bclarkie wrote:Then why hasn't the global warming issue been put to rest yet in the US then?
beasterbrook wrote:I could ask the same question about why Intelligent Design and Evolution are still being "debated" (and I think of the USA when I say that).. the same reason some people think coloured people/women/gay's/asian/old are inferior, the same reason the believe there is a God/s/nothing, the same reason that some poeple beileve that a woman should not be working and only "job" is to look after the home and have childeren..
beasterbrook wrote:Actually what I think is that the data can be interperated so many ways, what data is used etc.. what is considered "facts" etc.. Its not agrued that humans have caused major changes in the environment, what is argued is what those outcome will be and how negative they will be and over what sort of time period.. answers that I'm afraid can't be analysed until sometime after the fact...)
bclarkie wrote:I actually agree whole heartedly with you here. At this point, no one knows for sure, nor is anyone anywhere close as of yet. That of course is part of the issue at hand though since a lot of the people on the side of "it's happening" say that catastrophy might not be far off if they're right. It's pretty much catch 22.
RaisedFromTheDead wrote:Explain to me exactly how ANY political party benefits from global warmig, or even the threat of it. I'm very curious.Research HAS been going on for decades. I've been following it for 2/3 of my life. All that aside, common sense dictates that releasing more greenhouse gases than are naturally reclaimable into the atmosphere produces, yep, you guessed it, a GREENHOUSE EFFECT.Go do some research on what will happen when permafrosts start thawing.
JasonZavoda wrote:So, take over Canada now. We get better beer and the Canadians get a health care system that actually functions.
PaulKM wrote:Our Health care system is functioning adequately, and has done for some time. Americans tend to forget that if one wishes to pay for a higher level of health care in Canada, or your company covers it, you have more options at your disposal. Health insurance companies flourish quite well here. The wealthy still get better, faster, more expansive services, as the wealthy always have and always will. Oh yes...you can take my liberty, take my country, but leave our beer alone! All the best,Paul
deimos3428 wrote:So there's the numbers, and it's readily observable that the USA could do better. Honestly I don't get it. Americans are known world-wide for their competitive spirit, patriotism, and national pride. So why does that spirit go away as soon as the environment is discussed?
bbarsh wrote:Eventually, america will lead the way in energy solutions. But it will be on our terms and in our time frame. And that just pissess people off.
RaisedFromTheDead wrote:I could care less what the Democraps try to use as an excuse for pushing green energy. It should have been pushed decades ago.Again, common sense. Anyone want to expound on what they think happens to the billions of tons of emissions? Do the Emissions Fairies fly around in the atmosphere and eat it all up?Common sense.
JasonZavoda wrote:Common sense says that it takes a vast amount of energy to effect the climate. Have man made energy releases even begun to release the level of energy to effect climate change in any meaningful way?
deimos3428 wrote:Global warming has nothing to do with increased energy output from the sun, nor "energy releases" -- man-made or otherwise. That's not how the greenhouse effect works. Here's a quick primer on how it does work.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effectThere are still people out there that just don't "believe in" the greenhouse effect or think it can be a problem. Well, those people are flat-out incorrect. We know what happens when the greenhouse effect kicks into overdrive, it's observable. Venus, the planet most similar to our own, has this condition.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_VenusThe greenhouse effect is real, it's definitely a problem if that effect increases, and it's well-known what will increase that effect.
Badmike wrote:An example of scientific study that was competely compromised due to money, and one that resulted in terrible consequences:http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/flawed-study-linking-vaccines-to-autism-is-formally-retracted/19349097/Mike B.
SimperingToad wrote:You actually piqued my curiosity on this one, so I looked into it. Dr. Wakefield never stated that the MMR vaccines caused autism. The studies initiated were to determine if factors were present to warrant further research. That's all. Given his findings, he recommended suspending the MMR in favor of the single shots until further study could be conducted.A journalist named Brian Deer made the initial allegation that Dr. Wakefield had linked the MMR to autism, an allegation that the mainstream media picked up like a pack of rabid dogs.Mr. Deer was the complaintant to the GMC, and then followed the progress in his own articles. But it gets better. He was given the task by Paul Nuki, features editor for the paper which Mr. Deer wrote the articles. Mr. Nuki's father, George, was on the Committee for Safety in Medicines which passed the MMR for use in the UK.Mr. Deer works under the auspices of papers owned by James Murdoch (Rupert's son). James was just recently brought onto the Board of GlaxoSmithKline, a manufacturer of MMR vaccines.But wait, there's more. The judge in the case, Nigel Davis, is the brother of GSK board director Sir Crispin Davis, who was also CEO of the Lancet, where Dr. Wakefield's findings were first published.Yes, money was at the heart of this debacle methinks. The money GSK lost when Dr. Wakefield recommended suspending the MMR in favor if single shots until studies to determine safety could be undertaken.Free and independent press my hind end. Do we really think this stuff doesn't happen in other arenas as well? Like say, global warming? (only 'cause that's a... *ahem* 'hot topic' at the moment)
