colourwheel

You are missing the point regardless of what research you look at. Human civilization did not exist since the last time CO2 levels have ever been as high as they are now.

Ya but scientists have found that, by drilling for ice cores and analyzing the air bubbles, at no point during at least the past 800,000 years have atmospheric CO2 levels been as high as they are now. Other scientists have analyzed shells in deep sea sediments to estimate past CO2 levels, and found that CO2 levels have not been as high as they are now for at least the past 10 to 15 million years That means that in the entire history of human civilization, CO2 levels have never been this high.

The thing that "Global warming" deniers always leave out is the fact that if you take human emissions out of the equation there is a net loss of carbon in the environment. The land and the oceans world wide emit approximately 771 gigatons of CO2 annually while humans emit a measly 26 gigatons. The land and oceans take up, or sink, 788 gigatons of CO2. Without human emissions there is a net loss of about 17 gigatons of CO2 in the environment. When human activity gets put back into the mix we see a net increase of an approximate of 9 gigatons per year. People get into science to learn the truths of the universe not to create a hoax.

Was never advocating to destroy our economy. Was just pointing out where it seemed your logic falls with what seems more important to you.... Obviously the economy seems more important to you than living on an actual inhabitable planet. Seriously what do you think would eventually happen to the "economy" once the planet is no longer fit for us to live on anyways? There you go, fear of what would "could" happen... You realize you are putting forth more of a theory that has absolutely no empirical data to backing it up. You know for a fact that other countries won't get on board in changing their energy policies when faced with the earth becoming inhabitable? Does China, Russia, India, etc ... really scare you that much that you think the world would some how come to some end if their economies become better than ours? Is this what you really fear? Just as I have heard the script about the fear of what would happen if we try to reduce CO2 emissions....

If the planet became inhabitable to live on it would be terminal for us. maybe not terminal for the planet itself, it would still be here but most likely we wouldn't be. Regardless at the rate the average global temperature is rising the planet will eventually become inhabitable to live on. For those who don't believe this, feel free to share credible research that proves this wrong. "Global warming" isn't just a theory, you said it yourself earlier that the climate is changing. I was only stressing that the climate is changing at an accelerated rate because of an enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 which has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. So keeping the" Economy" alive is some how more important to you than the actual planet we inhabit. Last time I checked we only have one planet to live on. an economy can be destroyed and rebuilt unlike a planet..... and here you are making claims in terms of "logic" and "making sense"?

I see... please then, feel free to come up with a better analogy to reinforce my point that won't turn listeners into skeptics :) j/k

As false as you may think it to be I think its a great comparison and a well thought analogy to stress why it doesn't matter if its a theory or a proven fact. An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. This is not just a theory. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming. Climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.

We might not be the sole cause but we can try to prevent the acceleration of it's change. Even if we are not the "primary" cause, if we can slow it down why not try? The main problem is people who totally reject the notion that the climate is changing at an accelerated rate don't even want to do anything about it or try. Seriously if one day you find out you have developed lung cancer, are you going to keep smoking or continue to do unhealthy things to your body that put you at risk for cancer? I would hope not.

Part of adapting is making change. Prevention is one way to adapt.

No it doesn't justify it. Which is why scare tactics and programs demonizing those implimented against those who are skeptical about it aren't really working. In my opinion, no more than accepting the concept that you would most likely die if you jumped off from a 50 story building. Just because it's not a proven fact that a person will die from jumping from a 50 story building doesn't mean they most likely will. When there is more than enough evidence suggesting something to be highly likely you tend to be more cautious about hanging off the ledge of a 50 story building. Your opinion is very valid yet I don't think you would have the same view of this sort of thing if it was found that all food companies over the last few decades have been putting toxic chemicals into our food to save huge amounts of money. Trying to rectify something like this people would probably lose jobs and possible put some people in poverty. But at least we won't have to worry about the risk of fatally poisoning our bodies from just eating food anymore.

The climate is always changing regardless of man's influence or not. Although, man's influence is not just theoretically accelerating this change, it is basically accelerating the change. Just because it is not a "proven" fact doesn't discredit the concerns or it's existence. There is more than enough evidence suggesting it's existence even if not a completely proven fact. As an example, some people say smoking is not a proven fact that will lead to cancer. Yes this is actually true, but you can't take away the fact that there is more than enough evidence suggesting that smoking can increase the risk of cancer. Just "one" of the major concerns that faces "Climate change" aka "Global Warming" is the accelerating rise of the ocean. Eventually at the rate the ocean is rising because of things like the "polar icecaps" melting alone due to this "climate changing" The current entire Mid Atlantic Seaboard will basically just become another part of the Atlantic Ocean sooner than later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/current_sea_level_rise As a side note weather changing and climate changing are two different things when talking about "global warming". Just because you live somewhere and are experiencing extremely cold weather other places in the world are most likely experiencing extremely warm weather.

Only because that other party is trying to correct the record on the spin, regardless if the report is historically usually wrong to begin with.

Which is funny how one political party has been pounding their constituents spinning inaccurately how over 2 millions jobs will be lost by the new healthcare mandate in a course of 7-10 years based on a historically flawed report to begin with... :laugh: shows how desperate the Republican party must be....

Everyone I know, who work two jobs, are not not doing it for healthcare. They have normal living expenses to pay (like cell phone, rent, car, car insurance, food, electrical, internet), which have gone UP due to the fact they now HAVE to have healthcare insurance. Most of them didn't have it because it was deducted from their pay, which they needed for other things. Obviously the CBO report isn't regarding people who work two job who need the income.... if you look at the amount of people who work two jobs specifically for reasons of income there would probably be hundreds of millions of people to account for... The CBO report is only stressing around 2 million people over a course of 7 -10 years...

http://www.ipl.org/div/aplus/internet.htm Didn't realize doing web research was so difficult for someone who claims to have an IQ in the top 10%. http://staffwww.fullcoll.edu/dpeterson/courses/eng100/eng100sp08/hakuta.pdf http://www.actfl.org/advocacy/discover-languages/for-parents/cognitive http://blog.languagelizard.com/2011/09/27/6-reasons-why-children-should-learn-languages-as-early-as-possible/ http://www.littlepim.com/research-language-learning-kids/what-scientists-say/ http://arts.ucalgary.ca/news/research-shows-children-can-learn-multiple-languages-simultaneously http://www.tpr-world.com/brain-research.html Have fun reading, If this isn't enough info you can try to dig deeper doing research yourself...

With this type of attitude, makes one wonder why internationally America is falling behind in science and math. You can look at some places in Asia where as children are expected to learn English, Mandarin, Cantonese, and understand the Hangul alphabet as well as kanji, all before they are even out of primary school. There have been studies done where children learn their native language better when taught multi-languages at the same time. Students who have a better understanding of their native language will excel in other areas of education such as math, science, social studies, and history. If we are not willing to open our minds to how other countries are teaching their children across the world and take too much pride in being a country where as it being know to natively use the "Universal language of the world", our country will probably just keep falling behind farther as the rest of the world excels. This is what I meant when saying in order for America to keep up with the rest of the world our nation should encourage the use of multi-languages and probably throw aside this paradigm of English being the Universal language of the world. Science and Math have nothing to do with learning another language, and if anything making kids learn another language just pushes math and science further down the curriculum. They pack in as much learning as they can in school for kids, throwing more in there isn't helping the kids. http://www.multilingualchildren.org/getting_started/myths.html You seem to be misunderstanding why learning another language is helpful when being taught other subjects. If a child has a better understanding of their native language, they tend to be more receptive to what is being taught when a lecture is being given. Also Reading text in books a child will be able to absorb information more effectively if they have a clearer understanding to what they are actually reading. Teaching another language is actually being used as a tool for the sole purpose of understanding their own native language better. Which is why a student who has a better understanding of their native language will excel in other areas of education such as math, science, social studies, and history. When children are taught multi-languages at a young age they tend to have a better understanding of their native language more than a child who is only taught one language. Sadly the best time to start teaching a child more than one language is way before they even attend primary school.

With this type of attitude, makes one wonder why internationally America is falling behind in science and math. You can look at some places in Asia where as children are expected to learn English, Mandarin, Cantonese, and understand the Hangul alphabet as well as kanji, all before they are even out of primary school. There have been studies done where children learn their native language better when taught multi-languages at the same time. Students who have a better understanding of their native language will excel in other areas of education such as math, science, social studies, and history. If we are not willing to open our minds to how other countries are teaching their children across the world and take too much pride in being a country where as it being know to natively use the "Universal language of the world", our country will probably just keep falling behind farther as the rest of the world excels. This is what I meant when saying in order for America to keep up with the rest of the world our nation should encourage the use of multi-languages and probably throw aside this paradigm of English being the Universal language of the world.

@HeyYou Maybe I was mistaken about you referencing to a CBO report in the past but I have never changed the premise from "low income people", to "people in low income jobs". In regards to low-income jobs, maybe "most" don't offer health care but then again we are talking about only 2 million people over a 7-10 year time period. It's not hard to believe this many people would be normally working full time if there was no mandate.

This statement above doesn't even make any sense, I am sorry to say.... There is no data that upholds this statement to even be remotely true. If your trying to make some claim about women and painful gynecologic conditions please feel free to post a link. Otherwise you're the one who seems sexist.... At least I provided links to the increase of STD's among elderly men that coincides with erectile dysfunction rates... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sexually-transmitted-disease-rates-rise-among-elderly-why/ "According to a 2010 study that examined the relationship between erectile dysfunction rates and STD rates among the elderly, the dramatic rise in STD cases coincides with Viagra's introduction in 1998, HealthPopreported." If you think I am being sexist I am sorry deal with it, didn't realize males have been so oppressed over the last century...

@HeyYou You have always had very pessimistic way at looking at how our government works. I do not believe the CBO is purposely trying to deceive the public. If I am not mistaken even you have resorted in the past referencing to a CBO report to make the claim that the labor force of the medical field would be in more demand than could be supplied in the next few decades. If there was data that the ACA was going to cost jobs, slow economic growth, drive up health care costs, etc... they wouldn't hide it and certainly the Republican party would take great pleasure exploiting and making it clear to show every negative aspect they could find. People who voluntarily leave the work force wouldn't leave their job if they needed the income. The CBO report states that about 2 million people over the next 7-10 years will leave the work force, which these people were never employed for the purpose of anything other than getting the health benefits their employer was providing. Just because one is employed at a low income job doesn't mean they fall in the low income bracket of net income within the family household. Is it so hard to believe that eventually both parents within a family won't need to both work? or a family won't need a parent to work two jobs anymore? Just because people are leaving the work force doesn't equate to the government paying the full bill.... I think it's good for the economy because GDP isn't everything when people are freed up to have more time in their lives to pursue other things than just working all the time... needing to work more doesn't make ones life any better..... I have never claim the ACA to be perfect. Just frustrating that some people just don't want it to work no matter what and try very hard to make it fail. Seems more like the time and money wasted on people trying to obstruct this law could have been spent on actually trying to make it work better.....

@jim_uk So I am sexist for pointing out the amount of taxpayers dollars used on buying penis pumps for men then pointing out the rise of STD among the elderly who choose to not use protection when having sex which in fact is then being treated at the tax payers expense too? Harbringe just pointing out something I was about to address... Well stated Harbringe :thumbsup:

And a woman's health doesn't effect them financially or negatively impact them and their family? Also I would like to note the financial impact of a woman who is single who has not properly planned out their parenthood will indefinitely effect them in a negative way mostly leading to government assistance. A woman's health may not be a medical condition but it should be treated more seriously than thinking a man and his penis should be paramount to anything else... Women can have sexual dysfunctions just like a man can get which just because there is no way to treat this currently doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It would be my bet once the world has come up with a way to medically treat a woman who has a sexual dysfunction, there will be a political push from the right for it to not be covered under the health mandate.... They will probably claim it to be too expensive and not needed....

And irregular menstrual cycle is just nothing to worry about then? Birth control isn't just used as a conservative. Seems Men don't understand this enough where as they throw caution in the wind when it comes to a woman's health then look at a man's broken penis and think it's life or death.... Maybe it might be helpful for me to link the benefits of birth control ... http://www.asrm.org/uploadedFiles/ASRM_Content/Resources/Patient_Resources/Fact_Sheets_and_Info_Booklets/Noncontraceptive%20benefits%20of%20BCP-final_1-5-12.pdf

There is such a push recently from the conservative movement for limiting contraceptives under the new healthcare law. Why isn't something like penis pumps an issue? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539065/U-S-Medicare-programme-wasted-172-MILLION-penis-pumps.html http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2011/12/06/quarter-billion-taxpayer-dollars-spent-penis-pumps http://freebeacon.com/taxpayers-paid-nearly-175m-for-penis-pumps-between-2006-and-2011/ Seems it's ok for tax payer dollars to be wasted on penis pumps but birth control is a no no.... I don't care if your liberal or conservative, in my mind there is no reason why penis pumps should be paid with by tax payer dollars... Then you look at something like this and wonder why the STD rate increases among the elderly.... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sexually-transmitted-disease-rates-rise-among-elderly-why/ http://theweek.com/article/index/224100/the-dramatic-rise-of-stds-among-senior-citizens http://std.about.com/od/stdsspecificcommunities/a/elderlystd.htm Seems like a vicious cycle of wasted money for people who are using penis pumps at the expense of tax payer dollars just to get sexually transmitted diseases which will be paid by tax payer dollars to treat. Then one wonders why our system is so broken where as the elderly are using tax payer dollars just to have unprotected sex...

Just imagine if you were in the lower income bracket and all of a sudden your spouse didn't have to work full time just because they needed the health insurance provided by the employer. Doesn't mean everyone will decide to leave their job but at least they won't feel obligated to work just because they need health insurance. Also you seem to over look that this frees up the labor market where as it creates more job openings for those who actually need jobs. Maybe you don't like a healthcare mandate but seems it's actually better for the economy than one would think. Education is a completely different topic if you would like to start one. would be a pleasure to see someone start a new thread... -wink-