Actually if climate change increases by 3 degrees there's no turning back, 6 degrees and we are screwed water levels increased by 12 meters America would be long dead, intact if it increases by 1 degrees America will be all desert, but at 6 water temperature will be over 20 degrees! All arctic life extinct polar caps gone southern Europe will be unlivable due to extreme heat and it will cause fireballs to rain from the sky so if anyone somehow does survive that long they will die
There are no ways to prevent what will happen in an hundred years from now.. The beginning of the end in a matter of years.. Around 2100/2105 perhaps 2110 at most before the earth is submerged by oceans.. Watch my words.
thats without mentioning a heavy dose of government propoganda, media hype vested interests, and the fact that ALL models which have been created using CO2 as a climate driver have failed miserably to predict no warming over the last 12 years. Really, well done to yall its a remarkable lobby movement. The best in history. But it should be studied by sociologists looking into ways of persuading whole populations of stuff on very scant evidence; brilliant!. In 'climate science' tho its a shambles
Ok sharkblubber et al . If someone proposed to you a theory based on weak correlation= causation logic, where the conclusion was prescribed, then the evidence assmbled after the fact, of which there is no physical way to test the central variables, and has developed so many caveats over the years as to appraoch unfalsifiability; would you forward it?... add to that a catalogue of cooked and fiddled data (climategate aside) and you have AGW thesis. All symptoms of very very badly made 'science'
Naughty deniers! The deniers want to keep this under wraps: Frank Luntz, 2002. The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America. The leaked memo can be downloaded. It was deniergate but they kept it quiet.
and what do you think federal meddling is going to do to the birthrate? heck even a family of three a mother father and one kid would cost $11400 a year JUST IN HEALTH CARE COSTS!!! and that is taken off the top if you have anything left over then and only then can you make your house payment car payment food clothes etc. and as the population plumets so does the federal tax base and they will be clawing for more and more taxes its an unsustainable trend which will ultimately destroy us
@markbotv3 As population falls so does the needs of the population in equal steps, its called a standard ratio. Everyone needs to choose voluntarily to plan to have less kids, rich and poor alike but as the rich have more impact on the planet per capita so reducing rich populations will have a larger effect on reducing the human populations impact on the planet AND reduce resource competition which keeps prices too high for people to afford basic needs in most regions.
you underestimate the GREED of the federal govt. money to them is like drugs. the more they get the more they want. the federal govt has become dependant on our money supply and will act violently when it slows down or stops completely...and you are a card carrying commie arent choo? "rich people have more impact on the planet" bull fucking shit. its the poor with all their welfare babys that have a negetive impact on the environment. i live in harmony with earth on my 30 acre subsistance farm
are you saying that the virgin islands is full of rich people? because the virgin islands has the highest per capita usage of petroleum products in the world
but were getting off topic lets talk about how CLIMATE GATE and the leaked east anglian e-mails has pretty much debunked anthropogenic global warming and people like micheal mann and others are being fired left and right and the remaining climate "scientists" are jumping off the AGW band wagon as fast as they possibly can and distancing themselves to save their careers. ha ha sucks to be you. how does if feel to always be WRONG?
Debunked AGW? please quote direct from an email to show where it is stated that AGW has been disproved. The emails don't say this and they don't say data has been falsified which is why every time I ask a denier for a quote they just quote from blogs, rather than the actual emails. Your puerile comments weaken your argument.
the emails show that the "consensus" was hiding data. reworking data. and messaging the numbers to make it appear like any warming prior to 1998 was more drastic than it really was...hey if they arent real then why did micheal hockey stick graph mann call it quits? was it because he was affraid of being charged with conspiracy and lying to federal officials? get used to it buddy the gravy train is running dry if i were you i would distance myself from the agw bandwagon.
hey you can stay on the agw bandwagon all you want. i dont really care. but your reputation is gonna be mud. you will be accused of being part of the conspiracy and motivated by greed. just like micheal mann james hanson and Phil jones. just to name a few. and al gore? he refuses to debate anyone on the topic. the cat is out of the bag and the myth of AGW just recieved its mortal blow. its gonna be fun watching it bleed out ha ha ha ha.
greed? Climatologists don't get paid any more in their salary than any other scientist in other fields of the same grade. Would you care to quote any of the people you have mentioned as saying that AGW is a conspiracy or any falsification of data took place? I thought not. pathetic.
even you admited that climate scientists get 20x the funding as any other field of science...and if a little bit gets funneled off into a swiss bank account. whos gonna know?
sharkblubber is gonna get fired nanner nanner boo boo ha ha ha ha haaaaa ha. then you will have to find a job as a chimney sweep hehe "chim chiminy chim chiminy chim chim charoo"
Cooling. Though the time at which the Eemian interglacial ended is subject to some uncertainty (it was probably around 110,000 years ago), what does seem evident from the sediment records that cross this boundary is that it was a relatively sudden event and not a gradual slide into colder conditions taking many thousands of years. The recent high-resolution Atlantic sediment record of Adkins et al (1997) suggests that the move from interglacial to much colder-than-present glacial conditions
, but these results are now thought of as inaccurate because the lower layers of the ice sheet have become buckled and jumbled up. However, at least one major cold and dry event during the Eemian seems to be corroborated by the terrestrial pollen record from Europe and China (Zhisheng & Porter 1997). The issue remains controversial, as this review article explains.
Warmth. Around 130,000-110,000 years ago (the Eemian interglacial), the Earth's climates were generally much like those of today, though somewhat warmer and moister in many regions. The climate record derived from long ice cores taken through the Greenland ice cap suggested that the warm climate of the Eemian might have been punctuated by many sudden and fairly short-lived cold phases
its on all the major news networks. ABC NBC CBS CNN BBC all ya have to do is look for yourself. if they werent real then why did micheal mann retire? or why was phil jones sacked? surely not because of a mere internet blog accusation. if that were the case they would have been thrown on there ear long ago
phil jones stood down temporarily, he wasn't sacked. micheal mann'sretirement doesn't suddenly discount his work you imbecile. You have failed to look at the emails, please try and quote a section of email that states that agw is a hoax or any falsification took place? I bet you can't.
the emails didnt say it was a hoax they said to "erase the data that shows temps cooling" THAT is what makes it a hoax. other e mails go into micheal manns hockey stick graph and everybody laughs because its "upside down" but they say "if no one questions it who cares we are getting tons of funding"
micheal mann didnt retire "volluntarily" he was told to retire. and phil Jones will face federal charges if he ever comes to the united states...hopefully he will get the roman polanski treatment lol
"Sharksblubber", I have studied the issue with scientists myself for 10 years now, and I can tell you for a fact that all of this alarmism is political based, not scientific. I don't even know a single scientist who is willing to make the connections between any observed warming patterns, and mankind. Those who shout of AGW from high upon their mountaintop are activists, not scientists. Real scientists have a passion for their work, and they believe in true integrity, not popularity.
SO because you personally don't know any scientists means it's all incorrect, how subjective and unscientific can you get. I am a scientist, I've seen the ice cores data, read the peer reviews, the RATE of CHANGE is rapid and cannot be explained by natural factors alone. 6 degrees between the last ice age and today first 5 degrees took 19,850 years the last degree took just 150 years.
occurred over a period of less than 400 years (with the limitations on the resolution of the sediment record leaving open the possibility that the change was in fact very much more rapid than this).
also you are talking about "federal aid" which is only 1% 99% of the aid americans give to other nations is privately funded and is not accounted for on paper. how much money did you send during the tsunami?
@markbotv3 Nope, i'm talking about total aid private and public as a per capita % of GDP. The US isn't very generous in comparison to it's large GDP. Look up a list of most generous nationalities.
Sealevels rise and drop constantly, stoneage sites on the northseabottom, fishing spots 1km inland in greece. We`ll just move a bit, have done so for 5000 years. Besides without ice pushing it down, landmasses in Greenland and antartcica wil rise. Crap..that will cause other parts to drop... `We`ll have to move a bite thats all.
wasnt saying the earth isnt warming or that humans arent to blame for at least part of it. just saying that climate change and rising sealevels doesnt have to mean the end of human civilisation. Food supply migth shrink, population drops. Earth will survivea few more eons, Humans wont.
people always miss the obvious. most food isnt produced on the coasts. its produced inland. and if the ice caps melt then the tundra below them would be perfect farm land. all of northern canada russia and the entire antarctic continent would be liveable for humanity. so there would be MORE food production not less. people need to stop worrying about global warming and worry about global cooling.
Some places will get less rain some more and most will get warmer but the rate of change is too rapid for most crops to adapt to leading to famines and less predicatable weather to harvest the crops.
also, large volume of sweetwater stops deepseacurrent, there might not be a mild climate to conduct agriculture. Matter are a bit more complex then you state.
the saline current causing warmer temps in europe is a theory. and not proven to be fact. the biggest contributor to europes moderate temp is the fact that its a peninsula and is surrounded by sea water. and ambient moisture has an insulating effect on air temps. look at seatle or vancouver they arent affected by the gulf stream what so ever and they are temperate.
lol there are tons and tons of peer reviewed papers disproving man made global warming. its just that they end up in the landfills because the scientific establishment has such a large financial stake in maintaining AGW that they quench the truth so they can line their greedy little pockets
nothing is finite. its an infinite universe. a resource is anything we can use to our advantage. so resources are only limited by our imaginations. so you see it is YOU who are "short-sighted/narrowminded"
Wrong, as we cannot access those infinite resources and there isn't oil on the moon as oil requires life. Our planet is finite. When oil runs low, we have no vaible replacement, anything that gets us to be more sustainable and lose our addiction to finite oil is a good thing.
who says we need to use oil? besides oil is renewable. when i was a kid there were acres upon acres of oil wells that had "gone dry" back in the 60s. my grandma wrote me a letter and said they were puping again and didnt know why. so i googled it and sure enuff they had filled back up to 60% capacity in a mere 40 years
OIl is NOT renewable, your ignorance astouds me. Oil is vital for intensive agriculture, no oil=huge losses of productivity. We need to replace oil for more than AGW reasons. Why are you against sustainability?
Man made or not, climate is chanching, inherent to a dynamic system. Most of mankind will get f***ed.
My initial point was that we can adapt if we have to. but probably not in the current sort of society.
my main objection with these eviromental types is that most claim to care about nature while their only goal is to keep a status quo benificial to just our species. The earth doesnt need te be saved.
exactly. cause at the end of the day it matters little if the change is man made or not we still need to adapt to it...what if the ice ages started coming back do you honestly think we could pump enuf co2 into the air to stop it? thats ridiculous. if we cant stop an ice age we cant stop global warming. so nothing to do but adapt...funny how athiests are affraid of adaptation even when its part of their religion. ha ha ha ha
Why make the rate of change worse and adaptation harder with further emissions from fossi fuels. I'm all for going straight to renewables/sustainability, why aren't you?
global warming and global cooling are both natural man plays no part in it...as far as "going straight to renewables" is concerned. who is going to benefit from everyone forced to use one product hmmm? oh ya the global monopoly of GE. no competition they can sell us expensive low quality shit for decades. but if we let the free market decide for us then their will be tons of competition and cheaper more efficient "renewables" why are you for one company and not many?
GE owns the patent for the squigly light bulbs and since it is federaly mandated to buy squigly light bulbs yes we are being FORCED to buy from GE and only GE. remember that pesky whole in the ozone back in the 80s that no one ever talks about anymore? but was all the rage in 85? ya that was because DOW corp patent on the refrigerant R-12 ran out. so invented the whole in the ozone and forced the govt to replace THEIR OWN PRODUCT. so they wouldnt have to share profits with competitors.
You clearly aren't a chemist or a scientist if you don't think cfc's have an effect on high level ozone. Monopolies are banned by your got, GE won't be the only ones selling the lightbulbs.
pssh it seems awfully suspicious that as soon as r-13 came out the hole in the ozone mysteriously disapeared...and yet their is still hairspray cans...now what realeases more cfcs into the air hairspray or airconditioning? it was all political DOW had friends in high places and the hole was made up so they could replace their own product with a new patented product and not share profits.
CFC's were removed from aerosols. You are talking complete idiocy. You seem to be suggesting that they paid off every single scientist involved, falsified satellite data and increased rates of skin cancer just to pretend that an ozone hole existed.One word: bollocks. I've been wasting my time with a nut like you..
yup athiesm is a religion. when you stop believing in a power greater than yourself you simply replace it with another power greater than yourself...in the case of communism its the state. in the case of agw its the climate. in the case of a nut job cult its the cult leader...remember jim jones? or that crazy fool with white sneakers who cut his own balls off and killed all his followers so they could ride the hale/bop comet to paradise? yup definately a religion.
Atheism is not a religion because religion requires a deity while atheism has none. look it up. AGW is based on evidence and a lack of disproof, religion is not.
I think its safe to assume that you are not a scientist.
the state is the diety...or what ever charismatic muckity muck comes along and fills the void. obama comes to mind for some reason. i think it is safe to say you are not an anthropologist or else you would already know this. that humans are hard wired for spiritual beliefs. there is NO evidence for AGW only evidence for GW from 1970 to 1998. the rest is speculation and conjecture.
We can vote for or against the state or have a revolution. I don't have a religion. If you know that humans were hard wired for spiritaul belief that suggests I've evolved, while you haven't. 1998-2008 was warmer than 1988-1998. There is no disprof of AGW. If there is, then provide it.
no one is denying that NATURAL global warming happened from 1970 to 1998 but the fact remains that 1998 to 2008 was COOLER than 1998s peak temp even as co2 rose. which blows agw theory out of the water. and you are confusing religion with spiritual beliefs...when you forsake your cultures religion you replace it with somthing else deal with it buddy. for you your cult is prolly agw because it takes faith to believe in it even as evidence disprooves it.
agw theory rests on the notion that co2 and co2 ONLY forces global warming. the reason agw NEEDS co2 to drive global warming is because that is the only variable that man has any contribution to. so if temps plateau or fall (as they have the last 11 years) then anthropogenic global warming theory falls apart...there is that proof enuf for you? prolly not but hey at least i tried to get you to come out of the dark ages
ahem, methane, nitrous oxide and low level ozone are GHG's that humans contribute to too! You still haven't provided a peer reviewed paper that disproves AGW. Just saying its false means bugger all without some evidence to back your views.
work group three is the section that deals with mitigating the effects of AGW.
Explain how you think this backs your dumb view that humans have no effect on the rapid rate of change in the climate?!
quote: The IPCC WG III assesses all relevant options for mitigating climate change through limiting or preventing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and enhancing activities that remove them from the atmosphere.
This is evidence for AGW or they wouldn't be looking at ways of reducing our emissions.
wgIII says that there is NO "rapid rate of change in climate" that the minor variations are well within recorded norms. and any effect mans activities have on the normal ebb and flow of recorded tollerances are at current imperceptable from natural feedback.
it takes more faith to believe in the abyss emptiness and absolute zero than a diety. because absolute zero and the abyss are not present on this planet. you are surrounded by all kinds of stuff. psssh so if you want to believe in something that doesnt exist knock yer self out.
Do you believe in zeus, Ra and thor too? While you are there do you believe unicorns exist, because none of them have any evidence to support them. Religion=crazy imagination.
name one culture in history...just one...in which it survived more than 100 years without spiritual beliefs of some kind. psssh communist russia only lasted 78 years. how fucking pathetic. do you honestly think you can make an athiest nation work? good luck cause its never happened before. what choo got now boy?
getting a bit of topic dear... And just what does this "Psssh" mean?
Web just full of nutters isn it. oh and an anthropologist wouldnt describe russia as communist, or mix terms like nation/culture and religion/spiritual believes.
"psssh" is a sound you make when scoffing someone. well can you? can you name a nation or culture that has survived longer than a few generations without a spiritual glue? even julius ceasar knew to attack and kill the druids and their holy sites before he embarked on taking on all the individual tribes. its simple kill the spirit and the body soon dies. but if you kill the body only the spirit lives on. oh and btw the word "spirit" and "will" are interchangeable. to deny spirit is to deny will.
No i can not name an atheist nation or culture that survived for more than 100 years. that has two simple reasons:
first people have faith and beliefs, these are personel and internal, nations/states/gorvernements/ can only facilitate, promote or enforce an outward, public an ritualised expression. one can believe without praying and vice versa.
secondly, the realisation of godlesnes by the masses (instead of a vew intellectuals) is relatively new, only just growing in western europe since WW2
i think you meant to say RE growing since ww2. athiesm doesnt work never has never will. the fore fathers were "non denominational" they didnt care which faith you held just so long as you believed somthing. how does the old saying go? "if you dont believe in something you will fall for anything"
atheism hasn't worked until now because until now rational explanations haven't been possible for seemingly unexplained phenomena. Atheism is increasing faster than religion in Europe.
and what does any of this have to do with global warming? nothing. except it is a war of "wills" because the end result is the same it matters not if its gw or agw because we have to adapt to it anyway. the proponents of agw are malicously trying to scare govts into giving them funding. its sad just sad
But indeed getting back to your (a)gw story, knowing what migth happen as a result, why would you sit on your arse and NOT try everything you can think of, seems cowardly and arrogant. We cant influence it? that implies we completely understand how the climate works. we dont how can you be certain we cant at least slow it down, buy more time to adapt, take precautions.
however small the odds, isn trying better than not trying??, i mean you said yourself GW happens and will affect us
global warming has been pretty kind to humanity so far. i say we stay the course and melt those fucking in the way of progress glaciers and polar caps and reap the rewards of a new age of peace and prosperity. the tundra would be gone replaced by a vast bread basket of farm land and all the resources in antarctica will make war over them a distant memory. and if a few coastal citys have to rebuild newer greener and cleaner so be it...SHOVEL READY JOBS FOR THE WORLD YAY!!!
Almost every scientific academy on the planet disagrees with you especially teh climate scientists whose wages have increased at exactly the same rate as every other scientist. Scientists aren't researching climate for the money. You still seem to be confusing politics and science.
cmon you know that is a lie. they all have stock options. and get kick backs and bribes from the carbon credit taxes. why do all the climate scientists live in huge mansions and own their own private jets hmmm? surely they couldnt afford those things without their blood money. a true scientist is lucky to make $50000 a year. and climate scientists avg ten times that amount.
Nope, I know plenty of climate scientists, none of them have private jets or huge mansions. What are you on about? you seem to be a sandwich short of a picnic?
Please state your source of evidence that salaries for climate scientists are 10 times that of other scientists? You shouldn't make things up, naughty, naughty.
you know plenty of climate scientists huh? ok give me a name and where they work and ill do some research...what cat got your tongue? what are you affraid of sharkblubber? affraid ill find the truth?
Ok here are 5 for you who work on Climate change studies: Grant Bigg, Danny McCarroll, Rory Walsh, Ed (Edward) Hanna and John Matthews.
They all work at Universities like most Climatology specialists and they are on exactly the same salary as any other scientist of their standards in non climatology subjects and don't have private jets.
Now then, when are you going to give some evidence for your views. You still haven't given the source, page, and year for WG3's alledged denials?? odd.
the one who works at swansea looks like that nutter who cut his balls off and killed all his cult followers to ride the hale bop comet to paradise...and he is a physical geologist not a climate scientist
ad hominem ad hominem. Your insults are immature. When wilkl you provide a source for your WG3 comment? He is a physical geologist who looks at past climate through geological studies and compares it to today i.e. works in climate science.
add eminem? ya i like rap as much as the next guy but...anyway...so if someone is a "physical geologist" they are a "climate scientist" but if someone is an oceanic biologist they arent? i believe the phrase is called "cherry picking". and if indeed we are talking about the same guy ol Rory is worth 1.73 million dollars...thats assets minus liabilities. i guess hes got some good stock options.
1.73 million dollars? The Borneo rainforest project he is working on currently gets almost 2 million POUNDS which is more than 1.27 million dollars but thats for the entire project and all staff. Rory doesn't get that personally you imbecile. Shell provide 50K of that money, an oil company. The project provides evidence forhistorical/recent climatic change in Sabah and its ecological consequences, using instrumental,documentary and dendroclimatological sources".
theres a show on tv where a bunch of hippies are on a multi million dollar boat WITH its own helicopter and a bunch of speed boats and they go around harrasing whale fisherman...now there is no money to be made in harrasing whale fisherman but they got the money for the ship the food the fuel and i assume some sort of wage from somwhere. so this rory feller makes up some goofball thing to research and POOF!!! he get awarded 2 million pounds
TV pays money, as do people who makes donations to charities to stop environmental degradation. You seem to be going off track.He isn't personally richer than any other scientist in similar positions in other fields unrelated to climate sciences. He isn't paid the 2 million as his salary. p.s. Shell the oil company recognise his valuable work is vital and they have money to be made from disproving AGW.
i wouldnt worry about shell...sure they will be taxed more if cap and trade passes but they will simply raise the price and mabey even sneak a half of a percent of extra profit in with the higher prices and blame you eco nazis...the only losers are we the consumers...ok so rory gets to play with $2mill because hes an "enviromental scientist" how much would say an archealogist get? $15k TOPS. thats a pretty big disparity
and dont even get me started on Grant Bigg. his name may as well be Bigg Grant from all the money he gets. or Mr Bigg. i bet he has a solid gold medalian the size of a hub cap around his neck. and a personal umbrella carrier who inturn has his own personal umbrella carrier. that kind of decedence is imoral
is that all you got? "stop lying"...thats it? cmon i DARE you to compare the grants doled out to climate scientists as compared to other fields of science...no i double DOG dare you to compare. of course you wont because you already know the truth. that climate scientists get ten to twenty times the funding as other fields of science. its just a bought and payed for political arm of the govt.
you seem to think that climate scientist salaries are higher than any other field of science salary, this simply isn't the case. You should look up how much the hadron collider costs if you think climate science gets a lot of funding. The govt is by definition political so of course they fund the sciences, they also fund oil exploration and many other things. You still haven't provided a source for your last comments? odd?
i never said i was "against swapping to renewables" what i AM against is imoral "scientists" who are merly political activists giving bad science to get the policy makers to change the laws and tax the fuck out of everybody. i already OWN three solar pannels. its not enuff to run my farm independantly but cuts the cost of electricity considerably. when the FREE MARKET comes up with a viable solution to transportation i will be the first in line buddy
tax doesn't disappear into the abyss, its spent on the public and goes into the economy one way or another. No tax=no roads, schools, public hospitals, public pensions, museums etc etc Without tax everything us about profit rather than quality and law. If you aren't against renewables then why are you so pro-oil?
im not PRO OIL im realistic. right now it is the most viable option. when renewables become cheaper they will be used...remember henry ford? the only reason oil is even used is because he made his products cheap enuf for the people building them able to buy them. now if only big govt could get that through their greedy fucking skulls mabey we WOULD have renewables now
Renewables have been held back by oil companies time and time again through illegal means in many cases. If you keep using oil then you are contributing to half a million deaths a year.
and how again would an oil company hold back renewable energy? no one came and broke my legs when i bought my solar pannels. and if oil based fuels where to be stopped being used today without a viable replacement then 6 BILLION people would die within the year. ironically it would be the third world nations who would survive best. but city dwellers would be doomed and poor "dumb" "redneck" "inbred" farmers and ranchers like myself would be sitting pretty...wait why am i arguing?
oil companys dont have political power...only politicians hold political power...in 1999 under the clinton administration Chevron wanted to sell all its oil assets to Exxon and reinvest into the REC solar power plant production. but congress stepped in and prevented it from happening because of fears of lost tax revenues. so a foriegn company from sweden bought the plant. the govt is a leach on society it takes and it takes and it gives nothing in return.
@markbotv3 So are you suggesting that Bush had no external interests in oil?
I agree that the US political system is weak, a choice of two parties is always going to be dodgy and the sheer amount of cash needed to get elected means that there will never be a non elitist candidate.
You need more choice. Glad I don't live in the US where business rules the govt rather than votes.
IF business ran the govt it would operate like a well oiled machine and make a SURPLUS...but instead it has turned into a socialistic quagmire. which has ruined the economy. and taken the rest of the world down with it. socialism doesnt work. never has never will. also IF business ruled the govt rather than votes as you asserted then do you honestly believe a liberal socialist like obama would have got in? never. i know of at least 12 people who voted for obama who wish they had their vote back
@markbotv3 Without government big business can run riot as profits take precedence over fair laws. A mixture of govt/free market works best which is why countries with this system have such a high standard of living e.g. Scandanavian countries. p.s. countries with a national health service have better healthcare than those that have none.
yes but the equall and oposite of what you say is ALSO true...that when govt takes over business they run amok with taxes and take away personal liberties. and the companys that they took over usually fail or perform poorly because govt is full of beaurocrats not business savy tycoons. and the united states life expectancy is a paltry 3 years less than scandinavian countries. and you have to figure in imigration and emigration into that. we get all the dregs from 3rd world lowering the expectanc
@markbotv3 As stated a mix of free market and govt works better than free market alone, the rich tend to just get richer while the poor never catch with a totally free market system. I would rather have govt and have laws than no govt and no law.
@sharkblubthe rich get richer and the poor and middle class get richer. its win win win all the way around. in a socialistic set up everyone makes the same wage whether they work or not. and hard workers are punished and bad workers are rewarded. its totally stupid. socialism is for dependant personality types
@markbotv3 So explian why US poverty is increasing even after excluding the immigrant figures. Some social policies within a free market are necessary for a community to work, I can see that you would never help anyone that really needed it.
let me explain what they are trying to pass as "universal health care" they want to make it MANDATORY for every man woman and child to PAY for healthcare. and if you cant afford it you are FORCED to take welfare coupons untill you can afford it and get your own private coverage...if ever...so say your an 18 year old kid who just graduated HS and get your first job. low pay so you cant afford the MANDATORY $3800/YEAR. so you go on welfare. and after a while you get conditioned to accepting CONT
...CONT...govt hand outs and start thinking its the govts job to take care of you. and within a generation of welfare babys BAMO!!! the united states is degenerated to a socialistic cess pool. also they want to collect money for 6 years before they offer services...i wonder how many millions of people are going to die in that six years? no health coverage and $3800 per person missing from their wallet. say take a family of five they need to shell out $19000/year for six years and have NO coverag
@markbotv3 Until you have tried a national health service in your country you have no idea what you are talking about. It works well and gives options to all, not the opposite. You have low taxes so stop moaning mr selfish. You have only got fox news to rely on and they are as biased as a christian fundamentalist
national health care is socialism and that is the exact OPPOSITE of what my nation was founded on...if we wanted a top heavy govt ruling every aspect of our lives we never would of rebelled against king george.
This shows your countrie's inability to change, you are unadaptable and you know what happenes to people who cannot adapt when something good comes along. As stated no growth can continue indefinitely. Sustainability is the only way to survive
"we have low taxes..." since when is 43% "low taxes" and thats without national healthcare. add that into the mix and it ends up being 93% taxes. thats only 7% away from out and out slavery. remember here in the usa we have federal state county and city taxes so you have to add them all up. and if hillary clinton gets her way we will be paying taxes to the UN and her one world govt...and what the fuck is fox news? i always hear you commies griping about it but have no idea what yer talkin about
You spend 18% of your GDP on health, in the Uk they spend 8.4% and they live longer and have less child deaths, with universal healthcare while you have 45 million americans without insurance! What does that tell you?
that tells me that the UK has 1/4 less people and they ration their healthcare. and they dont have NEARLY the imigration. as far as the 45 million americans who have CHOSEN to not health care like me? what fucking business is it of yours? who gives a fuck if i have health care or not? if i dont care than YOU need not worry your pretty little head over it. i believe in reincarnation so living LONGER is not exactly doing me any favors i would rather die youngish and come back with a new body
The healthcare provison in the UK is universal. They spend less per person on it and get better care for less money. You "believe" in reincarnation, i suppose you "believe" in a sky fairy then...
like i said earlier humans are hard wired for spiritual beliefs. your god is the STATE. too bad no state has ever been imortal. and socialists states have a life expectancy the same as a human individual about 75 years give or take. socialism is not a wealth creator. it can merely redistribute wealth already in the system. so as population increases standards of living decreases. while in a capitalistic system more population fuels more economic growth
a resource is anything we can USE in the stone age it was flint in the bronze age it was tin and copper. now its petroleum but in the future it may be something all together different. have faith in humanitys ability to adapt sheesh
Oil is the only thing keeping the world population fed. Some resources are renewable, many are not, oil is NOT renewable. No oil= no synthetic fertilsers for intensive farming=future famine when peak oil hits. Its time to get off fossil fuels and look for a different economic model that involves sustainability, not growth. Please look up the exponential growth function.
M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. There is more to the world than the USA and worldwide peak oil will hit by 2020. Where have you been?
americans believe there are only TWO nations on planet earth. the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...and everyone else. the USAs flag has thirteen stripes and fifty stars. everybody elses flag looks identical to the UNITED STATES with the exception it is set on fire...hehe if you cant laugh at yourself
guilty conscience? i never said that was from the east anglian e mails...it was from a report made in 1997 specifically about the "ice ages" however it clearly shows that from the ice core and sea sediment records that NATURAL global warming and cooling has happened in the past at much more rapid rates than present. so all the hype about AGW is just that...hype...perpetuated by agenda driven activists like yourself apparantly. enjoy the unemployment line sharkblubber cheers =)
you fucking moron that is not donations per capita its donations per gdp. and the united states donates 6x more than the rest of the world COMBINED. so the fuck what if its a lower % of our gdp. that just means we know how to handle our finances and we donate our excess...how much money did you donate to the katrina victims in new orleans? ya i didnt think so you selfish fucker
while in scandinavian countries their EMIGRATION is higher than our IMIGRATION so that artificially keeps their death rates low and ours high. as sick people leave their countries and come here its naturally going to lower the average. and STILL its only 3 years less. and that is because we DONT have national healthcare...yet...we can save a sick person and extend their life. in scandinavia they would ration their healthcare untill they died needlesly
@markbotv3 National healthcare works, countries that didn't have it and then did saw drops in deaths and the poor could get healthcare. In a private system only the rich can get healthcare while the poor stay sick which weakens the workforce and the economy. Only a country witha national health service can afford to have healthy living campaigns. Private companies want you to get sick so that they make more profit. I would rather have the choice of private or National healthcare.
blah blah blah national healthcare is just socialism...and MANDATORY health insurance is unconstitutional anyway. as soon as they pass it ima gonna fight it. and i guarantee you it wont fly in the supreme court. why should i have to pay for somthing UNTILL i need it? thats stupid. it would be like going into a block buster rental store and pre paying $3800 worth of movies and only watching $20 worth. sure its great for them but bad for me.
poor people are locked into poverty BY THE GOVT with their handouts and meager $680 month wage. and the rich are being taxed more and more wich is causing them to A. not expand business and create new jobs and B. cut hours of workers and C. raise the cost of goods cause operating expenses went up because of tax. and the middleclass gets it from all sides they are taxed cost of goods and services increase and they make too much money to be helped by the govt. socialism is lose lose lose for all
national health care is abused by drug addicts and illegal imigrants. if you want to lower health costs ABOLISH THE INSTITUTION OF INSURANCE!!! before insurance even the POOREST pauper could afford to go see a doctor. but when insurance stuck its nose into the mix hospitals charged more because the insurance companys would pay without asking questions. would YOU pay $34 for a single solitary aspirin?...INSURANCE COMPANYS DO!!! which is why its so fucking expensive
@markbotv3 Insurance is there to make profit, its more expensive than a national health service per person. Would you rather have social strife because the poor cannot access healthcare?
The cost per months to me is minimal as profit is not the priority of the NHS. Why don't you want poor people to have access to healthcare? I call it selfish.
poor people already have access to healthcare they have health insurance and I dont...and i dont care if they have it I just dont want to have it. if i need something ill pay for it out of pocket. paying for it before i need it is just stupid
A service industry runs purely on profit is not going to be the cheapest option. The US gives less to charity per person than almost any industrialised country. I suppose that's what you get ina country resistant to a hleath service that helps the poor who cannot afford to go private...
how many times do i have to tell you THE POOR ALREADY HAVE HEALTHCARE. its part of their welfare package. so mandatory healthcare is really a non issue to them. why would they give a fuck if I have health care or not? its people like me who are resistant to mandatory healthcare. i can afford it i just dont want it. and that is utter bullshit about the charity show me your source. because when iran got hit with an earthquake the good ol USA sent the most aid...as per usual
A welfare package that goes to the private sector whose main goal is profit. Try gapminder for stats on healthcare, it might shock you just who is on equal par with the USA in terms of healthcare standards:) I said aid PER CAPITA, not total aid. big difference:)
In the United States, even with a large number of immigrants, natural increase (births minus deaths) accounts for 60% of population growth. If these patterns continue, the U.S. will likely remain the world's third-largest country (behind India and China ) through 2050. source PRB
our population growth is only 8 tenths of 1% and three quarters of that is from imigration without imigration the population would be dropping. 11% of the population are non breeding homosexuals 38% of the population is over 40 years old and of the breeding age couples only 1 out of three have any children at all and the ones that do have children only have one or two. thats WORKING couples. welfare single mothers have on average 8 kids. this trend is "unsustainable"
it's 0.915% per year and only 30% of that is from immigration, look up the source i posted. 1% growth per year means a doubling of people every 70 years (look up the exponential growth function). That doesn't take into account growth in consumption per capita which makes overall impact even higher. Any growth is unsustainable be it consumption or population.
if its only increasing by 1% then how do you explain the population growth from 1980 200million to 2008 300 million. thats 100 million in a mere 28 years. without imigration it would of only grew by 35 million in that time frame...HENCE two thirds of the population growth is due to IMIGRATION
In 1980 it was higher than 1%. At 7% growth a population will double in ten years so in 1980 I would suggest it was around 4% and has been decreasing ever since but increases in consumption per capita have meant the overall impact of the US population on the environment has grown exponentially too. Immigration has two "m"'s, sorry I don't like poor spelling. Please look up the source I posted, you have yet to state your source for saying 2 thirds is from immigration.
your forgetting something. BIG GOVT can tax oil...they CANT tax renewable energy. i think you need to point the finger where it belongs when talking about who has the power ability and motive to stop renewable energy. and its NOT the free market. hell the FREE MARKET stands to make hundreds of trillions of dollars off of renewable energy. if only the govt would let them
Thats just the point, Atheisme is about a lack of faith in things for which there is no emperical support. I think it was richard feynman who said that if you consider athiesme a religion, it is at best a religion of doubt, not faith.
But lets keep this on topic shall we? You were after all claiming a governement conspiricy involving GE, making up global warming so scientists can get rich?? thats it right?
between the last ice age and today the average global temop has risen by 6 degrees, of that 6 degrees the first 5 took thousands of years but the last degree took just over a hundred! Use your logic, rapid climate change has been occuring for 100 years and humans are the most likely primary cause.
Actually if climate change increases by 3 degrees there's no turning back, 6 degrees and we are screwed water levels increased by 12 meters America would be long dead, intact if it increases by 1 degrees America will be all desert, but at 6 water temperature will be over 20 degrees! All arctic life extinct polar caps gone southern Europe will be unlivable due to extreme heat and it will cause fireballs to rain from the sky so if anyone somehow does survive that long they will die
TawnyAnthony 9 months ago
There are no ways to prevent what will happen in an hundred years from now.. The beginning of the end in a matter of years.. Around 2100/2105 perhaps 2110 at most before the earth is submerged by oceans.. Watch my words.
europeandancer 1 year ago
thats without mentioning a heavy dose of government propoganda, media hype vested interests, and the fact that ALL models which have been created using CO2 as a climate driver have failed miserably to predict no warming over the last 12 years. Really, well done to yall its a remarkable lobby movement. The best in history. But it should be studied by sociologists looking into ways of persuading whole populations of stuff on very scant evidence; brilliant!. In 'climate science' tho its a shambles
elbapo7 2 years ago
Ok sharkblubber et al . If someone proposed to you a theory based on weak correlation= causation logic, where the conclusion was prescribed, then the evidence assmbled after the fact, of which there is no physical way to test the central variables, and has developed so many caveats over the years as to appraoch unfalsifiability; would you forward it?... add to that a catalogue of cooked and fiddled data (climategate aside) and you have AGW thesis. All symptoms of very very badly made 'science'
elbapo7 2 years ago
Naughty deniers! The deniers want to keep this under wraps: Frank Luntz, 2002. The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America. The leaked memo can be downloaded. It was deniergate but they kept it quiet.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
this narators voice sounds gay
markbotv3 2 years ago
I assume you mean he sounds happy or was that a homophobic comment? If it was a homophobic comment that's discrimination just like racism.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
i said he sounded gay. where are you getting homosexual out of it? what are you a queer basher or something?
markbotv3 2 years ago
and what do you think federal meddling is going to do to the birthrate? heck even a family of three a mother father and one kid would cost $11400 a year JUST IN HEALTH CARE COSTS!!! and that is taken off the top if you have anything left over then and only then can you make your house payment car payment food clothes etc. and as the population plumets so does the federal tax base and they will be clawing for more and more taxes its an unsustainable trend which will ultimately destroy us
markbotv3 2 years ago
@markbotv3 As population falls so does the needs of the population in equal steps, its called a standard ratio. Everyone needs to choose voluntarily to plan to have less kids, rich and poor alike but as the rich have more impact on the planet per capita so reducing rich populations will have a larger effect on reducing the human populations impact on the planet AND reduce resource competition which keeps prices too high for people to afford basic needs in most regions.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
you underestimate the GREED of the federal govt. money to them is like drugs. the more they get the more they want. the federal govt has become dependant on our money supply and will act violently when it slows down or stops completely...and you are a card carrying commie arent choo? "rich people have more impact on the planet" bull fucking shit. its the poor with all their welfare babys that have a negetive impact on the environment. i live in harmony with earth on my 30 acre subsistance farm
markbotv3 2 years ago
Rich people on average consume more oil per capita than the poor, its a simple fact, you assumed it was an attack on you, why?
sharkblubber 2 years ago
are you saying that the virgin islands is full of rich people? because the virgin islands has the highest per capita usage of petroleum products in the world
markbotv3 2 years ago
Nope i'm saying that on average the richer you are the more oil you consume. You are getting confused.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
but were getting off topic lets talk about how CLIMATE GATE and the leaked east anglian e-mails has pretty much debunked anthropogenic global warming and people like micheal mann and others are being fired left and right and the remaining climate "scientists" are jumping off the AGW band wagon as fast as they possibly can and distancing themselves to save their careers. ha ha sucks to be you. how does if feel to always be WRONG?
markbotv3 2 years ago
Debunked AGW? please quote direct from an email to show where it is stated that AGW has been disproved. The emails don't say this and they don't say data has been falsified which is why every time I ask a denier for a quote they just quote from blogs, rather than the actual emails. Your puerile comments weaken your argument.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
the emails show that the "consensus" was hiding data. reworking data. and messaging the numbers to make it appear like any warming prior to 1998 was more drastic than it really was...hey if they arent real then why did micheal hockey stick graph mann call it quits? was it because he was affraid of being charged with conspiracy and lying to federal officials? get used to it buddy the gravy train is running dry if i were you i would distance myself from the agw bandwagon.
markbotv3 2 years ago
Bollocks, quote from the emails, not a denier's blog.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
hey you can stay on the agw bandwagon all you want. i dont really care. but your reputation is gonna be mud. you will be accused of being part of the conspiracy and motivated by greed. just like micheal mann james hanson and Phil jones. just to name a few. and al gore? he refuses to debate anyone on the topic. the cat is out of the bag and the myth of AGW just recieved its mortal blow. its gonna be fun watching it bleed out ha ha ha ha.
markbotv3 2 years ago
greed? Climatologists don't get paid any more in their salary than any other scientist in other fields of the same grade. Would you care to quote any of the people you have mentioned as saying that AGW is a conspiracy or any falsification of data took place? I thought not. pathetic.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
even you admited that climate scientists get 20x the funding as any other field of science...and if a little bit gets funneled off into a swiss bank account. whos gonna know?
markbotv3 2 years ago
sharkblubber is gonna get fired nanner nanner boo boo ha ha ha ha haaaaa ha. then you will have to find a job as a chimney sweep hehe "chim chiminy chim chiminy chim chim charoo"
markbotv3 2 years ago
Cooling. Though the time at which the Eemian interglacial ended is subject to some uncertainty (it was probably around 110,000 years ago), what does seem evident from the sediment records that cross this boundary is that it was a relatively sudden event and not a gradual slide into colder conditions taking many thousands of years. The recent high-resolution Atlantic sediment record of Adkins et al (1997) suggests that the move from interglacial to much colder-than-present glacial conditions
markbotv3 2 years ago
, but these results are now thought of as inaccurate because the lower layers of the ice sheet have become buckled and jumbled up. However, at least one major cold and dry event during the Eemian seems to be corroborated by the terrestrial pollen record from Europe and China (Zhisheng & Porter 1997). The issue remains controversial, as this review article explains.
markbotv3 2 years ago
Warmth. Around 130,000-110,000 years ago (the Eemian interglacial), the Earth's climates were generally much like those of today, though somewhat warmer and moister in many regions. The climate record derived from long ice cores taken through the Greenland ice cap suggested that the warm climate of the Eemian might have been punctuated by many sudden and fairly short-lived cold phases
markbotv3 2 years ago
11,500 y.a. (+/- 200 years) - Younger Dryas ends suddenly, back to warmth and moist climates (Holocene, or Stage 1)
9,000 y.a. - 8,200 y.a. - climates warmer and often moister than today's
about 8,200 y.a. - sudden cool and dry phase in many areas
8,000-4,500 y.a. - climates somewhat warmer and moister than today's
Since 4,500 y.a. - climates fairly similar to the present
(except; about 2600 y.a. - relatively wet/cold event (of unknown duration) in many areas)
markbotv3 2 years ago
its on all the major news networks. ABC NBC CBS CNN BBC all ya have to do is look for yourself. if they werent real then why did micheal mann retire? or why was phil jones sacked? surely not because of a mere internet blog accusation. if that were the case they would have been thrown on there ear long ago
markbotv3 2 years ago
phil jones stood down temporarily, he wasn't sacked. micheal mann'sretirement doesn't suddenly discount his work you imbecile. You have failed to look at the emails, please try and quote a section of email that states that agw is a hoax or any falsification took place? I bet you can't.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
the emails didnt say it was a hoax they said to "erase the data that shows temps cooling" THAT is what makes it a hoax. other e mails go into micheal manns hockey stick graph and everybody laughs because its "upside down" but they say "if no one questions it who cares we are getting tons of funding"
markbotv3 2 years ago
micheal mann didnt retire "volluntarily" he was told to retire. and phil Jones will face federal charges if he ever comes to the united states...hopefully he will get the roman polanski treatment lol
markbotv3 2 years ago
"Sharksblubber", I have studied the issue with scientists myself for 10 years now, and I can tell you for a fact that all of this alarmism is political based, not scientific. I don't even know a single scientist who is willing to make the connections between any observed warming patterns, and mankind. Those who shout of AGW from high upon their mountaintop are activists, not scientists. Real scientists have a passion for their work, and they believe in true integrity, not popularity.
GUMMYBEAYUH 2 years ago
SO because you personally don't know any scientists means it's all incorrect, how subjective and unscientific can you get. I am a scientist, I've seen the ice cores data, read the peer reviews, the RATE of CHANGE is rapid and cannot be explained by natural factors alone. 6 degrees between the last ice age and today first 5 degrees took 19,850 years the last degree took just 150 years.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
occurred over a period of less than 400 years (with the limitations on the resolution of the sediment record leaving open the possibility that the change was in fact very much more rapid than this).
markbotv3 2 years ago
also you are talking about "federal aid" which is only 1% 99% of the aid americans give to other nations is privately funded and is not accounted for on paper. how much money did you send during the tsunami?
markbotv3 2 years ago
@markbotv3 Nope, i'm talking about total aid private and public as a per capita % of GDP. The US isn't very generous in comparison to it's large GDP. Look up a list of most generous nationalities.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
Sealevels rise and drop constantly, stoneage sites on the northseabottom, fishing spots 1km inland in greece. We`ll just move a bit, have done so for 5000 years. Besides without ice pushing it down, landmasses in Greenland and antartcica wil rise. Crap..that will cause other parts to drop... `We`ll have to move a bite thats all.
acvossius 2 years ago
amen to that brotha. good to see at least SOMEONE with common sense on these damn global warming channels.
markbotv3 2 years ago
wasnt saying the earth isnt warming or that humans arent to blame for at least part of it. just saying that climate change and rising sealevels doesnt have to mean the end of human civilisation. Food supply migth shrink, population drops. Earth will survivea few more eons, Humans wont.
acvossius 2 years ago
people always miss the obvious. most food isnt produced on the coasts. its produced inland. and if the ice caps melt then the tundra below them would be perfect farm land. all of northern canada russia and the entire antarctic continent would be liveable for humanity. so there would be MORE food production not less. people need to stop worrying about global warming and worry about global cooling.
markbotv3 2 years ago
Some places will get less rain some more and most will get warmer but the rate of change is too rapid for most crops to adapt to leading to famines and less predicatable weather to harvest the crops.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
also, large volume of sweetwater stops deepseacurrent, there might not be a mild climate to conduct agriculture. Matter are a bit more complex then you state.
acvossius 2 years ago
the saline current causing warmer temps in europe is a theory. and not proven to be fact. the biggest contributor to europes moderate temp is the fact that its a peninsula and is surrounded by sea water. and ambient moisture has an insulating effect on air temps. look at seatle or vancouver they arent affected by the gulf stream what so ever and they are temperate.
markbotv3 2 years ago
You don't "prove" theories, you disprove them, its more scientific and objective. There is no peer reviwed scientific disproof of AGW.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
lol there are tons and tons of peer reviewed papers disproving man made global warming. its just that they end up in the landfills because the scientific establishment has such a large financial stake in maintaining AGW that they quench the truth so they can line their greedy little pockets
markbotv3 2 years ago
Name a peer reviewed paper then. AGW scientists salaries have not risen any faster than other scientists actually, why don't you try asking some.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
nothing is finite. its an infinite universe. a resource is anything we can use to our advantage. so resources are only limited by our imaginations. so you see it is YOU who are "short-sighted/narrowminded"
markbotv3 2 years ago
Wrong, as we cannot access those infinite resources and there isn't oil on the moon as oil requires life. Our planet is finite. When oil runs low, we have no vaible replacement, anything that gets us to be more sustainable and lose our addiction to finite oil is a good thing.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
who says we need to use oil? besides oil is renewable. when i was a kid there were acres upon acres of oil wells that had "gone dry" back in the 60s. my grandma wrote me a letter and said they were puping again and didnt know why. so i googled it and sure enuff they had filled back up to 60% capacity in a mere 40 years
markbotv3 2 years ago
OIl is NOT renewable, your ignorance astouds me. Oil is vital for intensive agriculture, no oil=huge losses of productivity. We need to replace oil for more than AGW reasons. Why are you against sustainability?
sharkblubber 2 years ago
Man made or not, climate is chanching, inherent to a dynamic system. Most of mankind will get f***ed.
My initial point was that we can adapt if we have to. but probably not in the current sort of society.
my main objection with these eviromental types is that most claim to care about nature while their only goal is to keep a status quo benificial to just our species. The earth doesnt need te be saved.
acvossius 2 years ago
exactly. cause at the end of the day it matters little if the change is man made or not we still need to adapt to it...what if the ice ages started coming back do you honestly think we could pump enuf co2 into the air to stop it? thats ridiculous. if we cant stop an ice age we cant stop global warming. so nothing to do but adapt...funny how athiests are affraid of adaptation even when its part of their religion. ha ha ha ha
markbotv3 2 years ago
Why make the rate of change worse and adaptation harder with further emissions from fossi fuels. I'm all for going straight to renewables/sustainability, why aren't you?
sharkblubber 2 years ago
global warming and global cooling are both natural man plays no part in it...as far as "going straight to renewables" is concerned. who is going to benefit from everyone forced to use one product hmmm? oh ya the global monopoly of GE. no competition they can sell us expensive low quality shit for decades. but if we let the free market decide for us then their will be tons of competition and cheaper more efficient "renewables" why are you for one company and not many?
markbotv3 2 years ago
No-one is forced to buy from just one company for their lightbulbs, what on earth are you on about?? Its not just GE.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
GE owns the patent for the squigly light bulbs and since it is federaly mandated to buy squigly light bulbs yes we are being FORCED to buy from GE and only GE. remember that pesky whole in the ozone back in the 80s that no one ever talks about anymore? but was all the rage in 85? ya that was because DOW corp patent on the refrigerant R-12 ran out. so invented the whole in the ozone and forced the govt to replace THEIR OWN PRODUCT. so they wouldnt have to share profits with competitors.
markbotv3 2 years ago
You clearly aren't a chemist or a scientist if you don't think cfc's have an effect on high level ozone. Monopolies are banned by your got, GE won't be the only ones selling the lightbulbs.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
pssh it seems awfully suspicious that as soon as r-13 came out the hole in the ozone mysteriously disapeared...and yet their is still hairspray cans...now what realeases more cfcs into the air hairspray or airconditioning? it was all political DOW had friends in high places and the hole was made up so they could replace their own product with a new patented product and not share profits.
markbotv3 2 years ago
CFC's were removed from aerosols. You are talking complete idiocy. You seem to be suggesting that they paid off every single scientist involved, falsified satellite data and increased rates of skin cancer just to pretend that an ozone hole existed.One word: bollocks. I've been wasting my time with a nut like you..
sharkblubber 2 years ago
james hanson falsified satelite data
markbotv3 2 years ago
Atheism a religion??? ok thats ehhhh???
you`re not one of those religous nutters who think we can f**k the world, cause G. is going to save us are you?
Some of you`re replies to others seem to indicate you`re a bit of a conspiracy theorist, global corparate monopolies and all.
acvossius 2 years ago
yup athiesm is a religion. when you stop believing in a power greater than yourself you simply replace it with another power greater than yourself...in the case of communism its the state. in the case of agw its the climate. in the case of a nut job cult its the cult leader...remember jim jones? or that crazy fool with white sneakers who cut his own balls off and killed all his followers so they could ride the hale/bop comet to paradise? yup definately a religion.
markbotv3 2 years ago
Could you be a bit more specific as to what that "power greater than myself" is, that i have as a replacement? (i am at the least a agnostic)
I truly wasnt aware that i replaced one power with another, what do you think i believe in?
communism, jim jones (kool aid guy?) seem of topic remarks.
acvossius 2 years ago
Atheism is not a religion because religion requires a deity while atheism has none. look it up. AGW is based on evidence and a lack of disproof, religion is not.
I think its safe to assume that you are not a scientist.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
the state is the diety...or what ever charismatic muckity muck comes along and fills the void. obama comes to mind for some reason. i think it is safe to say you are not an anthropologist or else you would already know this. that humans are hard wired for spiritual beliefs. there is NO evidence for AGW only evidence for GW from 1970 to 1998. the rest is speculation and conjecture.
markbotv3 2 years ago
We can vote for or against the state or have a revolution. I don't have a religion. If you know that humans were hard wired for spiritaul belief that suggests I've evolved, while you haven't. 1998-2008 was warmer than 1988-1998. There is no disprof of AGW. If there is, then provide it.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
no one is denying that NATURAL global warming happened from 1970 to 1998 but the fact remains that 1998 to 2008 was COOLER than 1998s peak temp even as co2 rose. which blows agw theory out of the water. and you are confusing religion with spiritual beliefs...when you forsake your cultures religion you replace it with somthing else deal with it buddy. for you your cult is prolly agw because it takes faith to believe in it even as evidence disprooves it.
markbotv3 2 years ago
agw theory rests on the notion that co2 and co2 ONLY forces global warming. the reason agw NEEDS co2 to drive global warming is because that is the only variable that man has any contribution to. so if temps plateau or fall (as they have the last 11 years) then anthropogenic global warming theory falls apart...there is that proof enuf for you? prolly not but hey at least i tried to get you to come out of the dark ages
markbotv3 2 years ago
ahem, methane, nitrous oxide and low level ozone are GHG's that humans contribute to too! You still haven't provided a peer reviewed paper that disproves AGW. Just saying its false means bugger all without some evidence to back your views.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
yes i have...work group three of the IPCC report. deal with it fatty
markbotv3 2 years ago
work group three is the section that deals with mitigating the effects of AGW.
Explain how you think this backs your dumb view that humans have no effect on the rapid rate of change in the climate?!
quote: The IPCC WG III assesses all relevant options for mitigating climate change through limiting or preventing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and enhancing activities that remove them from the atmosphere.
This is evidence for AGW or they wouldn't be looking at ways of reducing our emissions.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
wgIII says that there is NO "rapid rate of change in climate" that the minor variations are well within recorded norms. and any effect mans activities have on the normal ebb and flow of recorded tollerances are at current imperceptable from natural feedback.
markbotv3 2 years ago
Please state the year, pages and source for this comment. Or have you made up another lie?
sharkblubber 2 years ago
it takes more faith to believe in the abyss emptiness and absolute zero than a diety. because absolute zero and the abyss are not present on this planet. you are surrounded by all kinds of stuff. psssh so if you want to believe in something that doesnt exist knock yer self out.
markbotv3 2 years ago
Do you believe in zeus, Ra and thor too? While you are there do you believe unicorns exist, because none of them have any evidence to support them. Religion=crazy imagination.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
name one culture in history...just one...in which it survived more than 100 years without spiritual beliefs of some kind. psssh communist russia only lasted 78 years. how fucking pathetic. do you honestly think you can make an athiest nation work? good luck cause its never happened before. what choo got now boy?
markbotv3 2 years ago
getting a bit of topic dear... And just what does this "Psssh" mean?
Web just full of nutters isn it. oh and an anthropologist wouldnt describe russia as communist, or mix terms like nation/culture and religion/spiritual believes.
your not the sharpest tool i get the impression
acvossius 2 years ago
"psssh" is a sound you make when scoffing someone. well can you? can you name a nation or culture that has survived longer than a few generations without a spiritual glue? even julius ceasar knew to attack and kill the druids and their holy sites before he embarked on taking on all the individual tribes. its simple kill the spirit and the body soon dies. but if you kill the body only the spirit lives on. oh and btw the word "spirit" and "will" are interchangeable. to deny spirit is to deny will.
markbotv3 2 years ago
No i can not name an atheist nation or culture that survived for more than 100 years. that has two simple reasons:
first people have faith and beliefs, these are personel and internal, nations/states/gorvernements/ can only facilitate, promote or enforce an outward, public an ritualised expression. one can believe without praying and vice versa.
secondly, the realisation of godlesnes by the masses (instead of a vew intellectuals) is relatively new, only just growing in western europe since WW2
acvossius 2 years ago
i think you meant to say RE growing since ww2. athiesm doesnt work never has never will. the fore fathers were "non denominational" they didnt care which faith you held just so long as you believed somthing. how does the old saying go? "if you dont believe in something you will fall for anything"
markbotv3 2 years ago
atheism hasn't worked until now because until now rational explanations haven't been possible for seemingly unexplained phenomena. Atheism is increasing faster than religion in Europe.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
then europe is doomed to fail
markbotv3 2 years ago
this is according to you a sky fairy/talking snake believing denialist. Rationalism beats religion hands down.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
and what does any of this have to do with global warming? nothing. except it is a war of "wills" because the end result is the same it matters not if its gw or agw because we have to adapt to it anyway. the proponents of agw are malicously trying to scare govts into giving them funding. its sad just sad
markbotv3 2 years ago
But indeed getting back to your (a)gw story, knowing what migth happen as a result, why would you sit on your arse and NOT try everything you can think of, seems cowardly and arrogant. We cant influence it? that implies we completely understand how the climate works. we dont how can you be certain we cant at least slow it down, buy more time to adapt, take precautions.
however small the odds, isn trying better than not trying??, i mean you said yourself GW happens and will affect us
acvossius 2 years ago
global warming has been pretty kind to humanity so far. i say we stay the course and melt those fucking in the way of progress glaciers and polar caps and reap the rewards of a new age of peace and prosperity. the tundra would be gone replaced by a vast bread basket of farm land and all the resources in antarctica will make war over them a distant memory. and if a few coastal citys have to rebuild newer greener and cleaner so be it...SHOVEL READY JOBS FOR THE WORLD YAY!!!
markbotv3 2 years ago
Almost every scientific academy on the planet disagrees with you especially teh climate scientists whose wages have increased at exactly the same rate as every other scientist. Scientists aren't researching climate for the money. You still seem to be confusing politics and science.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
cmon you know that is a lie. they all have stock options. and get kick backs and bribes from the carbon credit taxes. why do all the climate scientists live in huge mansions and own their own private jets hmmm? surely they couldnt afford those things without their blood money. a true scientist is lucky to make $50000 a year. and climate scientists avg ten times that amount.
markbotv3 2 years ago
Nope, I know plenty of climate scientists, none of them have private jets or huge mansions. What are you on about? you seem to be a sandwich short of a picnic?
Please state your source of evidence that salaries for climate scientists are 10 times that of other scientists? You shouldn't make things up, naughty, naughty.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
you know plenty of climate scientists huh? ok give me a name and where they work and ill do some research...what cat got your tongue? what are you affraid of sharkblubber? affraid ill find the truth?
markbotv3 2 years ago
Ok here are 5 for you who work on Climate change studies: Grant Bigg, Danny McCarroll, Rory Walsh, Ed (Edward) Hanna and John Matthews.
They all work at Universities like most Climatology specialists and they are on exactly the same salary as any other scientist of their standards in non climatology subjects and don't have private jets.
Now then, when are you going to give some evidence for your views. You still haven't given the source, page, and year for WG3's alledged denials?? odd.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
hmmm im noticing that rory walsh drives a Holden...i wish i could afford a Holden
markbotv3 2 years ago
Thats the wrong Rory Walsh. He cycles to work. next.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
the one who works in wales?
markbotv3 2 years ago
the one who works at swansea looks like that nutter who cut his balls off and killed all his cult followers to ride the hale bop comet to paradise...and he is a physical geologist not a climate scientist
markbotv3 2 years ago
ad hominem ad hominem. Your insults are immature. When wilkl you provide a source for your WG3 comment? He is a physical geologist who looks at past climate through geological studies and compares it to today i.e. works in climate science.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
add eminem? ya i like rap as much as the next guy but...anyway...so if someone is a "physical geologist" they are a "climate scientist" but if someone is an oceanic biologist they arent? i believe the phrase is called "cherry picking". and if indeed we are talking about the same guy ol Rory is worth 1.73 million dollars...thats assets minus liabilities. i guess hes got some good stock options.
markbotv3 2 years ago
1.73 million dollars? The Borneo rainforest project he is working on currently gets almost 2 million POUNDS which is more than 1.27 million dollars but thats for the entire project and all staff. Rory doesn't get that personally you imbecile. Shell provide 50K of that money, an oil company. The project provides evidence forhistorical/recent climatic change in Sabah and its ecological consequences, using instrumental,documentary and dendroclimatological sources".
sharkblubber 2 years ago
theres a show on tv where a bunch of hippies are on a multi million dollar boat WITH its own helicopter and a bunch of speed boats and they go around harrasing whale fisherman...now there is no money to be made in harrasing whale fisherman but they got the money for the ship the food the fuel and i assume some sort of wage from somwhere. so this rory feller makes up some goofball thing to research and POOF!!! he get awarded 2 million pounds
markbotv3 2 years ago
TV pays money, as do people who makes donations to charities to stop environmental degradation. You seem to be going off track.He isn't personally richer than any other scientist in similar positions in other fields unrelated to climate sciences. He isn't paid the 2 million as his salary. p.s. Shell the oil company recognise his valuable work is vital and they have money to be made from disproving AGW.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
i wouldnt worry about shell...sure they will be taxed more if cap and trade passes but they will simply raise the price and mabey even sneak a half of a percent of extra profit in with the higher prices and blame you eco nazis...the only losers are we the consumers...ok so rory gets to play with $2mill because hes an "enviromental scientist" how much would say an archealogist get? $15k TOPS. thats a pretty big disparity
markbotv3 2 years ago
and dont even get me started on Grant Bigg. his name may as well be Bigg Grant from all the money he gets. or Mr Bigg. i bet he has a solid gold medalian the size of a hub cap around his neck. and a personal umbrella carrier who inturn has his own personal umbrella carrier. that kind of decedence is imoral
markbotv3 2 years ago
stop lying. It's pathetic.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
is that all you got? "stop lying"...thats it? cmon i DARE you to compare the grants doled out to climate scientists as compared to other fields of science...no i double DOG dare you to compare. of course you wont because you already know the truth. that climate scientists get ten to twenty times the funding as other fields of science. its just a bought and payed for political arm of the govt.
markbotv3 2 years ago
you seem to think that climate scientist salaries are higher than any other field of science salary, this simply isn't the case. You should look up how much the hadron collider costs if you think climate science gets a lot of funding. The govt is by definition political so of course they fund the sciences, they also fund oil exploration and many other things. You still haven't provided a source for your last comments? odd?
sharkblubber 2 years ago
source? what about the james delingpole documents? get the info straight from the source
markbotv3 2 years ago
Ask yourslef why you are against swapping to renewables?
Is it because you prefer being reliant on a finite, non renewable that kills half a million prematurely every year through air pollution?
sharkblubber 2 years ago
i never said i was "against swapping to renewables" what i AM against is imoral "scientists" who are merly political activists giving bad science to get the policy makers to change the laws and tax the fuck out of everybody. i already OWN three solar pannels. its not enuff to run my farm independantly but cuts the cost of electricity considerably. when the FREE MARKET comes up with a viable solution to transportation i will be the first in line buddy
markbotv3 2 years ago
tax doesn't disappear into the abyss, its spent on the public and goes into the economy one way or another. No tax=no roads, schools, public hospitals, public pensions, museums etc etc Without tax everything us about profit rather than quality and law. If you aren't against renewables then why are you so pro-oil?
sharkblubber 2 years ago
im not PRO OIL im realistic. right now it is the most viable option. when renewables become cheaper they will be used...remember henry ford? the only reason oil is even used is because he made his products cheap enuf for the people building them able to buy them. now if only big govt could get that through their greedy fucking skulls mabey we WOULD have renewables now
markbotv3 2 years ago
Renewables have been held back by oil companies time and time again through illegal means in many cases. If you keep using oil then you are contributing to half a million deaths a year.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
and how again would an oil company hold back renewable energy? no one came and broke my legs when i bought my solar pannels. and if oil based fuels where to be stopped being used today without a viable replacement then 6 BILLION people would die within the year. ironically it would be the third world nations who would survive best. but city dwellers would be doomed and poor "dumb" "redneck" "inbred" farmers and ranchers like myself would be sitting pretty...wait why am i arguing?
markbotv3 2 years ago
Political pressure from oil companies held back renewables for years in the USA.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
oil companys dont have political power...only politicians hold political power...in 1999 under the clinton administration Chevron wanted to sell all its oil assets to Exxon and reinvest into the REC solar power plant production. but congress stepped in and prevented it from happening because of fears of lost tax revenues. so a foriegn company from sweden bought the plant. the govt is a leach on society it takes and it takes and it gives nothing in return.
markbotv3 2 years ago
@markbotv3 So are you suggesting that Bush had no external interests in oil?
I agree that the US political system is weak, a choice of two parties is always going to be dodgy and the sheer amount of cash needed to get elected means that there will never be a non elitist candidate.
You need more choice. Glad I don't live in the US where business rules the govt rather than votes.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
IF business ran the govt it would operate like a well oiled machine and make a SURPLUS...but instead it has turned into a socialistic quagmire. which has ruined the economy. and taken the rest of the world down with it. socialism doesnt work. never has never will. also IF business ruled the govt rather than votes as you asserted then do you honestly believe a liberal socialist like obama would have got in? never. i know of at least 12 people who voted for obama who wish they had their vote back
markbotv3 2 years ago
@markbotv3 Without government big business can run riot as profits take precedence over fair laws. A mixture of govt/free market works best which is why countries with this system have such a high standard of living e.g. Scandanavian countries. p.s. countries with a national health service have better healthcare than those that have none.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
yes but the equall and oposite of what you say is ALSO true...that when govt takes over business they run amok with taxes and take away personal liberties. and the companys that they took over usually fail or perform poorly because govt is full of beaurocrats not business savy tycoons. and the united states life expectancy is a paltry 3 years less than scandinavian countries. and you have to figure in imigration and emigration into that. we get all the dregs from 3rd world lowering the expectanc
markbotv3 2 years ago
@markbotv3 As stated a mix of free market and govt works better than free market alone, the rich tend to just get richer while the poor never catch with a totally free market system. I would rather have govt and have laws than no govt and no law.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
@sharkblubthe rich get richer and the poor and middle class get richer. its win win win all the way around. in a socialistic set up everyone makes the same wage whether they work or not. and hard workers are punished and bad workers are rewarded. its totally stupid. socialism is for dependant personality types
markbotv3 2 years ago
@markbotv3 So explian why US poverty is increasing even after excluding the immigrant figures. Some social policies within a free market are necessary for a community to work, I can see that you would never help anyone that really needed it.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
my church helps anybody who asks...and i help my church by titheing 10% of my wage AFTER taxes
markbotv3 2 years ago
let me explain what they are trying to pass as "universal health care" they want to make it MANDATORY for every man woman and child to PAY for healthcare. and if you cant afford it you are FORCED to take welfare coupons untill you can afford it and get your own private coverage...if ever...so say your an 18 year old kid who just graduated HS and get your first job. low pay so you cant afford the MANDATORY $3800/YEAR. so you go on welfare. and after a while you get conditioned to accepting CONT
markbotv3 2 years ago
I didn't say totally socialists is good, i said a combo of public govt and business works better than any extreme capitalism or socialism.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
...CONT...govt hand outs and start thinking its the govts job to take care of you. and within a generation of welfare babys BAMO!!! the united states is degenerated to a socialistic cess pool. also they want to collect money for 6 years before they offer services...i wonder how many millions of people are going to die in that six years? no health coverage and $3800 per person missing from their wallet. say take a family of five they need to shell out $19000/year for six years and have NO coverag
markbotv3 2 years ago
@markbotv3 Until you have tried a national health service in your country you have no idea what you are talking about. It works well and gives options to all, not the opposite. You have low taxes so stop moaning mr selfish. You have only got fox news to rely on and they are as biased as a christian fundamentalist
sharkblubber 2 years ago
national health care is socialism and that is the exact OPPOSITE of what my nation was founded on...if we wanted a top heavy govt ruling every aspect of our lives we never would of rebelled against king george.
markbotv3 2 years ago
This shows your countrie's inability to change, you are unadaptable and you know what happenes to people who cannot adapt when something good comes along. As stated no growth can continue indefinitely. Sustainability is the only way to survive
sharkblubber 2 years ago
"we have low taxes..." since when is 43% "low taxes" and thats without national healthcare. add that into the mix and it ends up being 93% taxes. thats only 7% away from out and out slavery. remember here in the usa we have federal state county and city taxes so you have to add them all up. and if hillary clinton gets her way we will be paying taxes to the UN and her one world govt...and what the fuck is fox news? i always hear you commies griping about it but have no idea what yer talkin about
markbotv3 2 years ago
You spend 18% of your GDP on health, in the Uk they spend 8.4% and they live longer and have less child deaths, with universal healthcare while you have 45 million americans without insurance! What does that tell you?
sharkblubber 2 years ago
that tells me that the UK has 1/4 less people and they ration their healthcare. and they dont have NEARLY the imigration. as far as the 45 million americans who have CHOSEN to not health care like me? what fucking business is it of yours? who gives a fuck if i have health care or not? if i dont care than YOU need not worry your pretty little head over it. i believe in reincarnation so living LONGER is not exactly doing me any favors i would rather die youngish and come back with a new body
markbotv3 2 years ago
The healthcare provison in the UK is universal. They spend less per person on it and get better care for less money. You "believe" in reincarnation, i suppose you "believe" in a sky fairy then...
sharkblubber 2 years ago
like i said earlier humans are hard wired for spiritual beliefs. your god is the STATE. too bad no state has ever been imortal. and socialists states have a life expectancy the same as a human individual about 75 years give or take. socialism is not a wealth creator. it can merely redistribute wealth already in the system. so as population increases standards of living decreases. while in a capitalistic system more population fuels more economic growth
markbotv3 2 years ago
Economic growth requires growth in consumption of resources, it isn't sustainable. Look up the exponential growth function to find out why.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
a resource is anything we can USE in the stone age it was flint in the bronze age it was tin and copper. now its petroleum but in the future it may be something all together different. have faith in humanitys ability to adapt sheesh
markbotv3 2 years ago
Oil is the only thing keeping the world population fed. Some resources are renewable, many are not, oil is NOT renewable. No oil= no synthetic fertilsers for intensive farming=future famine when peak oil hits. Its time to get off fossil fuels and look for a different economic model that involves sustainability, not growth. Please look up the exponential growth function.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
peak oil was hit in 1970...where have you been?
markbotv3 2 years ago
M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. There is more to the world than the USA and worldwide peak oil will hit by 2020. Where have you been?
sharkblubber 2 years ago
americans believe there are only TWO nations on planet earth. the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...and everyone else. the USAs flag has thirteen stripes and fifty stars. everybody elses flag looks identical to the UNITED STATES with the exception it is set on fire...hehe if you cant laugh at yourself
markbotv3 2 years ago
the e mails also suggest "hide the data untill observed results start matching our computer models again"
markbotv3 2 years ago
It's very naughty of you to put something in "quotes" when it hasn't come direct from the email. Stop misrepresenting the emails.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
guilty conscience? i never said that was from the east anglian e mails...it was from a report made in 1997 specifically about the "ice ages" however it clearly shows that from the ice core and sea sediment records that NATURAL global warming and cooling has happened in the past at much more rapid rates than present. so all the hype about AGW is just that...hype...perpetuated by agenda driven activists like yourself apparantly. enjoy the unemployment line sharkblubber cheers =)
markbotv3 2 years ago
you fucking moron that is not donations per capita its donations per gdp. and the united states donates 6x more than the rest of the world COMBINED. so the fuck what if its a lower % of our gdp. that just means we know how to handle our finances and we donate our excess...how much money did you donate to the katrina victims in new orleans? ya i didnt think so you selfish fucker
markbotv3 2 years ago
while in scandinavian countries their EMIGRATION is higher than our IMIGRATION so that artificially keeps their death rates low and ours high. as sick people leave their countries and come here its naturally going to lower the average. and STILL its only 3 years less. and that is because we DONT have national healthcare...yet...we can save a sick person and extend their life. in scandinavia they would ration their healthcare untill they died needlesly
markbotv3 2 years ago
@markbotv3 National healthcare works, countries that didn't have it and then did saw drops in deaths and the poor could get healthcare. In a private system only the rich can get healthcare while the poor stay sick which weakens the workforce and the economy. Only a country witha national health service can afford to have healthy living campaigns. Private companies want you to get sick so that they make more profit. I would rather have the choice of private or National healthcare.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
blah blah blah national healthcare is just socialism...and MANDATORY health insurance is unconstitutional anyway. as soon as they pass it ima gonna fight it. and i guarantee you it wont fly in the supreme court. why should i have to pay for somthing UNTILL i need it? thats stupid. it would be like going into a block buster rental store and pre paying $3800 worth of movies and only watching $20 worth. sure its great for them but bad for me.
markbotv3 2 years ago
poor people are locked into poverty BY THE GOVT with their handouts and meager $680 month wage. and the rich are being taxed more and more wich is causing them to A. not expand business and create new jobs and B. cut hours of workers and C. raise the cost of goods cause operating expenses went up because of tax. and the middleclass gets it from all sides they are taxed cost of goods and services increase and they make too much money to be helped by the govt. socialism is lose lose lose for all
markbotv3 2 years ago
national health care is abused by drug addicts and illegal imigrants. if you want to lower health costs ABOLISH THE INSTITUTION OF INSURANCE!!! before insurance even the POOREST pauper could afford to go see a doctor. but when insurance stuck its nose into the mix hospitals charged more because the insurance companys would pay without asking questions. would YOU pay $34 for a single solitary aspirin?...INSURANCE COMPANYS DO!!! which is why its so fucking expensive
markbotv3 2 years ago
@markbotv3 Insurance is there to make profit, its more expensive than a national health service per person. Would you rather have social strife because the poor cannot access healthcare?
The cost per months to me is minimal as profit is not the priority of the NHS. Why don't you want poor people to have access to healthcare? I call it selfish.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
poor people already have access to healthcare they have health insurance and I dont...and i dont care if they have it I just dont want to have it. if i need something ill pay for it out of pocket. paying for it before i need it is just stupid
markbotv3 2 years ago
A service industry runs purely on profit is not going to be the cheapest option. The US gives less to charity per person than almost any industrialised country. I suppose that's what you get ina country resistant to a hleath service that helps the poor who cannot afford to go private...
sharkblubber 2 years ago
how many times do i have to tell you THE POOR ALREADY HAVE HEALTHCARE. its part of their welfare package. so mandatory healthcare is really a non issue to them. why would they give a fuck if I have health care or not? its people like me who are resistant to mandatory healthcare. i can afford it i just dont want it. and that is utter bullshit about the charity show me your source. because when iran got hit with an earthquake the good ol USA sent the most aid...as per usual
markbotv3 2 years ago
A welfare package that goes to the private sector whose main goal is profit. Try gapminder for stats on healthcare, it might shock you just who is on equal par with the USA in terms of healthcare standards:) I said aid PER CAPITA, not total aid. big difference:)
sharkblubber 2 years ago
thats because we have WAAAAAY more imigration than you do. and imigrants cant afford shit
markbotv3 2 years ago
@markbotv3 You have higher population growth that most industrialised countries even without immigration.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
the united states population growth would be in the negative without imigration sorry spud. i dont know where your getting your info
markbotv3 2 years ago
In the United States, even with a large number of immigrants, natural increase (births minus deaths) accounts for 60% of population growth. If these patterns continue, the U.S. will likely remain the world's third-largest country (behind India and China ) through 2050. source PRB
sharkblubber 2 years ago
our population growth is only 8 tenths of 1% and three quarters of that is from imigration without imigration the population would be dropping. 11% of the population are non breeding homosexuals 38% of the population is over 40 years old and of the breeding age couples only 1 out of three have any children at all and the ones that do have children only have one or two. thats WORKING couples. welfare single mothers have on average 8 kids. this trend is "unsustainable"
markbotv3 2 years ago
it's 0.915% per year and only 30% of that is from immigration, look up the source i posted. 1% growth per year means a doubling of people every 70 years (look up the exponential growth function). That doesn't take into account growth in consumption per capita which makes overall impact even higher. Any growth is unsustainable be it consumption or population.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
if its only increasing by 1% then how do you explain the population growth from 1980 200million to 2008 300 million. thats 100 million in a mere 28 years. without imigration it would of only grew by 35 million in that time frame...HENCE two thirds of the population growth is due to IMIGRATION
markbotv3 2 years ago
In 1980 it was higher than 1%. At 7% growth a population will double in ten years so in 1980 I would suggest it was around 4% and has been decreasing ever since but increases in consumption per capita have meant the overall impact of the US population on the environment has grown exponentially too. Immigration has two "m"'s, sorry I don't like poor spelling. Please look up the source I posted, you have yet to state your source for saying 2 thirds is from immigration.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
your forgetting something. BIG GOVT can tax oil...they CANT tax renewable energy. i think you need to point the finger where it belongs when talking about who has the power ability and motive to stop renewable energy. and its NOT the free market. hell the FREE MARKET stands to make hundreds of trillions of dollars off of renewable energy. if only the govt would let them
markbotv3 2 years ago
p.s. I'm afraid you cannot spell afraid.
sharkblubber 2 years ago
Thats just the point, Atheisme is about a lack of faith in things for which there is no emperical support. I think it was richard feynman who said that if you consider athiesme a religion, it is at best a religion of doubt, not faith.
But lets keep this on topic shall we? You were after all claiming a governement conspiricy involving GE, making up global warming so scientists can get rich?? thats it right?
acvossius 2 years ago
no conspiracy they are doing it in the open.
markbotv3 2 years ago
between the last ice age and today the average global temop has risen by 6 degrees, of that 6 degrees the first 5 took thousands of years but the last degree took just over a hundred! Use your logic, rapid climate change has been occuring for 100 years and humans are the most likely primary cause.
sharkblubber 2 years ago