Its true, anyone who thinks global warming is real supports terrorism.This is the problem with the global warming cult... What better world are you creating? How is enviro-terrorism going to create a better world?
Nope.
Doesn't have to raise taxes, and if it does, it's for things like the seawall going around New York to prevent an even worse storm than Sandy causing havoc; said wall is projected to cost about 2/3 of what the damage from Sandy alone wreaked in the area, making it well worth the investment. More direct to your point, though, it just requires shifting tax revenue from project A which isn't helping, to project B. It doesn't "stifle" economic growth, it stifles certain sectors that are doing harm to us all, but it does so deliberately, to encourage better long-term sustainability.
Yeah, okay, you're just in total tin-foil hat territory now, and will probably start talking about chemtrails and the Reptoid threat next.The only thing actually proposed is more taxes and more government. If that's your creed, you're giddy about it... but if you aren't exactly enamored with the demagogues of the world rabble rousing their way to power and more taxes, giddy isn't exactly the word to use. The enslavement of the rural to benefit the urban is what they really are on about, which is fine if your urban I suppose.
The way the democratically-elected officials choose to distribute government funds is not "enslavement", and it's ludicrous to think so.
Kind of ironic, seeing as relativity proved that Newton's gravity was merely a nice approximation.
As to the title of the post, isn't 'belief' something you should have in the Bible, rather than a theory?
As to the general thrust of the thread, I think the bigger issue is how do we turn the train around without running it off the tracks?
indignantgoat.com/
XBL: Indignant Goat | BattleTag: IndiGoat#1288 | SteamID: Indignant Goat[/B]
No, you can believe the sky is blue, or that Canada is north of the United States. Belief is basically you thinking something is true. Faith is belief, but it's mainly in a religious context, so there's not really any scientific proof.
As for turning the train around, metaphorically speaking, it's rather simple on paper... stop, or minimize, the industrial processes that are harmful to the environment and as a global society invest in things that aren't. Of course, that also means billions, if not trillions, need to go into altering the infrastructure of nearly every country on the planet as well as into developing these green technologies and weaning ourselves off of more harmful practices.
Last edited by The Madgod; 2013-01-14 at 04:45 AM.
In the United States, the majority of farm subsidies (I guess this is the urban enslavement of the rural?) go to large corporate farms. The 'rural' way of life died quite some time ago, and here in Appalachia, it had little to do with urban attempts at enslavement. Although, if you want to see what remains, I could show you a few pockets of the 'rural' life that would make you gasp.
The same way they actually reverse a train.
You put the brakes on, bleed off speed, and when it comes to a halt, you shift into reverse. The idea that we CAN'T fix the environment because it's too big and complex is just an error. If we can influence it enough to push it off the rails, we can push it back on. It's not necessarily going to be as easy, and quite likely will cost more, especially when you factor in the mitigating infrastructure that will be necessary in the meantime particularly in coastal cities, but it's not a case of "can't". Just a case of "not worth it to us to bother, yet". Mostly because it hasn't hit people in the wallets, yet, but with bigger and worse storms and rising sea levels, that'll change in the next few decades. Katrina and Sandy were the first in a worsening trend, not exceptions to the rule. Which is WHY New Orleans and New York are investing billions in infrastructure to prevent future disastrous levels of damage from similar events; if they were hundred-year-storm one-offs, it wouldn't be worthwhile.
Right. Many of those measures of efficiency aren't really great comparisons, either, since they don't include cleanup measures to repair the environmental damage from coal/oil power generation, which you should, if you want to compare to "clean" energy sources like solar and wind, since otherwise, they're doing damage that the clean sources aren't, and aren't being penalized for it cost-wise, which makes no sense. It's like debating whether to buy the $30 leaky oil tank, or the $400 secure one, without factoring in the inevitable cleanup costs the leak will generate.
In the end, though, on a national scale, it's about not running the country the way you run a homeless shelter. Sure, at a homeless shelter, you need to factor in how much food you can buy for the least expense, to feed the homeless the most nutrition for the dollar. That's because they're not getting much funding, and have to make it stretch. The US is in desperate need of overhauling their account books, but they have the revenue to push this stuff through, if they want to bother. Instead, they're focusing on a stupidly large military budget. I don't want to turn this into a military thread, I'm just referring to how it's larger than the 10 next-highest military expenditures by nations, combined, and how Nasa's entire operating budget for its entire lifespan was less than one year of the most recent Iraq war. If that doesn't seem like an egregious waste of money, I don't see how we can move past that block. It's not about the US become a country with a crap military; you could shave off 3/4 of the US' military budget and they'd STILL be the top spender in the world in absolute dollar value.
The money's there. It just takes a shift in priorities.
The climate is always more more chaotic and hot before an ice age, small or big.
http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg
Last edited by Fojos; 2013-01-14 at 05:27 AM.
No, that's frankly retarded. Why do you people always bring up this utterly meaningless and irrelevant point?
Our civilisations exists today. Who cares what the Earth was like when 7 billion of us didn't live on it? Global warming isn't a problem because of how it compares to the distance past. It's a problem because when the climate of a planet changes it tends to affects those of us living on the planet.