BlazerBoy said:
I know this is a joke, but I'll bite.
Global Warming has been documented and pretty much accepted by all major nations.
Nope. It is a fact that the average temperature of the Earth is increasing. We do not know with any degree of certainty what is causing it, or if our data is reliable. Gathering meteorological data from nations that have a less than stellar record for reliable record keeping might be throwing the percentage off. Additionally, the adjustment for the heat coming from large cities has not been adjusted for population growth since the 1970s. In short, we're probably playing with bad data.
Oh, and one more thing...saying it's been accepted by a large crowd is simply an appeal to the masses. At the start of the 20th century, everyone with an education espoused the science of Eugenics. Anyone who didn't was intellectually ostracized. It's amazing what people will panic over...
We are certain of what is causing it, because to some extent its always been present naturally in nature, humans have only exacerbated it in modern industrial times.
Actually, modern industrial practices concerning industrial waste heat have improved since the 1960s partially out of a concern for the environment. Congressional legislation was the main motivator for that.. If anything, the average temperature of the Earth should have been rising in the first half of the 20th century...not the second. The records don't bear that out. Given the small percentage CO2 makes of the Earth's atmosphere (care to guess how much?), our contribution has little to no effect on the greenhouse effect.
Multi-national agreements that only ask to reduce emmissions and do research into alternative fuel sources and technologies could hardly be equated to "crippling" our already fragile economy which is based so heavilly on non-reknewable energy industries.
Then why did the Senate refuse to ratify it after Clinton signed it? Additionally, assigning our research and use of alternative energy sources to global research and approval isn't smart. In short, no one knows our economy better than we do.
Either these accords will have no impact whatsoever and be a source of revenue and enrichment for practically every sector, or they will actually help the enviorment, promote a globalized economy, and still manage to help the economy.
There is no possible way you can make these conclusions...anymore than someone can predict the weather or average temperature 50 years from now.
You are stating an opinion, so I can't right disprove something like that, can I? Calling it bullshit should suffice.
Well, let me rephrase it: I don't believe anyone in the US government who would sign the Kyoto Accords actually has America's best interests at heart. Call it opinion if you will. It's a solid one.
Not all Americans are equal under the law. In fact, the very basis of our penal system is that suspected and convicted criminals lose some of their constitutional rights.
Red herring. Those criminals lost their rights through due process of law. I'm talking about individuals...presumed innocent until proven guilty...having their civil rights violated. You knew exactly what I was talking about.
As for the surveillence and searching, I support them, and don't call Bush or Clinton evil for employing such tactics. Let's not be naive, there are some things you shouldn't say or do, and if you even look suspicious, I applaud the people in black suits for watching your ass and asking questions about it. If you are stupid enough to find yourself in certain situations, then you need to be questioned, if for nothing else, to prevent your dumb-ass from getting involved in something unwittingly.
I completely agree with this, so long as such tactics...ie: governmental violations of the Bill of Rights...are limited and only conducted duringtimes of crisis.
MY point was that no one seems to remember Clinton doing the exact same things Bush is being lambasted for right now...or if they do, they're not bringing it up.
You believe in a burning hell?
As opposed to a "pretty snowfall hell with a charming view of the bay?" Yes.
There isn't one shred of evidence that it has bad effects? Ummm, yes, there is, from not just our Health and Enviornmental oOrganizations, but loads of others and multi-national organizations.
If you're referring to the studies supposedly done by the EPA in the early 70s, then I laugh in your face. Actually, counter-studies were done before the EPA was even in existence that disproved Rachel Carson's claims as to DDT...it does not weaken eggshells, and human subjects were fed food with thousands of times the normal dosage of DDT that they would have received through normal use. To this day, those subjects have no higher a rate of cancer than the normal population.
No millions have died from Malaria in the modern US because of DDT being banned. This is such a non-issue, its almost funny.
The malaria rate in the US is due to the fact that we tend to drain swampy areas which breed mosquitos near populated areas. Smart idea too. I'm talking about the EPAs insistence that any nation struggling to develop its environment with the help of US aid must ban DDT.
Sri Lanka is an excellent example of this, and one of many. Before 1948, the total deaths on that island due to malaria were an estimated 2.8 million
per year. That's in a nation that consistently has a population of over 20 million. In 1948, Sri Lanka began using DDT, and the death toll dwindled to
17 a year by 1963...when the program was halted. By 1968, the toll had risen to roughly 1 million a year. 1969: 2.5 million. Yes, that's
million. Tell me that's a coincidence. Make me laugh.
Personally, I think they should drain some of those shitholes they live in, but no one over there seems to think of that.
Post some REAL observations.
That good enough for you?
