Not if it means treating everyone as a murderer, regardless of their actions.
so let's ask some questions.
are you knowledgable enough to know:
1) burning oil products puts CO2 into the atmosphere?
2) burning oil products puts sulfer dioxide into the atmosphere?
3) burning oil products puts CO into the atmosphere?
4) that these gases are fatal to humans and life in general?
if you are intelligent enough to know this and you burn oil products; you are putting poison in my tea and thus you are a murderer.
so let's ask some questions.
are you knowledgable enough to know:
1) burning oil products puts CO2 into the atmosphere?
2) burning oil products puts sulfer dioxide into the atmosphere?
3) burning oil products puts CO into the atmosphere?
4) that these gases are fatal to humans and life in general?
if you are intelligent enough to know this and you burn oil products; you are putting poison in my tea and thus you are a murderer.
I'll bet you drive a car...murderer!
“May you live to be 100 and may the last voice you hear be mine.” - Frank Sinatra
Maybe the ice shelf will float all the way into Lake Ontario with some polar bears stranded on it. The bears can hop off and we can have that hunt that Mercer made them look silly about. :eek:
But for how much longer? No one said it was instantaneous.
I could continue doing all those things and onelongsong would never die from them. That's the problem with the faulty logic. It fails the "directly leading" standard.
It's the faulty logic that says this:
that these gases are fatal to humans and life in general?
which would in turn make breathing itself murder.
The fact remains that emissions do not "in general" lead to murder. In fact, they "in general" lead to the opposite. However, in specific situations they can lead to death. The global warming crowd seems to have no interest in these specific situations.
so let's ask some questions.
are you knowledgable enough to know:
1) burning oil products puts CO2 into the atmosphere?
2) burning oil products puts sulfer dioxide into the atmosphere?
3) burning oil products puts CO into the atmosphere?
4) that these gases are fatal to humans and life in general?
if you are intelligent enough to know this and you burn oil products; you are putting poison in my tea and thus you are a murderer.
Those gases are essential to life.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
just like the clean air act recycles exiting legislation - all we need is to act ... we don't need to spend indispensable money ... we just need leadership and a willing populace ... most things that would reduce emissions would be cost beneficial to the user ... tell me anything u would think of doing that would reduce your emissions/footprint that would cost you money over the long term?
What bang for the buck will we get? Does it help us if climate change is still going to happen due to nature? Will people die because we've used money to try to prevent an unpreventable climate change that could have been used to adapt to climate change?
I'm not asking these question to defend doing nothing. These are real questions about how to best use both public and private dollars to address climate change. Much like car drivers have insurance to help them adapt to a car accident, it should not be frowned upon for public dollars to be used to adapt to climate change.
I'm all for an even course of lessening man's impact on climate chaneg and adapting to climate change. The ratio between the spending on the two may be dependant on where you are.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
probably the taliban is to blame. global warming too,.. they won't rest until everyone must suffer to live in barren desert-landscapes and cavernous-mountains with excessively warm beverages.
at least now that saddam is gone we can refocus on killing stuff in afghanistan again!
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
probably the taliban is to blame. global warming too,.. they won't rest until everyone must suffer to live in barren desert-landscapes and cavernous-mountains with excessively warm beverages.
at least now that saddam is gone we can refocus on killing stuff in afghanistan again!
What is he doing drinking Coke? That stuff will kill you or make you obese or eat through the nail he ate for breakfast.;)
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
What bang for the buck will we get? Does it help us if climate change is still going to happen due to nature? Will people die because we've used money to try to prevent an unpreventable climate change that could have been used to adapt to climate change?
I'm not asking these question to defend doing nothing. These are real questions about how to best use both public and private dollars to address climate change. Much like car drivers have insurance to help them adapt to a car accident, it should not be frowned upon for public dollars to be used to adapt to climate change.
I'm all for an even course of lessening man's impact on climate chaneg and adapting to climate change. The ratio between the spending on the two may be dependant on where you are.
first of all - we're still on opposite sides of the fence as to the cause of climate change ... so, lets just leave that one alone as we've gotten nowhere in 2+ years ...
adapting to climate change means accepting the consequences - those consequences means a significant loss of life - why should we accept loss of life when it is well within our power to stop it from happening ...
again - can you name something that you could do to alleviate climate change that would be not economically beneficial to you?
What bang for the buck will we get? Does it help us if climate change is still going to happen due to nature? Will people die because we've used money to try to prevent an unpreventable climate change that could have been used to adapt to climate change?
I'm not asking these question to defend doing nothing. These are real questions about how to best use both public and private dollars to address climate change. Much like car drivers have insurance to help them adapt to a car accident, it should not be frowned upon for public dollars to be used to adapt to climate change.
I'm all for an even course of lessening man's impact on climate chaneg and adapting to climate change. The ratio between the spending on the two may be dependant on where you are.
funny thing is it doesn't take spending. this isn't a problem you can throw money at.
adapting to climate change means accepting the consequences - those consequences means a significant loss of life - why should we accept loss of life when it is well within our power to stop it from happening ...
No. Adapting to climate change means accepting the outcome (not the consequences) and acting to prevent loss of life (or consequences).
Things that will not economically or socially benefit me; higher density living, limiting downtown access by car, carbon tax. I could go on and on. Now you may turn around and tell me why these things are good for you but that does not mean they are good for me.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
No. Adapting to climate change means accepting the outcome (not the consequences) and acting to prevent loss of life (or consequences).
Things that will not economically or socially benefit me; higher density living, limiting downtown access by car, carbon tax. I could go on and on. Now you may turn around and tell me why these things are good for you but that does not mean they are good for me.
adapting is accepting the consequences when mitigation is the right thing to do ... its like dropping a nuclear weapon and saying let's just deal with the after effects ...
as for the solutions - i asked what things are YOU willing to do that would be uneconomical to you ... obviously, things others are willing to do may not appeal to you but is there something that you would do that would cost you in the long run?
adapting is accepting the consequences when mitigation is the right thing to do ... its like dropping a nuclear weapon and saying let's just deal with the after effects ...
as for the solutions - i asked what things are YOU willing to do that would be uneconomical to you ... obviously, things others are willing to do may not appeal to you but is there something that you would do that would cost you in the long run?
I'm all for a carbon tax and enviro tax applied at the consumer/consumption level. This is no way is of any economic advantage to me but I am still for it. Truthfully there's not much I can think of that I don't do that wouldn't affect me either economically or lifestyle wise.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I'm all for a carbon tax and enviro tax applied at the consumer/consumption level. This is no way is of any economic advantage to me but I am still for it. Truthfully there's not much I can think of that I don't do that wouldn't affect me either economically or lifestyle wise.
exactly!! ... so, tackling this thing is not hard ... so, many things are in place ... mumble jumble about impacts to the economy is a diversionary tactic ...
exactly!! ... so, tackling this thing is not hard ... so, many things are in place ... mumble jumble about impacts to the economy is a diversionary tactic ...
That's not what I've said at all. If Canada stopped using greenhouse producing gas tomorrow what would happen? Would your bus run to get you to work? Would you have heating for your home? How much would Canada be able to produce? Change in any behavior has an economic impact.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
You don't think finding an alternative energy source to oil and implementing it into everyday life will take money?
HELLO. IT'S FOUND AND DEVELOPED.
i've been using solar power for years. i'm no where near the grid. prior i used wind energy. methane burns clean and there's vast frozen deposits all over the world.
where have you been?
HELLO. IT'S FOUND AND DEVELOPED.
i've been using solar power for years. i'm no where near the grid. prior i used wind energy. methane burns clean and there's vast frozen deposits all over the world.
where have you been?
You're right and I am all for an alternative energy source, but it WILL take money. Think about all the consumers that will need to re-buy their automobiles etc. Think about all the jobs lost due to the oil companies folding, the economic impact of that alone is scary.
Don't get me wrong, this needs to be done and not because I think that cars are causing global warming, I don't, but because energy should be cheap for everyone and will eliminate wars over oil etc...but to say it won't cost money to switch over to that system is ridiculous.
“May you live to be 100 and may the last voice you hear be mine.” - Frank Sinatra
tell you what. close yourself in a garage with your running car and in a few hours; come back and tell me how essential those gasses are to your life.
i'll leave a light on.
I just think all of this global warming crap has political ties just like everything else.
In the early 70's it was global cooling.
I remember seeing a commercial in the late 80's that said by the year 2012 there would be no trees left in the Amazon Rainforest. Bunch of crap.
People except all of this stuff as fact. This earth isn't going anywhere and neither is the human race.
Don't get me wrong. It is our responsibility to clean things up, find alternative fuels to make the earth cleaner and less polluted but to use scare tactics isn't the way to go about it.
I have a couple of questions and I am serious about it. If polar ice caps broke off and melted wouldn't there just be water displacement? Like when ice melts in a glass of water, the water level doesn't rise.
And if you look at what one volcano eruption pumps into the atmosphere do we really think we can destroy the atmosphere when nature beats the crap out of herself on a regular basis?
Again, we need to do our part to keep things clean and be responsible but all of the global warming epidimic stuff is political bullshit in my opinion.
Seeing visions of falling up somehow.
Pensacola '94 New Orleans '95 Birmingham '98 New Orleans '00 New Orleans '03 Tampa '08 New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest Fenway Park '18 St. Louis '22
tell you what. close yourself in a garage with your running car and in a few hours; come back and tell me how essential those gasses are to your life.
i'll leave a light on.
:rolleyes:
Tell you what. Eliminate CO2 and see how much oxygen you have left to breathe. I'll leave the light on.
Comments
Then you are right to treat them as murderers. The bolded part of the statement above is very important, however.
A man who digs a hole into which another man jumps is not a murderer.
How about one who covers up the hole knowing that it will be crossed over?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Yes, that man is a murderer, because his actions are directly leading to a murder.
so let's ask some questions.
are you knowledgable enough to know:
1) burning oil products puts CO2 into the atmosphere?
2) burning oil products puts sulfer dioxide into the atmosphere?
3) burning oil products puts CO into the atmosphere?
4) that these gases are fatal to humans and life in general?
if you are intelligent enough to know this and you burn oil products; you are putting poison in my tea and thus you are a murderer.
I'll bet you drive a car...murderer!
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
They aren't fatal "in general".
Yet I do all those things and you continue to live. How odd.
But for how much longer? No one said it was instantaneous.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I could continue doing all those things and onelongsong would never die from them. That's the problem with the faulty logic. It fails the "directly leading" standard.
It's the faulty logic that says this:
which would in turn make breathing itself murder.
The fact remains that emissions do not "in general" lead to murder. In fact, they "in general" lead to the opposite. However, in specific situations they can lead to death. The global warming crowd seems to have no interest in these specific situations.
Those gases are essential to life.
I'm not asking these question to defend doing nothing. These are real questions about how to best use both public and private dollars to address climate change. Much like car drivers have insurance to help them adapt to a car accident, it should not be frowned upon for public dollars to be used to adapt to climate change.
I'm all for an even course of lessening man's impact on climate chaneg and adapting to climate change. The ratio between the spending on the two may be dependant on where you are.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
probably the taliban is to blame. global warming too,.. they won't rest until everyone must suffer to live in barren desert-landscapes and cavernous-mountains with excessively warm beverages.
at least now that saddam is gone we can refocus on killing stuff in afghanistan again!
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
first of all - we're still on opposite sides of the fence as to the cause of climate change ... so, lets just leave that one alone as we've gotten nowhere in 2+ years ...
adapting to climate change means accepting the consequences - those consequences means a significant loss of life - why should we accept loss of life when it is well within our power to stop it from happening ...
again - can you name something that you could do to alleviate climate change that would be not economically beneficial to you?
funny thing is it doesn't take spending. this isn't a problem you can throw money at.
Things that will not economically or socially benefit me; higher density living, limiting downtown access by car, carbon tax. I could go on and on. Now you may turn around and tell me why these things are good for you but that does not mean they are good for me.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
adapting is accepting the consequences when mitigation is the right thing to do ... its like dropping a nuclear weapon and saying let's just deal with the after effects ...
as for the solutions - i asked what things are YOU willing to do that would be uneconomical to you ... obviously, things others are willing to do may not appeal to you but is there something that you would do that would cost you in the long run?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
exactly!! ... so, tackling this thing is not hard ... so, many things are in place ... mumble jumble about impacts to the economy is a diversionary tactic ...
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
HELLO. IT'S FOUND AND DEVELOPED.
i've been using solar power for years. i'm no where near the grid. prior i used wind energy. methane burns clean and there's vast frozen deposits all over the world.
where have you been?
You're right and I am all for an alternative energy source, but it WILL take money. Think about all the consumers that will need to re-buy their automobiles etc. Think about all the jobs lost due to the oil companies folding, the economic impact of that alone is scary.
Don't get me wrong, this needs to be done and not because I think that cars are causing global warming, I don't, but because energy should be cheap for everyone and will eliminate wars over oil etc...but to say it won't cost money to switch over to that system is ridiculous.
tell you what. close yourself in a garage with your running car and in a few hours; come back and tell me how essential those gasses are to your life.
i'll leave a light on.
In the early 70's it was global cooling.
I remember seeing a commercial in the late 80's that said by the year 2012 there would be no trees left in the Amazon Rainforest. Bunch of crap.
People except all of this stuff as fact. This earth isn't going anywhere and neither is the human race.
Don't get me wrong. It is our responsibility to clean things up, find alternative fuels to make the earth cleaner and less polluted but to use scare tactics isn't the way to go about it.
I have a couple of questions and I am serious about it. If polar ice caps broke off and melted wouldn't there just be water displacement? Like when ice melts in a glass of water, the water level doesn't rise.
And if you look at what one volcano eruption pumps into the atmosphere do we really think we can destroy the atmosphere when nature beats the crap out of herself on a regular basis?
Again, we need to do our part to keep things clean and be responsible but all of the global warming epidimic stuff is political bullshit in my opinion.
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
:rolleyes:
Tell you what. Eliminate CO2 and see how much oxygen you have left to breathe. I'll leave the light on.
Alaska is looking better and better.