|Posted on Sunday, September 1, 2002 - 7:51 pm: |
I'm more annoyed with the SUVs plastered with American flags and all manner of patriotic messages. The US addiction to Middle East oil is the only reason anyone (anyone HERE, anyway) CARES what happens in that region!
Wouldn't a "true patriot" try to help reduce dependence on a fuel source from an unstable region?
Why do conservatives hate their grandchildren? After all, if there were still a question about whether dioxin in the water is toxic, they'd be saying "No, don't regulate it!" (They're still trying to avoid regulating arsenic, when it's proven to be carcinogenic.)
If there were a question about whether Agent Orange would poison troops, they'd say, "No, don't stop spraying their barracks with it!"
Now, when most mainstream scientists believe that human-caused CO2 emissions and deforestation are accelerating global warming, they say, "No, wait until it's 100% PROVEN that it was human-caused! We can't PROVE it yet, and we'll be dead by the time it's a REAL problem anyway! Why should we worry about some silly THEORY??"
So I must wonder why conservatives hate their grandchildren.
I do recall reading recently that many of the "christian conservatives" are expressly unconcerned about environmental issues because they believe we are in the "end times" and their lord and savior is coming back next week, so the future of the planet really doesn't matter. Do you fall into that category?
|Posted on Sunday, September 1, 2002 - 7:40 pm: |
I don't believe it is possible with the limited data available to make any determination on whether or not global warming is occuring.
That's swell, but most of the people who have spent their lives STUDYING the subject disagree with you. I am far more likely to believe the consensus of the world's climatologists than you, no offense. Especially since you don't seem to know the difference between climatology and meteorology.
To say that we are warmer now than we have been in a hundred years is meaningless. When you think of weather on a geologic time frame, 100 years of data is completely insignificant
100 years of data is very significant when you take into account that there appears to have been more change in those hundred years than in any other century. We DO have data for the previous periods; it is just not as complete. Coonsidering the potential consequences, the data we do have ARE significant, significant enough to warrant some concern.
Your explanation for the scientific consensus regarting GW is that the scientists are biased and influenced by the sources fo their funding. This does little to explain why the EPA appointed by a Republican administration recently admitted that GW was likely. And I am curious to know WHAT, exactly, you think these biased scientists and funders are hoping to gain by concocting the theory of GW? There isn't a lot of money to be made in the theory; the primary "conservative" argument is that it would be an undue burden on industry. And how is it that these biased funding sources have enough cash that they can buy more scientists off than the oil companies can?
|Posted on Sunday, September 1, 2002 - 4:36 pm: |
What's your hobby Hob?
|Posted on Sunday, September 1, 2002 - 11:38 am: |
Whatever Marc, my post was not addressed to you, if you find the conversation not to your liking then don't get involved. You're behaving like a troll.
|Posted on Sunday, September 1, 2002 - 11:31 am: |
"currently I drive a little Ford Fiesta, a lovely little car..."
this is some fucking scintillating conversation.
|Posted on Sunday, September 1, 2002 - 11:25 am: |
Your friend is correct. It is a real pain in the ass but it does make one's car fuel-consumption a real area to think of before buying a car. Currently I drive a little 1.1 Litre Ford Fiesta, a lovely little car, great fuel consumption and fine for most purposes. However I have a hobby that requires filling up my whole boot and back seats (with care or it won't all fit in) with gear before setting off. I'm thinking of buying a short wheel-base Landrover (a hell of a lot smaller than a SUV) so that I can load all my gear with ease. What is putting me of buying it is the fact that fuel consumption on short trips (and my workplace is only 9 miles away) is horrendous and would mount up in cost day after day.
So yes, high fuel taxes are not very nice but they do encourage the use of smaller cars.
|Posted on Sunday, September 1, 2002 - 10:29 am: |
We pay around $1.50 to 2.00 per gallon of gas in my area. Someone told me yesterday that he met some people from England in Orlando and that they regularly pay $5 per gallon of gas! That truly explains all the little cars in Europe. If our gas prices went up, maybe we would see less of those damn SUV's taking up all that damn room and gas.
Just a thought.
|Posted on Sunday, September 1, 2002 - 1:21 am: |
|Posted on Saturday, August 31, 2002 - 8:19 pm: |
Though I'm no eco-freak, I do believe that we're starting to do a pretty shitty job as stewards of the planet. I say "starting to," because the large scale damage really only started in the last century, give or take. There is still time to change, but small changes now could mean an easier go at it later.
I heard a good analogy once about global warming (GW). Let's say it's pure bullshit, bunk science (which it may be, and many learned scientists say it is BS), but there is a chance that it's true, like 10%. Even an average schmoe who doesn't believe in GW could say that they're 90% sure that it's BS.
But that 10% is worth insuring against.
Car accidents happen at a far smaller magnitude than 10%, yet we all have car insurance (or are supposed to...please, no libertarian arguments about why we should ban car insurance...). So why shouldn't we do some "insurance" now to prevent the slim chance that GW is happening?
|Posted on Saturday, August 31, 2002 - 6:46 pm: |
I dont know about you guys, but I'm sick of seeing those damn SUV juggernauts. It seems every family in America with 2.5 children either have a huge FORD SUV or a Chyrsler Mini Van. These people annoy the shit out of me because, most of them have several different things going on at one time while driving, talking on the cell phone being one of them. So much that they often have no clue where the hell they are going, but they have to get there going 80mph. I see more SUV & mini van accidents where I live than any other place I have every been too. I think these vehicles give these people a false sense of security. Ban them ALL !!
|Posted on Saturday, August 31, 2002 - 3:18 pm: |
I have a feeling this conversation is becoming tiresome to everyone but ourselves, so I'll make my final comments and let it go.
I don't believe it is possible with the limited data available to make any determination on whether or not global warming is occuring. I choose not to argue this point because the argument tends to quickly get bogged down in a bunch of bullshit. To say that we are warmer now than we have been in a hundred years is meaningless. When you think of weather on a geologic time frame, 100 years of data is completely insignificant. It's like looking at a snapshot of a racecar and and saying it's going exactly 235MPH or more to the point saying that it's about to throw a rod and blow the engine.
So we have scientists measuring tree rings, cow farts, and the tensile strength of polar bear sphicters. They make computer models of the things they think they know, and guess what, the models show what the scientists expect to see. The models that don't show the expected result are "refined" until they work correctly.
All science must be funded by someone. Those people have particular points of view. Those scientists who's results agree with their patrons continue to get funded and those who dissagree don't. This is a fact in all aspects of science, not just meteorology.
So fine you want to believe that the earth is doomed by global warming, I won't argue. The next question is can you prove that reducing or elimnating C02 emissions will stop or reverse global warming?
Now before you answer that question, think. Are you going to tell me that you can control the weather. Fuck we can't even predict the weather with any real accuracy.
There are huge political agendas at stake here. The left relies on panic and fear to push it's policies through. Remember Carter's energy crisis? Are you going to tell me with a straight face that the science hasn't been hyped up a bit in order to grease some political wheels?
I'm not going to argue with you on execution. I believe God has the monopoly on revenge. It's not a right he has granted us. I personally don't care one way or the other as long as murdering scum are kept away from good people.
I don't have any sympathy for the bastards, though I also don't have a right to vengance.
We'll never agree here. Freedom is something that once you give it away only revolution will win it back. You freely give yours up in little tiny unnoticable increments, kind of like boiling a frog by slowly increasing the heat of the water. At some point the pot boils and you're fucked.
Go ahead and take the shiny apple the left is offering. Just watch out for that razor.
|Posted on Saturday, August 31, 2002 - 2:48 am: |
"While you may point to isolated examples of hypocracy on the right, the left doesn't even attempt to lie about it's desire to increase the size and influence of government."
And why should we lie? Lying is the action of a hypocrite. Surely it is best to say that "we believe in a bigger role for the government in people's lives" and then behave accordingly rather than lie and say "we believe in a much reduced state" and then behave differently. Does lying about your intentions and deceiving the public somehow make your actions more honourable?
As for basic rules of safety including legalised execution. Execution is motivated by quite a bit more than the basic rules of safety and includes a large dose of state-enforced retribution and revenge. Execution is not the only way to keep a murderer away from more victims (and keeping the potential offender away from potential victims is what is needed in the interests of safety) but let's not start a pro/anti death penalty argument.
We seem to be in agreement that government enforced restriction on individual behaviour is necessary in order to protect the safety and well-being of others. Therefore where we disagree is to what individual behaviour actually constitutes a threat to the safety of others. We are agreed that global warming exists and probably in agreement that carbon emissions are a major contributor to global warming. The effects of global warming very clearly represent a threat to the safety of people on this planet.
Therefore it is perfectly reasonable for governments to use methods of control (such as taxation) to restrict individual behaviour in the interests of the safety of others with regard to fuel emissions.
I think perhaps your opposition to increased fuel taxation is very tainted by the fact that you enjoy driving gas-guzzlers therefore you want to keep doing on so. You are happy for governments to use their power to curb people's behaviour in the interests of the safety of others just so long as it doesn't include curbing your own behaviour.
|Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 11:19 pm: |
It would be nice to think that, Chevalier, but I suspect it's really because they're both cheap bits of stamped metal that cost less than $0.25 to make. They aren't worth what it would cost to mail them.
|Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 8:53 pm: |
People are going to do what they want to do regardless of what any government tells them. Any government is going to do whatever the people dont want them to do. Some people just dont give a shit.
0 # bids on the George Washington spoon
|Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 12:17 pm: |
Speaking of which...
Five days left to go on the political absinthe spoon auctions, and what do we find?
# of bids on the Nazi spoon: 0.
# of bids on the Communist spoon: 0.
Looks like both extremes are being rejected.
|Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 12:12 pm: |
"Or perhaps you would like a society where people are allowed to do as they please without any government control over their behaviour? Rape, murder, child-molestation, theft etc. No legal threat of sanctions."
So now you equate driving a gas guzzler with child rape and murder?
Restrictions on personal behavior are necessary, but taken beyond the most basic rules of safety they become oppressive and tyranical. Therefore executions of child murderers is OK, Heavy taxation of gas guzzelers is not.
Do I agree with everything the right stands for? Hell no, I don't even agree with all the things I stood for last year. The homosexuality and blow job thing is a red herring. I don't agree with the conservative position here, but it's not like there are many people going to jail for blow jobs.
Canabis and Moonshine? Well let's just say it's hard to condem with bloodshot eyes.
Sadly much of what you guys are saying about the right is true. This is what we mean by the corruption of power. While you may point to isolated examples of hypocracy on the right, the left doesn't even attempt to lie about it's desire to increase the size and influence of government. If I'm going to be ass raped, I'd at least like for the perpatrator to feel a little shame for his act.
|Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 11:11 am: |
Global warming is a FACT. The mean global temperature has risen appriciably in the past 100 years (for which we have good records) and appears to have been doing so at a much faster rate than any time in previous history (for which we have more spotty data). Anyone who denies this is denying empirical fact.
The question is: to what extent is this temperature change a result of human activities, and to what extent can we prevent further change? This is where the debate lies. Five years ago, there was not a real consensus on the matter, but as more and more climate models have been created and more and more study has been put into the matter, that has changed. At this point, the majority scientific view is that global warming is at least in a significant part anthropogenic, and the release of various gasses from human enterprise are a likely culprit. This is not certain, but it is likely enough to warrant concern. It is a lump in the planetary breast, as it were.
We do NOT know to what extent that the change may correct itself, BUT even if it can, it is probably in our best interest to avoid making any more of an impact than we already have. Moreover, we are going to have to move away from fossil fuels within a century or so anyway, since our easily-accessible reserve will begin to deplete and the costs involved will skyrocket.
The idea that the auto industry would spontaneously begin creating more efficient vehicles if there was demand is belied by history. Car makers did not begin adding safety features like seatbelts or even head-cushions until the government force them too. There was obviously enough public demand for these features for the people to elect leaders willing to force the issue.
The recent debacles with various corporation in this country have proved, in my mind, that corporations will do as much as they can get away with...
|Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 10:51 am: |
Not to mention American "conservatives'" delight in increasing the government's role in individuals' personal lives...
|Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 10:50 am: |
Conservatism falls closer this ideology than liberalism, so I tend to throw my support in that direction.
Oh, bull hockey! American "conservatism" anyhow, is no more interested in creating a "small" government than Americn "liberalism" is. American "conservatives" only want the government to be small when it is advantageous to the wealthy, but are perfectly happy to continue to pump money into subsidies for industries and into maintaining such an excessive military-industrial complex that we have to make up wars in order to justify its existence.
Democrats: tax and spend
Republicans: don't tax, but still spend
You'll notice under which party our deficit grew the most it has in history...
|Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 9:43 am: |
One on each side of the pond!
|Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 9:42 am: |
|Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 9:39 am: |
Did I just hear an Absinthe Fizzy Bath Bomb go off?
|Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 9:37 am: |
Mensch, konnt ich jetzt der Meister Pikkle gebrauchen!!
|Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 9:36 am: |
Relax with the barbs and I'll be happy to discuss life, the universe and everything with you. Until then, I will not be baited!
|Posted on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 9:29 am: |
What you, so obtusely, fail to realise is that the acceptance that global warming exists and that carbon emissions are a major factor IS MAINSTREAM OPINION. The vast majority of governments on the planet accepts that. You don't get more mainstream than that! You are the one holding a fringe view on this issue. The fact that you seem to think that the existence of Global Warming due to carbon emissions is a marginal view just confirms that you have had your head stuck up your arse.