Quote:
Originally Posted by Voodoo5  Even if CO2 didn't contribute much to the global climate, I do think that the sources of CO2 and other "greenhouse gasses" can be safely labeled dangerous  |
Based on what - the junk science behind global warming?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voodoo5 After all, it's well established that vehicle exhaust and industrial air pollution
(Chinese coal plants are a stellar example) cause mild to rather serious respiratory damage and most is likely responsible for an unknown variety of assorted disorders to those who have had enormous exposure before birth. |
Let's clarify what you just said.
It's been established that pollution can cause serious unknown dosorders to those who are exposed before birth. . . I'll leave you to figure out what you where trying to say.
I find it funny that you're comparing vehicle exhaust and "industrial pollution" with a coal plant - talk about apples and oranges.
I'm still waiting to hear of cases of otherwise healthy people who died from daily exposure to (of all things) car exhaust.
I'm sure you havn't bothered to study this to any degree (evidenced by your arguments), but here's an interesting factoid for you: Annually, a car emits 2.5 times more CO2 and Methane than a cow.
A cattle rancher would have thousands of cows in close proximity on a daily basis, and yet the emissions don't kill them. I wonder why?
Fat Knowledge: Cows vs. Cars: Greenhouse Gases Quote:
Originally Posted by Voodoo5 so whether it is heating the world up or not, it's surely going to harm a number people in the near future (over time of course). And trying to get everyone to buy cheap respirators, or simply ignore it and try to slowly change policy and make everybody happy is just an ineffectual, band-aid solution. |
Again, let's clarify what you just said:
It's going to harm people over time in the near future.
Does it hurt talking out of both sides of your mouth like that?
Let me point out another interesting factoid that you've likely never come across. Look at every predicted apocalyptic disaster of the last century - you know what they all have in common? They where all going to happen "in 50 years". Would you like to know why? It's soon enough that it's scary, and far enough away that the quacks won't need to own up to making it up.
In other words - "over time in the near future".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voodoo5 As for lib vs. cons I think that it should be regarded in non political (totally non partisan) terms. A con wants things to stay the way they are (in my rather literal definition) and a lib wants less governmental control and whatever they want. |
So you're trying to re-define the terms because you don't understand the actual definitions (evidenced by the entire paragraph below).
Beyond that, the rest of your post is unintelligible gibberish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voodoo5 One subject that was touched upon was self professed liberals who are actually conservative. This is a problem because now we have a bunch of
new-age money lovers who pick the "team" they find coolest.
I don't know about you, but even some cons in my area are quite frustrated with overly bureaucratic, fumbling system of management that, like all regions in the world, drives everybody (or maybe some) bankrupt, facing the death penalty in a foreign nation, disgraced, or seriously inconvenienced by all sorts of paperwork gaffes or absurdities.
Except for the birth of the industrial revolution and the leisurely boom of postwar2... what has the modern concept of ECONOMY done for us?
Economy is now a weapon for nations trying to preserve abusive regimes, economy, and a now trivial system of stocks which are decided not by a company's performance, but by it's results compared to a bloody forecast makes you rich one day and penniless the next no matter how many frantic sales you make. I oppose today's notion of economy, and those I define as conservative are the ones who keep faith, and continue to gamble in a fixed game with our money.
also... though it need not come in up to three hundred years (it may come to more easily) some form of libertarian or controlled anarchist state of living should at least be considered the end goal for human civilization, we don't need it NOW, we just want people to realize the obvious... even if it turns out to be a dream, that this is where we, at some point should find ourselves standing (prehaps a worldwide objective would propel people to get things done). ps. NEED health care reform worldwide (maybe not europe) ugently! the more it is delayed, the more painful the transition will be (the US should note, canada is not communist and our system is screwed because of staff shortages, lack of organization, and low funding, all of which a richer, and hopefully more organized nation could fix plus all the canadian doctors went to the US to get paying jobs so the bellyachers should just do their homework)
terribly sorry for the length, I will gladly delete this if you wish (your just sick of seeing this message all the time) |