidly for 20 years. Was this proof that there was no point in laws or law enforcement ?
Now climate change existence still says nothing about what to do about it. These are 2 separate things.
But let's face it: that's why a lot of republicans don't want to admit humans influence on climate.
It's: "I don't want to do anything about it, therefore it's not happening."
It's the logic implicit in your answer.
Anthropogenic climate change theories are classic examples of hubris. The high priests in human society have engaged in that kind of demogoguery for thousands of years; e.g. blaming your neighbors' immorality for natural disasters. The CO2 output from human sources is way too small to have a real impact on the highly resilient system that is our planet. Crying out loud, the first massive air pollution on this planet was carried out by green plants/algae turning CO2 into O2, which was highly toxic to most living things prior to that. Before then, CO2 and N2 made up the bulk of the atmosphere.
Comments 1 - 40 of 88 Next » Last » Search these comments
There is not a consensus, but if it is related, some theories are explored here.
http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/arctic-blast-linked-global-warming-20140106
#environment