Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
All he can do it talk. There is no way he is going to elected. However, his campaign will probably get Hillary elected this time around.
1) He doesn't need to get elected. If all goes well, the Libertarians will be a major party in 2020.
2) People who are voting for Johnson probably were never going to vote for Trump or Clinton anyways. You can't take votes away from a candidate if they were never going to get those votes in the first place. If Hillary wins, Johnson's not at fault; the willful ignorance of the masses towards Clinton's utter incompetence is.
Narland, Kumquat Cove, Rateria, Nova Condealism
I disagree. If Johnson was not in the race those people are not going to stay home. They will vote for someone.
Never forget, a vote for a third party is a vote against your second choice and a vote your worse nightmare does not have to overcome.
Unpopular opinion: governments should act to combat climate change.
The negative externalities resulting from pollution and the destruction of the ozone layer threaten the future of the Earth. And if there's no Earth, then we can't really have libertarianism anyway.
Sure, free-market environmentalism is a thing, but nobody's really talking about strengthening property rights at the moment, so emissions reduction targets, carbon pricing schemes and so forth may be more big government than we'd like, but still preferable to no action at all.
New Jaslandia, Rateria, Teuberland, Nova Condealism
Agreed, though I'd consider the use of a coercive entity to combat the world's largest example of the tragedy of the commons more of a last resort. I'd like to see the proof that a government can successfully slow, halt, or reverse the effects of pollution; right now, though, it sounds like they're shoveling money into the pockets of multinational entities with no such motive.
Pevvania, Rateria
Let's dispense with the ludicrous notion that Trump was ever going to accumulate more votes than Clinton, regardless of what the third parties do.
The latest polls are showing that motion to be not nearly as ludicrous as once thought.
If Climate Change f/k/a Global Warming is a scientific fact, I might agree with you. But so far the only certain thing we know for sure about climate change studies are the climate scientists got caught screwing around with the data, not once, not twice, but three times that we know of. The people in Europe so thoroughly screwed around around with the numbers, the original raw data is not lost forever.
Seriously, If man made climate change was a real thing, they wouldn't have to cook the books. This is what happens when religion or politics contaminates science.
Part of the reason for that reluctance to do a real unbiased study on the matter is the number of carbon and greenhouse gas abatement patents held by the very universities pushing the fraud on us. Check it out, Google "Universities holding carbon emissions patents" and start counting. (It gets even better if you look for green house gas emissions.) The very people selling us this garbage are turning some significant coin on perpetuation the myth. There is no way in a really hot place they are going to say, "Uhm... We might have screwed up here..."
Why do you think the name was changed from Global Warming to Climate Change?
Last I heard, it was hotter when Jesus walked the earth then it is now. Must have been all those Roman Troops running around in SUV's.
The government needs to let the people make their own decisions until some non-political research shows us people are making a significant change in the environment. No law made in the name of Global Warming f/k/a Climate Change should be allowed to stand.
Fun fact: When the Vikings came to the New World, they settled in Greenland, and grew corn for sustenance.
It's, uh, too cold to grow corn in Greenland nowadays.
The Ambassador To The Clfr
**The ambassador erases the word "not" between "is" and "lost" below...**
You know, I feel like this is something I should know, but I will unashamedly ask you all anyway in hopes that you may be able to explain.
Why can't the United States get a good presidential candidate? Beyond even the two party system issues, there's something else going on.
I know there are more rational politicians out there on both the D and the R sides.
Why do we always seem to end up with the absolute worst scum as our options when it comes to the presidential elections?
What causes that?
Miencraft, Kumquat Cove, Nova Condealism
That job equals power. Perhaps the most power available to one person in this nation. That attracts a fair amount of lunatics. It is often said that to want that job is one of the early warning signs of insanity.
Many people can have the drive to want that job and not be insane. Both President Bush's were gentlemen and humble all the way through their stints in the hot seat.
But of those people that are qualified, very few are willing to put up with the virtual rape at the hands of a news media that long ago stopped being journalists. For a time, the man that turned Chrysler around after near bankruptcy, Lee Iacocca, was courted for the top job. His response to reporters was, "Why would I do that? Why would I want you guys crawling through my closet full of skeletons trying turn up every last person that has something bad to say about me? I don't need that grief in my life."
And that sums it. To get the top job in this nation is a little like entering a reality TV contest where there is only one winner. It takes a certain kind of mindset to subject oneself to that kind of abuse. The same mindset you see in participants on reality TV shows.
Miencraft, Rateria, Nova Condealism
He might be leading in the polls, but he has some unforgivable disadvantages in the electoral college. The fact that Hillary is polling competitively in traditionally mega-Republican states like Texas and North Carolina is disgraceful, and shows just how weak Trump's support base is. He'll need to win the white vote overwhelmingly if he's to have a chance at winning. Hillary has already secured the black, Hispanic, youth, and women votes. If Obama's electoral victories have taught us anything, it's that a strong coalition of women and minorities is enough to overcome majority white support for the Republicans. Trump's brand simply does not appeal to enough people.
New Jaslandia, Rateria, Nova Condealism
It really does suck. Since the 90s, the Democrats have often nominated statist snake oil salesmen who are very good at making a pitch, while the Republicans nominate candidates who are both awkward and lacking constitutional principles. The GOP is still fighting the culture war, which turns off entire subsets of the electorate. The Democrats may have horrible policies, but they are very, very good salesmen and have worked hard to build an 'inclusive' image. Never mind the fact that their economic policies have worsened inner city black communities considerably, or that Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any other president in history, or that poor people are adversely affected by minimum wage laws. The Democrats are extremely good salesmen, which is why they've won the popular vote in all but one presidential election since 1992.
The GOP needs a leader that can both communicate well and adopt a more libertarian platform if it wants to have any chance with a generation that's tired of wars, is tolerant of different lifestyles and frustrated with runaway government spending and taxation.
Miencraft, The Ambassador To The Clfr, Rateria, Nova Condealism
As someone who is going into physical sciences for a profession, I find this debate is ridiculous.
The debate of hypotheses is fundamental to the progression of science. And when reliable and repeatable data doesn't support said hypotheses they must be abandoned.
"Climate change" activist have gone from: There is global cooling! to There is global warming! and finally now , Well the climate is changing.
And thats a clever word play. Because no atmospheric scientist has ever disputed the claim that the climate has, will, and is changing.
But if you claim that there is catastrophic man-made climate change then you get disagreement. Mass disagreement. Now I'm sure you're saying: "But Patriots 97% of scientist agree that there is man-made global warming!"
If you said that I'm so sorry for you.
Firstly, science is dictated by repeatable observations and experimentation. Not by the "consensus of "scientists".
Secondly, the 97% comes from a 2013 "study" by an Australia blogger (and some friends) went through abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991-2011. They reported that 97% of those who explicitly or implicitly(and that's a malleable term) stated a position suggested that man is responsible for some warming. David R. Legates--who is a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research-- reviewed the same papers as Cook(the blogger) did. He found that only 41 papers0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percenthad been found to endorse the claim that man is responsible for climate warming.
Side note: climate scientists Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv, Nils- Axel Morner, and others whose research questions the alleged consensus, claimed that Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.
Thirdly, there has been no(thats right. zero, zilch, zip, nada) "significant warming" in the past 18 years. according to actual satellite data. Instead of admitting that they are wrong and their models where crap. Climate change activist name this the "pause" as if the earth just decided to stop warming and they were perfectly right before (hint: they weren't).
Fourthly: In a paper published by the CATO institute (if you're interested: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-35_2.pdf) stated that:
Everyone by now is familiar with the pause or slowdown in the rate of global warming that has taken place over the past 20 years of so, but few realize is that the observed warming rate has been beneath the model mean expectation for periods extending back to the mid-20th century60+ years, in other words there models have been wrong for SIX DECADES.
Fifthly: NOAA has been caught lowering recorded data from past records to make it appear as if the earth is warming more that it is supposed to be. No this isn't me saying this, its 300 Scientists( over half of which have PHD's in atmospheric science, so in other words actual scientists) sent signed letters to NOAA and the appropriate house committee expressing their distaste of post de facto alteration of data (List of those scientist: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/300_signatories.pdf)
Side note: in addition to the PHD's one signer was a Nobel Prize winning physicist and two were astronauts.
I could keep going, like for days, on the evidences that debunk what you're being told about climate change. Like did you know we are technically in an ice age and the ice sheets are growing by billions of ton per year(according to NASA paper released in October 2015)
But for the sake of argument you could believe that:
1.The earth is under going global warming
2.That man is the primary cause
3.That it will have catastrophic results
But you would still have to believe in addition to these that Government is the only entity competent enough to fix said warming.
I don't know about you but I have my doubts.
-Patriots
Post script: Sorry for long post but I had to comment on this. Also I tried to break it up in to paragraphs I know it only kinda worked but meh.
Miencraft, The Ambassador To The Clfr, Kumquat Cove, Shirayuki Mizore
Also, I'd like to point out that carbon dioxide doesn't even make up five percent of a percent of the Earth's atmosphere. Water itself is actually responsible for more of any kind of mass temperature changes.
And that the oft-cited hockey stick graph does not include the medieval warming period or the intense cold period of the 17th century that nearly ruined the Pilgrims.
And also that "climate change" is literally just weather. So by fighting climate change, you're basically saying "weather is bad, let's take the Earth out of its orbit so that we don't have any more."
The United States Of Patriots
Oh and when I say "does not include", I mean it specifically ignores. Like, they just tossed the idea of them out.
The United States Of Patriots
It's actually earth 23 degree tilt that causes seasons. But, arguing against myself here, you did say weather. And if we deorbited, and became an awesomely named rouge planet, without the sun to warm us we would have no (or at least minimal) weather
The Ambassador To The Clfr
There's also the problem of how humans would cease to exist.
Though I guess that is the end goal of a lot of this nonsense anyways, so I guess it's not a problem?
Rateria, The United States Of Patriots
Utah too, though on the bright side 15% of Utahans support Gary Johnson. I believe his campaign head quarters are here actually.
Also a Provo native McMullin is polling between 4-5% and 10% of the electorate says they might stay home or just vote down ballot.
Which if you do the math is
15% for Johnson 85% remaining
4% for McMullin 81% remaining
35% for Trump and Clinton (in margin of error) 11% remaining
5% have taken Ambien in the bath tub 6% remaining
3% have hung themselfs 3% remaining
3% are leaving their car running in a closed garage.
New Jaslandia
The Regional Community News Issue #42 is out!
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=635408
For a good laugh today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swxQOb-IVlE
New Jaslandia
I was thinking about something, how much of the trump-libertarians believe that supporting him is the only way to clear a path for liberty in the future by putting down the cultural marxists.
Here's the problem
After that libertarians are going to have to then, combat the alt-right (which in my opinion have just bad as the statism found in cultural marxism and likewise is built on complete pseudo-science)
From your mouth to God's ears. But the hardliners in the party from the anti-abortion foes to anti-gun control people will not back off far enough to permit. As someone that firmly supports the Second Amendment I know I would be hard pressed to nominate anyone even remotely interested in compromise on gun rights.
I wish I'd written that.
No problem here.
Pevvania, The United States Of Patriots
Give it a few decades and greenland will be the new tropical paradise! :)
Well, actually, no.
My point was that the global trend is that it's getting colder.
Lol.
Well i wouldn't mind that...
Im tired of it being 90 degrees every day...
Also, when I say that the global trend is cooling, I mean that the context is this:
Remember when I brought up the vikings growing corn in Greenland?
Earth was two degrees warmer than now.
It cooled down an average total of two degrees in eleven hundred years.
It's gonna be hot if it's gonna be hot. It's gonna be cold if it's gonna be cold. That's how weather works.
The Ambassador To The Clfr, The United States Of Patriots
Which would you prefer?
It seems to me that it isn't the Earth, as a whole, that's changing in temperature, so much as it is certain spots. The ice caps seem to be colder now than they've been in awhile, but a lot of places across the United States have been reporting some of the highest temperatures on record over the course of the past year and a half. Even if that's just the urban heat island effect at work (the liberals' favored global-warming-bias tactic), even that's egregiously more pronounced now that at any other point in human history.
One thing's for sure; none of us should be planning to risk the well-being of the next generation, or those after it, on the hunches and/or profit margins of the previous. No matter the extent of humanity's effect on the climate, solutions for sustaining a habitable one well into the future are worth investigation at the very least.
Rateria
Well, yeah, there's that, too, but I just kinda simplified it quite a bit.
But, the point remains that no matter how hard we try, humanity will never be able to destroy the planet. We can try to make it all nice, but in the end we're too significant to have any major impact.
Also we should bring back DDT and nuclear energy is the way to go.
The Ambassador To The Clfr
As much as I'd like to believe that, I'm not entirely convinced.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not of the belief that our doom is right around the corner or anything like that, but we as a species seem to have a talent for destruction that only becomes more adept over time.
New Jaslandia, Rateria, Teuberland, Nova Condealism
That's quite true. Thing is, though, humanity's a lot more fragile than the planet.
Miencraft, New Jaslandia, Kumquat Cove, Rateria
We're really good at destroying other humans. So,
we're just going to end up exterminating ourselves long before we actually manage to do anything to Earth itself.
Contrariwise, whatever effect pollution has on the environment could very well end up harming us most of all. We can't assume that consequences won't follow our extravagance.
Cold. You can dress for the cold. You cannot dress for the hot. Well, ok. You can. But dressing for the hot leads to cops, bookings, other detainees looking at you, bail, court...
No one should be having to pay higher utility rates, higher shipping rates or anything else based on a fraud.
We cannot go back to the preindustrial age on a fantasy. Give us real numbers, then we can talk.
i just want to sue polluters for polluting private property
that's how you fix global warming/climate change/bullsh1t
I'm ordering RMB silence until 11 AM Eastern (20 minutes) in remembrance of the three successful terrorist attacks fifteen years ago, and in honor of the heroes who forced the hijackers of Flight 93 to bring that plane down in a field, instead of in its intended target.
New Jaslandia, Humpheria, The Ambassador To The Clfr, Rateria, Teuberland
Evidently 20 minutes is not a lot of time. If I had woken up earlier it'd be longer.
Oh well.
Humpheria, Teuberland
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iy2L9VeUfc
For me it was both moving and disturbing. It brought back many memories I thought were dead and buried. But it is a fitting tribute on the 15th anniversary of this dark day.
Miencraft
Fun fact: my sister edited that.
Also not cool that that channel stole it
The Ambassador To The Clfr, Kumquat Cove
One of the things that saddens me the most is the distance that my generation has from the attacks on 9/11.
I'm on the edge of when people can remember it or not; It being my earliest memory.
I see that people (of my age and younger) are starting to view it more as we view pearl harbor. A historic event rather than an attack that still threatens us.
Miencraft, New Jaslandia, The Ambassador To The Clfr, Teuberland
I'm just making a little recognition that y'all don't really seem to recognise and commemorate non-American memorial days. 7/7, 11/11, to name 2 of the most prominent ones recognised in my home nation, Great Britain.
Maybe in 2 months, we could observe this lengthy RMB silence before 11am GMT when armistice day comes, on November the 11th.
Just as a sign of respect.
Miencraft, Kumquat Cove, The United States Of Patriots, Nova Condealism
fixed
Kumquat Cove
It's not so much as an attack that still threatens us, but an existing fact of life. We live in an age where terror is possible, at least in the public conscience. That isn't changing anytime soon. We know it threatens us, but we can't let that scare us. Just as before, we have to live day-to-day until we die, probably from heart disease or cancer, but maybe by terrorist attack (paraphrased a la Rick and Morty).
It's like Pearl Harbor to me, because I was watching Blues Clues or something like that while my mom watched the news. I'm still well aware, however, that the world is a different place; that once upon a time, you could walk into the airport terminal to wait for family and friends, but nowadays TSA inspection lines are all but omnipresent in the public's imagination of airports. Things like that.
In another sense, nothing has changed. There will be more 9/11s, just as there will be more Tenerifes (the deadliest airplane collision was indirectly influenced after Canarian rebels took the islands' main airport), and so on.
TL;DR: the world keeps on turning. History repeats itself. So on and so on.
Miencraft, New Jaslandia, Kumquat Cove, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Nova Condealism
Your sister has my undying respect. The people that stole it suck.
I'll never forget it. Starting fifteen years ago tonight, I spent the next six weeks in lower Manhattan making sure the rest of the world could see what was going on at ground zero at the time.
Kumquat Cove, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots
In the US we have a day very similar to Armistice Day.
And while I fully agree that those who lost their lives in the London Bombings should be memorialized. The reason the 9/11 attacks are focused on more is both the impact around the world and the death toll.
The London Bombings in all its horror claimed 52 lives. Every one of which should be remembered.
Even so the attacks on September eleventh claimed 2977. The single most lives lost in a terrorist attack in all of recorded history. Many of which people watched in real time.
This in no way is meant to or does minimizes the 7/7 Bombings.
I only mean to say that the magnitude of the event is such that it lays claim to more attention.
I hope you understand what I mean.
Remember building 7? Pepperidge farm remembers.
Kumquat Cove
Stole it?. Ouch that stinks. Thanks for setting the record straight.
And Kudos to your sister, she did a great job :)
I don't have real numbers, but I just found out today that one of my favorite webcomic authors might. Give this a look: http://xkcd.com/1732/
https://youtu.be/ffjIyms1BX4
Nova Condealism
Neat video. I liked the follow-up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2euBvdP28c
Call me old fashioned but I happen to trust scientific papers, unaltered data, and climatologists more than a pbs youtube video.
Also the comments on that video are pretty revealing. People use the language of religion to describe this, words like denier.
Too many of the people who are pushing the agenda of climate change have absolutely no basis in science while they smear anyone who *dare* disagree with them as knuckle dragging rubes.
And all this while they claim a false sense of moral superiority.
I am not accusing you of any of these.
And I encourage you to do your own research. As I am confident that when you search primary sources you will find that the claim of modern environmentalist are absolute BS.
No hard feelings I hope.
-Patriots
Miencraft, Narland, The Ambassador To The Clfr
Post self-deleted by The United States Of Patriots.
I should say modern mainstream environmentalism. As no one denies Climate change in the sense of the word. As every one knows about the variance in climate from the Precambrian to Jurassic to to Quaternary eras.
The question is both rapid, catastrophic, and man-made climate change.
Post self-deleted by Cyborgs And Sentient Machines.
Methinks you didn't look at the sources in the description....
This one.(Note. one of the links didn't work for me when I looked through the sources)
https://youtu.be/OWXoRSIxyIU
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
http://www.sis-group.org.uk/news/corn-barley-greenland.htm
>linking wiki
And?
Would you rather spend more that 3 hours reading all of the articles in the search below?
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=medieval+warm+period&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjE0qv0mY3PAhXDJ8AKHTqqAwAQgQMIGTAA
Nah. I have no horse in this race, so I literally couldn't care less.
I'm just messing with you for linking wiki 'cause I have nothing better to do, and I constantly spot errors on that site, so it's funny that you would link it when having a debate.
Hey I've been making flags for a few people in Conservative League and decided to offer to people in other regions. Just telegram me the details!
Rateria, Teuberland
I did in fact read the sources and the sources are dubious at best.
In fact I will go through them one at a time:
1. "~70% of solar energy that hits Earth is absorbed and re-emitted, some of it trapped by greenhouse gases"
The source for this is http://academic.evergreen.edu/z/zita/articles/climate/ModernGCC03KarlTrenberth.pdf
This source is from 2003 and there are more recent academic papers that contradict the findings. It is also now known that NOAA has post de facto changed historical temperature to make it appear hotter today.
2. "Without greenhouse effect, Earth would be ~33˚C colder" This source doesn't exist anymore, Think about that. One of the sources that they used for their video got deleted.
3. "CO2 levels have increased 40% since Industrial Revolution" the source for this is http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ghg/documents/GHG_Bulletin_10_Nov2014_EN.pdf
This paper is irrelevant to the topic at hand. It is more focused on oceanic acidification as a result of CH4 rather than the impact of CO2 on the climate. Also this data is from 2013 Again we have more current information.
4. "Solar activity and temperature show opposite trends in recent decades" Two sources for this one: http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Lockwood2007_Recent_oppositely_directed_trends.pdf, http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Second source is not an academic paper and has an open agenda. First sources is summed up great by its first sentence "There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earths pre-industrial climate
and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half
of the last century" in other words the industrial revolution in all its CO2 polluting glory didn't affect the climate change trends.
5. "The lower atmosphere is warming while the upper atmosphere is cooling" Both of these sources use NOAA data which has been proved to be erroneous. Also neither of them supply any evidence that warming is the result of mankind activities
6. "Humans have added 2,000 gigatons of CO2 to atmosphere since 1870, and 40% has stayed there" okay this is pointless because that may sound like a lot but compare that number to the amount nature has added and its minuscule.
7. "CO2 levels havent been this high (>400 ppm) since before humans existed" Let's extrapolate on this logic that means that CO2 levels HAVE been this high before and that was with out human interference. So what is there to prove that global CO2 rise this time is related to humans? Also it was been proven that geography is what caused major climate cooling when the isthmuses cut off equatorial ocean currents.
8. "Earth is warming ~10X faster than at end of an Ice Age" This is erroneous by itself we ARE IN AN ICE AGE. So that assertion can't be true by the very definition. Also again this is using NOAAs faulty numbers
9. "Carbon isotopes tell us that increased CO2 is coming from burning fossil fuels" This source contains no sources... and it is not a primary source itself this is an "education" page. Judging by the way I was taught history in school I doubt this is very sound either.
10."Volcanoes are not the source of modern climate change" See above
11."Carbon sinks and carbon sources are out of balance" this source is from 2007 and is from a highly politicized group.
Look I could keep going but this is growing tiresome.
Also fun fact the majority of the sources are from a .gov site.
Miencraft, Narland, The Ambassador To The Clfr
His point is that using a wiki anything as a source for an argument is a formal fallacy
Post self-deleted by Narland.
Post self-deleted by Narland.
A few thousand years ago there was a mile of ice over what is now Chicago, and what is now Florida had 3x the real estate. It is generally cooler at 5 AM than 5 PM sans the extreme latitudes. Climate change is natural.
Words mean things. I think that using a term we all can agree on is going to end up biting the religiose statists on their globally warmed backsides. Yes the climate changes--no, I am not surrendering my rights, privileges, and immunities as a free human being to the shackles of tyranny formed from the mental anguish of your mind.
Miencraft, The United States Of Patriots
Also, Wikipedia is like a box of chocolates--the tidbits you want are few; you have to search inside it for a long time to find what you are looking for, and what is easily found gives off a strange admixture of sensations.
The Ambassador To The Clfr
I find that Wikipedia is best used in order to gain a basic understanding of a topic with which you are completely unfamiliar. You know, like an actual encyclopedia.
And then, if you wish to research said topic more deeply you look into more accurate sources afterwards.
Wikipedia is to knowledge what soundbites are to news, in my opinion.
New Jaslandia
How about a corporate logo?
I'm messin' with a route on Trainz Simulator named Illinois & Southern. I'm looking for a circular logo with two parallel lines cutting through it to make room for the abbreviation I & S, with the inner rim of the top saying "ILLINOIS", the remaining space between the rim and top line saying "AND," the bottom rim saying "SOUTHERN," and the remaining space there saying "RWY."
Don't worry about the color of the logo. I'm planning on recoloring it in alternate shades of yellow, green, and white.
Thanks!
1.
Citation please.
2.
I already said one of the sources didn't work.
3.
No, it isn't irrelevant, just because it may be more focused on the affects of the environment, doesn't mean you get to throw all the data showing the increase in CO2 into the bin.
4
No, no no and no.
Just because you don't like someone, doesn't mean you get to throw all their data out the window.
The sun affected climate =/= nothing except for the sun affected the climate.
Now even if only the sun contributed to the industrial age climate doesn't mean the same holds true for today.
Look, I don't care whether or not any one of you believes that humans are or aren't a major contributing factor to climate change. I don't care about your opinions on various sources or whose Kool-Aid you're drinking. I don't care if you're a conspiracy theorist who believes Al Gore is trying to take over the world. And I don't care if you think carbon emissions will turn Earth into a literal fireball at some point in the next hundred years.
What I do care about is the scientific consensus on the uncertainty surrounding the Earth's environment. Contrary to public opinion, experts are generally in agreement over the known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns surrounding climate change, and this data, taken as a whole, indicates that human activity may be negatively affecting our climate. This doesn't mean we should do nothing. This doesn't mean we should do everything. It means we should take rational, reasonable, voluntary measures to reduce pollution and eliminate negative climate-related externalities instead of retreating to our usual apathy; we ought to mitigate potential environmental damage now in order to better ensure we don't end up performing damage control later.
New Jaslandia
ROFL!!!
Seriously, [nation=short]Nova Condealism[/nation], "may be" is not a good reason to infringe on property rights and cost a lot of people a lot of money. Frankly it sounds a little paranoid. You posted lots of references, all of which have a pro climate change dog in the fight. Now then, can you address the occasions where environmental scientists were caught screwing around with the numbers and why that screwing around with the numbers is necessary if the science proves your beliefs?
[nation=short]Cyborgs And Sentient Machines[/nation], you are arguing dogma with a religious zealot that sincerely believes his God is going to punish all of man for man's misdeeds. Logic, references and common sense are will simply result in hysterical, fire and brimstone, world's going to end rebuttals. (See above.)
Miencraft
You've either neglected to read or failed to comprehend my statement. I am advocating neither the infringement of property rights nor the involuntary loss of profit; even without the use of coercion, there are still several things we can do to change the answer to this big "are humans causing this" question from a highly pessimistic "maybe" to a definite "no." If there's even the smallest likelihood that any voluntary actions on our part could better secure the human race against potential environmental threats from now until the distant future, I'd say those actions would be worth it.
Speaking as more of a budding politician than a budding scientist, it's not the numbers that concern me (though some of the grimmer projections are quite sobering) so much as it is the whole "I don't care about the future", "I've got mine" attitude that has pervaded our culture for so long.
Miencraft, New Jaslandia
If you were paying attention at all you would've noticed that is what I did.
To me it looks like a total straw man.
If you are a religious zealot that is your prerogative, it isn't relevant to the topic, if this is meant to be a metaphor well, I've missed it.
Now after cutting out the strawman..
Citation please.
Also, even if a few scientists screwed with their data, that has no impact on all the other data.
For personal use. As in when you're reading and notice a side topic mentioned that you're unfamiliar with.
It has no place in a debate.
Miencraft
Meanwhile, in the Senate....
9 days ago: Libertitad ceased to exist.
In other news, I'm a do-nothing Senator
New Jaslandia
The best kind.
New Jaslandia, The United States Of Patriots
I was not debating whether or not Vikings were in Greenland, pay attention please?
Yeah nothing's really happening anyways.
I am very confused by how you think this is the point.
The point is that Wikipedia is for people to use to gain a basic understanding of things with which they are not familiar. Wikipedia does not constitute a source in an argument. It would, however, be perfectly fine to look something up on Wikipedia that someone else mentions and you don't know anything about, so that you know what it is they're actually talking about.
You must be cheap, you can't pay attention.
Okay, bad pun aside, I was actually doing that, someone brought up how Vikings used to grow corn in Greenland, so I decided to share a Wikipedia page relating to this to let everyone get an understanding of what was happening with the Vikings.
The article was about the medieval warm period, and it was indeed warm, probably warmer than what the Wikipedia graph on the article shows, and after the medieval warm period the Earth cooled down, if you looked you would see the mini ice age which occurred around in and around the 1800s I think, and from there, it warmed back up.
Ah, but, see, you responded to something about the veracity of Wikipedia as a source. It's kind of strange to suddenly bring up the Vikings while Wikipedia is the topic.
I brought them up first, by the way. Cedar forests and all sorts of stuff that can't exist in Greenland anymore has been found up there too.
Just another day in Libertatem
Rateria, The United States Of Patriots
One who fervently follows a dogma with no basis in fact is considered a "zealot." You rants in favor of climate change dogma qualify you under that definition.
No strawmen here. This is all fact.
Not once, not twice, but three times high level leaders from the IPCC have been caught exchanging e-mails on everything from tweaking data, acknowledging Global Warming is a political movement rather than scientific, looked to suppress papers that dispute their dogma, urgent calls to delete damning e-mails, covering their tracks and ways to defeat Freedom of Information Act requests.
That places all the data in question. How many times has the IPCC not been caught paying silly-buggers with the books?
In fact, actual data supporting man made climate change is so thin, climate change pushers even encouraged attorney generals to go after their critics using the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Seriously, if Global Warming... err, I meant Climate Change (forgot they had to change the name so their narrative would not look so silly) science is solid enough to cost this nation billions to go green, why to they need to screw around with the numbers, hide their research and intimidate their critics?
Here you go, enlighten yourself:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/15/climate-skeptic-rico-pushers-tried-to-hide-records/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/two-can-play-at-climate-fraud-1466373891
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/20/warming-lull-since-18-haunts-climate-change-authors.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/11/29/climategate-ii-more-smoking-guns-from-the-global-warming-establishment/#2fa1ddba3a6b
Miencraft, The United States Of Patriots
You know what's weird,
We are starting to see the political shift with the millennial/90s generation: where it was liberals vs conservatives to cultural marxists vs Alt-righters. They seem to sprout from people being disgruntled with today's politics and now are taking more extreme views to counter act the other and get the piece of the political power pie.
Miencraft, Rateria, Nova Condealism
I'm sorry, I don't actually have that much time, I WILL take another look at this, and hopefully read everything, however, one of them requires a subscription to read, so I can't reply to it.
So in order to actually respond, here is something which should hopefully set it clear.
I know this is not exactly satisfactory, so I apologies in advance, but is what will have to do.
https://youtu.be/OWXoRSIxyIU
https://youtu.be/7nnVQ2fROOg?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
https://youtu.be/uXesBhYwdRo?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
Also I encourage everyone to have a quick look through this playlist below:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
I found it very informative
https://youtu.be/OJ6Z04VJDco?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
This is also probably relevant.
What about the un-doer senators? We need a few of those in the US right now
The Ambassador To The Clfr
Good grief....
Couple of things. I don't have time for YouTube videos. Anyone can make a YouTube video. Heck, I've even got a youtube channel. And who is "potholer54?"
Not interested. Find me vetted sources without a dog in the fight.
The United States Of Patriots
If you looked at his about on YouTube you would see.
Watching a YouTube video should take no more time than reading articles.
Or reading text off of NS.
I could equally claim I don't have time for fox news, but that would be dismissing something before even looking at it, which is what you just did.
I disagree. Profusely.
The United States Of Patriots
I take it that you agree with the brilliant Elon Musk then?
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.