I agree with that, we might just disagree on how it should be done. You can achieve it through force or education. Would you support coercive taxation and restrictions on consumption, or continue to allow the people to voluntarily make the shift to sustainable sources? It's one thing if Kalifornia wants to enact encroaching environmental protection laws based on pseudoscience, that just represents the will and nature of the local populace, But for the UN or DC try to ban fuel consumption or something like that... would be insane.
Exactly what is the difference between the USFG enforcing coercive laws to limit pollution and a state government doing the same? What makes one okay and one not? They both (theoretically) represent the people's wishes. Other than the constitutionality of the two actions, but I think this discussion is geared more towards the morality of duping the people into believing in global warming, not constitutionality.
Do you have evidence of an explicit conspiracy? Who's to say they aren't all gulla-bulls jumping on the eco-bandwagon to appease the large and malleable group of pro-Earth voters? And yet, even in that far-fetched case politicians act amorally without regards for the truth. Arguing the constitutionality of imposing these laws are our best bet short of exposing this alleged grand conspiracy, as per the document's intended purpose.
Penelope, you made me lol for 10 minutes plus with this statement: EVERYONE FILL YOUR BATHTUBS WITH WATER BEFORE WE RUN OUT!!! OH NO!!! WATER IS TURNING INTO A LIMITED RESOURCE!!!
? I'm not saying there is a conspiracy, I'm just talking about the ethics of environmental laws based on climate change, if climate change doesn't really exist (or is pseudo-science, as you called it). You're saying it's okay for California's government to impose environmental regulations but not the USFG. Is that purely based on constitutionality, or are you saying it's more morally acceptable for Cali's government to be coercive than the USFG?
Based on the Constitution, I'm saying its ok if they vote in approval of those taxes or laws, so long as their state constitution allows for it. And if it doesn't allow for it they need to ratify it. The states were intended to be in control of local commerce and in making social policies, yet these roles have since been usurped by the Federal government. Morally it is wrong because a minority of skeptics will be persecuted with increased costs of living. But they can leave California and the state will lose a resident and a source of their income. The state is too big as is, ever heard of the State of Jefferson? I say go for it. We need to decentralize everything and give people diversity of options. Eventually the best system will be realized and others will be quick to copy it... I think that's what happened in Europe?
Are you dense? Freshwater IS a limited resource. Yeah yeah I know we've got whole oceans of it lolz but that's not how it works. Where do communities get their water? From local waterways. These waterways are fed annually by seasonal changes in the mountains. That means that there's a maximum amount of water that one community can consume in a year before levels are depleted. So what happens when large numbers of people waste gallons upon gallons of water in an act of vanity (getting that lawn really green)? Exactly what's going on in California right now - a massive water shortage.
Water evaporates from those oceans, seas, and lakes, and rains. When it rains, the water goes into the ground. Over the years, it collects in the same underground wells that we get our water from. When you pee, it goes into a toilet, which goes to a sewer, which either goes to a river or a purification plant. The cycle continues. We're not running out of water.
Except we keep trying to build cities in Desserts. My BIL used to work for the forestry department in Phoenix, and part of his job was monitoring water levels, and it is an issue there. If we think wars for oil are bad... Would anyone in Australia like to comment on the drought conditions in your country? I know up until as recently as last year (?) there were parts of your country that hadn't received rain in years. How is that situation going?
Oh man, I wanna live in Banana Split City! But what do you want us to do about water shortages? If climates are too dry for humans... maybe they are too dry for humans?
There have been draughts since the beginning of time. The middle east used to be fertile farm land now look at it. Climate change is a natural occurrence plain and simple.
Not to get off track from the global warming thing, but droughts alone are not the source of all these water shortages. In CA, where I live, for example, it's a result of poor water management mixed with poor water conservation mixed with a growing population. We only have access to so much fresh water each year and when people throw gallons upon gallons away to water their lawn problems happen.
Hmm.. if CO2 makes are weed grow better,wtf is everyone tripin about?Wah wah its hot...Duh.its always been hot then cold ,its how it works for years,and if cars are the problem,then is it cooler in africa? dont see much cars there and it HOT AS FUCK,wah wah,its by the equater. Global Warming is just a way to get easy money,its like the war on drug,Retarded
What qualifications do you have to speak with such "plain and simple" certainty? Even the best scientists in the world can't agree.
Whether or not man has any ability to stop, slow or reverse global warming is one thing, but global warming itself is real; no scientists would dispute that. Africa is not getting cooler, it's getting hotter. That means greater chances of drought, crop-failure, and starvation. Lay off the bong and pick up a book kid.
Plants are loving it. Smog is great for plants too. The people only care about rising sea levels and polar bears.
I chose to write a research paper on this a couple semesters ago, and looking at both sides of the issue it seemed there was an overwhelming concensus in the scientific community. Admittedly, I did start with wikipedia, but there were plenty of well-cited articles that expressed the notion that global warming was not a farce. The IPCC quickly became one of my most distinguished sources, but it was also interesting to note the random articles that would talk about how there were zero papers published in peer-reviewed journals for whatever year that expressed a dissenting opinion on the issue, versus several hundred that were in favor. It's hard to evaluate the opposition when there are different pictures painted about the debate depending on who you get your information from. Regardless... I haven't seen or heard anything about what you quoted in the OP until now though. Ron Paul is a very sharp individual, and out of necessity to make sure I have all the facts on the table, I'm interested to read more about this 30,000 strong dissent that American scientists have mounted. I find it hard to argue with the credibility of 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries though. The effects of carbon dioxide and deforestation seem black and white to me at this point, but I'm no fan of ignorance, so I'll take another look at this.
I care about running out of oil, water, precious metals, and viable farm land. But, humans don't have an effect on those things! That's just crazy talk...
OK, if its not a natural occurrence then explain why the mid east is now a desert. Explain why there were ice ages. Just because its a natural occurrence does not relieve us of our duty to be good stewards of our planet,that's not what I'm saying, but its not mans fault, a lot of things are but not the change in the climate.
Well, of course some climate change is a natural occurrence. But how can you claim that humans aren't having an adverse effect on it now? Smog is a natural occurrence? Polluted lakes and rivers are cyclical?