Seriously? You are comparing abortions to the systematic, industrial mass murder of Jews, gays and gypsies by one of the vilest regimes in human history. Do you have any clue how incredibly offensive that statement is? Well, what am I saying, of course you don't have a clue or else you wouldn't have made such a terrible comparison.

Who made THAT comparison?

Just another silly/unthinking example of erecting a 'Straw Dog', and then knocking it down.

First, if you look at the demographics of what's happening at Planned Parenthood, and second if you look at the numbers, you'll see numbers larger than the numbers produced by Hitler's holocaust. And I mean 10X larger.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Seriously? You are comparing abortions to the systematic, industrial mass murder of Jews, gays and gypsies by one of the vilest regimes in human history. Do you have any clue how incredibly offensive that statement is? Well, what am I saying, of course you don't have a clue or else you wouldn't have made such a terrible comparison.

Who made THAT comparison?

Guy made that comparison.

Until we figure out what to do with nuclear waste I say we should be cautious. The navy certainly has not figured that out. Of the rest of the problems they seem to be pretty good but that may be because their reactors are somewhat small.

As much as the Libertarian in me hates most Government regulation, I'd be perfectly OK with an edict stating that all nuclear energy creating companies are required to safely store their nuclear byproduct, then every 5-10 years are required to jettison the waste into Sol. Of course this would cost real money, and the cost would be passed along to the customer, but I think it is a viable solution to the problem.

Until the rocket carrying the waste up explodes 30 seconds after launch, dumping all the toxic waste right into the upper atmosphere. On top of that, doing that instantly makes nuclear energy so expensive it drives all nuclear energy providers out of business. Unless of course, that is exactly what you want.

Seriously? You are comparing abortions to the systematic, industrial mass murder of Jews, gays and gypsies by one of the vilest regimes in human history. Do you have any clue how incredibly offensive that statement is? Well, what am I saying, of course you don't have a clue or else you wouldn't have made such a terrible comparison.

It seems he is. Guy is a master of non-sequitur comparisons.

I remember being shouted down a couple of years ago when i suggested that charities should provide free vasectomies to poor Africans alongside their aid packages of grain etc. Surely preventing excess people from being born is a better option than having them starve to death. But no, apparently that was infringing human rights, i'm a fascist, i want to kill all Africans, etc.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Until we figure out what to do with nuclear waste I say we should be cautious. The navy certainly has not figured that out. Of the rest of the problems they seem to be pretty good but that may be because their reactors are somewhat small.

As much as the Libertarian in me hates most Government regulation, I'd be perfectly OK with an edict stating that all nuclear energy creating companies are required to safely store their nuclear byproduct, then every 5-10 years are required to jettison the waste into Sol. Of course this would cost real money, and the cost would be passed along to the customer, but I think it is a viable solution to the problem.

It may be helpful to be mindful of who is saying what before we cast a large blanket on the whole of a profession and accuse them all of being guilty of our own misunderstandings or misgivings.

I certainly won't defend all the over-emotional doomsayers, but I will defend observable, scientific fact.

Who knows where it starts? Todays article claims to be quoting two scientific reports. It also claims to quote a 1978 scientist where the word disaster is used. Are these the words of the reporter or in the source reports?

Frequently they are the words of the reporter, and as such are limited to the reporter's grasp of the topic at hand and their own biases and political leanings or just looking for a sensational story to boost their readership (and their income).

I have trouble understanding why a 10' rise over....say 150 years could be a disaster. A nuisance perhaps, but certainly something mankind can work around (assuming we last that long).

In brief, a 10' rise may not seem like much, but it certainly can be enough to offset the delicate balance of nature. It's like asking "What good is a desert and who cares if we get rid of them by planting all sorts of flora to help offset the cutting of the rainforests?"

If we got to the moon in ~65 years of flight, surely we can solve this problem before it becomes a disaster.

Well, possibly. That's why there's all the reports from the scientists trying to tell everyone of the situation. In order to solve the problem, real money needs to be spent to take action. If they can't gain the trust of the laymen to vote with their money to take care of the problem (in other words, if people keep refusing to believe there's a problem), then there can be nothing to pay for the research or help develop the answer.

I agree with you on nuclear power. The USN has been using it safely for many years. It's not without its problems, but I have doubt that they can be solved. My son is a nuclear engineer working for the Navy. Not that it means anything here.....just an aside.

I also think Obama should immediately approve the Keystone pipeline from Canada. I'd rather do business with our Canuckle-head friends to the north than the terrorist regimes in the Middle East.

And I, of course, think bigotry of low expectation is wrong. In this case, we have a very sexist remark which is allowed to stand for reasons which are misguided.

Free contraception and abortion is being encouraged by one of our richest activists: George Soros. He has apparantly given $1.2 BILLION to PLANNED PARENTHOOD. Now, I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to do with his money what he wants to do with it. He can contribute what ever of *his* money to whomever he wants.

George Soros is encouraging something, which if you look into it a bit further you will see some rather shocking information. First, if you look at the demographics of what's happening at Planned Parenthood, and second if you look at the numbers, you'll see numbers larger than the numbers produced by Hitler's holocaust. And I mean 10X larger.

But this is what liberalism produces and liberalism is winning these days.

----------------

Server message: Your request to waive the 2,000 post limit rule has been temporarily granted.

Seriously? You are comparing abortions to the systematic, industrial mass murder of Jews, gays and gypsies by one of the vilest regimes in human history. Do you have any clue how incredibly offensive that statement is? Well, what am I saying, of course you don't have a clue or else you wouldn't have made such a terrible comparison.

The problem is the so called solution may be worse than the so called problem. I have to return a defective lithium battery I bought for a vehicle. I well have to sign a document, a very technical document, stating what is listed is true and if it isn't I could go to jail. How am I supposed to know if what the seller told me is true? That is the easiest of the 20 thing to comply with to ship it. These new batteries are light and can go a long way BUT they apparently are so dangerous one should not recharge them near anything that can burn.

Until we figure out what to do with nuclear waste I say we should be cautious. The navy certainly has not figured that out.

Disposal is the problem of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

---

Until we figure out what to do with nuclear waste I say we should be cautious. The navy certainly has not figured that out. Of the rest of the problems they seem to be pretty good but that may be because their reactors are somewhat small.

---

It may be helpful to be mindful of who is saying what before we cast a large blanket on the whole of a profession and accuse them all of being guilty of our own misunderstandings or misgivings.

I certainly won't defend all the over-emotional doomsayers, but I will defend observable, scientific fact.

Who knows where it starts? Todays article claims to be quoting two scientific reports. It also claims to quote a 1978 scientist where the word disaster is used. Are these the words of the reporter or in the source reports? I have trouble understanding why a 10' rise over....say 150 years could be a disaster. A nuisance perhaps, but certainly something mankind can work around (assuming we last that long). If we got to the moon in ~65 years of flight, surely we can solve this problem before it becomes a disaster.

I agree with you on nuclear power. The USN has been using it safely for many years. It's not without its problems, but I have doubt that they can be solved.
My son is a nuclear engineer working for the Navy. Not that it means anything here.....just an aside.

---

Jack

Yes.... some people tend to over-exaggerate the issues. Again, just because the media seizes upon the worst-case scenarios that some non-scientist spouts and they run with, doesn't mean that scientists as a whole are the ones creating this fear campaign. ...

Unfortunately, the TV and news media seem to sell sensationalism and The Truth is left as a very poor impoverished afterthought...

Add ferocious Marketing and an uneducated or religiously blinded audience and...


It is amazing that any science is heard at all, let alone believed...


Note that the "pollution = global warming" story has been building the new cycle since the 1960's... And we're still on the upward curve for the pollution.

Can there be an old and grey crusade to act as good stewards to thwart some of the financial and political silliness polluting us all to hell?...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I'm coming up on 75 now. Born in 1940. I have lived my entire life waiting for one disaster or another to happen. Some could have, but didn't, and others were probably impossible so couldn't have, but it scared the crap out of us anyway. It continues to this day. The news media wouldn't exist if the word crisis were outlawed.

No one should have to live their entire life in fear of predicted disasters that never happen.

---

Jack

I'm looking for a middle ground.

Me too!

Let's put our efforts into using it cleanly and wisely. Same with nuclear.

Agreed! Nuclear power can provide far more power than coal or any other source we currently have as long as we use it responsibly.

Right now, there don't seem to be any good alternatives. The electric car is a farce....at least at the present time.

Still agree with you 100%. Switching over from gas to electric only trades one addiction for the other and isn't necessarily better for the environment, especially with all the batteries that will need to be replaced and disposed of!

One thing that is certainly true. Cold perhaps, but true. None of us on this forum will be drastically affected by a rising sea level. We won't live long enough to see it. At least I won't. I'm 74+ and everyday I wake up is a beautiful day. I've lived through many of the wild predictions of the past...most of which did not come true. I say cool it with the crisis atmosphere and deal with the problem as best we can in a calm and sane manner.

Can't say I disagree with anything here either. Panicking and fear mongering won't do anyone any good. However, as the GOP constantly reminds us, punting our financial issues down the road won't solve our debt problem. I think the same applies here; just because we won't be affected by any of this, doesn't mean we shouldn't care.

I'm tired of being "scared" to death by the chicken littles of this world.

So don't be scared. Still, that doesn't mean the information given to you isn't worth doing something about, or at least being aware/conscientious about.

Remember when we were told it would be hundreds if not thousands of years before Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be habitable again?

Remember when we were told if two or three atom bombs were exploded close enough together it would start a chain reaction and destroy the earth?

Yes.... some people tend to over-exaggerate the issues. Again, just because the media seizes upon the worst-case scenarios that some non-scientist spouts and they run with, doesn't mean that scientists as a whole are the ones creating this fear campaign.

People, after awhile, get tired of the hype and exaggerations and sometimes outright lies.

It may be helpful to be mindful of who is saying what before we cast a large blanket on the whole of a profession and accuse them all of being guilty of our own misunderstandings or misgivings.

I certainly won't defend all the over-emotional doomsayers, but I will defend observable, scientific fact.

I'm looking for a middle ground. I'm not willing to go backwards. We have fossil fuels and, it seems it is plentiful in spite of the 50's and 60's predictions. Let's put our efforts into using it cleanly and wisely. Same with nuclear. I see no need to cut it's use especially to the point that it puts hurting on those that need it to survive. Cut the power to your house for a few days and things go South in a hurry. Filling your car at the pump is getting harder and harder for many, so raising the price or (combination of both)cutting production only hurts those that can least afford it.

Right now, there don't seem to be any good alternatives. The electric car is a farce....at least at the present time. It may be helpful for a time, but what happens (in an electric car future) with millions of electric cars on the grid.....a grid that is already loaded to max and in disrepair. The pollution from the exhaust pipe is just moved to a different place. The electricity has to come from somewhere.....and there are always losses when converting from one fuel to another.

One thing that is certainly true. Cold perhaps, but true. None of us on this forum will be drastically affected by a rising sea level. We won't live long enough to see it. At least I won't. I'm 74+ and everyday I wake up is a beautiful day. I've lived through many of the wild predictions of the past...most of which did not come true. I say cool it with the crisis atmosphere and deal with the problem as best we can in a calm and sane manner.

I'm tired of being "scared" to death by the chicken littles of this world.

Remember when we were told it would be hundreds if not thousands of years before Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be habitable again?

Remember when we were told if two or three atom bombs were exploded close enough together it would start a chain reaction and destroy the earth?

People, after awhile, get tired of the hype and exaggerations and sometimes outright lies.

---

Jack

The vast majority believe the earth is only 8000 years old. Is the minority wrong here, too?

Actually... it isn't a "vast" majority that believes the Earth is only 8000 years old. Recent polls put that number down to 1/3 of the world's population, or roughly 46% of Americans, which is still not technically a vast majority, and typically not the most intelligent of the bunch:

Americans with postgraduate education are most likely of all the educational groups to say humans evolved without God's guidance, and least likely to say God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. The creationist viewpoint "wins" among Americans with less than a postgraduate education.

Again, though, the argument isn't about what a vast majority believes... the argument is what a vast majority of experts have reason to believe.

worlds oldest piece of chewed gum :)

The vast majority believe the earth is only 8000 years old. Is the minority wrong here, too?

Actually... it isn't a "vast" majority that believes the Earth is only 8000 years old. Recent polls put that number down to 1/3 of the world's population, or roughly 46% of Americans, which is still not technically a vast majority, and typically not the most intelligent of the bunch:

Americans with postgraduate education are most likely of all the educational groups to say humans evolved without God's guidance, and least likely to say God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. The creationist viewpoint "wins" among Americans with less than a postgraduate education.

Again, though, the argument isn't about what a vast majority believes... the argument is what a vast majority of experts have reason to believe.

The vast majority believe the earth is only 8000 years old. Is the minority wrong here, too?

---

Jack

Why do we think we have to save every living thing on this planet? Some are not meant to continue and maybe our time to leave, to make room for something else, will come, too.

I believe we are as much a part of this planet as that bird in the tree. I believe what happens on this planet due to our presence is also part of the natural cycle, because we are here, naturally. Our minds developed naturally and what we do with our minds is part of a natural cycle.

I believe when we (mankind) leave this planet, it will be our own doing and it likely won't be from climate change.

Yet we possess the intelligence to foresee these problems, and we have an amazing ability to adapt to our environment if we choose. We also have an innate will to survive. If there is a problem and we can do something about it, why not at least try? It sure beats sitting around waiting for an inevitable death by our own hand.

Mind you there are days I'd rather watch the whole human race perish! ;-P lol

Exactly what I'm saying. I believe that IS part of the natural cycle. Doing something is not unnatural. If the sea level is going to rise, then plan for it and adapt.

But if we're doing something to cause that rise, why not try to stop that type of activity? Everything we do that negatively effects our environment also effects every other living creature on the planet. To say that our behavior is natural and that we should just adapt to the damage we've done and not try to care for the planet that nurtures us seems... not very smart. To sit back and call it 'natural' that we mess it up flies against that aforementioned innate will to survive.

Why do we think we have to save every living thing on this planet? Some are not meant to continue and maybe our time to leave, to make room for something else, will come, too.

I believe we are as much a part of this planet as that bird in the tree. I believe what happens on this planet due to our presence is also part of the natural cycle, because we are here, naturally. Our minds developed naturally and what we do with our minds is part of a natural cycle.

I believe when we (mankind) leave this planet, it will be our own doing and it likely won't be from climate change.

Yet we possess the intelligence to foresee these problems, and we have an amazing ability to adapt to our environment if we choose. We also have an innate will to survive. If there is a problem and we can do something about it, why not at least try? It sure beats sitting around waiting for an inevitable death by our own hand.

Mind you there are days I'd rather watch the whole human race perish! ;-P lol

Exactly what I'm saying. I believe that IS part of the natural cycle. Doing something is not unnatural. If the sea level is going to rise, then plan for it and adapt.

---

Jack