What happened to global warming?

[Trimdingman]

Most everyone beleives that man has altered the environment. What is up for debate (as it should righfully be) is whether or not that alteration is actually doing anything particularly harmful to the world as a whole. And if it is harmful, is there anything we can honestly do to change our actions that will make a difference big enough without putting us back in the stone age? Humanity must and will move forward technologically. Much of this sweeping legislation is attempting to stand in the way of that, even though much of that technology would assist in solving supposed climate problems.

 

When socialists come up with a solution for something that does not involve more government or more taxes, then maybe I will look at their ideas. As it is, they are too predictable to be taken seriously.

[NickF1011]

When socialists come up with a solution for something that does not involve more government or more taxes, then maybe I will look at their ideas. As it is, they are too predictable to be taken seriously.

 

I have nothing against higher taxes and bigger government as long as those taxes and government workers are actually doing something that benefits me. Far too often though, that is far from the case.

[Trimdingman]

I have nothing against higher taxes and bigger government as long as those taxes and government workers are actually doing something that benefits me. Far too often though, that is far from the case.

 

More than that. It is the case 100% of the time. There is nothing that the government does that the private sector can't do twice as well. Government doesn't have any competion or bottom line. There is no incentive for efficiency, just the opposite. As more money goes to the government, people have less to spend. People lose jobs. They tell the government to create jobs. The government can only create make-work non-productive jobs in government. It is a downward spiral, as the government has to either raise taxes more or print money to keep unemployment down. We are now in our last death throes. Either we will collapse, or go to war.

[Edstock]

The government can only create make-work non-productive jobs in government.

Ah, ol' Sprayhitter slobbering again.

 

Non-productive government jobs, like air-traffic controllers, food inspectors, the armed forces, research scientists, etc., etc.

[NickF1011]

Ah, ol' Sprayhitter slobbering again.

 

Non-productive government jobs, like air-traffic controllers, food inspectors, the armed forces, research scientists, etc., etc.

 

Yeah, I think I'd rather have the U.S. military than a giant Blackwater protecting our borders.

[Trimdingman]

Ah, ol' Sprayhitter slobbering again.

 

Non-productive government jobs, like air-traffic controllers, food inspectors, the armed forces, research scientists, etc., etc.

 

The private sector could do all of those jobs better. Air traffic controllers? What a joke. Reagan had to fire them all. Food inspectors? Private agencies would do it better, and honestly. The armed forces? How much money is wasted? It is hundreds of billions a year. The private sector could give us a much stronger military for a fraction of the cost. Research scientist? Researching what? If they find it, they are out of work. There is no incentive. The private sector would do it better. Government scientists are still looking for global warming. Etc., etc,.

 

All of this is just giving government more and more power over the people. This is the biggest danger. The government is supposed to work for the people, not rule over them.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Trimdingman

[NickF1011]

The private sector could do all of those jobs better. Air traffic controllers? What a joke. Reagan had to fire them all. Food inspectors? Private agencies would do it better, and honestly. The armed forces? How much money is wasted? It is hundreds of billions a year. The private sector could give us a much stronger military for a fraction of the cost. Research scientist? Researching what? If they find it, they are out of work. There is no incentive. The private sector would do it better. Government scientists are still looking for global warming. Etc., etc,.

 

All of this is just giving government more and more power over the people. This is the biggest danger. The government is supposed to work for the people, not rule over them.

 

So we should elect a CEO instead of a President? I'm all for limited government, but I'm not for NO government. Holy crap!

[akirby]

So we should elect a CEO instead of a President? I'm all for limited government, but I'm not for NO government. Holy crap!

 

I've always maintained that we need 2 leaders - a CEO (president) and a CFO. The CEO handles diplomatic, military, policy and other administrative issues. The CFO handles the budget and other financial issues. One person cannot be good at both and most (if not all) Presidents are more CEO with little CFO background.

 

If the government budget was run like a private corporation we'd be much better off.

[NickF1011]

I've always maintained that we need 2 leaders - a CEO (president) and a CFO. The CEO handles diplomatic, military, policy and other administrative issues. The CFO handles the budget and other financial issues. One person cannot be good at both and most (if not all) Presidents are more CEO with little CFO background.

 

If the government budget was run like a private corporation we'd be much better off.

 

Oh, I'm not saying the government shouldn't be run more like a private enterprise, but to actually ALLOW private enterprise to run things like the military would be ridiculous.

[akirby]

Oh, I'm not saying the government shouldn't be run more like a private enterprise, but to actually ALLOW private enterprise to run things like the military would be ridiculous.

 

Yes, that would be a disaster. But you could always hire a CFO to manage the budget.

[Edstock]

Research scientist? Researching what? If they find it, they are out of work. There is no incentive. The private sector would do it better.

Ah, more Sprayslobber.

 

Basic research is "non-profit", because it is BASIC research, with no immediately-profitable use, but provides the foundations for further progress. For example, John Polanyi's research into catalysis 20-25 years ago, is paying off with today's nano-tech.

 

As to incentive, research is after knowledge, and to the scientifically-oriented, this is the incentive that works.

 

And no, the private sector doesn't do it better. It's rare to see any private sector organization support basic research, precisely because the pay-offs are not available immediately. So, that's why there's outfits like DARPA and the NRC in Canada.

[akirby]

Ah, more Sprayslobber.

 

Basic research is "non-profit", because it is BASIC research, with no immediately-profitable use, but provides the foundations for further progress. For example, John Polanyi's research into catalysis 20-25 years ago, is paying off with today's nano-tech.

 

As to incentive, research is after knowledge, and to the scientifically-oriented, this is the incentive that works.

 

And no, the private sector doesn't do it better. It's rare to see any private sector organization support basic research, precisely because the pay-offs are not available immediately. So, that's why there's outfits like DARPA and the NRC in Canada.

 

Perfect example: Bell Labs. When allowed to do pure research without regard to specific products or ROI they gave us some pretty wonderful things like the transistor. Once AT&T became a totally private business competing with other private companies, the pure research pretty much had to stop. Most companies simply can't afford to fund pure research without a probable bottom line payback.

[stephenhawkings]

what happened to my global warming it was nice yesterday?

[TomServo92]

Bill Clinton pokes fun at Al Gore during Gridiron dinner:

 

He also targeted Al Gore, noting that it was spring: "otherwise known to Al Gore as proof of global warming."

 

Source

 

Now I'm not a big fan of Bill but I have to admit, that was funny.

[NickF1011]

Bill Clinton pokes fun at Al Gore during Gridiron dinner:

 

 

 

Source

 

Now I'm not a big fan of Bill but I have to admit, that was funny.

 

May not have loved Clinton's politics, but he's always been a crowd-pleaser, regardless of party. :lol:

[Trimdingman]

Perfect example: Bell Labs. When allowed to do pure research without regard to specific products or ROI they gave us some pretty wonderful things like the transistor. Once AT&T became a totally private business competing with other private companies, the pure research pretty much had to stop. Most companies simply can't afford to fund pure research without a probable bottom line payback.

 

The private sector has given us 99.9% of all technology that we have. Government bogs everything down. A good example is health care. Government has got health care so strangled by regulation and red tape that it is unaffordable without a collective quasi-Communist system of payment.

 

I have seen great improvements in communications systems in the last few years. I see a military that can't fight a war against a much weaker opponent without practically bankrupting the country. I am sure that a lot of private, for profit militaries, competing for contracts would do the job much more efficiently. They could also be employed locally by neighbourhoods, paid directly by each household, to replace government police, if crime was a problem. Legalize drugs, and you eliminate 90% of urban crime. Arm the people, and you eliminate 99%. Neighbourhoods should have weapons of war at their disposal, and regular training in how to defend against invaders.

 

The world has shrunk because of instant communication and information. It is a new paradigm that has never been experienced before. Government is nothing but a constant impediment to this new freedom. I think that quite possibly, we have outgrown the need for government.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Trimdingman

[NickF1011]

The private sector has given us 99.9% of all technology that we have.

 

And I suppose you have a source for this? Frankly, that "statistic" is laughably incorrect.

[akirby]

The private sector has given us 99.9% of all technology that we have. Government bogs everything down. A good example is health care. Government has got health care so strangled by regulation and red tape that it is unaffordable without a collective quasi-Communist system of payment.

 

I have seen great improvements in communications systems in the last few years. I see a military that can't fight a war against a much weaker opponent without practically bankrupting the country. I am sure that a lot of private, for profit militaries, competing for contracts would do the job much more efficiently. They could also be employed locally by neighbourhoods, paid directly by each household, to replace government police, if crime was a problem. Legalize drugs, and you eliminate 90% of urban crime. Arm the people, and you eliminate 99%. Neighbourhoods should have weapons of war at their disposal, and regular training in how to defend against invaders.

 

The world has shrunk because of instant communication and information. It is a new paradigm that has never been experienced before. Government is nothing but a constant impediment to this new freedom. I think that quite possibly, we have outgrown the need for government.

 

I wasn't referring to the government being better at managing anything. For the most part I agree with you that government rarely is better at anything, but there are some things where the federal government has to be in control and military is one of them.

 

Bell labs was a government regulated monopoly and was able to do a lot of "pure research" which yielded the transistor, the laser, radio astonomy and the Unix operating system. These discoveries would either have not been possible or would have taken a lot longer if left up to the private sector. Research in the private sector is limited to things with a direct benefit to the company and positivie ROI - they can't afford to do otherwise. This can and does lead to new technology and sometimes they get lucky and discover something totally by accident.

 

Just go look at what Bell Labs discovered from the 20's through the 70's and then look at what came after the monopoly was broken up in 1982 and they had to start supporting a private sector company without monopoly status.

[Edstock]

The private sector has given us 99.9% of all technology that we have.

 

Ah, more Sprayslobber. That's not true, Atomic theory and science all originated in universities around the world. Genetic research and the DNA molecule were discovered in universities.

 

I see a military that can't fight a war against a much weaker opponent without practically bankrupting the country.

You need to see an opthamologist. The military does just fine. But when the people who tell them what to do screw up what has to be done after the military have gone in, things get expensive.

[Trimdingman]

Ah, more Sprayslobber. That's not true, Atomic theory and science all originated in universities around the world. Genetic research and the DNA molecule were discovered in universities.

 

 

You need to see an opthamologist. The military does just fine. But when the people who tell them what to do screw up what has to be done after the military have gone in, things get expensive.

 

These discoveries came out of the minds of people. People who are not indoctrinated by religious or political dogma think a lot more clearly than those who are. It is only false indoctrinated belief that gives credit for tecnological discoveries to governments or religions. It does not matter whether the person was attending a private or government university. What you are doing is citing small examples of government success, and using them to argue in favor of big government. The reason why there is not so much interest in the medical field in the private sector, or the military, for example, is because the government has them all sewn up. Open these fields up to free enterprise, and all of the problems with them would soon be solved. People would be able to afford any medical procedure, for example, just as easily as they afford buying a new TV set. My father paid over a month's salary for our first black and white TV. Look at how we have improved on this to-day. Compare this to health care. It is exactly opposite. There are a few improvements, but the cost has skyrocketed. If we applied the progress in TVs to the medical industry, we would all be living to 200 years of age, and it would cost a pittance. Big government was the reason for most of the suffering in the 20th century. Government impedes progress. Progress happens despite government, just like Italian Americans succeeded despite the Mafia. Government is a cancer that eats away at the country, and grows until the country is dead. This has happened over and over in the past, but people are so indoctrinated in their beliefs that they can't see it.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Trimdingman

[rn4]

Don't forget to join in on earth hour, lights out tonight at 8:30 pm to bring awareness to global warming.

[Savetheplanet]

Don't forget to join in on earth hour, lights out tonight at 8:30 pm to bring awareness to global warming.

Yuk it up, your the one that has to live in Saint Charles, now go get in your pick up truck and go to the St. Peters mall and be a good consumer.

[goinbroke2]

I'm leaving all the lights on and letting the truck idle all day...after all I must hate the planet don't I, I don't believe in MMGW? I might as well really act like I'm supposed to according to the left wing environazi's.

 

I think I'll burn some old tires out back too.

 

Then dump used motor oil in the creek.

 

Then I'm going to spray pesticides everywhere in my yard and down the side of the road, maybe just let it drip out the back of the truck as I drive around all night......ohh, ohh, and take the cataletic converter off the car too!

 

Funny how the reducing pollution we've done since the 60's and in general being better stewards of our planet is totally overlooked by the eco zealots.

 

STP, I hate everything you stand for just because of the way you present your case. Probably a lot of things would be agreeable to both of us but your type really sours my view of you and your type. I have changed as have others with regards to tailpipe emissions and dumping used oil. Hell it pisses me off when I see garbage on the side of the road, I'd love to see cops lay a couple $500.00 or $1000.00 fines for people throwing shit out their windows when they drive...but your type wouldt be happy, you would want to regulate windows that don't roll down on cars as a solution...of course owners would have to pay the government 1000.00 per car to have it done.

 

Love the earth but hate the useless feel good bullshit that's spread by hypocrites and hollyweird types.

[goinbroke2]

Oh and just as another point, there is NOTHING we can do about global warming, NOTHING! If it was MAN made global warming then we could change our ways to limit our effect. But to stop global warming in itself is rediculous as stopping the sun from coming up in the morning. The same goes for global cooling or the changes in the earths rotational axis. The earth has been heating and cooling longer than we've been around so to think we can change something that occurs naturally is pretty arrogant/uninformed.

 

Next we'll stop the tide from coming in and seasons from changing.

 

Prove that MAN is making the tide come in due to the boats we put in the water or whatever then we can limit the boats we put in the water etc, otherwise it's all feelgood handringing and attempted power grab by the left.

 

convenient of the environazi's to drop the MANMADE lie from their line though eh? Now it's indirectly infered that man is responsible when you say "global warming". Basically they don't want to have dialog on it, just let people naturally assume that it's mans fault. I guess this is what they meant by "it's settles".

Edited March 27, 2010 by goinbroke2

[stephenhawkings]

Oh and just as another point, there is NOTHING we can do about global warming, NOTHING! If it was MAN made global warming then we could change our ways to limit our effect. But to stop global warming in itself is rediculous as stopping the sun from coming up in the morning. The same goes for global cooling or the changes in the earths rotational axis. The earth has been heating and cooling longer than we've been around so to think we can change something that occurs naturally is pretty arrogant/uninformed.

 

Next we'll stop the tide from coming in and seasons from changing.

 

Prove that MAN is making the tide come in due to the boats we put in the water or whatever then we can limit the boats we put in the water etc, otherwise it's all feelgood handringing and attempted power grab by the left.

 

convenient of the environazi's to drop the MANMADE lie from their line though eh? Now it's indirectly infered that man is responsible when you say "global warming". Basically they don't want to have dialog on it, just let people naturally assume that it's mans fault. I guess this is what they meant by "it's settles".

your right there is nothing we an do to stop all the virtual HOT AIR from being released!!!!!!!!!!!