The US Owes The World $4 Trillion For Trashing The Climate

mavrocket

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
1,099
I just thought I'd let everyone in this thread know that the climate has been changing for millions of years, with or without human intervention.

Hence, climate change is real.

It is NOT radical to suppose that, like during the 60's global cooling, peak oil and peak food scares, these "scientists" (windbags) are full of hot air.

The radical position is that it has been changing dramatically since the industrial revolution (which the facts do NOT support), and that we can radically alter it by taxing companies or countries based on their CO2 output.
 

ondaedg

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 1, 2000
Messages
417
I just thought I'd let everyone in this thread know that the climate has been changing for millions of years, with or without human intervention.

Hence, climate change is real.

It is NOT radical to suppose that, like during the 60's global cooling, peak oil and peak food scares, these "scientists" (windbags) are full of hot air.

The radical position is that it has been changing dramatically since the industrial revolution (which the facts do NOT support), and that we can radically alter it by taxing companies or countries based on their CO2 output.

And man just started pumping 40,000,000,000 tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere in the last 50 years. Yes folks, 40 billion tons of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels. I can't imagine that would have any kind of effect on anything...
 

ondaedg

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 1, 2000
Messages
417
And man just started pumping 40,000,000,000 tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere in the last 50 years. Yes folks, 40 billion tons of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels. I can't imagine that would have any kind of effect on anything...

And for the math challenged, that's 80 trillion pounds of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere annually. And that doesn't even count the millions of tons of methane which is an even worse greenhouse gas that is being released into the atmosphere by man.

Who gives a fuck how long the weather has been changing. For every action, there is an opposite reaction and releasing 80 trillion pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere every year is going to come back to bite us in the ass sooner than later.
 

mavrocket

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
1,099
And man just started pumping 40,000,000,000 tons of CO2 per year into the atmosphere in the last 50 years. Yes folks, 40 billion tons of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels. I can't imagine that would have any kind of effect on anything...

You disprove your man-made global warming by citing the facts.

40 Billion tons of CO2 per year in the years between the years of 1998 and 2013 equated to ZERO change in global temperature according to the United Nations own report that was released in 2013.

You really need to put aside the tin-foil hat and do some more investigation before spewing (pun intended) wild theories spoon fed to you by politicians.
 

ondaedg

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 1, 2000
Messages
417
You disprove your man-made global warming by citing the facts.

40 Billion tons of CO2 per year in the years between the years of 1998 and 2013 equated to ZERO change in global temperature according to the United Nations own report that was released in 2013.

You really need to put aside the tin-foil hat and do some more investigation before spewing (pun intended) wild theories spoon fed to you by politicians.

I'll take the 40 billion tons of CO2 argument and the facts laid out by 99% of the world's climate scientists over your lame "weather is always changing" argument any day of the week. If you want citations, just use google. It's free!
 

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,683
I am sorry, I could not get past the fact that the US apparently owes China and India... Yeah, I can get that we have been an industrialized nation longer and have done more damage in past years, but the comment that the US has done nothing to stem the tide is just ridiculous, as ridiculous as nations such as China that completely scoff at the rest of the world in fixing climate issues.

Yeah. The article went off the rails around that time. People in Chinese cities have to wear masks. US has outsourced a lot of production there because they're willing to do it environment-be-damned. So there's a BS flag on this one.
 

mavrocket

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
1,099
I'll take the 40 billion tons of CO2 argument and the facts laid out by 99% of the world's climate scientists over your lame "weather is always changing" argument any day of the week. If you want citations, just use google. It's free!

More power to you. I know when to quit arguing with a pigeon.
 

cyclone3d

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
14,831
I'll take the 40 billion tons of CO2 argument and the facts laid out by 99% of the world's climate scientists over your lame "weather is always changing" argument any day of the week. If you want citations, just use google. It's free!

Are you aware of the fact that almost all plants must have CO2 to live? The more the better.
 

ondaedg

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 1, 2000
Messages
417
More power to you. I know when to quit arguing with a pigeon.

Hah a pigeon. Never been called that before. I'm going to put the onus on you to come up with legitimate studies that show that the world's scientists are wrong. Please show how the melting sea and glacial ices, the record setting ground, air, and water temperatures, and raising sea levels are no way related to the 80 trillion pounds of greenhouse gases that are pumped into the atmosphere each year. Once you've rounded up those scholarly studies that prove this we can talk.
 

flashoverride

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
496
And for the math challenged, that's 80 trillion pounds of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere annually. And that doesn't even count the millions of tons of methane which is an even worse greenhouse gas that is being released into the atmosphere by man.

Who gives a fuck how long the weather has been changing. For every action, there is an opposite reaction and releasing 80 trillion pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere every year is going to come back to bite us in the ass sooner than later.

I'll go ahead and ask the question: 80 trillion pounds as compared to what? What is the total weight of the atmosphere?

80 trillion pounds sounds like an awful lot, but without context it's a meaningless number. It would be better represented if we could establish a baseline without humans, and then measure the difference, and then determine that difference's possible impacts on global climate. Of course, global climate is and has been shifting for millions of years, so we'd have to establish a baseline for that, establish an expected rate and direction of change, and then the delta from expected to observed would need to be factor isolated.

But please, tell me what the optimal surface temperature of the earth is and what target we should hold it at. Given that we can't even agree on a common telecommunications standard globally, I'd wager that ideal range of temperatures is going to vary quite wildly.
 

Methadras

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2000
Messages
6,132
how about a giant cup of fuck you to the rest of the 8th world shitholes. such bullshit that it's even a thought.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
But please, tell me what the optimal surface temperature of the earth is and what target we should hold it at. Given that we can't even agree on a common telecommunications standard globally, I'd wager that ideal range of temperatures is going to vary quite wildly.
How about a temperature that doesn't cause permafrost that's been here tens of thousands of years to be melting within the past century?
 

RAutrey

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
1,605
how about a giant cup of fuck you to the rest of the 8th world shitholes. such bullshit that it's even a thought.

+1

Plus I'm pretty fucking sure the world language is not German because of us... Just sayin.
 

Bill1024

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
1,682
+ a trillion more.

Anyone who believes a single line of bull from these climate "scientists", or any government agency or agent regarding the world climate deserves nothing short of a lobotomy.

Suckers.
The Earth has not warmed at all in the last 30 years, the polar ice caps are getting larger and people are living well in to their 70s and 80s.

Yeah things are so bad.
 

motomonkey

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 17, 2009
Messages
1,490
total number of deaths to nuclear accidents according to the WHO... 18....


The Most conservative estimate of deaths from the Chernobyl accident alone, are 4000 deaths.

One study places the number of radiation related deaths at 985,000. that's a metric shit-ton more than 18.

I'm firmly in the Nuke camp, but denying that there has been some truly stupendous fuckups in the past is as bad as saying that humans have had zero impact on climate.
 

motomonkey

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 17, 2009
Messages
1,490
But then again, does it really matter if the Mean average temp does go up a degree or two? that is the real kicker.
 

ondaedg

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 1, 2000
Messages
417
Are you aware of the fact that almost all plants must have CO2 to live? The more the better.

That is hilarious. As if plants were choking to death on O2 before man came along. So now the argument is we need more CO2 because plants don't have enough? Thanks for the chuckle.
 

ondaedg

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 1, 2000
Messages
417
I'll go ahead and ask the question: 80 trillion pounds as compared to what? What is the total weight of the atmosphere?

80 trillion pounds sounds like an awful lot, but without context it's a meaningless number. It would be better represented if we could establish a baseline without humans, and then measure the difference, and then determine that difference's possible impacts on global climate. Of course, global climate is and has been shifting for millions of years, so we'd have to establish a baseline for that, establish an expected rate and direction of change, and then the delta from expected to observed would need to be factor isolated.

But please, tell me what the optimal surface temperature of the earth is and what target we should hold it at. Given that we can't even agree on a common telecommunications standard globally, I'd wager that ideal range of temperatures is going to vary quite wildly.

100+ years of surface temperature readings is a good start. Nice try at trying to make the problem so big it can't be completely understood by science.
 

TechLarry

Can't find the G Spot
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
30,483
Like we don't have better things to worry about than shit like this. Really.
 

atp1916

[H]ard|DCoTM x1
Joined
Jun 18, 2004
Messages
4,842
I love all these academics "estimating" this and that.

Build a model modeling some geosystem in the real world, prove the model itself mechanically correct, remove/ignore all context/causation/constraints from other elements that actually impact the real-world system,..........and boom: come out with crap like this other other climate baloney.

Academics are out of control these days. Their funding will dry up soon enough, though.
 

Archmage

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 13, 2000
Messages
3,027
I don’t like taking sides in any important issue until I put in at least several dozen hours of reading and note-taking, but the consensus position has a lot of corroborating data. I don't intend to do that reading now, but I'll still err on the side of the precautionary principle and be mindful of my carbon footprint because I believe it’s the most sensible position to take at the individual level.

As a rebuttal to the anti-climate-change position linked here: http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php (click the pdf to read the report)

I've seen these:
- http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
- http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

Most of the time I see rebuttals attacking the credentials or the website or some other such nonsense. These links at least attempt to provide some actual data as well. It'd be nice if I could budget the time to reference and fact-check it all...

The wikipedia pages on climate change, global warming, ocean acidification, carbon cycle, permafrost cycle: seem to provide useful references.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost_carbon_cycle

The key to the claim that a large portion of climate change is anthropogenic seems to be the rate at which things are changing. The rate at which the ocean is acidifying, for instance, is reportedly unnaturally high... and such a rate has, in the past, been associated with mass extinction... I hope that doesn’t soon lead to the extinction of our phytoplankton, which seem to provide a large portion of our ocean's "carbon-sink." That’s one of a number of positive feedback loops which are possibly feeding into a runaway global disaster.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6253/1221 - The reinvigoration of the Southern Ocean carbon sink
- Though it’s not all bleak news… it appears that the Southern Ocean is currently doing better than expected.

The deniers may claim that these sources are untrustworthy or lacking significance, and this possibility is why I try not to assume a position without due diligence (because I have disagreed and continue to disagree with some consensus positions). So far, however, the consensus position is looking fairly convincing. It may be that the models are a bit off, and do not provide fully accurate estimates, but that's expected. What is more difficult to dispute, however, is the data. There are more measurements in more locations being gathered than ever before, and even if I ignore the conclusions drawn by others, the correlations are there – the rates of change (of more than 1 purportedly relevant marker) appear to be unnatural. A mega volcano has not erupted. All of the permafrost has not melted at once. What happened?

Thread-relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Other links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

On the other hand, if anyone has any more convincing data and analysis suggesting that the primary contributor to climate change is not anthropogenic, I’d genuinely like to read it. I have not put in the work to make a satisfactory assessment.
 

choppedliver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
479
Pay 4 trillion ... yeah. Just tack that on to our bill of $18 trillion. We can just borrow it from china right?
 

choppedliver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
479
I don’t like taking sides in any important issue until I put in at least several dozen hours of reading and note-taking, but the consensus position has a lot of corroborating data. I don't intend to do that reading now, but I'll still err on the side of the precautionary principle and be mindful of my carbon footprint because I believe it’s the most sensible position to take at the individual level.

As a rebuttal to the anti-climate-change position linked here: http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php (click the pdf to read the report)

I've seen these:
- http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
- http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

Most of the time I see rebuttals attacking the credentials or the website or some other such nonsense. These links at least attempt to provide some actual data as well. It'd be nice if I could budget the time to reference and fact-check it all...

The wikipedia pages on climate change, global warming, ocean acidification, carbon cycle, permafrost cycle: seem to provide useful references.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost_carbon_cycle

The key to the claim that a large portion of climate change is anthropogenic seems to be the rate at which things are changing. The rate at which the ocean is acidifying, for instance, is reportedly unnaturally high... and such a rate has, in the past, been associated with mass extinction... I hope that doesn’t soon lead to the extinction of our phytoplankton, which seem to provide a large portion of our ocean's "carbon-sink." That’s one of a number of positive feedback loops which are possibly feeding into a runaway global disaster.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6253/1221 - The reinvigoration of the Southern Ocean carbon sink
- Though it’s not all bleak news… it appears that the Southern Ocean is currently doing better than expected.

The deniers may claim that these sources are untrustworthy or lacking significance, and this possibility is why I try not to assume a position without due diligence (because I have disagreed and continue to disagree with some consensus positions). So far, however, the consensus position is looking fairly convincing. It may be that the models are a bit off, and do not provide fully accurate estimates, but that's expected. What is more difficult to dispute, however, is the data. There are more measurements in more locations being gathered than ever before, and even if I ignore the conclusions drawn by others, the correlations are there – the rates of change (of more than 1 purportedly relevant marker) appear to be unnatural. A mega volcano has not erupted. All of the permafrost has not melted at once. What happened?

Thread-relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Other links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

On the other hand, if anyone has any more convincing data and analysis suggesting that the primary contributor to climate change is not anthropogenic, I’d genuinely like to read it. I have not put in the work to make a satisfactory assessment.



Great post.
 

sliverjazz

Gawd
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
747
Can't say America greed imported millions of slaves to work the land. Now you guys are crying when you are becoming a minority America, the land you stole from the first inhabitants. Hypocrites, if you want to keep your culture, you should not invade so many foreign lands. Can't say I feel bad for America.
 

Elios

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
7,282
The Most conservative estimate of deaths from the Chernobyl accident alone, are 4000 deaths.

One study places the number of radiation related deaths at 985,000. that's a metric shit-ton more than 18.

I'm firmly in the Nuke camp, but denying that there has been some truly stupendous fuckups in the past is as bad as saying that humans have had zero impact on climate.


went and looked it up again i miss remember it was 28.... almost all from Chernobyl
 

Elios

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
7,282
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Chernobyl-Accident/

The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel.
The resulting steam explosion and fires released at least 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind – some 5200 PBq (I-131 eq).
Two Chernobyl plant workers died on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation poisoning.
UNSCEAR says that apart from increased thyroid cancers, "there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident."
Resettlement of areas from which people were relocated is ongoing. In 2011 Chernobyl was officially declared a tourist attraction.


and 0 from Three Mile Island and Fukushima
 

JJ91284

Gawd
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
696
The world can thank the USA then for all the innovation that came in the 19-20th century. Does this mean since there's more Carbon Dioxide in the air we can charge money since photosynthesis depends on Carbon Dioxide. While we are at it, we should charge the world a tax because of the supposed climate change we can tax 3rd world countries since humans in general tolerate warmer temperatures better than colder temperatures as it extends the growing season, uses less fuel to heat your home, ect.
 

JJ91284

Gawd
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
696
I don’t like taking sides in any important issue until I put in at least several dozen hours of reading and note-taking, but the consensus position has a lot of corroborating data. I don't intend to do that reading now, but I'll still err on the side of the precautionary principle and be mindful of my carbon footprint because I believe it’s the most sensible position to take at the individual level.

As a rebuttal to the anti-climate-change position linked here: http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php (click the pdf to read the report)

I've seen these:
- http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
- http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

Most of the time I see rebuttals attacking the credentials or the website or some other such nonsense. These links at least attempt to provide some actual data as well. It'd be nice if I could budget the time to reference and fact-check it all...

The wikipedia pages on climate change, global warming, ocean acidification, carbon cycle, permafrost cycle: seem to provide useful references.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permafrost_carbon_cycle

The key to the claim that a large portion of climate change is anthropogenic seems to be the rate at which things are changing. The rate at which the ocean is acidifying, for instance, is reportedly unnaturally high... and such a rate has, in the past, been associated with mass extinction... I hope that doesn’t soon lead to the extinction of our phytoplankton, which seem to provide a large portion of our ocean's "carbon-sink." That’s one of a number of positive feedback loops which are possibly feeding into a runaway global disaster.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6253/1221 - The reinvigoration of the Southern Ocean carbon sink
- Though it’s not all bleak news… it appears that the Southern Ocean is currently doing better than expected.

The deniers may claim that these sources are untrustworthy or lacking significance, and this possibility is why I try not to assume a position without due diligence (because I have disagreed and continue to disagree with some consensus positions). So far, however, the consensus position is looking fairly convincing. It may be that the models are a bit off, and do not provide fully accurate estimates, but that's expected. What is more difficult to dispute, however, is the data. There are more measurements in more locations being gathered than ever before, and even if I ignore the conclusions drawn by others, the correlations are there – the rates of change (of more than 1 purportedly relevant marker) appear to be unnatural. A mega volcano has not erupted. All of the permafrost has not melted at once. What happened?

Thread-relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Other links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

On the other hand, if anyone has any more convincing data and analysis suggesting that the primary contributor to climate change is not anthropogenic, I’d genuinely like to read it. I have not put in the work to make a satisfactory assessment.

I'm a biochemist and the first thing people need to realize is nature and chemical reactions are virtually never static. Things change and this has been going on for centuries. If or when a species dies and theirs a void, another species evolves or adapts and fill the niche. There are so many different bacteria's that can live in environments that are so inhospitable that once scientists thought could never live in.

As far as Carbon Dioxide emissions and global temperatures being higher. Earth has seen significantly higher values in both of these categories and wildlife has thrived. This has been proven via core ice samples being removed and the fossil record proves life thrived.

I for one believe if you can do your part and recycle, live smart, and other environmentally green habits go for it. I don't believe in all the global warming BS where if we don't change soon the world is going to destabilize. This is just another way to divide the people instead of getting the people to focus on all the BS that's happening in the world. It's more political than anything else.
 

choppedliver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
479
Blind faith... take it for what its worth.
In a fox hole its priceless.
I didn't intend to paint you as evil and I don't own a flame thrower... yet.

As for religion there is more than one on this planet.
People are killing each other over it. That is moronic.
Don't see people killing each other the Weather Forecast, iPads, pics of Pluto, heart medicines or treatments for various diseases.
But Fuck science when it says something I dont like.


I don't say fuck science over something I don't like.
I actually love science.

Sometimes it's not easy to take a thought that makes complete sense to you in your head and put it on an internet forum for people to understand. I'm sure I won't make it happen this time either.

Most of the time I'm actually here to learn, and to share with others if I have something to offer. People with closed minds and immutable opinions can't learn anything ( not pointing any fingers )

Yep. people killing each other over religion is pretty shitty I agree. There's a lot of shitty stuff in the world.

I actually think the growing divide along lines of race, politics, religion, etc in our country, if not the world , is a bigger threat to us than climate change is, because it's a basic lack of respect for others. As it gets worse and worse, people have less and less regard for others, or put another way, they place less and less value on the lives of others. If I count down from 100000000, I'll eventually get to one. Unless I change direction. If people become more and more divided, eventually they will end up putting zero value on the lives of those who don't think like they do. Has anyone seen our country growing closer lately? Hardly. Local unrest? Civil War? World War? Race War? End of civilization? Who knows. Look at the sorry fucks over in The middle east, blowing up people, beheading people, babies, women, old men, don't matter. They have zero value for others who don't believe as they do. Look at the barbarians shooting cops just because they are cops. People hating gays, people hating people hating gays, people hating ... (liberals, conservatives, atheist, christians, creationists, evolutionists, global warmers, climate change deniers, republicans, democrats, libertarians, white people, mexicans, blacks). You name it, someone fucking hates it. Eventually people will be able to justify "the world would be better off without " (insert your hated group of choice here)

Our country, if not the world, is growing more and more divided, because few have any tolerance or respect for anyone offering different opinions. It's more and more, "my way or the high way"

So when I see any mention of religion, creation, evolution, climate change, liberalism, conservatism, etc turn into sometimes serious verbal assaults, I think damn... the world is fucked, because this is the real personalities shining through. Not the other way around. This is the way people think. Thoughts eventually become actions if made intense enough. People keep all the shit they really think in their heads in public.

I mean whats the point of communicating? Off the top of my head, its to teach, learn, entertained, or be entertained, socialize or to antagonize, I'm sure I missed something.

So if an opinion is immutable, then that person can't learn anything,
and if they are being a real dickhead, then they aren't going to teach anyone anything,
so then they are just here to beat over the head with "my view is the right one", and antagonize, denigrate, belittle, and disparage.

Having different opinions is fine, and when people actually do it with the intent of better understanding and sharing of knowledge, both sides usually end up better for it.

So you have some really smart guys and some more really smart guys, arguably all of them are smarter than most of the people reading this forum.

The smart guys who actually do this stuff for a living don't all agree, and though maybe a majority do, but a majority doesn't necessarily make something true, especially when it's something as complex as understanding the intricate and complex systems and cycles of the earth. But my point is not about whether it's true or not, it's about people/a person leaving no room for learning, because they have eliminated in their mind the possibility of being wrong, or of science being wrong, because "scientific method" and "he's real smart" and "his degree is more prestigious than that guys" , and therefore everyone in disagreement can only be wrong, and therefore they it's ok to treat them like shit, or treat them as the problem. And that's a big problem, because it only leads to more division, more intense animosity. That's the real problem. Fuck if I know if I know about global warming, but honestly I don't think it will make enough difference before we kill each other off, or some natural catastrophe does it for us.

People with immutable opinions can't be here to learn,
if they are dickheads ( because you don't believe them ) then they aren't here to teach,
they aren't here to socialize,
and they aren't here to entertain,
or be entertained,
unless it's the insidious entertainment they derive at someone else's expense through antagonizing, belittling, etc.
 

Spyhawk

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
396
I agree with much of what you say but lets not forget that there is a difference between fact and opinion. Most here have an opinion on what the facts tell us but they don't necessarily have the education to understand what these facts tell us. You can't really argue against facts though. FACT- OVER 97% of climate scientists agree that the climate change we are now experiencing or will in the near future is/will be largely man made. FACT - Never in the planets history has the co2 levels risen so fast unless caused by a cataclysmic event such as a calderas (super volcano) eruption or an asteroid impact, which btw we haven't had in 100s of thousands of years. FACT - Glaciers/Ice at the North and south poles are melting at rates never seen before in human history. FACT - Sea lvls have risen in the last 100 years faster than at any time in human history.

There are many more facts I could write down here but let's just say that the few I've pointed out all point to man made climate change. I really can't fathom how reasonable, open minded people can't see it.
 

mullet

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
1,645
10 out of 10 trees surveyed said they are loving the extra Co2.
 

kinjo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
1,053
Lol whats another four Trillion just put it on our tab, we will totally pay you guys back right after we pay back China ;-)
 

choppedliver

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
479
Can't say America greed imported millions of slaves to work the land. Now you guys are crying when you are becoming a minority America, the land you stole from the first inhabitants. Hypocrites, if you want to keep your culture, you should not invade so many foreign lands. Can't say I feel bad for America.

Amazing how America is the only one who gets so much credit for slavery. I think people confuse "America" with "The Americas" . North America. South America. Central America.

It was going on thousands years before America, and is going on today all over the world. Many countries in the world have had a hand in slavery.

But lets concentrate on evil the United States, not to be confused with "The Americas". Slavery is evil, no doubt, you might as well hate most of the world if you are going to hate a country based on slavery.

-North America received 388,000 out of 12.5 million landed in North America, which was primarily owned by other countries such as France, Spain.

-African law recognized slavery and the right of owners to alienate slaves.

-The exporting countries were just as guilty as the countries that imported them.

Incomplete list:
Country Voyages Slaves Transported
Portugal (including Brazil) 30,000 4,650,000
Spain (including Cuba) 4,000 1,600,000
France (including West Indies) 4,200 1,250,000
Holland 2,000 500,000




-Depending on what year you look at a map, North America was owned primarily by France, and Spain, not by the USA/Colonies

-Brazil imported more African slaves than any other country. An estimated 4.9 million slaves from Africa came to Brazil during the period from 1501 to 1866.

-Well over 90 percent of African slaves were imported into the Caribbean and South America. Only about 6 percent of imports went directly to British North America.

-In the Caribbean, Dutch Guiana and Brazil, the slave death rate was so high and the birth rate so low that they could not sustain their population without importations from Africa.

"Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America.
And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That’s right: a tiny percentage." http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-ame...oss/history/how-many-slaves-landed-in-the-us/

-Cherokee Native Americans owned slaves, some of whom were even forced to walk the Trail of Tears with their owners.

-When the slaves were freed from the USA, some went back to Africa and promptly enslaved the native Africans based on the plantation methods they had learned.



Myth: Slavery is a product of capitalism.
Fact: Slavery is older than the first human records.

Myth: Slavery is a product of Western Civilization.
Fact: Slavery is virtually a universal institution.

Myth: Slavery was always based on race.
Fact: Not until the 15th century was slavery associated primarily with people of African descent.

Myth: Europeans physically enslaved Africans or hired mercenaries who captured people for export or that African rulers were "Holocaust abettors" who were themselves to blame for the slave trade.

Fact: Europeans did engage in some slave raiding; the majority of people who were transported to the Americas were enslaved by Africans in Africa.


Myth:Most slaves were imported into what is now the United States
Fact:Well over 90 percent of slaves from Africa were imported into the Caribbean and South America

Myth:The first slaves arrived in what is now the U.S. in 1619
Fact:Slaves arrived in Spanish Florida at least a century before 1619 and a recently uncovered census shows that blacks were present in Virginia before 1619.

Myth:Slavery was incompatible with urban life and factory technology
Fact:Sugar mills were the first true factories in the world; slaves were widely used in cities and in various kinds of manufacturing and crafts.


So if you are going to hate a country now, based on something they did 200 years ago or more, you might as well add Brazil, Spain, France, Portugal, Africa, Greece, Rome, and a whole bunch more to the list, pretty much the whole world.

So yea. America, the evil slave nation.
 
Top