The Effects Our Fetish Has On Climate Change

[Diapered Jason]

Nothing subjective? LOL ... and no I did not know about that Pluto thing but meh, point still stands. The reports of the human influence in climate and ecosystem change are very subjective, otherwise the "accepted" ones would not all say the same thing, and those saying something different would not be shunned just for disagreeing. All this started because of some idiot who found a way to make money off the fools who want to blame people for something stupid, which happens a lot just this time it's gotten way out of hand. If you take all the land fill space used in the US and lumped it together it would be no larger than one city ... look for Time Magazine's issue, Monday, June 4th, 1974 .... the same carbon emissions that were being blamed for an ice age back then are what they are blaming for global warming now.

The problem isn't the crying wolf either, if you think there's a problem then YOU change your lifestyle, don't make others change theirs while doing the things you claim are worst. Do you drive? If so then you are far more guilty than I am of "damage" ....

If you want to give Al Gore your money, fine, don't make us do it. If you think you aren't, then you really need to look deeper. Manbearpig is not real either, by the way.

lol, ManBearPig was a great South Park episode, but your history is flawed. Climate change originally called global warming was discovered by multiple groups of people working in many different locations. Climate change was not discovered until they put their data together.

For the article, I think you are saying the carbon emissions during the ice age caused the Earth to warm up substantially allowing Earth to exit the ice age. You do realize the green house gas emissions directly relates to the derivative of average world temperatures for each year or temperature variation, not the average world temperature. Granted there are many other factors to consider, but that is just one relationship. I think you misinterpreted that article, did not describe it correctly, or just read the title.

Also, if you think I am talking about Time Magazine when I am referring to research publications, then you really have no idea what a research publication is.

[KittenAB]

http://cascadepolicy.org/projects/more/carbon-cartel-education-project/

Your savior:

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/2007/02/al-gore%E2%80%99s-personal-energy-use-is-his-own-%E2%80%9Cinconvenient-truth/

http://mediamatters.org/research/200703020001

Al Gore owns the major "carbon credit" company as well, by the way. The organisation that brought this to light got death threats from the econuts, by the way, thousands of them. This is not an isolated case, just the easiest one to find.

All the carbon dioxide emissions on the planet, humans produce only 3%, of that most is unavoidable because well, we exhale carbon dioxide and produce it when we die. However without carbon dioxide the planet would freeze. 97% of all carbon dioxide is naturally emitted.

There is a law in my city that was passed because of econuts, recycling. Recycling actually consumes more energy than raw materials. Recycling costs more money, and we're broke, but the econuts have their way because of the scare tactics. Yes, there is a reason to prevent these people from continuing to gain ground, sometimes to get a truly moderate and beneficial solution to an extremist problem you have to take the extremist angle until the balance is restored. The odd thing is I am not taking and extremist angle still, there is no solid proof that humanity is the cause of any global problems beyond that of over hunting for trophies. While I do not condone over hunting for trophies I will not be like the extremist scum and side with laws to stop it because there is still a very natural element to this activity, it still helps natural selection select the stronger species.

[KittenAB]

lol, ManBearPig was a great South Park episode, but your history is flawed. Climate change originally called global warming was discovered by multiple groups of people working in many different locations. Climate change was not discovered until they put their data together.

For the article, I think you are saying the carbon emissions during the ice age caused the Earth to warm up substantially allowing Earth to exit the ice age. You do realize the green house gas emissions directly relates to the derivative of average world temperatures for each year or temperature variation, not the average world temperature. Granted there are many other factors to consider, but that is just one relationship. I think you misinterpreted that article, did not describe it correctly, or just read the title.

Also, if you think I am talking about Time Magazine when I am referring to research publications, then you really have no idea what a research publication is.

Actually, it all started with one single document that was submitted after being edited by Al Gore to the government, that's it, that was when it became hot button. Before then climatologists have been studying the effect of climate change and for the past century it has been actually coming closer to predictions made, not more erratic. Again, the green house gasses (aside from being the only reason life exists on this planet) produced by humans is only 3% .... that's 3% of any possible effect on the environment. We exhale most of it just by living, just by breathing, we fart a lot to (humans fart a huge amount in their sleep). Global cooling was what was discussed by "multiple groups of people", not warming. Do your research better. You also don't seem to get that published reports are written (just like history itself) by the victor, the strongest party at the time, peer pressured scientists are the only ones that get published now. One scientist who at one time ha actually endorsed the ecoscum retired and when interviewed he admitted that they pressured him to agree, when that story hit he was discredited and called a failure, he was actually shunned for disagreeing and admitting the truth. Tell me, do you REALLY want to be a part of a movement that's willing to send death threats to organisations and discard their own just for disagreeing and publishing conflicting facts? If you do then you should look at your "feeling good" again, because you should feel like shit for it.

A list of other things you can "feel good" about:

Green jobs pay the worst benefits and wages.

Environmental activities cost taxpayers billions each year and produce nothing.

The only material that actually has a recycling benefit is aluminum, all others the pollution produced from the process is far more than the resources saved and the costs are much higher than any gain. Just because the companies that make the money off this won't tell you what is really happening, it's been the longest lasting myth and probably the biggest offender of pollution in the last two decades.

Trees are one of our best renewable resources, we have tree farms that exist only because we use them. These tree farms have tripled the number of trees in existence since 1929. All the paper we use come from trees grown specifically for paper, that includes burning materials for wood based fuels.

While coal is a problem (mostly due to mining) the environmental groups are NOT targeting it. They only mention it in the media as another "feel good" hot button, however they are not doing anything to help replace it. Nuclear would be the best solution to this but they are fighting against that. If you believe wind and solar can actually replace our energy need (not just consumption but actual need) then you have done no research on it.

Almost everything they blame for "filling up landfills" is actually recycled successfully by small companies, refurbished electronics are a huge industry but is operated by small companies which do not earn any profits for environmental groups, thus are largely ignored. Plastics actually do break down and replace the fossil fuels we use to make them, bones (the original source of fossil fuels) take longer to break down. All the chemicals that are released by this process actually have a lower impact than rotting corpses in graveyards.

If you really want research, then perhaps you could read the books that contradict your view as well instead of taking a one sided stance and expecting everything to agree. Science rarely agrees with itself, and climate is one science that can never bee predictable. There's a reason for it, the trends we have seen have supported this. If you are worrying about destroying all life on the planet, good luck with that, even a nuclear holocaust couldn't do that, it's impossible. The one thing we could possibly worry about is the survival of our species when the planet decides to throw another fit, like it has so many times in prehistorical records.

[sissybabyemily]

Kitten YOU are AN IDIOT. You have no evidence to support any of your claims besides the most right leaning and corporate sponsored sites. When I read your post all I see is the EXACT parallel to the corporate agenda on fox news that richard ailes feeds to his underling "news" casters on a daily basis. How bout you do your own research or even pick up an academic journal as jason and I have! TV and magazines are for pions like you and the rest of the beck sheep. Its like you have ignored all that is fact and have had it replaced by the fox news corporate propaganda. and to your last post concerning my climate emissions, I live a carbon neutral life; I live in the city, walk to work which is a block away, take the train to university, buy produce from the local farmers market, use compact florescence, wear hemp, etc. so yes I am someone who can be an example of how to life more sustainably in the unsustainable western culture that unfortunately we are a party to.

[babykeiff]

Pluto undergoes drastic world average temperature changes just through one rotation around the sun due to significant changes in its radial distance from the sun.

...

How can that occur to Mickey and Minnie mouse's dog

[sissybabyemily]

^^ lol

[KittenAB]

Kitten YOU are AN IDIOT. You have no evidence to support any of your claims besides the most right leaning and corporate sponsored sites. When I read your post all I see is the EXACT parallel to the corporate agenda on fox news that richard ailes feeds to his underling "news" casters on a daily basis. How bout you do your own research or even pick up an academic journal as jason and I have! TV and magazines are for pions like you and the rest of the beck sheep. Its like you have ignored all that is fact and have had it replaced by the fox news corporate propaganda. and to your last post concerning my climate emissions, I live a carbon neutral life; I live in the city, walk to work which is a block away, take the train to university, buy produce from the local farmers market, use compact florescence, wear hemp, etc. so yes I am someone who can be an example of how to life more sustainably in the unsustainable western culture that unfortunately we are a party to.

What you have read is corporate owned and paid for publications ... That's it. If you think for one moment that your research is from more reliable sources then you really don't think, period.

[sissybabyemily]

NO you are. NO you are NO you are! your a POOPY head. lol hahahhahha. The research that supports climate change mostly comes from scientist and researchers at NON-PROFIT research Universities around the world, not by corporations. It is the RIGHT WING lobby, ie. FOX NEWS and the republican party that gets it money from corporations to swing influence, so get your facts str8! Maybe you have or have not heard the SCOUTS ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Ill brief you, the court ruled that corporations are "citizens" and are entitled to free speech rights and that includes allowing for the unlimited and unregulated funding of political ads for REPUBLICANs. NOT LIBERALS . and if you are concerned at all about money for environmental protections that the govt allocates you should really be more concerned that these "corporate citizens" pay NO TAXES make record profits, layoff hundreds of thousands of american workers, pollute the environment to No end and now they have the legal power to fund the republican party who has no problem being their puppet in government. You and the rest of the conservative right wingers should pound sand!!!

[sissybabyemily]

I'm Taking back MY AMERICA!!! Fuk YEAH!!!! America!!!!

[KittenAB]

NO you are. NO you are NO you are! your a POOPY head. lol hahahhahha. The research that supports climate change mostly comes from scientist and researchers at NON-PROFIT research Universities around the world, not by corporations. It is the RIGHT WING lobby, ie. FOX NEWS and the republican party that gets it money from corporations to swing influence, so get your facts str8! Maybe you have or have not heard the SCOUTS ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Ill brief you, the court ruled that corporations are "citizens" and are entitled to free speech rights and that includes allowing for the unlimited and unregulated funding of political ads for REPUBLICANs. NOT LIBERALS . and if you are concerned at all about money for environmental protections that the govt allocates you should really be more concerned that these "corporate citizens" pay NO TAXES make record profits, layoff hundreds of thousands of american workers, pollute the environment to No end and now they have the legal power to fund the republican party who has no problem being their puppet in government. You and the rest of the conservative right wingers should pound sand!!!

o.O Really, you actually believe that those are "non-profit"? It is you who is acting like a wingnut kiddo, not me. You are no different than those morons that want to make being gay a hanging offence. BTW, I don't watch TV, waste of time, and electricity as well. Yes, I do leave my two lights on a lot ... and my computer, but I'd wager I use less electricity in week than you do in a day, the only reason though is simply because I don't need more, I don't need some lame way to make others feel bad for the things I do like you. As for who pays no taxes, of course I don't, I earn less than $700 a month ... I also get food stamps (ooh the horror). No, I'm far from a "right winger" kiddo. I actually produce less than a quarter of the waste that the average econut does, never (in my entire life) driven, I love the bus, and I've been across the country. Just because you want to control how someone else lives through a different angle than the right wingnuts doesn't make you any different than them. Just replace "global warming" with "family values" ... same story, same purpose, same goal, and same reasoning.

[sissybabyemily]

Yes they are NON-Profit, your questioning of that clearly shows your lack of understanding of what non-profit means. You do not use less electricity then me but that is a stupid argument and I will not continue it here. I don't wish to control how people live, but when corporations have more influence on peoples lives via laissez faire economics it is the job of government to intervene on behalf of the people.

[Guest Amphetamenace]

[Diapered Jason]

http://cascadepolicy.org/projects/more/carbon-cartel-education-project/

Your savior:

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/2007/02/al-gore%E2%80%99s-personal-energy-use-is-his-own-%E2%80%9Cinconvenient-truth/

http://mediamatters.org/research/200703020001

Al Gore owns the major "carbon credit" company as well, by the way. The organisation that brought this to light got death threats from the econuts, by the way, thousands of them. This is not an isolated case, just the easiest one to find.

All the carbon dioxide emissions on the planet, humans produce only 3%, of that most is unavoidable because well, we exhale carbon dioxide and produce it when we die. However without carbon dioxide the planet would freeze. 97% of all carbon dioxide is naturally emitted.

There is a law in my city that was passed because of econuts, recycling. Recycling actually consumes more energy than raw materials. Recycling costs more money, and we're broke, but the econuts have their way because of the scare tactics. Yes, there is a reason to prevent these people from continuing to gain ground, sometimes to get a truly moderate and beneficial solution to an extremist problem you have to take the extremist angle until the balance is restored. The odd thing is I am not taking and extremist angle still, there is no solid proof that humanity is the cause of any global problems beyond that of over hunting for trophies. While I do not condone over hunting for trophies I will not be like the extremist scum and side with laws to stop it because there is still a very natural element to this activity, it still helps natural selection select the stronger species.

There is nothing scientific about those websites you listed. That is politics.

Your second statement is correct. The carbon dioxide emissions emitted by natural sources are roughly 20 times greater than that of human activity; however, most of this is absorbed by the current ecosystem. The problem is the carbon dioxide emissions emitted by our activities such as energy generation is not offsetted by the ecosystem.

Thirdly, recycling saves time, money, and energy. Do you have any idea how much energy it costs to drill for oil and dig up minerals as well as to refine it. Steel is a perfect example. To make steel from iron ore or iron oxide, fully integrated steel mills with very large blast furnaces such as the ones in Pittsburgh are required. In the Seattle area, there are submerged arc furnaces responsible for the recycling of scrap metal and require much less energy and space. Environmentalists did not derive this industry, it was in fact economics. It is also harder then you think to find landfill space. I am sure you have heard of nimby (not in my backyard). You pointed out electronic recycling companies. This is a very profitable business. Precious metals are abundant in computer circuits and using the proper isotope of lead in the solder makes all the difference.

One last thing, this conversation is getting out of hand. Sissybabyemily and kittenAB, lets be mature here and not call each other names. I am sorry if I perpetuated this. Nobody here is stupid. All I want to see is a healthy debate here.

[KittenAB]

There is nothing scientific about those websites you listed. That is politics.

Your second statement is correct. The carbon dioxide emissions emitted by natural sources are roughly 20 times greater than that of human activity; however, most of this is absorbed by the current ecosystem. The problem is the carbon dioxide emissions emitted by our activities such as energy generation is not offsetted by the ecosystem.

Thirdly, recycling saves time, money, and energy. Do you have any idea how much energy it costs to drill for oil and dig up minerals as well as to refine it. Steel is a perfect example. To make steel from iron ore or iron oxide, fully integrated steel mills with very large blast furnaces such as the ones in Pittsburgh are required. In the Seattle area, there are submerged arc furnaces responsible for the recycling of scrap metal and require much less energy and space. Environmentalists did not derive this industry, it was in fact economics. It is also harder then you think to find landfill space. I am sure you have heard of nimby (not in my backyard). You pointed out electronic recycling companies. This is a very profitable business. Precious metals are abundant in computer circuits and using the proper isotope of lead in the solder makes all the difference.

One last thing, this conversation is getting out of hand. Sissybabyemily and kittenAB, lets be mature here and not call each other names. I am sorry if I perpetuated this. Nobody here is stupid. All I want to see is a healthy debate here.

It costs more to take a recycled product to production level, here's the simplified math for you:

Raw: 1. mine/farm raw product, 2. process to material, 3. process to useable form.

Recycled: 1. collect dirty used product, 2. sort product, 3. clean product, 4. break product down to near raw forms, 5. process to material, 6. process to useable form.

Each step is about the same amount of resource usage and pollution (as I said, simplified, I skipped a LOT of steps in the recycling to be nice). Each step for recycling costs tax dollars, and the profit earned from these products could cover one step, that's it. 6 billion a year spent on it in 2007, no profit to the city, and no savings to the companies who get the material. With only aluminum as the exception as it is in extremely high demand and the raw supply is more expensive to process (though the pollution effect is still higher for recycled). The recycling companies are making a huge profit on these laws, by the way, and they pocket it, this is why they pushed to make it a law in many areas. The thing is, the most commonly used raw material is wood, mostly for paper, which is renewable and actually better for the environment if you bury it after you are done with it, and then plant new trees. The extra benefit to using raw wood more is that there are actual tree farms, places that trees don't normally grow which were forested specifically for the production of wood (trees by the way filter the air of pollutants). The one thing none of the recycling companies tell you about is what is used to process the materials, lots and lots of chemicals. The natural chemicals are actually more harmful to humans AND the environment than synthetics, FYI, because the synthetics are now designed to disperse on a molecular level when done, while the natural ones are typically bacterial and can/do grow out of hand. The materials must be cleaned at a minimum of twice to be processed, then after processing they also end up with about 3/4 of what they started out with, the rest is unusable. The cities pay for everything and the recycling company CEOs collect ALL the money from the resale, which is at a huge mark up.

As for being unable to absorb the 3% carbon humanity puts out, that's really not looking at the big picture, is it. Carbon is carbon, there is no difference between all the carbon molecules in your body, those you exhale, or those created by forest fires and volcanoes, it's all carbon and a requirement for warmth in the planet as well as life itself. Your entire body is made of carbon, without it no life is possible on this planet (theories are that there are other base chemicals possible for life in other environmental settings).

Drilling for oil is actually at an all time low right now, due to people not allowing it. Most of our plastic products are being made with synthetic petroleum, a very degradable form of it. Also, most of the fuel used for power is actually methane emissions from the landfills, which they have to continually add more materials to in order to create this gas.

There is a lot of nuances to the garbage system that the media is leaving out, and the peer pressured scientists are pretty much not allowed to tell you (all the reports used in those supporting human effect on climate beyond the natural effects we have are first edited by the government FYI). This is how I know that people who cry about the environmental hot button have done no real research but are only spouting what they hear in media, because they either ignore all the positive or look completely dumbfounded when faced with it. No system, and I mean NO system, is perfect. But no system is all bad either. The only problem that exists are economical ones at the current time, and the "Green" concepts are not economical in any way. The money goes to a select few instead of being recycled back to the people (like what I did there? ).

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

I have the proof that recycling does not save money, time and energy. If it did, it would not be made mandatory since there would be entities lining up to bring it off voluntarily

Why have a debate for debate's sake? That is a monumental waste of time for those who have livess

As to what is politics. The Eco's made the whole thing a matter of politics 40 years ago

The globoal warming things has been around for 23 years and has not been settled. There is and has been a correlation between Evvironmentalism and statism (as observed by the President of the Czech Republic)of at least 75% since before most persons here were born. and the eco's were wrong and even have admitted to lying in some cases They were wrong on acid rain (according to Science Digest, 1981, acid rain was found in non-industrial South America which surprised the researchers but "botonists have known this for a long time", Also acid rain correlates with vulcanism), high tension wires ( the proponents of the alleged danger have rejected the rule of inverse squares to "make" their case) and the Spotted Owl (turns out they like nesting in large store signs (why not. these are complex structures that will shiled the nest and they are warm)

The claim that new carbon will not be offset by the "ecosystem" requires that the ecosystem is static:

First there has never been established a fully integrated global ecosystem. For one thing. the North and South Hemispheres are meteorilogically sealed hence "horse latitudes". Second. The "lungs of the world" are algae and phytoplankton. These are fast-breeders. The key element in any breeding calculation is the food supply. For these little buggers, that food supply is Carbon Dioxide

Also, during this period of "global warming" there have been record snowfalls. Now the key ingredient in making snow is cold. No cold; no snow. and the colder it gets, the more moisture precipitates out of the atmosphere per cubic measure.

I suspect that there is more wishful thinking and fear mongering than science in this 23 year old theory by those who stand to profit (if not in money, then power) from it especially when it competes with older, better understood, more widely recognized and non-politcal ideas such as the El Nino/La Nina oscillation, and vulcanism which explain it at least as well or even better

Even the thread titled is presented in a preumptive, therefore biased, propagandistic, manner

[KittenAB]

Christine, I don't have a life. I admit it, I sit in front of my computer too much ... but meh. The irony is that I agree with you. LOL

The founder of Greenpeace also agrees, just in case someone missed that.

[Diapered Jason]

It costs more to take a recycled product to production level, here's the simplified math for you:

Raw: 1. mine/farm raw product, 2. process to material, 3. process to useable form.

Recycled: 1. collect dirty used product, 2. sort product, 3. clean product, 4. break product down to near raw forms, 5. process to material, 6. process to useable form.

I am afraid it is much more complicated than that.

I. Mineral Processing

1. Exploration

2. Liberation

3. Separation

II. Materials Processing

1. Roasting or calcining

2. Reduction of oxides or smelting (coke is required here)

3. Refinement and alloying

III. Materials Manufacturing

1. Casting or extrusion

2. Rolling/stamping just to mention a few

3. Anneal if necessary

This is just a very brief outline of what materials processing and manufacturing is. Recycling allow us to skip directly to the refinement and alloying process in the case of metals after collection and sorting. You are right, it is not profitable for the recycling companies to come to your house and take all your recyclables and then sort them, but if you bring your recyclables to the recycling center yourself and sort them yourself, they will pay you; however, I am sure the waste management company is milking this to the best of their ability. I am also well aware of all the chemicals they use in these processes. Most of the time the chemicals used are recycled so they can be used again. Also the acid rain problem is no joke. During the reduction of metal sulfides, sulfur dioxide is created. If released into the atmosphere the chemical will react with water to create sulfuric acid. This situation has been contained though as the materials processing companies must capture all sulfur dioxide emissions and convert it to sulfuric acid.

Also, your logic about weather is with out reasoning. It is called global warming, not warming in one particular location on Earth. You are referring to local fluctuations in weather.

I will return to my earlier point. Scientists have reached a consensus about global warming years ago, politicians still have not. You think I am faking this information, because you think I want your money. Come on, read between the lines.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

If it were true that "scientists reached a consensus years ago" then the global warmingists would not have vilified science for 18 years saying "We must act because the situation is so dire that we cannot wait for the science to catch up" for which they justified lying outright; AFTER they were caught in the lie. This proves that they were not grownups since, if they lied and then admitted it then why would they think they would be believed thereafter? and if, by their own admission the science was not there to supprot their theories then on what were their theories based? It seems a fantastic coincidence that "the science was settled" at the same time as Gore's fantasy movie came out. Beyond that. science does not work on consensus, it works on facts and logic. Google up Global Warming petition, 31,000 scientists. Besides. if global warming were tenable, whey did that term get dropped in favor of the very nebulous "climate change" which can mean many things to many people depending on the day of the week, time of day and the lengtj of my skirt . and why was that language change after record snow in New Orleans and San Diago?

The outline you presented only names steps in the sequence of processing and describes nothing and is probably true in a very elementary way but it still does not have any affect on my statement that if recycling were more cost-effective, there would be entities lined up to bring it onl line and make a go of it and it would not need or even benefit from governemnt coercion. We have been re-using aluminum for over 45 years. Junkyards are re-using institutions so we can observe the pattern. The differences between "re-using" and "recycling" are $3 mega federal (taxpayer) grants and brute government force

But then, for the last 40 years, from the get-go. Enviromentalists have overwhelmingly chosen as solutions the path most aligned with totalitarianism to the point that If there are two or more theories offered, it is at least a 75% chance that the Eco's will support the one that is more or most totalitarian and, if the science does not agree, will attack the scientists until they can get some obsucre "data" that they can then turn into some Byzantine theory to "scientifically prove" their case, then they love science to death. I have seen that show so many times that I know the lines better than I know the 35 most well-known lines from Star Trek. You do not live in this world for 65 years without getting a good dose of savvy if you have a moiety of your marbles and even the slightest inkling to look around you

None of this passes the smell test. One is inclined to think that it is a trap set by knaves for fools but it is so facile that you realize that it is a trap set by fools for knaves

When you learn to think like a psychologist, you think in terms of what reinforces whom and then when you see something that does not pass the smell test, you ask "who benefits?"

[KittenAB]

Wow, someone doesn't like the reminder that the people who (like me) who were actually the founders and first environmentalists have decided that you have all become nuts and backed out. LOL

Jason, that's really odd because I didn't mention anything about weather in one location. The historical climate chart shows drastic weather changes a few million years ago, which are even now levelling out, not getting worse. As a matter of fact the original predictions that were made were that we should have seen the "doomsday" style weather by now, however we, the original environmentalists, were not stupid enough to jump on a band wagon and spout political and media nonsense. We pushed for intelligent things like lowering car emissions and finding cleaner methods for factories, simple, elegant, feasible and logical changes. We did one thing not one of the environuts today have done, we gave actual solutions.

Now, for your scientific consensus, there is NONE. Sorry, but even your own scientists (the peer pressured ones) have failed to actually produce any hard facts, for a reason. They cannot release information that contradicts the stance, and have found nothing supporting EITHER argument. Here is why the largest supporters of the original movement stopped to ask more questions instead of forcing others to live how the corporations controlling the climate scientists said: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

Now, if you want more of the actual findings, not just the media hyped scare tactics, http://www.cato.org/global-warming contains actually non-biased studies. Yes, and I dare anyone to say that CATO is biased. This one's a kicker: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10520

Needless to say, the extremists that are crying doomsday now are the reason the rest of us who actually do care about having clean air and water gave up on the nuts that are pushing for stupidity in this decade. Now what would be the harm if your whole angle is wrong? Lots. Aside from the global economy disaster, if we actually change the environment so that it ignores our presence, then nature will stop evolving to support us, we die as a species. Also if the planet decides to actually throw another Ice Age party or worse and we have no resources to protect ourselves, dying will be what we beg for. Seriously, you have no proof, no solid evidence, no facts. Either shut up and let the scientists get to work again or practice what you preach. That means no food from the super markets, no clothing you do not grow and make yourself, no electricity, nothing ... oh ... and launching yourself into space so you don't produce anymore carbon.

As for your "it's more complicated than that" I did say it was simplified math. Each step was a small number of lumped processes that measured approximately the same pollution and cost based on the paper I had done a few years ago, which detailed a lot more but since I no longer have a copy of it I couldn't copy-pasta it.

[hidden]

Saw this article in the paper and thought of this thread.

http://www.dailydiapers.com/board/index.php?showtopic=27727&pid=402659&st=0&#entry402659

[waynecook52]

I'm Taking back MY AMERICA!!! Fuk YEAH!!!! America!!!!

People who say fuk america make me sick.If you dnt like it GET THE HELL OUT.Or run for office and change things.sure would depopulate this country if you all that say that would just leave.And good riddence.

[sissybabyemily]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT0OqHr3wHQ

[sissybabyemily]

[KittenAB]

Wayne I am soo glad that you generation will die long before mine, because all of you are bitter A$$holes who were fed coldwar ideology and have no accurate perspective on the real world, you are clearly very ignorant and apparently cannot read, my post said "america fuk yea!!" you moron! not fuk america. I love this country and it is people like you and the fox news republican corporate kool aid sheep that are turning it into a fascist state for corporate profits while trying to say that the liberals ruining this country. And the so called glory days that you all pine for the 1950's. the top tax rate in thoes days was 91%!!!!!!!!!! If a top tax rate was enacted like that today not only would our country be out of debt but we would again rein as the True Leaders of the World.

o.O Really? Got news for you: You have no idea what it was like back then, just because some history teacher has fond memories or you listen to Nirvana does not make you an expert ... oh wait ... 1950s? Damn, I can't speak for them but I doubt it's anything like you think it is.

As for the "no perspective on the real world" .... who do you think started the actual environmental awareness (which we regret doing now). That's right, the 70-80s generation X-ers. You want to hate the government of corporate greed, or something else, but since that's "wrong" you candy coat it and cover it up with insane laws to get even. Well, I will wager your generation will make THE EXACT SAME MISTAKES WE DID, as well as our parents, and their parents, and on and on. If you hate corporations, fine, say you hate corporations. If you hate the government, that's great, I hate the government to, but I'm not going to pretend that I don't and try to get even by lying about it. I hate the government for getting involved in our lives so much, so how do I work on that? By pushing to get them out of our lives, not by making laws to force other people to live how I want them to just to get even with the world.

FYFuckingI ... I'm a liberal ... oh, did I not mention that, I'm a liberal with a moderate approach. Not JUST a liberal either, a hippy, earth loving, tree hugging, animal's best friend, semi-naturalist, hightech geek, bleeding fucking heart liberal. But I hate entitlementism (made up word but the best I can think of). We inherited a shittier world with no medical advances to speak of and people calling computers a fad ... well ... we improved medical shit for YOU. The generations before us improved a ton of shit as well, without technology and all the scary pollutants you would have to farm 24-7, you don't get lunch breaks on a farm, however because of no high yield crops most likely you'd starve to death because there would be no space for all you kids, I think that was last generation's greatest accomplishment but I could be wrong. You'd have nothing to transport the food across great distances so you'd probably have a very unhealthy diet. You'd have to hunt, kill, and skin your own meat ... which is far from pleasant. The difference between a liberal of my generation and you is that we saw things realistically, not in some hazy dreamlike vision that prevented us from seeing the truth. Just because you cannot deny the opposing angle you even resort to name calling instead of admitting that you could be wrong, which is all it takes, you don't have to say you are wrong, just that you could be. But instead you are more interested in being right than finding the truth, which is a sad state for liberalism because it goes against EVERYTHING liberalism is suppose to be about. So cheer up kiddo, at least you have proven we really fucked up in raising you.

[Diapered Jason]

Wayne I am soo glad that you generation will die long before mine, because all of you are bitter A$$holes who were fed coldwar ideology and have no accurate perspective on the real world, you are clearly very ignorant and apparently cannot read, my post said "america fuk yea!!" you moron! not fuk america. I love this country and it is people like you and the fox news republican corporate kool aid sheep that are turning it into a fascist state for corporate profits while trying to say that the liberals ruining this country. And the so called glory days that you all pine for the 1950's. the top tax rate in thoes days was 91%!!!!!!!!!! If a top tax rate was enacted like that today not only would our country be out of debt but we would again rein as the True Leaders of the World.

Oh boy. I think I am getting out of this mess. I still love you all though. See you all around the forums.