Antarctic Ice Increasing

[AV1611VET]

Fair point. But I don't think anyone's ever said that GW would destroy the human race or flood the entire earth. It could still however kill a lot of people, and make life rather uncomfortable for the rest of us.

I'll try not to let it scare me.

 

[atomweaver]

Yes, because phrasing the dilemma in THAT way is totally fair and balanced....

You can hardly blame him... I think 90% of the US Right's sour grapes over AGW is because it puts them on the outside looking in on a topic that should rightfully be their bread n butter; energy independence for the US.

The solution to AGW would be best served by a fiscally conservative policy that leads to energy independence, which in turn would make us a vastly stronger nation economically (carbon neutral power generation technology for export would be bigger business than the microchip) and militarily (gasoline-free Humvees would be nice)... but they're so busy nay-saying the science that most of them don't even seem to think for a second about what the solutions to it could do to benefit their platform.

But then, that is modern US conservative policy in a nutshell; defining itself by what it is against, rather than what it used to be for...

 

[canukian]

Yes, because phrasing the dilemma in THAT way is totally fair and balanced....

You do realise that IF global warming turns out to be man-made and is getting worse that much of the developing world's food sources will be utterly ruined?

do you realize that the 10s of billions spent stydying the total farce of mmgw (a pure left-wing power grab) could be used to feed thousands who starve to death every day?

aka you are killing thousands every day for an IF. (which is a definate not)

 

[Avatar]

I'll try not to let it scare me.

*high five*

You and me both, bro.

 

[atomweaver]

do you realize that the 10s of billions spent stydying the total farce of mmgw (a pure left-wing power grab) could be used to feed thousands who starve to death every day?

"10s of billions spent stydying(sic)"? I call Bullsh-eviks; you are making up abitrarily large numbers to amke it looks as if you have an actual point...
The whole of climate study has never had that kind of funding, nevermind the study of AGW.

aka you are killing thousands every day for an IF. (which is a definate not)

What drivel. The same non-sense non-argument could be made for any public money spent on anything other than food-aid;

"do you realize that the 10s of billions spent delivering mail (a pure right wing populist agenda) could be used to feed thousands who starve to death every day? aka canuckian is killing thousands every day to have greeting cards delivered to his home"

More facts, and less kookery please.

 

[Split Rock]

The question is whether what's happening now is just the natural give and take of the planet, as Erik the Red and my town's early settlers understood it. Or whether it's something so unprecedented that we need to divert vast resources to a transnational elite bureaucracy so that they can do their best to cripple the global economy and deny much of the developing world access to the healthier and longer lives that capitalism brings. To the eco-chondriacs that's a no-brainer.

Mark Steyn Calls Global Warming Alarmists ‘Eco-Chondriacs ...

Yes, because phrasing the dilemma in THAT way is totally fair and balanced....

You do realise that IF global warming turns out to be man-made and is getting worse that much of the developing world's food sources will be utterly ruined?

Indeed. The effects of Global Warming will hit the underdeveloped countries the hardest, since they are less capable of handling them.

 

[Split Rock]

do you realize that the 10s of billions spent stydying the total farce of mmgw (a pure left-wing power grab) could be used to feed thousands who starve to death every day?

aka you are killing thousands every day for an IF. (which is a definate not)

MMGW is based on scientific evidence, not some "pure left-wing power grab." One of these days conservatives may come to understand that scientific conclusions should not be based on ideology or politics.

 

[atomweaver]

One of these days conservatives may come to understand that scientific conclusions should not be based on ideology or politics.

Don't hold your breath...

 

[Hespera]

MMGW is based on scientific evidence, not some "pure left-wing power grab." One of these days conservatives may come to understand that scientific conclusions should not be based on ideology or politics.

That is no more / less reasonable than saying the same thing about lefties.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

Thank you, sir --- but I have to interject here --- God promised never to flood the earth again like in Noah's time:

come on ya didnt even go for the easy out.
god said nothing about nature or man causing the earth to flood.

 

[Hespera]

come on ya didnt even go for the easy out.
god said nothing about nature or man causing the earth to flood.

The water level in the world's oceans has gone up and down many many times. Where I sit here, nearly in the center of the continent. you can find seashells.

Not that ALL of the land ever flooded. Or ever will.

If we happened to be at the beginning of a new glacial advance, temps were falling, ice encroaching on formerly usable places, I wonder how we'd explain that THAT was our fault?

 

[rambot]

do you realize that the 10s of billions spent stydying the total farce of mmgw (a pure left-wing power grab) could be used to feed thousands who starve to death every day?

aka you are killing thousands every day for an IF. (which is a definate not)

Do you realize 1/10 of the American defense budget could accomplish the EXACT same goal?

And it's only a farce because you do not understand it and you don't trust people smarter than you.

 

[Naraoia]

Do you realize 1/10 of the American defense budget could accomplish the EXACT same goal?

Oh, so yes. Too bad disarmament isn't an evolutionarily stable strategy

 

[rambot]

Naraoi....i'm not totally sure. I think if Americans can somehow shed a little bit of the paranoia that everyone is out to get them, political support for that bloated "defense" (laughable!) budget may erode.

No disrespect to my level headed American friends!

 

[Naraoia]

You may be right. I've heard that the American defence budget is disproportionately large, but can't remember an actual comparison.

As to how much of that is paranoia and how much is truly "necessary", I haven't a clue.

 

[Hespera]

I dont think the USA is paranoid about their position in the world.

As the ISA is the market-dominant minority on the world stage, resentment, hostility and the desire to take us down is inevitable.

Chinese,by the way, should know this well because ethnic Chinese business people tend to dominate the economies throughout SE Asia. And, they have periodic backlashes, burning of shops, murder and expulsion for anyone who happens to be chinese for just that reason.

If the USA wants to cede the position to someone else and let them take the heat, well, then we will see who needs to be "paranoid". Meanwhile, the arming and maneuvering, the probing of our defenses, infrastructure, the spying etc will go on.

We could of course sit back and say, oh its just paranoia, and see what a massive cyber attack, along with coordinated attacks on other levels would do for us.
Pearl Harbor was almost a favor; a modern type of attack wont be.

Im just worried that all the money we spend is for useless things, and we are seriously defenseless. Now that I am a US citizen, this matters to me.

 

[rambot]

You may be right. I've heard that the American defence budget is disproportionately large, but can't remember an actual comparison.

As to how much of that is paranoia and how much is truly "necessary", I haven't a clue.

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US spends as much as the next highest +-15 countries. In fact, the US is responsible for 45% of the entire world's defense expenditures.

As the ISA is the market-dominant minority on the world stage, resentment, hostility and the desire to take us down is inevitable.

But if that were actually the case, then certainly we'd see some attacks from outside countries on the continental US. Perhaps they would want to "take you down" economically speaking, but that doesn't preclude a bloated military budget.

Just as a note of clarity regarding the issue of "paranoia", I do agree that there is some measure of paranoia that is reasonable. However, all indications to me are that the American government have been freaking the pants off American citizens a lot in the last 8 years but further back as well.
That, and hearing gun activists discuss the life and death importance of having a gun. It just seems to me that, compared to other countries I've been to, some American folks are far more paranoid about their sense of security (not their actual safety) than other people. I'm not saying Americans are more or less safe, I'm just saying that the paranoid sect of Americans (which seems a fairly large portion of the population) perceive their life to be in constant danger.

 

[Cabal]

Just as a note of clarity regarding the issue of "paranoia", I do agree that there is some measure of paranoia that is reasonable. However, all indications to me are that the American government have been freaking the pants off American citizens a lot in the last 8 years but further back as well.

That, and hearing gun activists discuss the life and death importance of having a gun. It just seems to me that, compared to other countries I've been to, some American folks are far more paranoid about their sense of security (not their actual safety) than other people. I'm not saying Americans are more or less safe, I'm just saying that the paranoid sect of Americans (which seems a fairly large portion of the population) perceive their life to be in constant danger.

Yeah, I'd be inclined to agree with that observation - that kind of degree of paranoia seems a uniquely American thing.

 

[Hespera]

As the ISA is the market-dominant minority on the world stage, resentment, hostility and the desire to take us down is inevitable.
​

But if that were actually the case, then certainly we'd see some attacks from outside countries on the continental US. Perhaps they would want to "take you down" economically speaking, but that doesn't preclude a bloated military budget.




Hespera sez......IF that were actually the case?????????????

the USA is the dominant country. No if.

And as for the "certainly see some attacks"....

i have no idea how you'd come to that conclusion. An act of war on US territory would be very inadvisable.

 

[Naraoia]

List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US spends as much as the next highest +-15 countries. In fact, the US is responsible for 45% of the entire world's defense expenditures.

But it's not even close to first in relative spending (percentage of GDP, that is).

That surprised me.