@mld-woody said:

Just think of the freash water all this melting ice will provide!

President Barack Obama released this week his much-anticipated regulations for controlling carbon emissions. Opponents are claiming the new rules are so onerous they will imperil the electric utility industry.

Actually, it's a little too late for that; solar power got there first.

@mld-woody said:

One of the 1st times Jennifer Aniston strayed from the "Friends" safety net

Because you are a woodypeckerhead, and I can't think

that low.

@westside-steve said:

Here's something a little of the point but you and Chris might enjoy it. Think of human beings as parasites, germs or virus living on the earth and reproducing. As the bacteria feeds and grows inside the animal the animal becomes sick sooner or later the animal fights of the infection and the germs die or the animal dies.

Science.

Ws

I think a fungus is a better analogy

I'm waiting for you to burst into song and dance. .

"Getting gay with Cal is here!

To spread the word and bring you cheer!

....

Anyone?

the rainforests...well...er....because it isn't a point of contention".

In dicussing mmgw as a farce or not, (obviously, it is), everything else that affects

taxes, control over people, fees and votes, mmgw politicians....is brought up.

That's my point. The destruction of the rainforests isn't brought up because libs either don't KNOW,

or, if they've been on the board, they do, but it isn't part of the political lib equation, so they don't

give a frak.

and, of course, woodypeckerhead thinks that good, fresh water causes

mmgw.

His science? Fresh water exists, so it does contribute to mmgw, because he wants more money for gay stuff,

entitlement stuff, so he can have some of it.

I mean, cows farting? Way to tax and fee the farmers, eh? It's a bunch of crap. (see what I did there?)

@gftchris said:

Old.

it ain't like the matrix was last week...

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Old.

@gftchris said:

Matrix.

V ger.

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Matrix.

But if we are already past the point of irreparable damage than that damage will increase exponentially if the way we do things isn't stopped immediately. And that means the world. If not it will continue to get worse, And if that happens those bad things you speak of will snowball. Soon they will be completely out of control. And as I say we will not make those changes quickly if at all.

I do think that business was actually just start crossing over two different forms of energy production.

Where I don't agree is in the area of government funding which I almost always think is wasteful. There's never any real need to produce results and no real jackpot at the end if they do. Just the scramble to figure out something that will make the governmental sponsors happy so the funding doesn't disappear.

And china isn't going to be good boys and girls because they respect or admire the way we do things. They will do things in their own best interest which at the present time is manufacturing items cheaper than the United States can do it.

The neverending spiral of the United States increasing taxes on goods makes the demand for less expensive Chinese products even higher.

Or Mexican or Korean or wherever...

But even if you double the price of those goods it doesn't eliminate them but serves to take away our quality of living.

There are a lot of products we don't even make here anymore, it costs too much.

Also I think we are being paranoid about the oil companies or the automobile companies or what ever huge conglomerates control the world. Which they do by the way but there are different conglomerates every once in a while.

Eventually new giant conglomerates will be in charge of the world. We don't go to war over cotton anymore.

And those giants conglomerates will probably be at least partially in the semi renewable energy field and we'll make billions of dollars and we will bitch about them.

Here's something a little of the point but you and Chris might enjoy it. Think of human beings as parasites, germs or virus living on the earth and reproducing. As the bacteria feeds and grows inside the animal the animal becomes sick sooner or later the animal fights of the infection and the germs die or the animal dies.

Science.

Ws

@pumpkin-eater said:

NASA:

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/may/nasa-uci-study-indicates-loss-of-west-antarctic-glaciers-appears-unstoppable/#.U4_tbfldVR8

University of Washington:

http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/05/12/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-is-under-way/

Well I just saw that 2 other intelligent posters on this board feel the same way as I do about your rain forest bablings. If anything it is a good way for you just to completely go off on a tangent about the climate change stuff, since any time you try to actually provide articles or evidence or whatever to support your point they get torn apart.

So whatever, call me an idiot. Idc. I know most intelligent people on the outside looking in on these discussions wouldn't exactly be lining up to support you

search and read links on the internet.

Besides, that isn't contributing to global warming.

PS. You really are an idiot.

WHY DO NO CONSERVATIVES ON THIS BOARD EVER TALK ABOUT OUR NEED FOR FRESH WATER! DON'T THEY UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS! OF COURSE NOT BECAUSE THE LARGE CORPORATIONS THAT BOUGHT THEIR VOTE WON'T LET THEM TALK ABOUT IT! DIRTY CONSERVATIVE! TALK ABOUT OUR LIMITED SUPPLY OF FRESH WATER AND OUR NEED TO PRESERVE IT!!!!!

....

Odd, not one has ever brought it up when whining about the need

for more taxes to help dems buy votes.....

Not once, to my recollection.

No money in rainforests alarm. Can't tax and fine the Americans with money over that...

figures.

@westside-steve said:

s squirrel could still do that. He would just have to stay on the power lines.

@osiris said:

Every time MMGW is discussed on this forum Cal goes off about the rainforests and claims the libs don't care about it. Every time, someone points out that we all agree it's a problem and nobody brings it up because it isn't a point of contention. So just save your response to a text file so you can copy and paste it three weeks from now when we all have this conversation again lol.

Because its hard to find an angle to blame the United States. Or think of a way that it might be helped by jacking up our taxes.

But if you really care about the environment the ecosystem is pretty important. It's been said that a couple hundred years ago a squirrel could go from Maine to California and never touch the ground. I'm not sure that's true but the more we clear the planet. .....

WSS

@gftchris said:

Boy did someone rattle your cage!

Yes, we need to stop the deforestation for a multitude of reasons - one of the main ones being the effect it has on global warming. Other reasons include the fact that deforested land causes landslides and generally destabilise the terrain (meaning that the farmland it produces gets washed away); habitats of countless species are being destroyed; and there are still people actually living in the rainforest.

So next time, cal, you're stood around the barn, sippin' your moonshine, telling all your buddies how you pointed out about rainforests and felt real smug about it, maybe you could realise that this is a known part of the problem, that's also on the agenda.

Every time MMGW is discussed on this forum Cal goes off about the rainforests and claims the libs don't care about it. Every time, someone points out that we all agree it's a problem and nobody brings it up because it isn't a point of contention. So just save your response to a text file so you can copy and paste it three weeks from now when we all have this conversation again lol.

@westside-steve said:

@westside-steve said:

My second question is do you believe that the United States can make a significant difference unilaterally and do you think we will make drastic changes soon enough?

Or do you think that all the emerging industrial nations must be on board?

If you mostly agree with the second statement then how do you suppose we ask China and India to put the brakes on their economy?

If we cannot change their minds should we damage our own manufacturing base even more by allowing them to produce quality goods while using fossil fuels?

Or should we refuse to buy less expensive goods and throw our own economy into the grinder?

Yes and no. Eventually, to make real change, we will need a system where every nation is on board. Pollution in one country isn't confined to only affecting that country. At the same time, we are a very big and very important country. We have a lot of clout on the world stage and can influence other nations with our actions. We can be the starting point, the main example, and we can go from there. Other nations will follow suit and eventually we will hopefully be able to get emerging industrial nations on board as well.

One major way we can do this is through research and development of alternative fuel sources. Our country, and others like us, can continue to develop renewable, effective energy sources. As we develop more realistic options we can present these to the emerging industrial nations and give them an alternative. I don't think they can be expected to cripple their economy with regulations by doing exactly what we did as a fledgling nation. But, if we provide the alternative for them, then they should be able to adopt it in the long run.

This won't come through drastic changes. While drastic changes may influence the environment in a positive way the most quickly, I don't believe these are the best solutions. We can't damage our own country that quickly or severely. We can though implement regulations and create emission standards that gradually increase. The free market is not perfect. It is not set up in a way to protect the environment if it damages the bottom line. Regulations, taxes, etc are needed to help reduce these negative emissions as well as make it financially sound to research, develop, and implement newer, cleaner, renewable energy sources. If it is in large company's best interests to do this, we will start to see real advancement in this field. Scientists working on their own can only do so much. Large corporations have the capital needed to turn ideas int reality. Then, with these alternative sources a reality, we can share our advancement with other countries to help reduce their emissions.

We can't realistically expect China to adhere to the same regulations we will put ourselves and other countries under. Being their largest market though, we can put import taxes and other things in place to nudge them to reducing emissions. Yes, this will cost us more money. Sacrifices will have to be made. The more countries we get on our side the more we can realistically impose regulations on China. Eventually, thanks to these regulations and the new technologies we have developed, we can see them get to a reasonable level of emissions.

Neither us nor China need to "put brakes on their economy." The goal is to impose regulations over time, but keep them steady and working toward the final goal. They'll be imposed at a rate where we can adjust our economy accordingly and we won't be incredibly damaged. I think using terms like "throw our economy into the grinder" are hyperbolic. Look, sacrifices will need to be made, for sure, but they won't cripple us. We need to look long term and stop looking short term. We need to be the bastion of change (along with a few other countries) in the fight to reduce the effects of climate change. We attack other countries to bring them "democracy", which damages us and costs us money. This is almost a similar situation but more pressing and on a global scale. If enough countries get behind this initiative, it would be in China's best interest to start to regulate, to preserve their economy. We in a sense could bully them with a majority if they refuse to comply. But again, I don't see them having the same level of regulation we would to start and I see us helping them by developing the new technology and energy sources required.

@westside-steve said:

Finally I don't think I have to ask what you or I are willing to change in our lives to make the necessary changes possible. I don't think we would.

if you think I'm out of line in any of this please point it out. I'm sorry you are angry and or scared for the planet. I think my comments are within the realm of reality.

And yes everybody thinks renewable energy is a fine idea.

All I'm asking you to do personally is the point of the flaw in my argument.

Something beyond lol.

WSS

Yes, I would be willing to make sacrifices. There isn't much an individual can do though to create change on a larger scale. The best thing we can do is vote for representatives that take this seriously and don't call consensus scientific theories "lies from the pit of hell". I'll be fine financially throughout life, I am in a position where if I had to pay more for some things due to a tax I could. I realize that won't be the same for everyone. But like I said, there isn't much you and I can do. The govt has the power through the regulations they can impose on business. These regulations will then make it so it makes financial sense to develop other forms of energy and cleaner technology.

The flaw in your argument is that I don't really see it as an argument. I don't look at this and say "Awe shucks, there isn't anything we can do. There is no point in doing anything anyway." I think that is a dangerous belief. We don't need to be lackadaisical in our approach. We can make a difference over time. Will we see it, or our children, or even their children? Maybe not. But I think it is our duty to not leave the planet uninhabitable for future generations. That starts with some sacrifices today and regulation on businesses that can spearhead the onset of change needed to overcome/limit future damage to our climate.

I think you know my position on this pretty well but let me ask you a few questions honestly.

first we know there are scientists who are very alarmed and think it may already be too late.

we have some but think that window of opportunity is a very few years and drastic action needs to be taken quickly. Also some who think the window of opportunity is maybe 15 or so years but still we need to take serious action very very soon. Which, if any, of these three groups do you tend to believe?

My second question is do you believe that the United States can make a significant difference unilaterally and do you think we will make drastic changes soon enough?

Or do you think that all the emerging industrial nations must be on board?

If you mostly agree with the second statement then how do you suppose we ask China and India to put the brakes on their economy?

If we cannot change their minds should we damage our own manufacturing base even more by allowing them to produce quality goods while using fossil fuels?

Or should we refuse to buy less expensive goods and throw our own economy into the grinder?

Finally I don't think I have to ask what you or I are willing to change in our lives to make the necessary changes possible. I don't think we would.

if you think I'm out of line in any of this please point it out. I'm sorry you are angry and or scared for the planet. I think my comments are within the realm of reality.

And yes everybody thinks renewable energy is a fine idea.

All I'm asking you to do personally is the point of the flaw in my argument.

Something beyond lol.

WSS