Because global warming is supposed to bring a climate change.

Theres an easy guess as to why people arent buying it *cough* big industry *cough*. Notice how most republicans who are against global warming also worship oil, oil companies, and their big ass hummers.


If youve ever been to mexico city, youd see how real such a problem is. The smog is terrible, and its hot as hell there. global warming is a very real concept.

Granted, some of the things they say you "should" do is absurd, but most is common sense. things like hybrid cars, which suck now, but later they could get much better, or industrial plants doing something different.

But things like these are going to run the gauntlet of satan himself in all legislature. The oil companies will wage an all out war to keep their overpaid ass up top. Not now, not in the next decade or two, but soon we need to start making better choices about these types of things

The whole debate became clear to be about five years ago. It's all about generating money for the state. Beyond that, I don't pay attention to the subject anymore.:yawn:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/...27b1ed7ff0.jpg

Global warming true, global warming a hoax... It doesn't matter. The things on this list are a good idea anyway

You're assuming stopping CO2 output will magically make all those things happen. :D

/headdesk

Can someone - anyone - answer this simple question, without it being in any way related to politics?

What's the harm in taking measures to protect the environment wherein we live? Actual harm, not financial, political, or biblical?

The economy sucks with all the environmental damage already done. So doing MORE damage will help how?

When will we stop defecating where we eat?

I'm tired of seeing people's plastic refuse, paper trash, and oh-yeah-let's-not-forget human waste in the Inner Harbor. I'm tired of suffocating in Baltimore in the summer heat because people won't use mass transit (which is cheaper than the ~$10/day minimum parking fees, not counting the gas wasted sitting in traffic) or can't (which sucks, because there's no political will to encourage people to use it, which would allow it to MAKE MONEY and CREATE JOBS as it expands by ADDING INFRASTRUCTURE).

Or simpler still - if we, in the US, are to expect others to cut their carbon emissions, maybe instead of being hypocritical about it, we ought to, you know, be actual Americans and LEAD THE WAY. But instead, we have debates and arguments about it, political grandstanding and posturing on both sides, and no real willingness to take risks that lead to growth.

Nuke power is where we need to be looking, until viable large-scale renewable alternatives are financially viable. And the further you live from where your power's generated, the more you pay. That's the cost of living in a modern, wired society, and it would encourage people to do smaller things to save energy - turn off lights, run washers only when necessary, maybe small-scale renewable energy AT the home.

We have to get outside of the boxes we've been operating in, both for a cleaner world, and one that's more profitable for us all. Until the politicians, corporations, and their lawyers and cronies get out of the way, there will be no solution, because it's better for them to keep US divided.

Nah, I just want to see green jobs, lots of forrests and sustainable economies :D

I'm just a dreamer, I dream my life away... :|\\

Worth to be quoted, for truth ! :up:


Well as long as a bank manager with his millions finds shelter on the Caymans after screwing up, there will nothing change until the Caymans themselves begin to look like Chicago suburbs, or Texas in summer :D

Really, business just producing to get money and more money does not pay so much, if you care for your environment. And 2 percent are a lot, if you're thinking in billions.
What do you expect from the ethical conscience of churchyard worms ?


---
As a geologist reading records of climate changes in stone there have been bigger incidents of rising CO2 in earth's history.

Don't get me wrong, there has been a lot of changes in the climate in only one hundred years, but that we (human beings, waste and CO2) also account for that, is self-evident.

There is just no one who can say what that really means, or will lead to.
However, denial of the climate change is dumb though. Just my opinion.

Global warming a very real concept? Sure it is. A concept is an IDEA.

Ever been to Los Angeles? They have a huge smog problem there too. They have been legislating it out of existence for decades.... Only problem is - LA still has a smog problem.

Government mandating what people do isn't the answer....

Hold on Growler - financial harm IS actual harm. Having costs rise does create real harm. I am a single dad with 2 kids, you don't think rising costs hurt? If you pay your own bills, you can't seriously say that financial increases in living are not a harm.

The state of the economy is partially a result of the massive amounts of regulation put upon businesses. However, business success is not predicated on harming the environment. Somehow - and I don't fault you for this - but somehow - society has begun to think that it can only be one or the other. That is not the case. We can use resources responsibly, without making it too easy for business to turn a blind eye to eco damage - while not overburdening them with regulations that make them unprofitable.

I'd be tired of that too. Organize a cleanup, get active, start the work yourself.

I have to disagree with this one. I doubt that people not using mass transit are what is causing you to suffocate. Still, lets move past that. Mass transit has a number of problems and issues. First, your depending on a governmental agency in most cases to make it work. If not, its a "private" company with a government contract. If they don't do the job, someone else gets the contract, but you the consumer have very little to no say in the process. Second, this isn't just a money issue. Its a freedom issue. Parent takes the bus to work. Oh crap, little susie is at school and throwing up. Now mom or dad has to go get her. Oh, but they have to wait on the bus, because they didn't drive their car. So little susie sits in the school nurse office puking her stomach up waiting for the bus and her mom or dad. Or hey, you forgot that office birthday party and don't have a gift. Better run out on your lunch hour and get one - but darn, your schedule and the bus do not like each other. Wait, you need to stop for groceries on the way home - so you wait for the bus when you get done at work, then you wait for it again at the grocery store. Until someone figures out teleportation, people in the US (generally speaking) are not going to give up their freedom of travel.

Oh, and lets not forget, it may be cheaper on the bus, but most people would prefer not to be on the bus with those folks who leave their biological wastes in public places, who are sick and still travel, etc etc. You can't tell the stinky drunk who just crapped his pants that he isn't allowed on the bus. He has every right to travel. Are you going to tell the sneezy woman with the runny nose she can't take the bus to the doctor?

Mass transit has its uses - but its not the answer.

Or we post about how we don't like stuff floating in our waterways.
That is NOT a slam on you Growler, its an observation that we ALL do this. I do it just as much as the next person. That is why I encouraged you earlier to do something about it.

I agree on the issue of nuclear power. However, why should it cost Joe more just because he lives farther away from the power plant? Heck, most nuke plants are on the water - lakes mainly - and so the people who should get the cheapest electricity are the ones who have lakefront houses? 30 Miles away the folks in the trailer park should pay more? Not sure I understand that idea.

I agree as long as you add all special interest groups in there.

How dare you try to use logic and facts in a debate about global warming!

Why do you hate penguins? :stare:

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but that's an absolutely ludicrous statement. The state of the economy is mostly due to the lack of regulation, and reliance on self regulation, put on the financial industry. Not to mention poor monetary policy decisions made by the Fed.

And you're creating a strawman by stating that the only thing being advocated is a reduction in CO2 emissions.

Mookie - its not ludicrous. I said partly - I am fully aware that there were other factors. On that we agree - though I think we would disagree on what those factors were.

The reality is that the governmental regulation through the "Community Reinvestment Act" did not create the housing bubble, but it did create the slew of toxic loans to bad credit risks that F and F were a huge portion of.

Here is an interesting read for you:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/13/hou...ard_pinto.html

Now the article admits that the "self regulation" you mention was a problem - but the problem was created by .... regulation. Had the CRA and the affordable housing "mission" never happened, the toxic underbelly in the housing market would not have occured.

Now don't misunderstand - government isn't all to blame. But to say that the problem was one of under-regulation is just not accurate. The market was fine until more regulations were implemented from on high - with entirely unintended and unforeseen consequences.

That is an important lesson to be learned - regulation of business does not always have the intended results.

Now - outside of that point - regulation is killing other industry here. High taxes, ludicrous EPA restrictions, miles and miles and miles of red tape - just to do ANYTHING. This is why - along with the lack of surety regarding long term income liabilities - that other industries are simply not expanding like some folks think they "should".

The economy sucks for a lot of reasons, but over-regulation has been a significant one.

Oh not this argument again... :damn:

Before I start, I want you to do something very simple for me. Go back and find me an instance where any of the CEOs of any of the failed banks, mortgage companies and Wall Street investment firms blamed the CRA for their troubles.

Here's a helpful tip: don't spend too much time on that, because you won't find it.

The CRA didn't mandate that banks lower their lending standards. It mandates that banks apply their lending standards fairly across the board. The CRA does not mandate that banks offer no money down mortgages or that banks can't verify income and employment. The CRA never forced Moodys and S&P to rate subprime mortgage backed securities as AAA. The CRA never forced Wall Street investment firms to overleverage themselves. The CRA had nothing to do with the rise of the credit default swap market. Here's the text of the CRA. It's not long. Read it and tell me where it forces banks to make a loan that goes against their lending standards. In fact, it does the exact opposite: "It is the purpose of this title to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions." (emphasis mine)

If the CRA, which aims to help poor and minority homebuyers, or FNMA/FHLMC, which wouldn't insure a loan over $417,000 until after 2008, is to blame, explain this little nugget:

"Whether it is their residence, a second home or a house bought as an investment, the rich have stopped paying the mortgage at a rate that greatly exceeds the rest of the population. More than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of a million dollars are seriously delinquent, according to data compiled for The New York Times by the real estate analytics firm CoreLogic."

Maybe it's because the irresponsible lending wasn't the fault of banks being forced by the big bad government and the CRA to loan to poor people.

Furthermore, the final nail in the "blame CRA" argument is that the majority of subprime loans were made by lenders not subject to the CRA.

Here's an interesting read for you, where the ridiculous claims in the Forbes article are blown to smithereens: http://www.businessweek.com/investin...ity_reinv.html

No, if the Federal Reserve hadn't lowered rates to historic lows and allowed lenders to make loans to borrowers who would never repay them, there would have been no housing bubble. Why would a lender make a loan that they knew would never be repaid? Wall Street would take it off their hands as soon as they could close them. How could this happen? Because no one enforced prudent lending standards. Not the Fed, not the OCC, not any of the bank regulators. Deregulation in the form of looking the other way.

And why would Wall Street want crappy loans? Because they had perfected the art of financial alchemy. They had deluded themselves into thinking that if they piled enough crap together into one security, the risk was diversified away and a slew of toxic mortgages all of a sudden became a AAA asset. The ratings agencies, paid by the very people that they were rating securities for (talk about conflict of interest!) backed this line of thinking and slapped AAA ratings on garbage securities. And how could this happen? Lack of regulation of the ratings agencies. That's the CRA you need to be blaming - the Credit Rating Agencies!

Of course Wall Street was even more confident that their bets on these securities were the right thing to do, as they gorged themselves on credit default swaps to insure that they'd take no losses in the event that a bond went sour. Of course this market had been deregulated also, by the 2000 Commodities Futures Modernization Act.

More deregulation helped these banks put themselves in a tenuous financial position. In 2004, the SEC removed leverage caps on the big 5.

That is an ideologically driven argument that attempts to shoehorn facts into supporting it. It doesn't work that way. Examine the facts first, then come up with a conclusion. Beware of ideologues that attempt to do the reverse.

While that may be true, it's absolutely not the lesson here.

Polar Shift Theory
 

Granted there is sooo very much we don't yet know of our own planet. But we do know what they say about theorys and opinions.

http://www.viewzone.com/changingpoles.html

"The "Shifting Poles Theory" was introduced by History Professor, Charles H. Hapgood, whose fascination with geography and ancient maps led to his re-discovery of the Piri Reis Map. This hand drawn Turkish naval map had been gathering dust since the early 1500's, its significance unrealized. On closer scrutiny, Hapgood observed evidence of spherical trigonometry and a detailed knowledge of global geography-- including the coastline of Antarctica at a remote time, when it was free of ice. The map had been drawn just a few years after Columbus visited the Americas. The cartographer, Admiral Piri Reis, described his world map as having been drawn from "very old" reference maps. It appeared as if some ancient, forgotten civilization had risen to these capabilities, and then had disappeared. The identity of these ancient mariners begged to be discovered...."