Debateable
Member
Did you mean to say 98%? The consensus "poll" is a fraud. There were only about ~2000 scientists polled, roughly ~47 responded and 97% of those agreed in Climate Change. How can you call that a consensus?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Religion of Global Warming Exposed by one of their own.
- Thread starter ThePainefulTruth
- Start date
Debateable
Member
We have over fished seas because nobody owns them. It's call the tragedy of the commons. Read about it.
Scandinavia, Finland, The Netherlands, Belgium...
Britain also has socialised medicine and, contrary to popular myth, we have better teeth than the Americans because we can actually afford dental and healthcare:
Study: British Have Better Teeth Than Americans
Debateable
Member
Lol, some socialist programs don't make them full on socialist. Their basis is still from capitalism. Full on socialism will look like Cuba. Plus these are rather small countries. It's easier to please your people. Take a larger country like the US and socialism of this degree would be horrific.
If these countries are so much better, then why do more people try to enter the US vs these amazing places?
You are very ignorant indeed and the arrogant Americanism shows strong.
Good day, sir.
Last edited:
My, that was productive. Any other enlightening thoughts for consideration? Or are you just here to troll this thread?
Debateable
Member
So instead of proving me wrong you decide to throw out insults and run away? Not surprising.
Debateable
Member
Just that you guys are very screwed up in your ideology.
Hmm. What leads you to believe that this is ideological? What is "screwed up" about our so-called ideologies? Are you sure there is an "our" in the first place?
Debateable
Member
I'm being too harsh. Look, there are things that are wrong with Capitalism, sure. There isn't a perfect system. You will always have people pissed/upset for one reason or another. Capitalism single handily brought most of the human race out of poverty. Yes, there is a huge income disparity from the top to the bottom, but the bottom isn't as bad as the bottom in a monarchy, dictatorship or full on socialist country. Poor people in the US have 50" televisions, cell phones, etc. Cubans for example have cars from the 50's, tube TV's, etc. Countries with diversity like the US will always be better off with a majority capitalist system. Where our country is getting it wrong is that you can't govern large masses of people from a central government. You literally cannot make everyone happy. We need to get rid of the lobbyists in Washington and the power should be passed to the states and from there allow people to move to the state that meets their needs/wants the best. More government isn't the answer.
There isn't a one size fit's all system, but the way some people attack capitalism just baffles the hell out of me. Literally smacking the system in the face that brought us to where we are as a race.
No, I just don't waste my time debating with people who are clearly too ignorant of the issues to be debated with, and who also call my country 'rather small' and 'easy to please', as if we are somehow insignificant. Your own people are suffering because they cannot afford healthcare, which could be solved via Socialism, but most Americans are too afraid of Socialism for literally no reason at all. It's quite disgusting.
Thanks for elaborating.
A lot of this comes down to a question of personal values. You value products you attribute to capitalism. Others may not attribute the existence of those products to capitalism. Or, they may not value the same things you do. I would rather not have the legacy of my species be a sixth mass extinction and a layer of garbage in the geologic record. Others don't care.
Still, it'd be a good idea if folks would study at least a little bit of basic environmental science and ecology - that's my background and where my perspective comes from. I wouldn't call that an "ideology," though I suppose some people feel the sciences are an ideology. Lobbying is certainly an issue, but so are things like the environmental impacts of human activities, which are driven by affluence (basically, consumption rates and resource use) and population. Fixing lobbying issues won't make environmental issues go away.
Debateable
Member
Wow, thin skinned? Saying easy to please wasn't a slam on your country, nor was it meant to be a slam in any way. I was making a general comparison that it's easier to make smaller groups of people happy with a set of regulations vs large groups. Sorry, but in comparison to the US, your country IS rather small. Smaller numbers/less diverse groups of people are easier to please, meaning there's less diversity to overcome. It's not a hard concept to understand. That's why I advocated in my last post to have the states take power vs our central government.
Most American's don't want Socialism. We aren't necessarily afraid of it more than we understand that we like our capitalism better. Not only that but with a large diverse population, socialism would crush us. It already is in some ways. We aren't really a full capitalist country anymore. I don't think anyone is.
Funny how you consider my opposing view to be "ignorant of the issues". No, I just disagree. I would call you misinformed, not ignorant.
Debateable
Member
I agree there are pollution issues. The sad part is that we could be more clean now that we currently are, but the damn green movement is preventing this. Ironic isn't it? There is nothing more clean and that produces the amount of energy that nuclear power does. I know that the argument would be the waste by product and accidents. First of all, there has never been an accident from a modernized nuclear power plant. Second, they are already coming up with ways to extract energy from the waste byproduct, so the waste will soon no longer be an issue. The footprint would be by far less than most alternatives, etc. There really aren't very many downsides to nuclear power, yet the green movement doesn't want anything to do with it. So here we are, burning coal, natural gas, etc putting all kinds of particulates into our breathing air.
Wind/solar aren't anywhere close to being good enough to generate the power necessary and on top of that, they require HUGE footprints. For example there is a ton of land here in Indiana that can no longer be farmed because of the wind farm in place. We have some of the most fertile land for farming yet we also have some of the highest winds in the US. So we chose to not feed people that are starving to appease some people that are too stubborn to go for the real green method of energy. Nuclear.
Debateable
Member
Please elaborate on the 6th mass extinction.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I have. However, I see no reason to assume such a thing would have happened, not until man decided to destroy the Earth in order to turn a profit. It also doesn't help the case for this alleged "tragedy of the commons" when commonly owned lands, such as national parks, are the ones that have legal protection. Everything else, we buy it and clear it out for "development," the tragedy of ownership and the power of a misnomer. It wasn't goat herders who raped the land, it is the corporations.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
A couple weeks ago I got to go to the dentist for the first time in several years, and it felt like my mouth was the center of an excavation sight as the years of plaque and tartar build up were chipped and chiselled at.
The human-induced mass extinction event is the sixth mass extinction our planet has faced. It's well-accepted by the scientific community. I don't know if you have access to peer-reviewed articles, but one of the seminal papers that helped establish it was this one (Nature is a "big deal" publisher for scientific research for those of you who don't know):
Has the Earth's sixth mass extinction already arrived?
By: Barnosky, AD (Barnosky, Anthony D.)[ 1,2,3 ] ; Matzke, N (Matzke, Nicholas)[ 1 ] ; Tomiya, S (Tomiya, Susumu)[ 1,2,3 ] ; Wogan, GOU(Wogan, Guinevere O. U.)[ 1,3 ] ; Swartz, B (Swartz, Brian)[ 1,2 ] ; Quental, TB (Quental, Tiago B.)[ 1,2 ] ; Marshall, C (Marshall, Charles)[ 1,2 ]; McGuire, JL (McGuire, Jenny L.)[ 1,2,3 ] ; Lindsey, EL (Lindsey, Emily L.)[ 1,2 ] ; Maguire, KC (Maguire, Kaitlin C.)[ 1,2 ] ...More
NATURE Volume: 471 Issue: 7336 Pages: 51-57
DOI: 10.1038/nature09678
Published: MAR 3 2011
Abstract
Palaeontologists characterize mass extinctions as times when the Earth loses more than three-quarters of its species in a geologically short interval, as has happened only five times in the past 540 million years or so. Biologists now suggest that a sixth mass extinction may be under way, given the known species losses over the past few centuries and millennia. Here we review how differences between fossil and modern data and the addition of recently available palaeontological information influence our understanding of the current extinction crisis. Our results confirm that current extinction rates are higher than would be expected from the fossil record, highlighting the need for effective conservation measures.
There are many, many more papers about the topic. I think this one might be accessible without being at a University, but I'm not sure. It's also not too hard to find mainstream press articles about it, like this one from USA Today and this one by Science Daily. Pretty much any general textbook about things like environmental science, ecology, and conservation will have a section about this in it. There's also a layperson's book about the topic: "The Sixth Extinction: An unnatural History" by E. Kolbert. I haven't read it, though, so I can't offer much of a review. New York Times has one, though. By: Barnosky, AD (Barnosky, Anthony D.)[ 1,2,3 ] ; Matzke, N (Matzke, Nicholas)[ 1 ] ; Tomiya, S (Tomiya, Susumu)[ 1,2,3 ] ; Wogan, GOU(Wogan, Guinevere O. U.)[ 1,3 ] ; Swartz, B (Swartz, Brian)[ 1,2 ] ; Quental, TB (Quental, Tiago B.)[ 1,2 ] ; Marshall, C (Marshall, Charles)[ 1,2 ]; McGuire, JL (McGuire, Jenny L.)[ 1,2,3 ] ; Lindsey, EL (Lindsey, Emily L.)[ 1,2 ] ; Maguire, KC (Maguire, Kaitlin C.)[ 1,2 ] ...More
NATURE Volume: 471 Issue: 7336 Pages: 51-57
DOI: 10.1038/nature09678
Published: MAR 3 2011
Abstract
Palaeontologists characterize mass extinctions as times when the Earth loses more than three-quarters of its species in a geologically short interval, as has happened only five times in the past 540 million years or so. Biologists now suggest that a sixth mass extinction may be under way, given the known species losses over the past few centuries and millennia. Here we review how differences between fossil and modern data and the addition of recently available palaeontological information influence our understanding of the current extinction crisis. Our results confirm that current extinction rates are higher than would be expected from the fossil record, highlighting the need for effective conservation measures.
(EDIT - sorry if the hyperlinks aren't obvious... I'm having trouble with it. Probably my awesome green font... lol)
Please tell me how Socialism would be bad for the United States. This is what I'm not understanding. Also, it works in Canada, which is pretty large, so I'm not really seeing the comparison. What I'm seeing is people who are intelligent, yet can't afford to go to University; I'm seeing people with cavities who cannot afford a dentist. This rarely happens in the UK as we have government support for these lower classes.
Also, the UK is very diverse. You should see London.
illykitty
RF's pet cat
I think he meant population-wise? Otherwise I agree. I've been poor growing up and always had access to medical services, dentists and so on. I've never needed to forgo these things because of lack of money. My basic needs were always well taken care of. I do have some criticism about it, like a need to have more affordable fruits and vegetables, so it's not all sunshine and rainbows but it's a lot better than what the poor in other countries have to endure. I've got to say, I do miss the dentists back in Canada, they were a lot more thorough than here and you got a proper clean every time you went. My appointments lasted at least 30 minutes because of a good clean and check up. Went a bit off topic, oops.
As for the last bit, isn't London more populated by minorities than whites now? I thought I read that a while back but maybe my memory is failing me. Anyway, to say the UK isn't very diverse is silly, there's pockets where there isn't much foreigners or descendants but isn't that every country? Heck, even where I live, close by a small town pretty much in the middle (geographically) of the UK, you can see every few people have origins from other places.